[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 93448-93473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30478]



[[Page 93447]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 244

December 20, 2016

Part V





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Federal Highway Administration





23 CFR Part 450





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area 
Reform; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 93448]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 450

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 613

[Docket No. FHWA-2016-0016]
FHWA RIN 2125-AF68
FTA RIN 2132-AB28


Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area 
Reform

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the transportation planning 
regulations to promote more effective regional planning by States and 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The goal of the revisions is 
to better align the planning regulations with statutory provisions 
concerning the establishment of metropolitan planning area (MPA) 
boundaries and the designation of MPOs.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller, 
Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or 
Ms. Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-2019. 
For FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 
366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 
493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-
5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET for 
FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., ET for FTA, Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule clarifies that an MPA must include 
an entire urbanized area (UZA) and the contiguous area expected to 
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan 
transportation plan. The MPOs will have several options to achieve 
compliance. The MPOs may need to adjust their boundaries, consider 
mergers, or, if there are multiple MPOs designated within a single MPA, 
coordinate with the other MPOs to create unified planning products for 
the MPA. Specifically, the rule requires MPOs within the same MPA to 
develop a single metropolitan transportation plan (MTP), a single 
transportation improvement program (TIP), and a jointly established set 
of performance targets for the MPA (referred to herein as unified 
planning products). The rule also clarifies operating procedures, and 
it adopts certain coordination and decisionmaking requirements where 
more than one MPO serves an MPA. Requiring unified planning products 
for an MPA with multiple MPOs will result in planning products that 
reflect the regional needs of the entire UZA.
    The final rule includes an exception that, if approved by the 
Secretary, allows multiple MPOs in an MPA to continue to generate 
separate planning products if the affected Governor(s) and all MPOs in 
the MPA submit a joint written request and justification to FHWA and 
FTA that (1) explains why it is not feasible for the MPOs to produce 
unified planning products for the MPA, and (2) demonstrates how each 
MPO is already achieving the goals of the rule through an existing 
coordination mechanism with all other MPOs in the MPA that achieves 
consistency of planning documents.
    The final rule phases in implementation of these coordination 
requirements and the requirements for MPA boundary and MPO jurisdiction 
agreements, with full compliance required not later than 2 years after 
the date the Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying Urban 
Areas following the 2020 census.

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve the transportation 
planning process by strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States 
and promoting the use of regional approaches to planning and 
decisionmaking. To achieve this purpose, the rulemaking incorporates 
the 23 U.S.C. 134 requirements that the boundaries of MPAs at a minimum 
include an urbanized area in its entirety and include the contiguous 
area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for 
the metropolitan transportation plan. The rule emphasizes the 
importance of undertaking the planning process from a regional 
perspective. The rule includes new coordination and decisionmaking 
requirements for MPOs that share an MPA, to better ensure that 
transportation investments reflect the needs and priorities of an 
entire region. Recognizing the critical role MPOs play in providing for 
the well-being of a region, this rule will strengthen the voice of MPOs 
in the transportation planning process in a State by promoting unified 
decisionmaking within an MPA and better-coordinated regional 
decisionmaking so that the affected MPOs speak with ``one voice'' about 
the area's transportation needs and priorities.

B. Summary of Major Changes Made to the Regulatory Action in Question

    This final rule retains many of the major provisions of the NPRM. 
The rule revises the regulatory definition of ``metropolitan planning 
area'' to better align with the statutory requirements in 23 U.S.C. 
134, specifically to require that the MPA, at a minimum, must include 
the entire UZA and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized 
within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation 
plan. Under this final rule, if compliance with the MPA boundary 
requirements would result in more than one MPO in the MPA, the 
Governor(s) and affected MPOs may decide it is appropriate for multiple 
MPOs to serve the MPA because of the size and complexity of the MPA. In 
such cases, the MPOs will need to jointly develop unified planning 
products (a single MTP and TIP, and jointly established performance 
targets). If the Governor(s) and MPOs do not decide to have multiple 
MPOs serve the MPA, then the Governor(s) and the MPOs will consolidate 
or establish or adjust conforming MPA boundaries for each MPO by 
agreement. In response to comments received on the NPRM, FHWA and FTA 
are making the following significant changes in the final rule:
    1. Adding an exception to the requirements for unified planning 
products. Section 450.312(i) allows multiple MPOs in an MPA to continue 
to generate separate planning products if the exception is approved by 
the Secretary. The exception is discussed in detail under Unified 
Planning Products: Requirements and Exception in the ``Discussion of 
Major Issues Raised by Comments'' section of this preamble.
    2. Changing the time period for adjustment of MPA boundaries 
following a decennial census, as required under Sec.  450.312(j) (as 
redesignated in this rule) from 180 days to 2 years.
    3. Extending the implementation period for MPA boundary and MPO 
jurisdiction agreement provisions; documentation of the determination 
of the Governor and MPO(s) that the size

[[Page 93449]]

and complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate; and MPO 
compliance with requirements for unified planning products. Compliance 
is not required until the next MTP update occurring on or after the 
date 2 years after the date the U.S. Census Bureau releases its notice 
of Qualifying Urban Areas following the 2020 census. Historically, the 
Census Bureau issues its notice approximately two years after the 
census. This extension provides States and MPOs a substantial amount of 
time to lay the groundwork for changes necessary to comply with the 
rule. The compliance date for all other changes made by this rule is 
the effective date of this rule.

C. Costs and Benefits

    The FHWA and FTA believe that the benefits of the rule justify the 
costs. The total costs for merging 142 MPOs,\1\ the cost of 
transportation conformity adjustments, and the one-time cost of 
developing a dispute resolution process results in an estimated maximum 
average annual cost of this rule of $86.3 million. Since not all MPOs 
will choose to merge and some may receive exceptions, this cost 
estimate is conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The total number of MPOs is 409. The USDOT identified that 
142 MPOs would be subject to this rulemaking by comparing current 
MPO boundaries with current UZA boundaries. This comparison 
identified a number of UZAs that included multiple MPOs as well 
areas where a UZA had spread into the boundaries of adjacent MPOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA were unable to quantify the benefits for this 
rulemaking. The primary benefit of this rulemaking is to ensure that 
the MPO(s) is making transportation investment decisions for the entire 
metropolitan area as envisioned by the statute. If the MPOs within a 
metropolitan area consolidate or develop unified planning products, 
FHWA and FTA anticipate that the cost to develop the Metropolitan 
Transportation Plan (MTP) for the metropolitan area would decrease. We 
also expect this rule will result in some cost savings for State DOTs, 
which will benefit from having fewer TIPs to incorporate into their 
statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs). There will also 
be benefits to the public if the coordination requirements result in a 
planning process in which public participation opportunities are 
transparent and unified for the entire region, and if members of the 
public have an easier ability to engage in the planning process.

II. Background

MPA and MPO Boundaries

    The metropolitan planning statute defines an MPA as ``the 
geographic area determined by agreement between the metropolitan 
planning organization for the area and the Governor under subsection 
[134](e).'' 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(1).\2\ The agreement on the geographic 
area is subject to the minimum requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. 
134(e)(2)(A), which states that each MPA ``shall encompass at least the 
existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become 
urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation 
plan.'' The MPA and MPO provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 make it clear that 
the intent for a typical metropolitan planning structure is to have a 
single MPO for each UZA. However, the statute creates an exception in 
23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7), which provides that more than one MPO may be 
designated within an existing MPA if the Governor and the existing 
MPO(s) determine that the size and complexity of the existing MPA make 
designation of more than one MPO for the area appropriate. Title 23, 
U.S.C. 134(d)(7) reinforces the interpretation that the norm envisioned 
by the statute is that UZAs not be divided into multiple planning 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For simplicity, the remainder of this notice refers only to 
the planning provisions codified in Title 23, although corresponding 
provisions are codified in Chapter 53 of Title 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which included provisions intended to 
strengthen metropolitan planning. In particular, the law gave MPOs 
responsibility for coordinated planning to address the challenges of 
regional congestion and air quality issues. The 1993 planning 
regulation implemented these statutory changes by defining this 
enhanced planning role for MPOs. The 1993 planning regulation described 
a coordinated planning process for the MPA resulting in an overall MTP 
for the MPA. In several locations, the 1993 regulation recognized the 
possibility of multiple MPOs serving an MPA, and provided expectations 
for coordination that would result in an overall transportation plan 
for the entire area. See 58 FR 58040 (October 28, 1993).
    The 1993 regulation stated in the former Sec.  450.310(g) that 
``where more than one MPO has authority within a metropolitan planning 
area or a nonattainment or maintenance area, there shall be an 
agreement between the State departments(s) of transportation (State 
DOT) and the MPOs describing how the processes will be coordinated to 
assure the development of an overall transportation plan for the 
metropolitan planning area.'' Further, that regulation stated in former 
Sec.  450.312(e) that where ``more than one MPO has authority in a 
metropolitan planning area . . . the MPOs and the Governor(s) shall 
cooperatively establish the boundaries of the metropolitan planning 
area . . . and the respective jurisdictional responsibilities of each 
metropolitan planning area.'' In practice, however, many MPOs 
interpreted the MPA to be synonymous with the boundaries of their MPO's 
jurisdiction, even in those areas where multiple MPOs existed within a 
single UZA, resulting in multiple ``MPAs'' within a single urbanized 
area.
    In 2007, FHWA and FTA updated the regulations to align with changes 
made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and its predecessor, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The revised 
regulations reflected the practice of having multiple ``MPAs'' within a 
single UZA, even though the statute pertaining to this issue had not 
changed. The 2007 regulation refers to multiple MPOs within an UZA 
rather than multiple MPOs within an MPA, and the term ``metropolitan 
planning area'' was used to refer synonymously to the boundaries of an 
MPO. The regulations stated ``if more than one MPO has been designated 
to serve an urbanized area, there shall be a written agreement among 
the MPOs, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) 
describing how the metropolitan transportation planning processes will 
be coordinated to assure the development of consistent metropolitan 
transportation plans and TIPs across the MPA boundaries, particularly 
in cases in which a transportation investment extends across the 
boundaries of more than one MPA.'' 72 FR 7224, February 14, 2007. The 
FHWA and FTA adopted that language as Sec.  450.314(d), and 
redesignated it in a 2016 rulemaking as Sec.  450.314(e). The 2007 rule 
also added Sec.  450.312(h), which explicitly recognizes that, over 
time, a UZA may extend across multiple MPAs. The 2007 rulemaking did 
not address how to reconcile these regulatory changes with the 
statutory minimum requirement that an MPA include the UZA in its 
entirety.
    As a result, since 2007, the language of the regulation has 
supported the possibility of multiple MPOs within a UZA rather than 
within an MPA. The FHWA and FTA have concluded that this 2007 change in 
the regulatory

[[Page 93450]]

definition has fostered confusion about the statutory requirements and 
resulted in less efficient planning outcomes where multiple TIPs and 
MTPs are developed within a single UZA. This rule is designed to 
correct the problems that have occurred under the 2007 rule and return 
to the structure in regulation before the 2007 amendments.

MPO Coordination Within an MPA

    The metropolitan planning statute calls for each metropolitan 
planning organization to ``prepare and update a transportation plan for 
its metropolitan planning area'' and ``develop a TIP for the 
metropolitan planning area[.]'' 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(1)(A) and 
(j)(1)(A).\3\ As discussed above, the metropolitan planning statute 
includes an exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) that allows more 
than one MPO in an MPA under certain conditions. In some instances, 
multiple MPOs have been designated not only within a single MPA, but 
also within a single UZA in an MPA. Presently, such MPOs typically 
create separate MTPs and TIPs for separate parts of the UZA. Currently, 
the regulations require that where multiple MPOs exist within the same 
UZA, their written agreements must describe how they will coordinate 
their planning activities. However, the extent and effectiveness of 
coordination varies, and in some cases, effective coordination on 
regional needs and interests has proved challenging. It can be 
inefficient and confusing to the public if there are two or more 
distinct metropolitan transportation planning processes that result in 
two or more separate MTPs and TIPs for a single MPA (as defined under 
23 U.S.C. 134). Further, a regional approach is needed to ensure that 
metropolitan transportation planning maximizes economic opportunities 
while also addressing the externalities of growth, such as congestion, 
air and water quality impacts, and impacts on resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The process for developing plans and TIPs must be 
``continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the degree 
appropriate based on the complexity of the transportation problems 
to be addressed.'' 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, FHWA and FTA have determined that joint 
decisionmaking leading to unified planning products is necessary where 
there are multiple MPOs in an MPA in order to best ensure effective 
regional coordination. Accordingly, this rulemaking addresses 
coordination and decisionmaking requirements for MPOs that are subject 
to the 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) exception to the one-MPO-per-MPA structure 
of the metropolitan planning statute.

Coordination Between States and MPOs

    The statewide planning statute calls for a continuing, cooperative, 
and comprehensive process for developing the long-range statewide 
transportation plan and the statewide transportation improvement 
program (STIP). 23 U.S.C. 135(a)(3). The statute requires States to 
develop the long-range statewide transportation plan and the STIP in 
cooperation with MPOs designated under 23 U.S.C. 134. 23 U.S.C. 
135(f)(2)(A) and (g)(2)(A). While these statutes require that States 
work in cooperation with the MPOs on long-range statewide 
transportation plans and STIPs, the extent to which MPO voices are 
heard varies significantly. The nature of decisionmaking authority of 
MPOs and States varies due to numerous factors, including the extent of 
local funding for transportation projects. The MPOs will be 
strengthened by having a single coordinated MTP and TIP in order to 
create a united position on transportation needs and priorities for 
each MPA. Ultimately, each relationship between a State and MPO is 
unique, and there may not be a single coordination process that is 
appropriate for all areas of the country. However, there must be 
adequate cooperation between States and MPOs. Therefore, this rule 
requires that States and MPOs demonstrate evidence of cooperation, 
including the existence of an agreed upon dispute resolution process.

III. Summary of the NPRM

    The FHWA and FTA published the NPRM on June 27, 2016, with a 
comment period ending on August 26.\4\ In a notice published on 
September 23, 2016, FHWA and FTA reopened the comment period.\5\ The 
second comment period ended on October 24, 2016. The NPRM proposed a 
revision to the regulatory definition of MPA to better align with the 
statutory requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303. 
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to amend the definition of MPA in 23 
CFR 450.104 to include the conditions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2) that 
require the MPA, at a minimum, to include the entire UZA and the 
contiguous area expected to become urbanized within the 20-year 
forecast period for the MTP. The MPA boundary requirements in the 
proposed rule would apply even when the MPA, as defined in the rule, 
would cross State lines. By aligning the regulatory definition of the 
MPA with the statute, the NPRM acknowledged that the MPA is dynamic. 
The MPA is the basic geographic unit for metropolitan planning; 
therefore, this proposed requirement would ensure that planning 
activities consider the entire region of the UZA consistently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 41473 (June 27, 2016).
    \5\ 81 FR 65592 (September 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) allows multiple MPOs to be 
designated within a single MPA if the Governor(s) and MPO(s) determine 
that the size and complexity of the area makes multiple MPOs 
appropriate. The NPRM proposed certain requirements applicable in such 
instances where multiple MPOs serve a single MPA, including instances 
in which adjustments to urbanized areas, as a result of a U.S. Census 
Bureau decennial census, will result in multiple MPOs serving a single 
MPA. First, the NPRM proposed to clarify that MPA boundaries are not 
necessarily synonymous with MPO boundaries. Second, the NPRM proposed 
to amend Sec.  450.310(e) of the regulation to clarify that, where more 
than one MPO serves an MPA, the Governor(s) and affected MPOs must 
establish or adjust the jurisdiction for each MPO within the MPA by 
agreement. Third, the NPRM proposed additional coordination 
requirements for areas where multiple MPOs are designated within the 
MPA. Under the NPRM, the Governor(s) and MPOs would determine whether 
the size and complexity of the MPA make the designation of multiple 
MPOs appropriate; if they were to determine it is not appropriate to 
have more than one MPO, then the MPOs would be required to merge or 
adjust their jurisdiction such that there would be only one MPO within 
the MPA. If they were to determine that designation of multiple MPOs is 
appropriate, then the MPOs could remain separate, with separate 
jurisdictions of responsibility within the MPA, as established by the 
affected MPOs and the Governor(s).
    The NPRM proposed to require those multiple separate MPOs in the 
same MPA to jointly develop unified planning products: A single long-
range MTP, a single TIP, and a jointly established set of performance 
targets for the MPA. These requirements for unified planning products 
to accommodate the intended growth of a region would enable individuals 
within that region to better engage in the planning process and 
facilitate their efforts to ensure that the growth trajectory matches 
their visions and goals. In order to support the development of these 
unified planning products, the NPRM proposed to require MPOs to 
establish procedures for joint decisionmaking, including a process for 
resolving disagreements.
    Additionally, the NPRM proposed to strengthen the role that MPOs 
would

[[Page 93451]]

play in the planning process by requiring States and MPOs to agree to a 
process for resolving disagreements. These proposed changes to the 
planning regulations were designed to facilitate metropolitan and 
statewide transportation planning processes that would be more 
efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more 
focused on projects that address critical regional needs. The NPRM was 
designed to position MPOs to respond to the growing trend of 
urbanization. It would better align the planning processes with the 
regional scale envisioned by the performance-based planning framework 
established by MAP-21, particularly those measures focused on 
congestion and system performance. The NPRM also would help MPOs to 
achieve economies of scale in planning by working together and drawing 
on a larger pool of human, material, financial, and technological 
resources.

IV. Response to Major Issues Raised by Comments

    This final rule is based on FHWA's and FTA's review and analysis of 
comments received. The FHWA received 660 letters to the docket, which 
includes 21 duplicate submissions, 4 submissions to the wrong docket, 
and 23 ex parte response letters, for a total of 612 unique letters. 
The comments included 197 letters from metropolitan planning 
organizations, 39 letters from State departments of transportation, 29 
letters from councils of governments, 29 letters from regional planning 
associations, 14 letters from transportation management associations, 
38 letters from counties, 81 letters from municipalities, 22 letters 
from professional and trade associations, 21 letters from associations 
of metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning 
associations, and 31 letters from individual citizens. The comments 
also included 18 letters signed or co-signed by Members of Congress, 
including 12 U.S. Senators and 15 U.S. Representatives, and 20 letters 
signed or co-signed by State legislators. Given the large number of 
comments received, FHWA and FTA have decided to organize the response 
to comments in the following manner. This section of the preamble 
provides a response to the significant issues raised in the comments 
received, organized by summarizing and responding to comments that 
raise significant issues applicable to the NPRM.

Need for the Rule

    Sixteen commenters expressed support for the NPRM. The FHWA and FTA 
received 156 comments in support of the stated purpose of the proposed 
rule, which is to improve the transportation planning process by 
strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States and promoting the use 
of regional approaches to planning and decisionmaking to ensure that 
transportation investments reflect the needs and priorities of an 
entire region. While these commenters supported the stated purpose of 
the rulemaking, they did not support the specific requirements and 
procedures articulated in the proposed rule because the commenters 
believe the rule will not strengthen coordination efforts beyond 
current practices. The FHWA and FTA received 299 comments in opposition 
to the NPRM, of which 249 requested that FHWA and FTA withdraw the 
rulemaking. Commenters expressed various concerns about the NPRM.
    The FHWA and FTA appreciate the substantial response to the NPRM 
and have reviewed and carefully considered all of the comments 
submitted to the docket. The FHWA and FTA believe the rule addresses 
important aspects of the metropolitan transportation planning process. 
As such, and as described in the previous section, FHWA and FTA have 
amended several parts of the proposed rule in response to comments but 
decline to withdraw the rule.
    A number of commenters stated that their MPOs are already engaged 
in the types of regional coordination activities described in the NPRM, 
and they questioned the need for this regulation. Many commenters 
expressing opposition to the proposed rule stated that they believe 
their current coordination processes are successful; they achieve their 
local goals and objectives, involve strong coordination with adjacent 
MPOs and States in urbanized areas, and include many of the activities 
proposed in the NPRM. A total of 151 commenters stated that they 
currently have good working relationships with adjacent MPOs, 
coordinate with States and other MPOs and jurisdictions, or have formal 
agreements for coordinated planning activities.
    Many commenters provided examples from their respective regions, 
discussed how their current planning processes achieved goals similar 
to those proposed in the proposed rulemaking, and indicated the 
proposed changes would disrupt existing coordination efforts. Six 
commenters stated their existing working agreements for coordinated 
planning with neighboring MPOs and States would be disrupted by the 
proposed requirements. Some commenters stated they could not identify a 
problem the requirements would resolve. Fifteen commenters stated that 
they currently coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions on regional 
planning activities, so the proposed requirement for unified, merged 
planning documents (MTPs, TIPs) is not necessary. Several commenters 
indicated the success of current MPO practices means additional 
regulation is not needed to improve MPO coordination. Several 
commenters stated that the proposed requirements would require them to 
re-do a recently completed merger of MPOs in Connecticut. One commenter 
stated that before the MPO is required to merge with another MPO, its 
current process and agreements with neighboring MPOs should be 
considered as meeting the proposed requirements.
    In response, FHWA and FTA agree that many MPOs are coordinating 
planning activities with adjacent MPOs and across State and other 
jurisdictional boundaries. Many of the examples provided exemplify the 
type of coordinated transportation planning activities that FHWA and 
FTA are seeking by adopting the final rule. The existence of such 
exemplary planning practices in some MPOs, however, does not eliminate 
the need for consistency with statutory MPA boundary requirements or 
for improvement in the planning practices of other MPOs. This rule adds 
clarity to those and other planning requirements that FHWA and FTA 
evaluate when carrying out certification reviews for transportation 
management areas (TMAs) under 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(5), and when making 
planning findings in connection with STIP approvals under 23 U.S.C. 
135(g)(7)-(8). In particular, this rule will benefit UZAs that 
presently are under the jurisdiction of more than one MPO. This rule 
will eliminate the risk of adverse consequences for the UZA that can 
arise when the MPOs adopt inconsistent or competing planning decisions.
    The FHWA and FTA recognize that some regions have formal agreements 
for MPO coordination that may need to be revisited as a result of the 
rule, and that the implementation process for this rule could be 
disruptive in some cases. The FHWA and FTA considered this burden in 
adopting the final rule. Specifically, the final rule addresses 
situations where it is not feasible for the multiple MPOs in an MPA to 
comply with the unified planning requirements. In such situations, MPOs 
may demonstrate to the Secretary that they already have effective 
coordination processes that will achieve the purposes of the rule. If 
adequately demonstrated,

[[Page 93452]]

then the Secretary may approve an exception, and those MPOs will not 
have to produce unified planning products for the MPA. The exception is 
permanent, but FHWA and FTA will evaluate whether the MPOs are 
sustaining effective coordination processes consistent with the rule 
when FHWA and FTA do certification reviews and make planning findings. 
This new provision balances commenters' concerns about disruption of 
existing arrangements, including recent mergers and other changes, 
against the need for the type of holistic MPA planning the statute and 
this rule require.
    The FHWA and FTA also remain sensitive to, and supportive of, the 
principle and value of local decisionmaking. One purpose of this rule 
is to support local decisionmaking and involvement in a planning 
process that increasingly takes place in a regional context. There is a 
need for better coordinated local decisionmaking, however. Issues like 
air pollution and traffic congestion do not stop at State boundaries or 
MPO jurisdictional lines, but planning often does. Planning in 
jurisdictional silos can occur where two or more MPOs plan for the MPA 
but do not coordinate effectively and do not produce a single overall 
plan and TIP for the MPA. Such a situation can interfere with essential 
coordination of regional transportation planning solutions. In turn, 
that can lead to project delays, process inconsistencies, and reduced 
freight reliability.
    This rule places a greater emphasis on regional planning to help 
communities maximize economic opportunities while also addressing the 
externalities of growth, such as congestion, air and water quality 
impacts, and impacts on resilience. The FHWA and FTA have long promoted 
regional planning because of the increasing size, economic 
interdependence, and quality of life challenges of metropolitan areas. 
The elimination of possible confusion about MPA boundary requirements 
is one step toward better regional planning. By clarifying the 
metropolitan planning regulations implementing the language on 
boundaries in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2), the MPA will include the entire 
urbanized area plus the areas forecasted to become urbanized over the 
20-year period of the transportation plan. This clarification will 
promote more efficient and effective planning for the MPA as a whole.
    Based on experience, FHWA and FTA know that having two or more 
separate metropolitan transportation planning processes in a single MPA 
(as defined under 23 U.S.C. 134) can make the planning process 
confusing and burdensome for the affected public. For example, members 
of the public may be affected by projects in multiple MPO 
jurisdictions, either because they live in the area of one MPO and work 
or regularly travel to another, or because the MPOs' jurisdictional 
lines bisect a community. Such members of the public, therefore, can 
find it necessary to participate in each MPO's separate planning 
process in order to have their regional concerns adequately considered. 
Having to participate in the planning processes of multiple MPOs, 
however, can be burdensome and discourage public participation. Where 
communities have been so bifurcated that they are not able to fully 
participate in the greater regional economy, this rule will help weave 
those communities together through new opportunities for regional 
investments in transportation.
    Where regional coordination is already strong, this rule supports 
those efforts. Multi-jurisdictional planning encourages stakeholders to 
think beyond traditional borders and adopt a coordinated approach to 
transportation planning that combines many perspectives to improve 
coordination and implement effective planning across wide geographic 
areas. In addition, the requirement for the State and MPO to have a 
documented dispute resolution process in their metropolitan planning 
agreement will help ensure the MPOs have an effective means to be heard 
when investment decisions affecting the MPA are made. With the 
revisions that FHWA and FTA have made in response to comments received, 
this rule will serve as a strong tool for State DOTs, MPOs, and 
providers of public transportation to work together to enhance 
efficiency and be more responsive to the entire community.
    When FHWA and FTA issued the NPRM, the agencies were involved in 
ongoing non-regulatory planning initiatives to improve MPO 
coordination. The Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016 FHWA and FTA Planning 
Emphasis Areas letters from the Administrators of FHWA and FTA to MPO 
executive directors and heads of State DOTs discussed three planning 
priorities, including Regional Models of Cooperation (RMOC).\6\ The 
objective of the RMOC initiative is to improve the effectiveness of 
transportation decisionmaking by thinking beyond traditional borders 
and adopting a coordinated approach to transportation planning. The 
RMOC promotes improved multi-jurisdictional coordination by State DOTs, 
MPOs, providers of public transportation, and rural planning 
organizations to reduce project delivery times and enhance the 
efficient use of resources, particularly in urbanized areas that are 
served by multiple MPOs. The RMOC includes technical assistance efforts 
to assist MPOs and State DOTs in achieving the RMOC objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Fiscal Year 2016 letter is available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/metropolitan/mpo/fy_2016/fy2016pea.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA, as part of its Every Day Counts initiative (EDC), 
promotes RMOC and provides a framework and process for State DOTs and 
MPOs to develop multi-jurisdictional transportation plans and 
agreements to improve communication, collaboration, policy 
implementation, technology use, and performance management across 
agency boundaries.\7\ The EDC has identified the benefits of multi-
jurisdictional planning as including higher achievement of 
transportation goals by working together and the potential creation of 
a more economically competitive region through faster construction, 
improved freight movement, reduced traffic congestion, and improved 
quality of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See EDC Web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3/regional.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Functionality and Effectiveness of the Resulting Metropolitan Planning 
Areas

    Many commenters stated that the current system fosters an 
environment that allows for right-sized collaboration and is working 
well. Many contended that their MPOs are properly sized for their 
respective regions and that they efficiently program their resources in 
a manner that cannot be achieved at a larger scale. Some commenters 
expressed concern that, by increasing the size and scope of individual 
MPOs, the proposed rule would make the transportation planning process 
less accessible and more confusing to stakeholders and the general 
public, many of whom are already overwhelmed by the process. Others 
commented that the rule would not reduce confusion, increase public 
participation, or increase efficiency in regional planning, arguing 
that residents who live far away from other residents do not, by 
default, have the same transportation planning priorities simply 
because they reside in the same MPA. Others expressed concern that a 
large MPA with multiple major and minor cities and differing economic 
bases would limit the potential for common interests and issues, 
potentially diluting the planning process and limiting locally 
applicable guidelines. Some commenters asserted

[[Page 93453]]

that the proposed rule would result in disconnecting land use and 
transportation planning, negatively affect transit planning, and 
undermine congressional intent that an MPO be focused on a UZA's 
central city.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed rule ignored the 
complex nature of existing regional coordination mechanisms and instead 
would create an unworkable coordination framework that likely would 
present challenges to capital planning and project delivery. Some 
commenters also raised concerns that the proposed rule would 
significantly change how neighboring communities and States work 
together, which could have potentially long-lasting negative 
consequences. Commenters also stated that the proposed rule would 
weaken the regional planning process by requiring it to be done at such 
a large scale that it no longer would be reasonably considered as 
regional planning as Congress intended and would result in MPO policy 
boards making decisions on transportation investments and policies for 
geographic areas with which they are unfamiliar.
    Several commenters expressed the view that smaller, contiguous MPOs 
in a shared metropolitan region can be as effective, or more effective, 
than larger or consolidated MPOs. For instance, smaller organizations 
are generally more nimble and responsive to members of the public than 
larger, more artificially stitched-together organizations. These 
commenters also contended that smaller contiguous MPOs may often be 
better able to factor in land use, smaller scale projects such as 
pedestrian and bicycle needs, intersections, and transit, while still 
maintaining an appropriate focus and cooperation on major system 
elements such as the National Highway System and long distance freight.
    The FHWA and FTA considered the concerns expressed by these 
commenters but disagree with the view that the rule will lead to the 
negative results described in their comments. In locations where MPOs 
have undertaken efforts to merge and rationalize the planning process 
for their regions, the results have been positive.\8\ These examples 
illustrate that MPOs can implement changes like those adopted in this 
rule. Implementation will require adjustment of processes and creative 
thinking about the best ways to conduct successful outreach if the 
changes required by the rule result in the need to involve a broader 
group of constituents in the MPA. The FHWA and FTA also acknowledge 
that the type of decisionmaking the rule requires may force MPOs to 
make hard choices about investment priorities because they must agree 
on MPA-wide priorities, rather than priorities for a subarea within the 
MPA. In the view of FHWA and FTA, this is an appropriate result in the 
performance-based planning environment in which FHWA, FTA, States, 
MPOs, and providers of public transportation now operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Current State of the Practice'' discussion on 
FHWA's Every Day Counts Web page for Regional Models of Cooperation, 
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3/regional.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of commenters concluded that the proposed rule 
would result in excessively large planning regions that cover extensive 
geographic areas, including multiple States and millions of people. The 
commenters believed this would cause complex and lengthy negotiations 
among MPOs and States. Many commenters raised concerns that the NPRM 
would lead to the formation of extremely large MPAs in certain parts of 
the country and result in either multiple MPOs merging to form a single 
MPO responsible for a very large geographical area or multiple MPOs in 
an MPA being required to coordinate to produce unified planning 
products. Many of these commenters asserted that transportation 
planning at such a large scale likely would be unmanageable. Miami 
Valley Regional Planning Commission stated that, if combined, the 10+ 
MPOs in its region would have a 300+ member MPO policy board, and there 
would be ``unmanageable'' results of a ``super MPO'' spanning multiple 
(in some cases five to seven) States. A number of other commenters also 
suggested the rule would result in ``super MPOs.'' The Connecticut 
Councils of Governments, including the Western Connecticut Council of 
Governments, Housatonic Valley MPO, and South Western Region MPO, 
Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, and Central Naugatuck Valley 
Metropolitan Planning Organization cited the example of the Tri-State 
Regional Planning Commission, a particularly large MPO that formerly 
served parts of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut but was deemed 
unsuccessful and ultimately dissolved. This comment suggested that the 
proposed rule could result in re-creating a large MPO like that, 
apparently without learning the lessons of why it failed. The comment 
stated that following dissolution of the Tri-State Regional Planning 
Commission, Connecticut and its neighbors developed structures and 
mechanisms to provide for inter-MPO coordination, and this structure 
enables MPOs to maintain vigorous local involvement in the context of 
statewide and multistate corridors.
    Several commenters also responded to FHWA's and FTA's request for 
comments on potential exceptions that should be included in the final 
rule and criteria for applying such exceptions.\9\ A number of 
commenters recommended providing an exception to boundary requirements 
where only a small portion of a UZA crosses into the jurisdiction of a 
neighboring MPO, and they proposed several options for applying such an 
exception. Twelve commenters proposed using a population threshold for 
the portion of a UZA crossing MPO jurisdictional boundaries, below 
which the neighboring MPOs would not need to comply with the rule's 
requirements, ranging from 5-25 percent of the total population of the 
UZA. Eight commenters proposed using a land area threshold of 5-25 
percent of the total UZA land area crossing MPO jurisdictional 
boundaries, below which an exception would apply. Six commenters 
recommended using a threshold of 15-25 percent of the total Federal-aid 
lane miles in the portion of a UZA crossing MPO jurisdictional 
boundaries, below which an exception would apply. Four commenters 
recommended that if a small area of two MPAs were to overlap, ranging 
from 10-20 percent of the total combined MPA area, that the MPOs 
serving those MPAs should be excepted from the rule's requirements. 
Three commenters recommended excepting MPOs that are in nonattainment 
for at least one criteria pollutant. The Merced County Association of 
Governments recommended giving special consideration to areas that are 
predominantly rural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FHWA and FTA notice reopening comments at 81 FR 65592, 
65593 (September 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA appreciate the comments submitted and understand 
commenters' concerns about the potential for extremely large MPAs. The 
FHWA and FTA believe that some of these concerns are based on a 
misreading of the proposed rule, particularly relating to UZAs with 
common boundaries and MPAs with 20-year forecast areas that may 
overlap. The FHWA and FTA do not intend this rule to require the 
establishment of extremely large MPAs or to require transportation 
planning on such a large scale as to be unworkable. The intent is to 
ensure MPAs comply with statutory boundary requirements, and, if there 
are multiple MPOs serving an MPA, all such MPOs work together to plan 
for the

[[Page 93454]]

MPA's future transportation needs. Because this rule and the underlying 
statute require that MPAs include the entire UZA and the surrounding 
area forecast to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for 
the transportation plan, FHWA and FTA cannot provide exceptions to 
these requirements based on the population in an MPA, the size of the 
part of a UZA that crosses into an adjoining MPO's planning 
jurisdiction, the degree to which the MPA includes rural areas, or the 
air quality status of the area. Under this rule and the underlying 
statute, MPA boundaries cannot overlap. The FHWA and FTA will provide 
guidance in the future about how to accomplish such boundary 
adjustments.
    The NPRM presented MPOs with three compliance options, all of which 
the final rule retains. First, MPOs may adjust the boundaries of their 
MPAs to encompass the entire urbanized area plus the contiguous area 
forecast (by the MPOs) to become urbanized over the 20 years of the 
metropolitan transportation plan. While the situations of individual 
areas may vary, many MPOs would be able to adjust MPA boundaries in 
such a way that they remain separate from contiguous MPOs. For example, 
in cases where an MPO's current jurisdiction includes a portion of a 
UZA primarily served by another MPO, the two MPOs can work together to 
adjust their jurisdictions so each MPO serves an MPA with the 
appropriate UZA. If the forecasted growth areas for two MPAs overlap, 
the affected Governor(s) and MPOs can work together to determine the 
most appropriate way to allocate that growth area between the MPAs. 
Although Governors and MPOs are encouraged to consider merging multiple 
MPAs into a single MPA under these circumstances, the rule does not 
require a merger. Second, multiple MPOs located in a single MPA can 
merge. Third, if MPOs and their respective Governor(s) determine that 
the size and complexity of the MPA justifies maintaining multiple MPOs 
in a single MPA, then they can remain separate MPOs but coordinate to 
prepare unified planning products.
    To address comments stating that in some areas compliance with the 
rule would be infeasible, overly cumbersome, or contrary to the goal of 
effective and participatory regional planning, the final rule includes 
a new compliance option in Sec.  450.312(i) for MPAs with multiple 
MPOs. This option offers, under certain conditions, an exception to the 
requirement for unified planning products. The exception is discussed 
in detail below, under Unified Planning Products: Requirements and 
Exception in ``Discussion of Major Issues Raised by Comments'' section 
of this preamble.
    Commenters raised similar concerns about the potential for large 
MPAs that cross State lines but cited even greater coordination 
challenges in that scenario. Commenters expressed concern that if an 
MPO serves a larger geographical area, particularly in the case of a 
multistate MPA, the planning discussions will inevitably take place at 
the State planning level and will not empower MPOs. Commenters stated 
the result would remove local constituent voices from identifying and 
implementing projects that provide connectivity and access, and spur 
economic development initiatives across all areas in the MPA. 
Commenters stated that the rule should provide greater flexibility 
where MPAs cross State lines to account for significant differences in 
transportation planning processes that may exist between two or more 
States. Some commenters expressed concern that each Governor in a 
multistate MPA would exercise veto power over the TIP and MTP in the 
neighboring State, which would delay approval of these products, 
jeopardizing access to Federal highway and transit funds. Commenters 
also highlighted differences in State transportation planning 
processes, planning statutes, budgetary cycles, project prioritization 
processes, land use authorities, vastly different relationships and 
involvement of State legislatures in the planning process, and various 
governance and MPO policy body structures in neighboring States as 
factors that would further complicate the production of unified 
planning products across State lines.
    In response, FHWA and FTA acknowledge that a multistate MPA 
typically presents greater coordination challenges than an MPA 
contained entirely within a single State. For multistate MPAs where the 
Governors and the MPOs agree it is not feasible to comply with the 
unified planning products requirements adopted in this rule, the 
Governors and MPOs may seek an exception under the provision added in 
Sec.  450.312(i) of the final rule.
    Several commenters indicated concerns about the use of UZAs, which 
are determined by the U.S. Census Bureau, as the basis for establishing 
MPA boundaries. Commenters noted that UZAs do not necessarily reflect 
transportation realities for regional roadway and transit networks, and 
regional travel patterns. Commenters expressed concerns about the UZAs 
changing after each decennial census, requiring new configurations 
every 10 years. In response, FHWA and FTA note that Congress required 
in 23 U.S.C. 134 that UZAs be used to establish MPAs. The MPA 
boundaries provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A) states that each MPA 
``shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area,'' and 23 U.S.C. 
134(b)(7) provides that urbanized area ``means a geographic area with a 
population of 50,000 or more, as determined by the Bureau of the 
Census.'' However, FHWA and FTA appreciate the concerns that UZAs may 
not reflect regional transportation patterns and systems, and, 
therefore, FHWA and FTA intend to engage with the U.S. Census Bureau to 
provide input into how UZAs should be delineated following the 2020 
decennial census.
    Several commenters requested additional guidance on the 
responsibilities and methodology for determining 20-year growth 
projections; determining the parameters for designating MPA boundaries 
when UZAs are contiguous, or when the 20-year forecast growth from two 
UZAs overlaps; developing dispute resolution agreements; and 
determining when the size and complexity of an MPA warrants the 
designation of multiple MPOs. To support efficient and effective 
implementation of the rule, FHWA and FTA plan to issue guidance and 
will offer technical assistance to help States and MPOs understand 
their options for complying with the rule. In addition, not later than 
5 years following the compliance dates in Sec.  450.226(g) and Sec.  
450.340(h), FHWA and FTA will review how implementation of the new 
requirements is working and whether the new requirements are proving 
effective in achieving the intended outcomes. The FHWA and FTA are 
committed to ensuring the transportation planning process is 
successful. Through this review, FHWA and FTA will identify any 
necessary changes to the regulation.

Transportation Conformity

    Some commenters raised questions about how the proposed rule would 
impact existing air quality conformity boundaries and relationships. 
Two MPOs, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of Regional Councils 
(NARC), a State health organization and a transit operator noted that 
there are separately designated nonattainment and/or maintenance areas 
with air quality boundaries that do not coincide with UZA designations 
that cross State lines. The concern expressed is that by joining these 
separate areas into one MPO, or requiring joint planning

[[Page 93455]]

documents, those regions that are in attainment or maintenance for air 
quality would be forced to perform detailed air quality conformity 
analyses in line with the nonattainment areas. Commenters voiced 
concern that, in complex regions, every new conformity determination 
and MTP or TIP amendment involving air quality non-exempt projects 
would require a multistate technical, administrative, and public and 
interagency analysis that would delay decisionmaking and hinder 
progress. In response, FHWA and FTA understand the potential impacts of 
the final rule on meeting the transportation conformity regulations. 
The FHWA and FTA are cognizant of the challenges that MPOs and States 
may face, especially in areas where two or more MPOs in a multistate 
area may merge into one MPO or develop unified planning products. These 
areas may have to put extra effort into the interagency consultation 
and coordination process. They may also have to devote additional 
resources to address conformity issues, such as developing a single 
travel demand model; conducting an emissions analysis that covers the 
new MPA boundary; and aligning the latest planning assumptions, 
conformity tests, and analysis/horizon years. In addition, areas with 
nonattainment or maintenance area for multiple pollutants may 
experience additional complexities. The FHWA and FTA, however, believe 
that many MPOs already have experience in addressing conformity issues 
in a complex area. These complex areas may include multiple MPOs, 
multiple States, multiple pollutants, or a combination of all of these. 
The FHWA documented the experience of how these complex areas address 
conformity issues in Transportation Conformity Practices in Complex 
Areas.\10\ As a result of reviewing comments, FHWA and FTA have removed 
the NPRM language in Sec.  450.324(c)(3) and Sec.  450.326(a) that 
called for MPOs sharing an MPA to agree on a process for making a 
single conformity determination on their plan and TIP. The change was 
made to avoid the risk the language would be read as amending 
conformity requirements. Instead, during implementation of the final 
rule, FHWA and FTA will coordinate with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) on maintaining consistency with EPA's transportation 
conformity regulations, seeking to avoid the impact on nonattainment 
and maintenance area designations, and on the need for state and local 
air quality agencies to revise approved State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs), motor vehicle emissions budgets, and conformity procedures. The 
FHWA and FTA also will work with EPA to provide technical assistance 
and training to help MPOs address conformity issues that may occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available as of November 4, 2016, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/conformity/research/complex_areas/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, if it is not feasible for multiple MPOs serving the 
same MPA to comply with the unified planning products requirements 
because of conformity issues, the affected MPOs and the Governor(s) may 
request an exception under Sec.  450.312(i) of the rule. The exception 
is discussed in detail under Unified Planning Products: Requirements 
and Exception in ``Discussion of Major Issues Raised by Comments'' 
section of this preamble.

Dispute Resolution Process

    The FHWA and FTA received a total of 44 comments on the proposed 
requirement in Sec.  450.208(a)(1) that States and MPOs establish 
dispute resolution procedures in their metropolitan planning 
agreements. Three commenters expressed support for the development of a 
written dispute resolution process to provide for fair, objective, and 
consistent resolution of disputes. One commenter asserted that because 
the FAST Act does not require a dispute resolution process, this is a 
matter that should be addressed legislatively rather than through a 
rulemaking. Thirteen commenters noted concern that the inflexibility of 
a formal dispute resolution process would make it cumbersome and 
confusing and would create conflict where none existed previously. Five 
commenters suggested a formal dispute resolution process would unfairly 
favor States, based on speculation that States would have no incentive 
to support local control for separate MPOs and would not enter into the 
dispute resolution process in good faith. Two commenters stated that a 
formal dispute resolution process would allow for some parties to use 
the dispute resolution process to hold up the planning process in order 
to leverage particular outcomes.
    The FHWA and FTA view the local planning process as a partnership 
among the MPOs, the States, and providers of public transportation. The 
dispute resolution requirement is a tool that, when used correctly, 
fosters this partnership. Dispute resolution establishes the path for 
all parties to follow in delivering the planning program, even when 
consensus is not readily reached. A well-crafted and well-executed 
dispute resolution process allows the parties to work through 
disagreements in an objective, fair, and transparent manner that should 
expedite delivery of planning products in an effective and inclusive 
fashion. The FHWA and FTA agree that if any party to the planning 
agreement fails to negotiate in good faith, the result will be 
suboptimal and not in accord with the intent of the planning statutes. 
The establishment of an objective, fair, and transparent process, 
however, will subject all participants to public scrutiny, which is 
likely to be a strong disincentive to bad-faith negotiation. Further, 
the type of failure described by the commenters would not be consistent 
with the ``continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive'' planning 
requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134-135. Finally, in response to the comment 
suggesting that requiring a dispute resolution process exceeds FHWA's 
and FTA's authority, FHWA and FTA believe the requirement is within the 
scope of the agencies' discretion to interpret the meaning of the 
statutory requirements for coordination among States, MPOs, and 
providers of public transportation.
    Seven commenters requested that FHWA and FTA provide model dispute 
resolution language, best practices, or guidance on how to develop a 
formal dispute resolution agreement. Thirteen commenters noted that the 
rule is silent on how disputes are to be resolved prior to 
establishment of a dispute resolution process between Governor(s) and 
MPOs.
    The FHWA and FTA appreciate the request for more specific language, 
guidance, or best practices. The development of a dispute resolution 
process is a local decision that will vary depending on the particular 
needs and relationships that exist in each area. The FHWA and FTA are 
committed to providing MPOs and States with the technical assistance 
they need to effectively meet this requirement while taking local 
conditions and needs into account. The rule is purposely not 
prescriptive about the contents of a dispute resolution process. The 
FHWA and FTA do not believe that establishing a default dispute 
resolution process would further the desired collaboration. The FHWA 
and FTA understand it will take time to develop the required dispute 
resolution process, which is addressed by the final rule's compliance 
deadline of the next MTP update occurring on or after the date 2 years 
after the date the Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying 
Urban Areas following the 2020 census. Until the process is developed 
and contained in the metropolitan planning agreements, the parties may 
continue to use existing practices.

[[Page 93456]]

Unified Planning Products: Requirements and Exception

    A number of commenters expressed concern that requiring unified 
planning products would increase the complexity of the planning process 
because developing unified planning products through coordination among 
multiple MPOs in an MPA would be more complicated, take more time, and 
extend the timeline for approvals, resulting in delays in project 
funding and delivery. Many asserted that this would require a multi-
layered approval process that could jeopardize access to Federal 
funding. Some also expressed concern that working across State lines on 
TIPs (and STIPs) would be particularly challenging because different 
States have different legislative and budget schedules, and different 
project ranking and funding mechanisms. They also contended that the 
number of STIP/TIP modifications would increase, and that the 
multilayered approval process would make it less efficient to make such 
modifications. Several commenters stated that the sheer volume of 
projects, size, and diversity of geographical area, and the need to 
coordinate decisionmaking among multiple jurisdictions, and in some 
cases across State lines, will impair the region's ability to develop a 
single MTP and TIP, thus jeopardizing their ability to advance projects 
and secure FTA grant funds that are critical to maintenance and 
expansion of transit networks.
    The Southeastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization 
(SMMPO) expressed concern that a single TIP and MTP for a larger MPA 
would require consistent project eligibility and scoring criteria to 
ensure that the distribution of Federal funds is equitable. The SMMPO 
commented that even if an agreement can be reached among MPOs on the 
eligibility for Federal funds, it is unlikely that the MPOs will be 
able to agree on the requirements to receive State matching funds, 
because the criteria are established by the legislative bodies of each 
State and not under the authority of the Governors.
    Eight commenters expressed confusion regarding the proposed 
amendments to the joint planning rule. One respondent requested 
assistance to understand how the proposed rule would affect its UZA. 
Two respondents expressed confusion about how the proposed amendments 
would improve the planning process, citing the complexity of attempting 
to develop unified planning products for an area that could potentially 
cover hundreds of municipalities, millions of people, and dozens of 
counties. Five respondents stated that implementation of the proposed 
amendments would result in more confusion for the public, locally 
elected officials, and local units of governments because they would 
need to plan for such large areas and attempt to work through a very 
complicated, overwhelming, and inefficient process to approve unified 
planning products. Several commenters expressed concerns about 
unintended consequences of the proposed rule. Some commenters indicated 
that the proposed rule would negatively disrupt existing coordination 
and collaboration efforts, particularly for transit, economic 
development, land use, and local planning. Some commenters believed the 
proposed rule would make the existing transportation planning process 
more complex, less efficient, and more difficult for MPOs to meet the 
requirements of Federal and State laws. Other commenters expressed 
concern about States gaining more power in the metropolitan 
transportation planning process and the potential increase in 
competition for funding and resources. Commenters also questioned the 
impacts to MPO staff employment and the participation of MPO members. 
One commenter expressed concern about potential conflicts with FHWA's 
other performance management rulemakings.
    In the notice of the reopening of the comment period for this 
rulemaking, FHWA and FTA asked for comments on potential exceptions 
that should be included in the final rule and the criteria for applying 
such exceptions. Commenters recommended several criteria for exceptions 
to the rule's unified planning products requirements. Eighteen 
commenters recommended exceptions if multiple MPOs in an MPA can 
demonstrate a history of coordination, including the existence of 
formal agreements like memoranda of understanding and/or established 
processes for neighboring MPOs to consider the content of other MPO's 
long-range transportation plans when developing their own long-range 
transportation plan that provide for coordination among contiguous 
MPOs. Four commenters recommended providing an exception to the rule's 
requirement for multiple MPOs in an MPA to develop unified planning 
products if all of the MPOs in the MPA agree to opt out of this 
requirement. Twelve commenters suggested an exception from this 
requirement if the MPA crosses State lines. Seven commenters 
recommended that exceptions be made for MPAs with a population over a 
certain threshold, with suggested thresholds ranging widely from 
300,000 to 2.5 million persons.
    In response, FHWA and FTA recognize that many MPOs will have to 
make adjustments in their jurisdictional boundaries and their planning 
processes under this rule. A multistate MPA typically will face greater 
coordination challenges than an MPA contained entirely within a single 
State. There likely will be a need for additional coordination, as 
described by commenters. The FHWA and FTA considered the potential 
impacts cited by commenters when developing this final rule, and 
decided the benefits of the rule in terms of comprehensive, unified 
decisionmaking in the transportation planning process outweighed such 
potential impacts. The FHWA and FTA also carefully considered 
commenters' recommendations for exceptions to the rule's requirements 
and have revised the rule by adding an exception from the new unified 
planning requirements. This exception will not allow multiple MPOs in a 
single MPA to simply opt out of the requirement to develop unified 
planning products, but it establishes criteria under which MPOs may 
seek an exception from this requirement. The exception will address 
those cases where it is not feasible for MPOs to prepare unified 
planning products due to conditions affecting coordination or other 
aspects of the unified planning process. The FHWA and FTA decline to 
provide an exception for MPAs that cross State lines because effective 
regional coordination requires coordination across a variety of 
jurisdictional boundaries, and there are examples of MPOs effectively 
coordinating across State lines, such as the Delaware Valley Regional 
Planning Commission (Philadelphia and Trenton), the Memphis 
Metropolitan Planning Organization (Tennessee and Mississippi), and the 
Kentucky-Ohio-West Virginia Interstate Planning Commission. The final 
rule, however, provides flexibility where producing unified planning 
products is not feasible. The new provision balances the concerns 
raised by commenters against the need for unified planning to ensure 
the MTP and TIP appropriately address the needs of the MPA as a whole. 
The exception is in Sec.  450.312(i) of the rule. To be granted this 
exception, all MPOs in the MPA and their Governor(s) must submit, and 
the Secretary must approve, a joint written request and justification. 
The submittal to the Secretary must: (1) Explain why it is not 
feasible, for

[[Page 93457]]

reasons beyond the reasonable control of the Governor(s) and MPOs, for 
the multiple MPOs in the MPA to produce unified planning products; and 
(2) demonstrate how the multiple MPOs in the MPA are effectively 
coordinating with each other and producing consistent MTPs, TIPs and 
performance targets, and are, therefore, already achieving the goals of 
the rule through an existing coordination mechanism. An approved 
exception is permanent. When FHWA and FTA do certification reviews and 
make planning findings, FHWA and FTA will evaluate whether the MPOs 
covered by the exception are sustaining effective coordination 
processes that meet the requirements described in 23 450.312(i)(2)(i) 
and (ii).
    If the Secretary determines that the request does not meet the 
requirements established under Sec.  450.312(i), the Secretary will 
send the Governor(s) and MPOs a written notice of the denial of the 
exception, including a description of the deficiencies. The Governor(s) 
and the MPOs have 90 days from receipt of the notice to address the 
deficiencies identified in the notice and submit supplemental 
information addressing the identified deficiencies for review and a 
final determination by the Secretary. The Secretary may extend the 90-
day period to cure deficiencies upon request.
    The FHWA and FTA intend to provide guidance regarding the types of 
situations where an exception may be appropriate. Examples in the 
guidance may include situations where the Governor(s) and MPOs show 
that the number of MPOs in the MPA, the number of political 
jurisdictions within separate MPOs serving a single MPA, the 
involvement of multiple States with differing interests and legal 
requirements, or transportation conformity issues make it infeasible to 
develop unified planning products; or they might show there would be 
unintended consequences of using unified planning products in the MPA 
that would produce results contrary to the purposes of the rule. The 
guidance also will address how Governor(s) and MPOs can demonstrate 
their current coordination procedures meet the exception requirements, 
such as by (1) documenting a history of effective regional coordination 
and decisionmaking with other MPOs in the MPA that has resulted in 
consistent plans and TIPs across the MPA; (2) submitting procedures 
used by the multiple MPOs in the MPA to achieve consistency on regional 
priorities and projects of regional impact through plans, TIPs, air 
quality conformity analyses, project planning, performance targets, and 
other planning processes to address regional transportation and air 
quality issues; and (3) demonstrating the technical capacity to support 
regional coordination.

Implementation Costs

    Many commenters expressed concern about the costs, both in terms of 
financial resources and staff time associated with merging MPOs or 
coordinating among multiple MPOs in an MPA on unified planning 
products. Although many commenters did not cite cost estimates, several 
cited a voluntary MPO merger in Connecticut that cost $1.7 million 
dollars and took 4 years. Some stated that implementing the proposed 
rule would divert both financial and staff resources away from core 
transportation responsibilities because no additional funds would be 
provided for MPOs to implement the proposed rule. Some commenters cited 
an expected increase in the cost of the planning process, including 
longer travel distances and time and travel expenses of MPO board and 
committee members. The FHWA and FTA address these and other comments on 
the costs resulting from this rule in the discussion of Executive Order 
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

Impacts on the Local Role in Planning and Programming Decisions

    The FHWA and FTA received 217 comments expressing concern that the 
proposed rule would decrease local influence and decisionmaking in the 
transportation planning processes. Many of these comments included 
concern that the proposed rule would increase the size of MPAs and 
MPOs, which would diminish the role and influence of local governments 
and make the transportation planning and decisionmaking process less 
responsive to local input. Commenters noted that a larger planning area 
with more jurisdictions would mean that many local governments and 
smaller transit systems would not be represented on policy boards or 
committees. Some stated the belief that this would lead to a focus on 
funding larger, more expensive projects and decrease the amount of 
funding available to smaller communities, resulting in local 
transportation needs not being fully addressed. Several commenters 
expressed concern that the proposed rule would shift power among 
jurisdictions, either from rural areas and small towns to urban areas, 
or from urban areas to suburbs. Nine commenters said larger MPAs, with 
unified MTPs and TIPs would create more, not fewer, conflicts among 
neighboring communities and between States, and this would make it more 
difficult to build consensus.
    The FHWA and FTA acknowledge that the rule could have the effect of 
increasing the size of some MPAs, and that complying with MPA boundary 
requirements may lead to changes in how the MPOs operate. Commenters 
may be correct when they suggest decisionmaking under the rule might 
result in different types of investments than in the past; however, 
FHWA and FTA believe that this rule will allow MPOs to make more 
efficient and effective planning decisions by focusing on the overall 
needs of the MPA. Focusing on the overall needs of the MPA also will 
support progress towards the national goals described in 23 U.S.C. 
150(b). The FHWA and FTA disagree with comments suggesting the rule 
will necessarily disenfranchise local governments and small transit 
agencies, but FHWA and FTA also emphasize that the rule provides 
options for addressing such concerns, including (1) dividing an MPA 
that contains multiple UZAs into multiple MPAs, each of which contains 
an urbanized area in its entirety; and (2) retaining the multiple MPOs 
to serve the MPA. The NPRM provided three compliance options, all of 
which the final rule retains. First, many MPOs, including those that 
adjoin other MPOs, may be able to adjust their jurisdiction so each 
MPO's jurisdiction encompasses an entire MPA--the urbanized area plus 
the contiguous area forecast (by the MPOs) to become urbanized over the 
next 20 years. If the forecasted growth areas for two MPAs overlap, the 
affected Governor(s) and MPOs can work together to determine the most 
appropriate way to allocate that growth area between the MPAs. Second, 
multiple MPOs located in a single MPA can merge. Third, if MPOs and 
their respective Governor(s) determine that the size and complexity of 
the MPA justifies maintaining multiple MPOs in a single MPA, then they 
can remain as separate MPOs in the MPA but coordinate to prepare 
unified planning products. The final rule provides an additional option 
in Sec.  450.312(i) under which Governor(s) and MPOs can seek an 
exception to the requirement for unified planning products. The 
exception is discussed in detail under Unified Planning Products: 
Requirements and Exception in ``Discussion of Major Issues Raised by 
Comments'' section of this preamble.

[[Page 93458]]

Effects on Public Involvement and Persons Protected by Environmental 
Justice and Title VI

    Some commenters asserted the proposed rule would result in 
significantly larger MPOs and that would negatively impact public 
involvement. Fourteen MPOs and local governments, as well as a public 
transit agency, State DOT, national association, chamber of commerce, 
and a member of Congress noted that large planning entities with 
unified MTPs and TIPs would dilute the impact of local public input. A 
few commenters stated that the scale of large MPOs would make public 
involvement unmanageable and less meaningful. Thirteen MPOs and local 
governments as well as two associations and one State DOT said the 
large planning areas would create equity issues for populations unable 
to travel long distances for public meetings due to time, cost, and 
accessibility. A number of these commenters noted that this would 
present Title VI and environmental justice (EJ) concerns because it 
would be harder to ensure that individuals from low income communities, 
individuals from minority communities, individuals with limited English 
proficiency, and individuals with transportation limitations are 
meaningfully involved in the process.
    Twelve commenters suggested the changes proposed in the NPRM would 
result in disruption to the public involvement process and confusion 
among the public and may increase the cost of public involvement and/or 
delay the process. One council of governments commented that the rule 
would disproportionately negatively impact central cities with Title VI 
and EJ communities as compared to suburban areas. One transit agency 
indicated that the changes could cause a mismatch of transit provider 
districts and the planning functions tied to current MPO jurisdictional 
boundaries, and this would impact Title VI and EJ populations. One 
member of Congress said the NPRM did not address the changes that would 
be required to public involvement plans if multiple MPOs have to 
coordinate on unified planning documents.
    In response, as detailed above in ``Impacts on the Local Role in 
Planning and Programming Decisions,'' FHWA and FTA believe the rule 
provides options for addressing concerns about one MPO being 
responsible for too large a geographic area. Even in cases where MPOs 
merge, or the decision to have multiple MPOs in an MPA triggers the 
requirement for unified planning documents, the size of the MPO's 
planning jurisdiction does not determine the effectiveness of its 
public involvement. Best practices from existing large MPOs covering 
both urban and suburban areas indicate that public involvement, 
including meeting the goals of the Title VI process and EJ 
requirements, can be effective and can be carried out in a manner that 
addresses differences between these communities.
    The FHWA and FTA recognize that the rule will require changes to 
ensure an effective public involvement process but believe that these 
changes are consistent with DOT's encouragement of continuous 
improvements in all public involvement efforts. The FHWA and FTA have 
addressed the issue of a more effective consensus building process 
through Planning Emphasis Areas,\11\ the EDC RMOC initiative,\12\ and 
other initiatives. The FHWA and FTA have developed a number of other 
resources that may be useful to MPOs and States in conducting effective 
public involvement and meeting Title VI and EJ requirements and expect 
to continue to provide such technical assistance and share best 
practices as part of the implementation of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/metropolitan/mpo/fy_2016/index.cfm.
    \12\ See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/regional_models/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA nevertheless recognize that in some cases, large 
and complex urban areas may have difficulty effectively addressing 
these concerns, and FHWA and FTA modified the proposed rule to allow an 
exception to the requirement for unified planning in Sec.  450.312(i). 
If applicable, the request for an exception should provide evidence of 
public involvement, Title VI, or EJ concerns.

Implementation Timeline

    The FHWA and FTA received input from 60 commenters on the proposed 
timeframe for the implementation of the proposed requirements in the 
NPRM. Many commenters, including 26 MPOs, 11 State DOTs, 9 
municipalities, 5 professional associations, 4 COGs, 2 State 
legislators, 1 member of Congress, and 1 transit agency, raised 
concerns that the NPRM would require extensive and time-consuming 
coordination among MPOs and States, and they expressed that it would be 
unrealistic to complete this coordination within the 2 years required 
under the proposed rule. Many commenters stated that because of the 
complex nature of their particular MPA, the requirement to revise MPA 
boundaries and negotiate agreements among multi-MPO or multistate 
jurisdictions would be difficult to accomplish within 2 years. Many 
commenters noted that it would take longer than 2 years to complete new 
MTPs and TIPs among geographically-large MPAs, particularly in 
multistate areas.
    Four MPOs and one member of Congress noted that 2 years is not 
enough time for State legislative action and gubernatorial approval 
that would be required to refine the MPO jurisdictional boundaries and 
member composition. Two MPOs stated that 2 years for compliance was not 
sufficient time for MPOs that are organized based upon State 
legislation, or are part of a Regional Planning Agency (RPA) or Council 
of Governments (COG) that would require re-establishment of roles 
through the State legislative process. One State DOT and numerous MPOs 
commented that the 2-year timeframe proposed in the NPRM was 
insufficient to draft new agreements and receive approval through 
multiple agencies. One State DOT commented that if there are disputes 
between the State and MPOs, it would significantly lengthen the 
timeframe for implementation. Three MPOs stated that a 2-year phase in 
period was not sufficient for a large, multistate area to draft new 
agreements and develop new structures, new rules and new planning 
processes.
    Two COGs and eight local governments commented that 2 years was too 
aggressive given the extent of the required changes, resignations, and 
coordination agreements. They cited the experience of merging MPOs to 
form the Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments, which 
took 4 years despite being a voluntary merger. Based upon this 
experience, they expressed doubt that the 2-year timeframe proposed in 
the NPRM would provide adequate time to complete a merger of MPOs to 
comply with the proposed rule.
    Many commenters cited the complexity of implementing performance-
based planning, and of requirements to prepare a new MTP and TIP, in 
concluding that the 2-year phase-in period was not sufficient. One 
transit agency noted that the 2-year timeline would be difficult to 
meet given the requirement to coordinate performance targets, 
particularly where a UZA crosses State boundaries and the MPOs must 
reconcile multiple goals and objectives. Two MPOs and one State DOT 
stated that if the MPOs are on different MTP cycles and need to develop 
a unified MTP and TIP, the proposed 2-year timeframe would be very 
tight. One State DOT and one MPO noted that in the case of an expanded

[[Page 93459]]

boundary of the MPA, regional travel models would require updates that 
could not be completed within the 2-year timeframe. With regard to the 
timeline proposed in the NPRM's Sec.  450.312(i) for MPA boundary 
redeterminations after release of the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice 
of the Qualifying Urban Areas, two State DOTs stated that 180 days 
would not be sufficient for MPOs to determine if they should be merged 
or develop unified planning products.
    One association noted that the phase-in period of 180 days for the 
metropolitan planning agreements and the phase-in period of 2 years for 
the coordinated planning products were not aligned, and that the 
metropolitan planning agreements could not be updated until the MPO 
boundaries are determined. The commenter proposed that the timeframes 
for revision of the MPO jurisdictional boundaries and metropolitan 
planning agreements need to be aligned. Two MPOs recommended that the 
new requirements be phased in to support the air quality attainment 
deadlines and requirements that will be established for the phase-in of 
the revised 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
Ozone, designations which are to occur by October 1, 2017, in 
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), recognizing that the 
nonattainment areas will have to conform their TIPs and MTPs to the 
SIP.
    Eleven MPOs, three State DOTs, two COGs, and three associations 
requested FHWA and FTA delay the requirement until after the 2020 
decennial census to allow more time for implementation and avoid 
duplication of effort resulting from undertaking MPO coordination 
activities within 2 years after the effective date of the final rule 
and another set of MPO coordination activities after the release of the 
U.S. Census Bureau notice of new UZA boundaries following the 2020 
decennial census.
    Two State legislators and one local government commented that if 
the MPOs in Connecticut that recently completed a voluntary merger 
would be required to do another round of mergers within 2 years as a 
result of the proposed rule, and then be required to merge again after 
the 2020 census, it would be inefficient and waste staff time used for 
the previous MPO merger.
    One State DOT commented that the proposed requirement should be 
suspended until the dispute resolution process could be fully 
developed. One association recommended that the implementation time 
should be extended to 4 years.
    The FHWA and FTA recognize the challenges involved in defining MPA 
boundaries, negotiating new agreements, and implementing new planning 
processes in large and complex MPAs. The FHWA and FTA agree that it 
would be burdensome for MPOs and local planning partners to reconsider 
MPA boundaries 2 years after the date of the final rule, and then 
reconsider the boundaries and agreements after the 2020 census. 
Therefore, in the final rule FHWA and FTA have changed the compliance 
date in Sec. Sec.  450.266(g) and 450.340(h) to the next MTP update 
occurring on or after the date that is 2 years after the date the 
Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying Urban Areas following 
the 2020 census. The FHWA and FTA also changed the 180-day deadline, 
now in redesignated Sec.  450.312(j), to 2 years after the release of 
the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice of the Qualifying Urban Areas for 
a decennial census.

Legal Authority

MPA Boundary Requirements
    The FHWA and FTA received a number of comments questioning the 
proposed requirement that the MPA include the entire urbanized area and 
contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast 
period for the transportation plan. Commenters indicated Congress 
intended the statute to leave all MPA boundary determinations to 
Governors and local governments. The Capital Region Council of 
Governments stated that the current planning regulations reflect the 
flexibility of MPA boundaries implicit in the statute, and the proposed 
rule removed that flexibility. The Sherman-Denison MPO commented that 
the statutory language on MPA boundaries has not changed since ISTEA 
and suggested new statutory language would be required to support a 
change in interpretation by FHWA and FTA. Commenters cited 23 U.S.C. 
134(e)(3) \13\ and 23 U.S.C. 135(d) \14\ as evidence that FHWA and FTA 
lack authority to dictate MPA boundaries or to require changes in MPA 
boundaries. In particular, the Pennsylvania Department of 
Transportation cited 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(4) and (5) as barring the changes 
in boundary provisions in the proposed rule. A few commenters asked 
whether areas designated as nonattainment as of August 10, 2005, would 
be allowed to retain their boundaries due to provisions in existing 23 
CFR 450.312(b) and whether such MPAs would be subject to the proposed 
rule's unified planning products requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(3) provides ``[i]dentification of new 
urbanized areas within existing planning area boundaries.--The 
designation by the Bureau of the Census of new urbanized areas 
within an existing metropolitan planning area shall not require the 
redesignation of the existing metropolitan planning organization.''
    \14\ 23 U.S.C. 134(d) establishes in detail the process for 
designation and redesignation of MPOs by the Governor and local 
governments, as well as organizational and representation 
requirements for MPOs. 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(4) and (d)(5) address the 
continuing authority of agencies with multimodal transportation 
responsibilities as of December 18, 1991, and continuity of MPO 
designations until redesignation occurs. 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) 
establishes authority for the designation of more than one MPO in an 
MPA if the size and complexity of the existing MPA make it 
appropriate to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, FHWA and FTA point to the statutory 
provisions defining MPA boundaries. The statute is explicit with regard 
to the minimum required inclusions: The existing urbanized area, as 
designated by the Census Bureau, plus the contiguous area expected to 
become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the 
transportation plan. 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A). While setting the 
boundaries of the 20-year forecast area may be subject to some 
discretion given the need to make judgments about future events, the 
statute leaves no room for interpretation about what constitutes the 
Census Bureau-designated urbanized area. The FHWA and FTA acknowledge 
their joint metropolitan planning regulations have not been clear with 
regard to the treatment of urbanized areas under this statutory 
boundary provision. Due to this lack of clarity, FHWA and FTA have been 
aware for some time that the practices of some MPOs have not been 
consistent with these statutory MPA boundary requirements. This rule is 
intended to correct these problems by more closely aligning the 
regulatory boundary provisions with 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2). An agency has 
discretion to alter a prior interpretation of a statute it administers 
if the agency follows the proper procedures (e.g., notice-and-comment 
rulemaking) and engages in reasonable decisionmaking that meets the 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.\15\ The FHWA and FTA 
believe this rulemaking meets those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FCC v. Fox Television 556 US 502, 514-16 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA do not agree that this rule conflicts with 23 
U.S.C. 134(d)(4) and (5). First, if the MPO designation provisions 
controlled the determination of MPA boundaries, there would be no need 
for the separate boundary-setting provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e). As a 
matter of statutory interpretation, FHWA and FTA decline

[[Page 93460]]

the commenters' invitation for FHWA and FTA to ignore the boundary 
provisions when applying the statute. The statute does not support the 
comments. Section 134(d)(4) contains a grandfathering provision that 
exempts certain MPOs only from the other requirements of 23 U.S.C. 
134(d), and Section 134(d)(5) only states that an MPO designation 
remains effective until the MPO is redesignated. The remaining 
paragraphs of 23 U.S.C. 134(d) set methods for designating and 
redesignating MPOs (paragraphs (1) and (6)), and set a specific 
structure and board membership for any MPO serving a transportation 
management area (paragraphs (2) and (3)). Paragraph (7) permits the 
designation of more than one MPO in an MPA if the MPA is unusually 
large and complex, a possibility that is fully incorporated into this 
rule. In summary, Section 134(d) defines how MPOs are designated and 
the structure of certain MPOs; it does not describe the MPAs that the 
MPOs must conduct planning for, which is left to Section 134(e). Thus, 
Section 134(d) does not conflict with this rule's MPA boundary 
requirements.
    Moreover, 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(3) is instructive with respect to the 
relationship between the designation/redesignation provisions in 23 
U.S.C. 134(d) and the MPA boundary provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e). The 
inclusion of the redesignation exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(3) 
confirms that Congress viewed the MPA boundary provisions to operate 
independently of the designation/redesignation provisions. Thus, 
questions about the need for designation or redesignation, and how that 
would occur, are separate from, and do not alter the effects of, MPA 
boundary provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e).
    This rule also does not conflict with 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(3), which 
provides that if the Bureau of the Census designates a new urbanized 
area within an existing MPA, a redesignation of the existing MPO is not 
required. The rule does not alter provisions pertaining to designation 
of new urbanized areas by the Census Bureau, and it retains the 
regulatory version found in 23 CFR 450.312(e).
    Commenters asked about the effect of 23 CFR 450.312(b) 
(implementing 23 U.S.C. 134(e)) concerning boundary retention for MPAs 
in urbanized area designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon 
monoxide as of August 10, 2005. The commenters asked what the effect of 
the rule would be if UZAs extended into two MPAs and whether, if such 
MPAs kept their August 10, 2005, boundaries under the proposed rule, 
the MPOs serving such MPAs would be subject to the unified planning 
requirements in the proposed rule. In response, FHWA and FTA continue 
to give the same meaning to 23 CFR 450.312(b) and 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(4) 
as they have since Congress enacted the provision in TEA-21 (1998) and 
modified it in SAFETEA-LU (2005). The FHWA and FTA conclude that 
Congress intended the provision to be time-limited to address issues 
that had arisen at the time these statutes were enacted, not to create 
a permanent or global exemption from other boundary requirements under 
the statute, including those in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2). Their purpose and 
effect have lapsed; the exemption found in subsection (e)(4) are 
bounded by the life of the nonattainment designations for ozone and 
carbon monoxide that were in effect as of August 10, 2005. In 2012, EPA 
made new ozone nonattainment designations under the 2008 ozone 
standards.\16\ The EPA also revoked the 1997 ozone standards, under 
which designations were in effect in 2010.\17\ The EPA terminated all 
nonattainment designations for carbon monoxide by September 27, 2010, 
when EPA designated all existing nonattainment areas as attainment or 
maintenance areas.\18\ Those urbanized areas originally covered by 23 
U.S.C. 134(e)(4), but which are subject to these post-2005 EPA 
nonattainment designations for ozone and/or carbon monoxide, are now 
subject to 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(5). Section 134(e)(5) requires the MPA to 
encompass the entire urbanized area plus the 20-year forecast area as 
described in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A). Similarly, those urbanized areas 
originally covered by 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(4) but which are subject to the 
post-2005 EPA designations of areas in attainment or maintenance for 
ozone or carbon monoxide no longer need the protection that this 
provision provided; they, too, are subject to boundary requirements of 
23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A). Thus, all of these areas are now subject to the 
boundary and unified planning provisions in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See EPA ozone designation notices at 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 
2012) and 77 FR 34221 (June 11, 2012).
    \17\ The EPA initially issued a notice revoking the 1997 
standards for transportation conformity purposes only. See EPA 
notice at 77 FR 30160 (May 21, 2012). As a result of litigation, 
that partial revocation was determined invalid and EPA issued a full 
revocation. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \18\ A list of EPA's Federal Register redesignation notices for 
carbon monoxide, including redesignations from August 10, 2005, 
through September 27, 2010, is available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cfrnrpt1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unified Planning Products Requirements
    A number of commenters stated that the proposed requirement for 
unified planning products is not found in the metropolitan planning 
statute and exceeds congressional intent. Some cited language in 23 
U.S.C. 134(i)(1)(A) as evidence that the proposed requirement conflicts 
with the statute.\19\ Others cited 23 U.S.C. 134(c) \20\ and (j) \21\ 
for the same purpose. A joint comment letter from the Association of 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, NARC, and the National Association 
of Development Organizations stated that the proposal is contrary to 
the practical framework and to 23 U.S.C. 134(b), (h)(2), (i), and (j). 
The commenters indicated the plain language of 23 U.S.C. 134, when 
viewed in the context of the statute, made it evident the proposal 
exceeds statutory authority. The commenters further stated that 
coordination among multiple MPOs in the same MPA is governed by 23 
U.S.C. 134(f)(1) \22\ and 134(g)(1),\23\ and that the NPRM proposal 
exceeds those provisions. According to the commenters, had Congress 
intended to create such a complicated and intricate

[[Page 93461]]

requirement, it would have explicitly done so. The commenters pointed 
to 23 U.S.C. 134(g) as the sole part of the statute where Congress 
addresses MTP and TIP coordination among multiple MPOs in an MPA.\24\ 
The commenters also pointed to the 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1) provision for 
coordination across State lines, as well as 23 U.S.C. 134(i), as 
evidence that Congress did not intend to require unified planning 
products or to give DOT the authority to do so. The commenters stated 
that the performance-based planning provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(h), 
adopted by Congress in MAP-21, reaffirmed the expectation that each MPO 
must produce its own planning products because the statute does not 
explicitly allow for the possibility of unified planning by multiple 
MPOs in a single MPA. The commenters rebutted the discussion in the 
NPRM that stated the NPRM proposals represented a return to more 
extensive coordination and decisionmaking requirements under the 1993 
version of the planning regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(1)(A) states, in part, ``[e]ach 
metropolitan planning organization shall prepare and update a 
transportation plan for its metropolitan planning area in accordance 
with the requirements of this subsection.''
    \20\ 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(1) provides ``[t]o accomplish the 
objectives in subsection (a), metropolitan planning organizations 
designated under subsection (d), in cooperation with the State and 
public transportation operators, shall develop long-range 
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs through 
a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning for 
metropolitan areas of the State .'' Section 134(c)(2) states, in 
part, ``. . . [t]he plans and TIPs for each metropolitan area shall 
provide for [systems and facilities] . . . that will function as an 
intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan planning area 
. . .''
    \21\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(1)(A) states, in part, ``. . . the 
metropolitan planning organization designated for a metropolitan 
area shall develop a TIP for the metropolitan planning area . . .'' 
Sections 134(j)(1)(B), (j)(1)(C), (j)(1)(D)(ii), (j)(4), (j)(6)(A)-
(b) similarly use the singular reference to MPO in provisions 
concerning development, approval, and publication of the TIP and the 
selection of projects.
    \22\ 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1) states, in part, ``[t]he Secretary 
shall encourage each Governor with responsibility for a portion of a 
multistate metropolitan area and the appropriate metropolitan 
planning organizations to provide coordinated transportation 
planning for the entire metropolitan area.''
    \23\ 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(1) reads ``Nonattainment areas.--If more 
than 1 metropolitan planning organization has authority within a 
metropolitan area or an area which is designated as a nonattainment 
area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7401 et seq.), each metropolitan planning organization shall consult 
with the other metropolitan planning organizations designated for 
such area and the State in the coordination of plans and TIPs 
required by this section.''
    \24\ In addition to the nonatttainment area provisions in 23 
U.S.C. 134(g)(1), the section includes provisions for coordinating 
transportation improvements located within the boundaries of more 
than one MPA (23 U.S.C. 134(g)(2)), and for consultation and 
consideration of other types of planning activities under the 
responsibility of other types of entities (23 U.S.C. 134(g)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters stated that DOT's long-standing interpretation 
of the planning statute as allowing separate MTPs and TIPs for MPOs 
sharing an urbanized area confirms that the NPRM proposal for unified 
planning products is contrary to the existing statute. Commenters 
stated that the DOT reauthorization proposal, the Generating Renewal, 
Opportunity and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and 
Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act 
(GROW AMERICA Act), contained provisions like those in the NPRM. 
According to the commenters, the GROW AMERICA Act provisions serve as 
an admission by DOT that new statutory authority is required to support 
the NPRM's proposals. Some commenters stated that Congress has had a 
number of opportunities over the years to adopt provisions like those 
in the NPRM, specifically including enactment of the MAP-21 and the 
FAST Act, but has chosen not to do so.
    The FHWA and FTA have fully considered the comments stating the 
proposals conflict with 23 U.S.C. 134 in general; conflict specifically 
with 23 U.S.C. 134(b), (e), (i), (f)(1), (g), (h), and (j); and 
conflict with existing metropolitan planning practices. The FHWA and 
FTA understand that the commenters believe the statute makes it evident 
that: (1) Each MPO is allowed to prepare its own MTP and TIP, 
regardless of whether the MPO is the sole MPO in its MPA or is one of 
two or more MPOs in the MPA; and (2) where an MPA crosses State lines, 
the Secretary's authority is limited to encouraging the affected MPOs 
to coordinate for the entire MPA.
    The FHWA and FTA do not agree that the statute constrains the 
agencies' authority in the manner commenters suggest. Nothing in 23 
U.S.C. 134(f)(1) and (g)(1) or any other part of Section 134 clearly 
establishes the applicable coordination requirements.
    The FHWA and FTA first considered whether 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1) and 
(g)(1) expressly address the question of how multiple MPOs in the same 
MPA handle coordination and decisionmaking within the MPA. The answer 
rests on whether the use of the term ``metropolitan area'' in the two 
provisions means ``metropolitan planning area'' as defined in 23 U.S.C. 
134(b)(1). The FHWA and FTA believe that the term ``metropolitan area'' 
in 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1) and (g)(1) is ambiguous, thus providing FHWA and 
FTA authority to interpret the vague statutory language.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 
464 U.S. 837, 862-864 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The enactment of ISTEA in 1991 produced the first detailed 
metropolitan planning statute, codified in 23 U.S.C. 134. The ISTEA 
version of the metropolitan planning statute used the term 
``metropolitan area'' in various provisions governing planning area 
boundaries, multistate coordination, and coordination among planning 
entities.\26\ The statute did not define the term. In the next 
reauthorization act, TEA-21 (1998), Congress reenacted the metropolitan 
planning statute in its entirety, including substantial amendments to 
many parts of the statute. Congress substituted the term ``metropolitan 
planning area'' for both ``urbanized area'' and ``metropolitan area'' 
in several places in the statute. Specifically, Congress replaced 
``metropolitan area'' with ``metropolitan planning area'' in the 23 
U.S.C. 134(c) (1998) provision on planning boundaries, but Congress 
retained ``metropolitan area'' in the multistate coordination provision 
in 23 U.S.C. 134(d) (1998) and in the coordination provision in section 
134(e) (1998). Neither ``metropolitan area'' nor ``metropolitan 
planning area'' was defined in TEA-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. 134(c), (d)(1), and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SAFETEA-LU (2005), Congress again reenacted the entire 
metropolitan planning statute. Congress added a statutory definition 
for the term ``metropolitan planning area'' that remains in effect 
today. The statutory definition states ``[t]he term metropolitan 
planning area means the geographic area determined by agreement between 
the metropolitan planning organization for the area and the Governor 
under subsection (e).'' 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(1). Subsection (e), which 
limits the discretion of the Governor and the MPO in setting MPA 
boundaries, defines minimum and optional MPA boundaries. As in TEA-21, 
Congress retained the use of ``metropolitan area'' in a number of 
provisions, including in (1) the multistate coordination provision, 
which was redesignated from section 134(d) to section 134(f); and (2) 
the coordination provision, which was redesignated from section 134(e) 
to section 134(g). Congress did not adopt a definition of 
``metropolitan area'' in SAFETEA-LU or in subsequent legislation.
    This history leads FHWA and FTA to conclude that Congress intended 
the two terms to have different meanings. Even if FHWA and FTA treat 
the statutory history as insufficient evidence of congressional intent, 
the conclusion is the same. Under conventions of statutory 
interpretation, where congressional intent is unclear, if a word is not 
statutorily defined or a term of art, it is typically given its 
ordinary meaning.\27\ In 23 U.S.C. 134, the terms ``urbanized area'' 
and ``metropolitan planning area'' are terms defined by the statute. 23 
U.S.C. 134(b)(1) and (7). By contrast, ``metropolitan area'' is not 
defined. That leaves the question whether it is a term of art, or a 
term that should be given its ordinary meaning. Either result leads 
FHWA and FTA to conclude that the multistate provision in 23 U.S.C. 
134(f)(1), and the coordination provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(1), as 
well as their statutory predecessors, refer not to metropolitan 
planning areas as defined in 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(1), but to broader areas 
that include both an urban core and adjacent communities. The FHWA and 
FTA believe it is reasonable to consider ``metropolitan area'' a term 
of art in the context of the metropolitan planning statute, and to look 
to the U.S. Census Bureau for a definition just as 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(7) 
looks to the Census

[[Page 93462]]

Bureau for the definition of ``urbanized area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction Sec.  47:29 (7th 
ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Census Bureau describes the term ``metropolitan area'' as 
having been adopted in 1990 to collectively refer to the metropolitan 
statistical areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, and 
primary metropolitan statistical areas.\28\ Metropolitan statistical 
areas are core-based statistical areas ``associated with at least one 
urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000; it comprises 
the central county or counties or equivalent entities containing the 
core, plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social 
and economic integration with the central county or counties as 
measured through commuting.'' \29\ The metropolitan planning statute 
recognizes these larger areas in the 23 U.S.C. 134(e) MPA boundaries 
provision, which provides the MPA ``may encompass the entire 
metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical 
area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census.'' 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``About Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,'' 
U.S. Census Bureau, available online at http://www.census.gov/population/metro/about/.
    \29\ ``Geographic Cores and Concepts--Core-Based Statistical 
Areas and Related Statistical Areas'', U.S. Census Bureau, available 
at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_cbsa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, FHWA and FTA have concluded that the 
coordination provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134(f)(1) and (g)(1) establish the 
coordination requirements applicable when there are two or more MPOs in 
a general metropolitan area. Neither provision prescribes requirements 
that govern coordination among MPOs where more than one MPO has been 
designated in the same MPA. This interpretation gives meaning to both 
the undefined term ``metropolitan area'' and the statutorily-defined 
term ``metropolitan planning area.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ``It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, 
to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any 
construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the 
meaning of the language it employed.'' Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 
U.S. 147, 152 (1883).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining parts of 23 U.S.C. 134 also do not definitively 
establish how multiple MPOs in the same MPA are to coordinate their 
plans and TIPs. The FHWA and FTA considered both individual provisions 
in 23 U.S.C. 134, and the statute as a whole, and considered the 
statute in the context of metropolitan transportation planning 
practices. Many sections of 23 U.S.C. 134, including those specific to 
MTP and TIP preparation, reference the responsibilities of MPOs in the 
singular. The language on MTPs and TIPs refers to ``each'' MPO and 
``the'' MPO. Commenters state this use of the singular form means that 
each MPO has the right to prepare its own plan and TIP, regardless of 
the presence of other MPOs in the statutorily-defined MPA.
    However, the use of the singular in those statutory provisions is 
subject to different interpretations. First, as a matter of statutory 
construction, absent clear language to the contrary, the use of the 
singular in statutory language includes the plural and vice-versa.\31\ 
Thus, the provisions cited by commenters could be read in either the 
singular or the plural, and the use of the singular is not 
determinative. Second, it is evident from a comprehensive reading of 
the MPA and MPO provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134 that the statute intends 
for a typical MPA to have a single MPO responsible for the entire MPA, 
including the urbanized area(s) included in the MPA. E.g., MPA boundary 
provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(e). If Congress had not intended the norm 
to be ``one MPO per MPA,'' there would have been no need for the 
exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(7), which allows the 
designation of more than one MPO in an MPA under certain circumstances. 
Thus, it is not surprising that statutory provisions addressing the 
development and use of plans and TIPs are written to address the norm, 
and are cast in the singular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 1. U.S.C. 1; see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction 
Sec.  47:34 (7th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA have thus determined that Congress did not 
directly address the question of how multiple MPOs in the same MPA 
ought to coordinate and make planning decisions for the MPA. This 
determination includes the situation where the MPA (as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 134(b)(1)) crosses State lines. Accordingly, FHWA and FTA are 
charged with deciding how such coordination ought to occur. This rule 
addresses that question.
    The FHWA and FTA disagree with comments stating the proposed rule 
exceeds FHWA's and FTA's authority because the rule would change long-
standing FHWA/FTA statutory interpretations of MPA boundary 
requirements that Congress has tacitly endorsed. While FHWA and FTA 
acknowledge that there is a general presumption that Congress acts with 
knowledge of agency regulatory interpretations of a statute,\32\ the 
law is clear that an agency has the discretion to alter its 
interpretation of a statute so long as the agency follows the proper 
procedures (e.g., notice-and-comment rulemaking) and engages in 
reasonable decisionmaking that meets the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.\33\ The FHWA and FTA believe this 
rulemaking satisfies both of those tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction Sec.  47:8 (7th 
ed.).
    \33\ Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-864 (1984), ``[a]n initial agency 
interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, 
the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying 
interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. 
Moreover, the fact that the agency has adopted different definitions 
in different contexts adds force to the argument that the definition 
itself is flexible, particularly since Congress has never indicated 
any disapproval of a flexible reading of the statute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHWA and FTA also disagree with comments stating that the 
proposed rule exceeds FHWA's and FTA's authority because Congress 
rejected or failed to adopt the same provisions in MAP-21 and the FAST 
Act, including not adopting DOT's GROW AMERICA proposals. An agency's 
submission of a proposal for legislation does not constitute an 
admission that additional statutory authority is needed in order to 
accomplish the objectives of the regulatory proposal. An agency submits 
legislative proposals for a variety of reasons, including a desire to 
have Congress clarify existing authority in order to overcome potential 
opposition from the public or other stakeholders to the agency's 
exercise of the authority. Similarly, the absence of an agency's 
submitted legislative proposal in subsequently enacted legislation does 
not constitute affirmative evidence that Congress rejected the proposal 
or determined the agency lacked sufficient authority under existing 
law. There may be many reasons for the legislative outcome, including a 
congressional decision that existing law is sufficient to authorize the 
proposal.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 292-93 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FHWA and FTA considered the comments stating that 
Congress's enactment of performance-based planning requirements in 23 
U.S.C. 134(h) proves the statute requires each MPO to produce its own 
planning products. The FHWA and FTA believe Congress crafted the 
provisions in 23 U.S.C. 134(h), like those in other parts of the 
statute, to establish the process for the typical MPA structure of one 
MPO per MPA. For the reasons previously discussed, FHWA and FTA believe 
Congress did not explicitly address the question of how MPOs are to 
establish targets where there is more

[[Page 93463]]

than one MPO in the same MPA. This rule addresses that question.

V. Summary of Major Changes Made in the Final Rule

    The final rule includes the changes proposed in the NPRM, but with 
the revisions and additions described below, which FHWA and FTA made in 
response to comments.

Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and 
Programming

450.226 Phase-In of New Requirements
    Under this final rule, the implementation deadline for the 
requirement that States, MPOs and operators of public transportation 
have a current metropolitan planning agreement, which will identify 
coordination strategies that support cooperative decisionmaking and the 
resolution of disagreements, is changed from not later than 2 years 
after the date of publication of the rule to not later than 2 years 
after the date the Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying 
Urban Areas following the 2020 census.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

450.312 Metropolitan Area Boundaries
    Section 450.312(i) (as redesignated)--The final rule creates an 
exception, in new Sec.  450.312(i), to the unified planning products 
requirements applicable where there are two or more MPOs in the same 
MPA. The exception allows the multiple MPOs in an MPA to continue to 
generate separate, but coordinated and consistent, planning products if 
FHWA and FTA approve a request from the affected Governor(s) and all 
MPOs in the MPA that meets the requirements established in Sec.  
450.450(i). The exception is discussed in detail under Unified Planning 
Products: Requirements and Exception in the ``Discussion of Major 
Issues Raised by Comments'' section of this preamble.
    Section 450.312(j) (as redesignated)--The final rule changes the 
time period MPOs have to adjust MPA boundaries after a U.S. Census 
Bureau designation that defines two previously separate UZAs as a 
single UZA. The final rule changes the time period for review and 
adjustment of MPA boundaries, so that one MPA includes the entire new 
UZA area, from 180 days to 2 years after the date the Census Bureau 
releases its notice of Qualifying Urban Areas following a decennial 
census.
450.340 Phase-In of New Requirements
    In the final rule, FHWA and FTA changed the deadline in Sec.  
450.340(h) to provide additional time for compliance and to clarify the 
scope of the phase-in provision. The deadline for compliance proposed 
in the NPRM was the next MTP update occurring on or after 2 years after 
the effective date of the rule. The deadline for compliance in the 
final rule is the next MTP update occurring on or after the date that 
is 2-years after the date the U.S. Census Bureau releases its notice of 
Qualifying Urban Areas following the 2020 census. For clarity, the 
final rule lists the sections to which this phase-in provision applies.

VI. Section-by-Section Discussion of Changes Made in the Final Rule

Subpart B--Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and 
Programming

Section 450.226--Phase-In of New Requirements
    The rule provides a phase-in provision for the requirement in 23 
CFR 450.208(a)(1) that metropolitan planning agreement must include 
strategies for coordination and the resolution of disagreements. In 
Sec.  450.226(h), the rule provides a phase-in period ending 2 years 
after the date the Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying 
Urban Areas following the 2020 census.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

Section 450.312--MPA Boundaries
    The rule removes the first sentence of Sec.  450.312(b), which is 
outdated grandfathering language concerning MPAs with August 10, 2005, 
nonattainment designations for ozone and carbon monoxide. Comments 
received in response to the NPRM showed the provision causes confusion 
about the applicability of other parts of the regulation. The FHWA and 
FTA have concluded the statutory provision on which the grandfather 
provision was based no longer has any effect. See discussion in Legal 
Authority, MPA Boundary Requirements in the Response to Major Issues 
Raised by Comments. The FHWA and FTA revised the second sentence to 
clarify the reference to designation procedures and add a reference to 
MPA boundary provisions.
    The rule adds Sec.  450.312(i) as a result of comments received on 
the NPRM. The new paragraph creates an exception from the unified 
planning products requirements established by the rule. The exception 
is discussed in detail under Unified Planning Products: Requirements 
and Exception in the ``Discussion of Major Issues Raised by Comments'' 
section of this preamble.
    The rule changes the Sec.  450.312(j) (as redesignated) time period 
for review and adjustment of MPA boundaries after a U.S. Census Bureau 
designation that defines two previously separate UZAs as a single UZA, 
so that one MPA includes the entire new UZA area, from 180 days to 2 
years after the date the Census Bureau releases its notice of 
Qualifying Urban Areas following a decennial census. The rule also 
clarifies that Governor(s) and MPO(s) are responsible for reviewing MPA 
boundaries after each census and taking action to adjust MPA boundaries 
as needed to comply with boundary requirements.
Section 450.340--Phase-In of New Requirements
    The rule adds phase-in provisions to Sec.  450.340 for certain 
parts of Subchapter C. In a new paragraph (h), States and MPOs are 
given a longer time period than proposed in the NPRM to become fully 
compliant with the new MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement 
provisions, and with the requirements for jointly established 
performance targets and a single MTP and TIP for the entire MPA. To 
address comments on implementation timelines and the need for greater 
clarity in the rule, the phase-in provision lists the specific parts of 
Subchapter C subject to delayed compliance. Section 450.340 requires 
the Governor(s) and MPOs to document their determination of whether the 
size and complexity of the MPA justifies the designation of multiple 
MPOs; however, that decision is not subject to approval by FHWA and 
FTA. Full compliance for all MPOs within the MPA will be required 
before the next regularly scheduled update of an MTP for any MPO within 
the MPA, following the date that is 2 years after the date the Census 
Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying Urban Areas following the 2020 
census.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA and FTA have determined that this rulemaking is a 
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 
12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures 
due to significant public interest in the area of MPO reform.

[[Page 93464]]

However, this rule is not estimated to be economically significant 
within the meaning of E.O. 12866. This action complies with E.O.s 12866 
and 13563 to improve regulation.
    This final rule improves the clarity of the joint FHWA and FTA 
planning rules by better aligning the regulations with the statute. 
Additionally, the MPOs within the same MPA must establish procedures 
for joint decisionmaking as well as a process for resolving 
disagreements. These changes also are intended to result in better 
outcomes for the MPOs, State agencies, providers of public 
transportation, and the public by promoting a regional focus for 
metropolitan planning, and by unifying MPO processes within an 
urbanized area in order to improve the ability of the public to 
understand and participate in the transportation planning process.
    The unified planning requirements of this rule affect primarily 
urbanized areas with multiple MPOs planning for parts of the same UZA, 
or 142 of the 409 MPOs in the country. The affected MPOs are: (1) MPOs 
that have been designated for an urbanized area for which other MPOs 
also have been designated; and/or (2) MPOs where an adjacent urbanized 
area has spread into its MPA boundary as a result of the periodic U.S. 
Census Bureau redesignation of UZAs. An MPO designated as an MPO in 
multiple MPAs, in which one or more other MPOs are also designated, 
would be required to participate in the planning processes for each 
MPA. Thus, under this rule, MPOs that have jurisdiction in more than 
one MPA would be required to participate in multiple separate planning 
processes. However, the affected MPOs could exercise several options to 
reduce or eliminate these impacts, including adjusting MPA boundaries 
to eliminate overlap, or by merging MPOs. In some cases, a Governor (or 
Governors in the case of multistate urbanized areas) and MPOs could 
determine that the size and complexity of the area make designation of 
multiple MPOs in a single MPA appropriate. In that case, the rule 
requires those multiple MPOs to jointly develop unified planning 
products: A single MTP, a single TIP, and a jointly-established set of 
performance targets for the MPA. The final rule includes a new option 
for MPAs with multiple MPOs that offers, under certain conditions, an 
exception to the requirement for unified planning products. Further, 
the final rule requires all MPOs to ensure their agreements with State 
DOTs and providers of public transportation include written procedures 
for joint decisionmaking and dispute resolution.
    The FHWA and FTA have estimated that the maximum annual cost of 
implementation of the provisions of this action would be $86.3 million. 
This estimate used high cost estimates to avoid any risk of 
underestimation. After evaluating the costs and benefits of this final 
action, FHWA and FTA conclude that the maximum nationwide impact does 
not exceed the $100 million annual threshold that defines a significant 
economic impact.
    When extending the comment period FHWA and FTA requested additional 
comments on the potential costs of the rule, and the analysis conducted 
drew upon these submitted comments. One hundred fifty-eight respondents 
commented on FHWA's and FTA's evaluation of the costs and benefits of 
these proposed amendments. All of the respondents who commented on this 
section indicated that the evaluation underestimated the cost to 
implement the proposed regulatory provisions. Some respondents noted 
the following: The analysis of the costs of the proposed changes seems 
simplistic and inadequate; the NPRM provides no calculations or 
evidence to justify its assertion that costs will be minimal; the 
proposed rule does not fully contemplate the level of additional work 
that will be required for State DOTs and MPOs to comply with the 
changes; and evidence suggests that the costs will not be minimal. 
Others claimed that the increased costs would be considerable or 
significant and that merging MPOs is a time-consuming, complex and 
costly process. One stated that merging MPOs would require the 
involvement of multiple boards, commissions, and councils, as well as 
cost time and money, highlighting that the attorney fees alone for the 
multiple organizations in the process of any merger would be daunting. 
Many claimed that the NPRM would impose immense budgetary and 
administrative burdens on their jurisdictions, and that the 
administrative effort and expense would be huge. Thirteen respondents 
noted that the formation of the Lower Connecticut River Valley Council 
of Governments resulting from the voluntary merger of Connecticut River 
Estuary Regional Planning Agency and Midstate Regional Planning Agency 
cost approximately $1.7 million in staff time and direct costs and took 
4 years to complete. The Michigan Department of Transportation noted 
that the process to establish a new MPO for the Midland UZA took 18 
months and approximately $300,000. The Richmond Regional Transportation 
Planning Organization stated that FHWA and FTA should consider the 
direct capital costs, lost productivity and opportunity costs for staff 
and elected officials, and other indirect costs in analyzing the 
financial impact of the proposed rule upon affected MPOs.
    The AASHTO noted that the NPRM does not take into account the 
additional resources needed to implement the proposed provisions. 
Others pointed out that no additional funding is proposed and suggested 
that additional Federal funds should be provided to MPOs to offset the 
cost of implementing the proposed requirements.
    In response, FHWA and FTA note that the total Federal, State, and 
local cost in FY 2016 of the planning program is approximately $1.5 
billion. Generally, 80 percent of these eligible costs are directly 
reimbursable through Federal transportation funds; however, AMPO's 2013 
MPO Salary Survey Results \35\ indicated that ``the vast majority of 
MPOs received more than 70% of their funding from federal sources'' 
including Federal transportation funds allocated for metropolitan 
planning (23 U.S.C. 104(d) and 49 U.S.C. 5305(f)) and for State 
planning and research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5305(f)). While no 
additional funds will be provided to the MPOs to implement the 
provisions of the final rule, FHWA and FTA note that MPOs have the 
flexibility to use some FHWA capital funds or some FTA formula funds 
for transportation planning (23 U.S.C. 133(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. 
5307(a)(1)(B) and 5311(b)(1)(A)). The FHWA and FTA also expect there 
will be some cost savings for State DOTs, which will benefit from 
having fewer TIPs to incorporate into their STIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 2013 
MPO Salary Survey, published: January 23, 2014, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple respondents emphasized that requiring MPOs to merge and 
re-organize or to develop new memoranda of understanding (MOUs), 
representation selection processes, and unified planning products 
without additional funds would only serve to undermine transportation 
planning because it would require them to redirect considerable 
resources from core planning functions. Federal funding spent to 
implement the proposed rule would reduce the amount of planning funds 
now being used by MPOs and States to meet their current 
responsibilities. Seven respondents asserted that implementation of the 
proposed amendments would increase the cost of the planning process, as 
conducting metropolitan planning over

[[Page 93465]]

more expansive areas would lead to less efficient and less effective 
planning and decisionmaking. Two respondents noted that larger MPOs 
would require MPO members to travel longer distances to attend 
meetings, resulting in higher travel costs to MPOs. Two respondents 
cited delays and added costs that would result from the need to 
coordinate among four State DOTs and Governors and three MPOs, which 
would be an unnecessary burden on completing critical transportation 
projects in the region. Others noted that such large MPOs would add 
significant time, logistical challenges, complexities, effort, and cost 
to the project development process, which goes against the intent of 
the FAST Act to streamline project delivery. Finally, multiple 
respondents asserted that the inefficiency implications of the NPRM far 
outweigh the benefits that would be achieved.
    In response to these comments, FHWA and FTA have estimated the 
maximum average annual costs of the implementation of the provisions of 
this final rule using the assumption that all 142 MPOs would choose the 
option to merge. While this scenario produces the highest cost 
estimates of all the options for compliance with the rule, and it is 
considered to be highly unlikely since the final rule provides three 
options in addition to a merger: To adjust boundaries, to develop 
unified planning products, or to seek an exception from the unified 
planning products requirement. The FHWA and FTA have estimated the cost 
to merge on the basis of information provided by the Michigan 
Transportation Planning Association, the Midland Area Transportation 
Study (MATS), the Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance, and the Lower 
Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (River COG) in response 
to the NPRM. The total cost to merge is assumed to be equivalent to the 
combined annual budget of each agency involved in the merger. As 
suggested by MATS in their response to the NPRM, cost of the merger 
would include direct, indirect, and opportunity costs, such as merger 
process development, merger formal agreements, legal counsel, MPO 
structure/organization development, merged MPO administrative issues, 
merged MPO committees development, merged MPO task development, loss of 
institutional knowledge, funding instability costs, loss of public 
participation, and delays and loss of projects.36 37 Any 
mergers are assumed to be implemented over a 4-year period, which is 
consistent with the experience of the River COG merger and with an 
MPO's 4-year cycle to develop its principal planning products: The MTP 
and the TIP. The Michigan respondents also suggested that the cost of 
using the option to develop unified planning products would be 
approximately 45 percent to 50 percent of the cost to merge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Comments from Midland Area Transportation Study, Posted 10/
24/2016; ID: FHWA-2016-0016-0597.
    \37\ The FHWA and FTA do not agree that the rule would result in 
the loss of public participation and the delay and/or loss of 
projects. However, those costs are embedded in MATS overall cost 
estimate. For this reason, the estimates of the costs of the rule 
may be overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the annual operating budget for the MPOs subject to 
this regulation, FHWA and FTA relied upon the Association of 
Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (AMPO) 2013 MPO Salary Survey 
Results, published January 23, 2014 (Table 1: MPO Survey Data). The 
AMPO Salary Survey included 135 MPOs; however, only 35 of the 142 
affected MPOs were included in the survey results. While this survey 
represents 25 percent of the affected MPOs, FHWA and FTA determined 
that it would provide an adequate indication of MPO operating budgets.

                                            Table 1--MPO Survey Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                              MPOs                                 affected MPOs  Number of MPOs    Sample size
                                                                  in AMPO sample     affected           (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000,000......................................................               9              31              29
200,000 to 1,000,000............................................              17              70              24
<200,000........................................................               9              41              22
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              35             142              25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying the operating budget information from the AMPO Survey, 
FHWA and FTA estimated the average annual operating budget for the MPOs 
affected by this rulemaking on the basis of the size of the MPO: MPOs 
with greater than 1 million population; MPOs with populations from 
200,000 to 1 million; and MPOs with populations less than 200,000 (non-
TMAs). The resulting distribution is shown in Table 2: MPO Average 
Annual Operating Budgets. As the survey was undertaken in 2013, FHWA 
and FTA escalated the average annual operating budgets to 2015 using 
the Consumer Price Index.\38\ The estimated operating budgets by size 
of MPO are reported in Table 2: MPO Average Annual Operating Budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers rose by 
1.74 percent from 2013 to 2015.

              Table 2--MPO Average Annual Operating Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual     Average annual
          MPO population             operating budget   operating budget
                                         2013 \1\           2015 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000,000........................         $6,260,000         $6,370,000
200,000 to 1,000,000..............          1,800,000          1,830,000
<200,000..........................            416,110            423,000
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................          8,476,110          8,623,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 2013 MPO Salary
  Survey Results, Published January 23, 2014.
\2\ Escalated to 2015 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All
  Urban Consumers.


[[Page 93466]]

    On the basis of the estimated 2016 MPO operating budgets, and 
assuming that the merger process will be undertaken over 4 years and be 
completed within 2 years after the U.S. Census Bureau publishes the 
delineation of new UZA boundaries based on the 2020 Census of the 
Population, FHWA and FTA estimated the average annual cost to an MPO 
choosing the option to merge. The estimated average annual cost to an 
MPO to merge, presented in Table 3 below, is: $1.6 million for very 
large MPOs with populations greater than 1 million; $460,000 for MPOs 
with populations from 200,000 to 1 million; and $106,000 for small MPOs 
with a population less than 200,000. In essence, these assumptions 
suggest that the cost of the merge option would be 25 percent of an 
MPO's annual operating budget for each of the four years of the merger 
process. The estimates are presented in Table 3: Estimated Average 
Annual Cost of Option to Merge.

                            Table 3--Estimated Average Annual Cost of Option To Merge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Total annual
                                  Number of MPOS  Average annual   Total annual    cost for 142   Average annual
         MPO population              affected        operating       operating     MPOs to merge   cost to merge
                                                    budget 2016       budget        (4 years )        per MPO
                                               B               C               D               E               F
                                                                           B x C             D/4             E/B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000,000......................              31      $6,370,000    $197,470,000     $49,368,000      $1,593,000
200,000 to 1,000,000............              70       1,830,000     128,100,000      32,025,000         458,000
<200,000........................              41         423,000      17,343,000       4,336,000         106,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             142  ..............  ..............      85,729,000  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To test the methodology, FHWA and FTA applied this approach to 
estimate the merger cost for the River COG. The methodology produced a 
total estimated cost of the merger of approximately $1.83 million. The 
actual total cost of the River COG merger was $1.7 million. The FHWA 
and FTA also applied the methodology to a prospective merger of the 
Midland Area Transportation Study (population 83,629), Saginaw Area 
Transportation Study (population 200,169), and the Bay City 
Transportation Study (population 107,771). The estimated cost of the 
merger based on the methodology would be $2.6 million. This amount is 
significantly higher than the merger cost estimated by MATS in its 
comments for these three contiguous MPOs (which was $1.05 to $1.8 
million).\39\ This difference suggests that, in instances where an 
MPO's population is on the lower end of the mid-size MPO, such as the 
Saginaw Area Transportation Study with a population of 200,169, the 
estimation methodology used in this analysis would tend to overestimate 
the cost to MPOs that choose the option to merge. Based on this 
comparison, FHWA and FTA concluded that their approach to estimating 
the maximum average annual cost of the implementation of this rule is 
acceptable because it provides the estimated cost of the highest cost 
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Comments from Midland Area Transportation Study, Posted 10/
24/2016; ID: FHWA-2016-0016-0597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, based on the assumption that the total cost to merge is 
equivalent to the combined annual operating budgets and that a merger 
would be implemented over a 4-year period, the total annual cost for 
142 MPOs to choose the option to merge over a 4-year period is 
estimated to be approximately $86 million.
    The FHWA and FTA note that to estimate the cost to MPOs that choose 
the option to develop unified planning products in lieu of merging, 
FHWA and FTA applied the assumption proposed by MATS: That the cost to 
develop unified planning products would be up to 50 percent of the cost 
to merge. The MATS commented that the cost to develop the unified 
planning products, as proposed in the NPRM, includes unified processes 
development, supplemental formal documentation, legal counsel, joint 
unified planning work program (UPWP) development, UPWP administration/
amendment processing, joint TIP development, TIP administration and 
amendment processing, joint metropolitan transportation planning 
development, metropolitan transportation plan administration and 
amendment processing, loss of public participation and the delay and/or 
loss of projects.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The FHWA and FTA do not agree that the rule would result in 
the loss of public participation and the delay and/or loss of 
projects. However, those costs are embedded in MATS overall cost 
estimate. For this reason, the estimates of the costs of the rule 
may be overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There may be costs associated with this rule that would be related 
to transportation conformity activities. The costs associated with 
transportation conformity would be captured in the future in the 
Information Collection Request done by EPA for its transportation 
conformity regulations.
    It also was unclear whether the cost to address the rule's dispute 
resolution requirements was included in the MATS cost estimating 
approach. The FHWA and FTA estimated the one-time cost to develop a 
dispute resolution process, as required by Section 450.208(a)(1). This 
estimate assumes it will take 100 person-hours for an average State and 
an average MPO to craft written dispute resolution procedures. The 
average loaded wage for a planner is $50.19.\41\ Based on these 
assumptions, the total, nationwide, one-time cost to establish written 
State/MPO dispute resolution processes in 2014 dollars is estimated to 
be $2,313,759 ($50.19/hour) x (100 hours/entity) x (52 State DOTs + 409 
MPOs) = $2,313,759).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Industry-
Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 999000--
Federal, State, and Local Government, Occupation code #19-3051, 
Occupation title--Urban and Regional Planners. Loaded wage rate is 
(32.59/hr) x (1.54) = $50.19/hour.

[[Page 93467]]



                               Table 4--Estimated Total Annual Costs of Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Total
                                                                  estimated cost   Total annual      Estimated
                         MPO population                             of dispute     cost for 142   annual cost of
                                                                    resolution     MPOs to merge    final rule
                                                                      process
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      $2,314,000  ..............  ..............
>1,000,000......................................................  ..............     $49,368,000     $49,368,000
200,000 to 1,000,000............................................  ..............      32,025,000      32,025,000
<200,000........................................................  ..............       4,336,000       4,336,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................     \1\ 578,500      85,729,000      86,307,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes a four year process.

    The total costs for merging all 142 MPOs, and the one-time cost of 
developing a dispute resolution process results in an estimated maximum 
average annual cost of this rule of $86.3 million. The actual average 
annual cost will range from $578,500 (if all 142 MPOs were to request 
and receive an exception from the unified product requirement) to a 
maximum of $86.3 million (if all 142 affected MPOs were to choose the 
merger option). On the basis of this analysis, FHWA and FTA conclude 
that the economic impact of the final rule would not exceed the $100 
million annual threshold that defines a significant economic impact.
    The FHWA and FTA have not been able to locate data or empirical 
studies to assist in monetizing or quantifying the benefits of the 
final rule. Given the limited quantitative information on these 
benefits of coordination, FHWA and FTA used a break-even analysis as 
the primary approach to quantify benefits. This approach determines the 
point at which the benefits from the final rule exceed the annual costs 
of compliance. The total FAST Act annual funding programmed for surface 
transportation investments subject to the metropolitan and statewide 
and non-metropolitan transportation planning process in FY2016 is $39.7 
billion in FHWA funds and $11.7 billion in FTA funds. This is the 
entire FHWA Federal-aid Highway Program and FTA Transit Program. The 
maximum annual average cost for implementing this final rule, i.e., if 
all 142 MPOs choose the option to merge, is estimated to be $86.3 
million per year for a 4-year period. At the upper end, if the return 
on investment increases by at least 0.17 percent of the combined FHWA 
and FTA annual funding programs, the benefits of the regulation exceed 
the costs.
    The FHWA and FTA believe the benefits of the regulation exceed the 
cost due to the following reasons. The rule will enhance efficiency in 
planning processes for some areas, and generate cost-savings by 
creating single rather than multiple documents and through the greater 
pooling of resources and increased sharing data, models and other 
tools. Because multiple MPOs within the same UZA will produce unified 
planning products, there will be less overlapping and duplicative work, 
such as developing multiple MTPs and TIPs for a single UZA. The FHWA 
and FTA also expect there will be some cost savings for State DOTs, 
which will benefit from having fewer TIPs to incorporate into their 
STIPs. There will also be benefits to the public if the coordination 
requirements result in a planning process in which public participation 
opportunities are transparent and unified for an entire region.
    Based on experience, FHWA and FTA know that having two or more 
separate metropolitan transportation planning processes in a single MPA 
(as defined under 23 U.S.C. 134) can make the planning process 
confusing and burdensome for the affected public. For example, members 
of the public may be affected by projects in multiple MPO 
jurisdictions, either because they live in the area of one MPO and work 
or regularly travel to another, or because the MPOs' jurisdictional 
lines bisect a community. Such members of the public, therefore, can 
find it necessary to participate in each MPO's separate planning 
process in order to have their regional concerns adequately considered. 
Having to participate in the planning processes of multiple MPOs, 
however, can be burdensome and discourage public participation. Where 
communities have been so bifurcated that they are not able to fully 
participate in the greater regional economy, this rule will help weave 
those communities together through new opportunities for regional 
investments in transportation.
    The FHWA and FTA have conservatively estimated that the maximum 
annual cost of implementation of the provisions of this action would be 
$86.3 million. After evaluating the costs and benefits of this final 
action, FHWA and FTA conclude that the maximum nationwide impact does 
not exceed the $100 million annual threshold that defines a significant 
economic impact. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, 
in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these 
changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's 
action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA and FTA have evaluated the effects of this rule 
on small entities and have determined that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The rule addresses the obligation of Federal funds to State DOTs for 
Federal-aid highway projects. The rule affects two types of entities: 
State governments and MPOs. State governments do not meet the 
definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601, which have a 
population of less than 50,000.
    The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify 
as a small entity they need to serve less than 50,000 people. The MPOs 
serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. Therefore, 
the MPOs that might incur economic impacts under this rule do not meet 
the definition of a small entity.
    I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA and FTA have determined that this rule does not impose 
unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not 
include a Federal

[[Page 93468]]

mandate that may result in expenditures of $155.1 million or more in 
any one year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for either 
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector. Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the 
type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to 
adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes 
made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway 
program and Federal Transit Act permit this type of flexibility.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    Three commenters (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP); 
Wisconsin congressional delegation, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional 
Planning Commission (SEWRPC), Kenosha County, Wisconsin; and one 
individual) submitted comments pertaining to federalism. The CMAP and 
Wisconsin congressional delegation, SEWRPC, Kenosha County, commented 
that the proposed rule would exceed the Secretary's authority and 
contradict congressional intent. These two commenters also asserted 
that the proposed rule would appear to override the intent of the State 
laws that created CMAP, Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning 
Commission (NIRPC), and SEWRPC, noting that the direction of these 
organizations and the contents of their plans are influenced by State 
law and asserting that the proposed rule would make it difficult for 
these organizations to meet certain State mandates. The CMAP and 
Wisconsin congressional delegation, SEWRPC, Kenosha County, also 
commented that the proposed rule would require CMAP, NIPRC, and SEWRPC 
to set identical targets for certain performance measures for peak hour 
travel time and traffic congestion for the UZA, and if States cannot 
agree on a UZA target, then the MPO(s) would violate Federal law.
    The individual commented that the proposed rule would constitute an 
unnecessary Federal Government overreach into planning decisions and 
would adversely impact the ability of regional planners to carry out 
their work and contribute to decisions regarding projects carried out 
in their communities and areas of jurisdiction.
    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA 
and FTA have determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment. The FHWA and FTA also have determined that this rule does 
not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect a State's 
ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. The FHWA 
and FTA do not agree that the statute constraints the Secretary's 
authority in the manner commenters suggest. Rather, this rule is 
intended to better align the planning regulations with existing 
statutory provisions concerning the establishment of MPA boundaries and 
the designation of MPOs. For multistate MPAs where the Governors and 
the MPOs agree it is not feasible to comply with the unified planning 
requirements adopted in this rule, the Governors and MPOs may seek an 
exception. Further, FHWA and FTA do not agree that this rule expands 
the Federal Government's role in planning decisions. While this rule is 
intended to improve regional collaboration and guide decisionmaking, 
planning decisions will remain in the hands of States, MPOs, and local 
authorities.

E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply 
to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and 
Construction, for further information.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA and FTA have analyzed 
this rule under the PRA and believe that this final rule does not 
impose additional information collection requirements for the purposes 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act above and beyond existing information 
collection clearances from OMB. The FHWA and FTA, however, invite 
commenters to document and submit estimates of any incremental burdens 
that they believe would be imposed under this final rule when FHWA and 
FTA publish its Notice of Request for Comments seeking OMB renewal of 
the currently approved information collection activities (OMB Control 
Number 2132-0529) in early 2017.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific 
criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) 
Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact 
Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an 
Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This rule qualifies for 
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20) (promulgation of 
rules, regulations, and directives) and 771.117(c)(1) (activities that 
do not involve or lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR 
771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities that do not 
involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. The FHWA and FTA 
have evaluated whether the rule will involve unusual or extraordinary 
circumstances and have determined that this rule will not.

H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA and FTA do not 
believe this rule affects a taking of private property or otherwise has 
taking implications under E.O. 12630.

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate 
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. The FHWA and FTA certify that this rule will not cause an 
environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately 
affect children.

K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13175, dated 
November 6, 2000, and believe that the rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and 
will not preempt tribal laws. The rule addresses obligations of Federal 
funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects and will not 
impose any direct

[[Page 93469]]

compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a 
tribal summary impact statement is not required.

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this rule 
is not a significant energy action under that order and is not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not 
required.

M. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    The E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and DOT Order 
5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 2012) (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm) require DOT agencies to achieve Environmental 
Justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic 
effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and 
low-income populations. The DOT agencies must address compliance with 
E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities.
    The FHWA and FTA have issued additional documents relating to 
administration of E.O. 12898 and the DOT Order. On June 14, 2012, FHWA 
issued an update to its EJ order, FHWA Order 6640.23A (FHWA Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 
Populations (available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/664023a.htm)). On August 15, 2012, FTA's Circular 
4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance for States and MPOs to 
incorporate EJ into their planning processes (available online at 
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_EJ_Circular_7.14-12_FINAL.pdf).
    The FHWA and FTA have evaluated the final rule under the Executive 
order, the DOT Order, the FHWA Order, and the FTA Circular. The EJ 
principles, in the context of planning, should be considered when the 
planning process is being implemented at the State and local level. As 
part of their stewardship and oversight of the federally aided 
transportation planning process of the States, MPOs, and operators of 
public transportation, FHWA and FTA encourage these entities to 
incorporate EJ principles into the statewide and metropolitan planning 
processes and documents, as appropriate and consistent with the 
applicable orders and the FTA Circular. When FHWA and FTA make a future 
funding or other approval decision on a project basis, they will 
consider EJ.
    Nothing inherent in the rule will disproportionately impact 
minority or low-income populations. The rule establishes procedures and 
other requirements to guide future State and local decisionmaking on 
programs and projects. Neither the rule nor 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 
dictate the outcome of those decisions. The FHWA and FTA have 
determined that the rule will not cause disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations.

N. Regulation Identifier Number

    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Part 450

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway and roads, Mass 
transportation, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 613

    Grant programs--transportation, Highways and roads, Mass 
transportation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2016, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Carolyn Flowers,
Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA and FTA amend title 23, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 450, and title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, part 613, as set forth below:

Title 23--Highways

PART 450--PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 450 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 315; 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.; 
49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304; 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.90.


0
2. Amend Sec.  450.104 by revising the definitions for ``Metropolitan 
planning agreement'', ``Metropolitan planning area (MPA)'', 
``Metropolitan transportation plan'', and ``Transportation improvement 
program (TIP)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  450.104   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Metropolitan planning agreement means a written agreement between 
the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public transportation 
serving the metropolitan planning area that describes how they will 
work cooperatively to meet their mutual responsibilities in carrying 
out the metropolitan transportation planning process.
    Metropolitan planning area (MPA) means the geographic area 
determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area and the 
Governor(s), which must at a minimum include the entire urbanized area 
and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year 
forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan, and may 
include additional areas.
* * * * *
    Metropolitan transportation plan means the official multimodal 
transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon, 
that is developed, adopted, and updated by the MPO or MPOs through the 
metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA.
* * * * *
    Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a prioritized 
listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years 
that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO or MPOs as part of the 
metropolitan transportation planning process for the MPA, consistent 
with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to 
be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. 
chapter 53.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  450.208 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  450.208  Coordination of planning process activities.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 93470]]

    (1) Coordinate planning carried out under this subpart with the 
metropolitan transportation planning activities carried out under 
subpart C of this part for metropolitan areas of the State. When 
carrying out transportation planning activities under this part, the 
State and MPOs shall coordinate on information, studies, or analyses 
for portions of the transportation system located in MPAs. The 
State(s), the MPO(s), and the operators of public transportation must 
have a current metropolitan planning agreement, which will identify 
coordination strategies that support cooperative decisionmaking and the 
resolution of disagreements;
* * * * *


Sec.  450.218  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  450.218(b) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place 
``MPO(s)'' in both places it appears.

0
5. Amend Sec.  450.226 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  450.226  Phase-in of new requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) With respect to requirements added in Sec.  450.208(a)(1) on 
January 19, 2017: On and after the date 2 years after the date that the 
U.S. Census Bureau releases its notice of Qualifying Urban Areas 
following the 2020 census, the State(s), the MPO(s) and the operators 
of public transportation must comply with the new requirements, 
including the requirement for a current metropolitan planning agreement 
that identifies coordination strategies that support cooperative 
decision-making and the resolution of disagreements.

Subpart C--Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

0
6. Amend Sec.  450.300 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Removing from paragraph (b) the word ``Encourages'' and adding in 
its place ``Encourage''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  450.300  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (a) Set forth the national policy that the MPO designated for each 
UZA is to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive 
performance-based multimodal transportation planning process for its 
MPA, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan 
and a TIP, that encourages and promotes the safe and efficient 
development, management, and operation of surface transportation 
systems to serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including 
accessible pedestrian walkways, bicycle transportation facilities, and 
intermodal facilities that support intercity transportation, including 
intercity buses and intercity bus facilities and commuter vanpool 
providers) and foster economic growth and development, and takes into 
consideration resiliency needs, while minimizing transportation-related 
fuel consumption and air pollution; and
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  450.306 by adding paragraph (d)(5) and revising 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  450.306   Scope of the metropolitan transportation planning 
process.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) In MPAs in which multiple MPOs have been designated, the MPOs 
shall jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that 
address performance measures or standards established under 23 CFR part 
490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
* * * * *
    (i) In an UZA not designated as a TMA that is an air quality 
attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA and the 
FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated metropolitan 
transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed simplified planning 
procedures, consideration shall be given to whether the abbreviated 
metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve the purposes of 
23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this part, taking into account the 
complexity of the transportation problems in the area. The MPO(s) shall 
develop simplified procedures in cooperation with the State(s) and 
public transportation operator(s).

0
8. Amend Sec.  450.310 by revising paragraphs (e) and (m) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  450.310  Metropolitan planning organization designation and 
redesignation.

* * * * *
    (e) Except as provided in this paragraph, only one MPO shall be 
designated for each MPA. More than one MPO may be designated to serve 
an MPA only if the Governor(s) and the existing MPO(s), if applicable, 
determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make designation of 
more than one MPO in the MPA appropriate. In those cases where the 
Governor(s) and existing MPO(s) determine that the size and complexity 
of the MPA do make it appropriate that two or more MPOs serve within 
the same MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs by agreement shall jointly 
establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, and the 
MPOs shall establish official, written agreements that clearly identify 
areas of coordination, the division of transportation planning 
responsibilities within the MPA among and between the MPOs, and 
procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of 
disagreements. If multiple MPOs were designated in a single MPA prior 
to this rule or in multiple MPAs that merged into a single MPA 
following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, and the 
Governor(s) and the existing MPOs determine that the size and 
complexity do not make the designation of more than one MPO in the MPA 
appropriate, then those MPOs must merge together in accordance with the 
redesignation procedures in this section.
* * * * *
    (m) Each Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate 
metropolitan area and the appropriate MPOs shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide coordinated transportation planning for the entire 
metropolitan area. The consent of Congress is granted to any two or 
more States to:
* * * * *

0
9. Section 450.312 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  450.312   Metropolitan Planning Area boundaries.

    (a) At a minimum, the boundaries of an MPA shall encompass the 
entire existing UZA (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) plus the 
contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast 
period for the metropolitan transportation plan.
    (1) Subject to this minimum requirement, the boundaries of an MPA 
shall be determined through an agreement between the MPO and the 
Governor.
    (2) If two or more MPAs otherwise include the same non-urbanized 
area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast 
period for the transportation plan, the Governor and the relevant MPOs 
are required to agree on the final boundaries of the MPA or MPAs such 
that the boundaries of the MPAs do not overlap. In such situations, the 
Governor and MPOs are encouraged, but not required, to combine the MPAs 
into a single MPA. Merger into a single MPA also require the MPOs to 
merge in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in 
Sec.  450.310(h), unless the Governor and MPO(s) determine that the 
size and

[[Page 93471]]

complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, as described in 
Sec.  450.310(e).
    (3) The MPA boundaries may be further expanded to encompass the 
entire metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget.
    (b) The boundaries for an MPA that includes an UZA designated as a 
nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) after August 10, 2005, may be established to 
coincide with the designated boundaries of the ozone and/or carbon 
monoxide nonattainment area, in accordance with this section and the 
requirements in Sec.  450.310(b).
    (c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one UZA, but each UZA 
must be included in its entirety.
    (d) MPA boundaries may be established to coincide with the 
geography of regional economic development and growth forecasting 
areas.
    (e) Identification of new UZAs within an existing MPA by the Bureau 
of the Census shall not require redesignation of the existing MPO.
    (f) In multistate metropolitan areas, the Governors with 
responsibility for a portion of the multistate metropolitan area, the 
appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation operator(s) are 
strongly encouraged to coordinate transportation planning for the 
entire multistate metropolitan area. States involved in such multistate 
transportation planning may:
    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law 
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in 
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities 
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may 
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
    (g) The MPA boundaries shall not overlap with each other.
    (h) Subject to paragraph (i) of this section, where the Governor(s) 
and MPO(s) have determined that the size and complexity of the MPA make 
it appropriate to have more than one MPO designated for an MPA, the 
MPOs within the same MPA shall, at a minimum:
    (1) Establish written agreements that clearly identify coordination 
processes, the division of transportation planning responsibilities 
among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and 
the resolution of disagreements;
    (2) Through a joint decisionmaking process, develop a single TIP 
and a single metropolitan transportation plan for the entire MPA as 
required under Sec. Sec.  450.324(c) and 450.326(a); and
    (3) Establish the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, by 
agreement among all affected MPOs and the Governor(s).
    (i) Upon written request from all MPOs in an MPA and the 
Governor(s) of each State in the MPA, the Secretary may approve an 
exception to the requirements for a single metropolitan transportation 
plan, a single TIP, and jointly-established targets if the request 
satisfies the following requirements.
    (1) The written request must include documentation showing 
compliance with the requirements in paragraph (h)(2) of this section is 
not feasible for reasons beyond the reasonable control of the 
Governor(s) and MPOs, such as clear and convincing evidence that
    (i) The MPOs cannot meet paragraph (h)(2) requirements because of 
the extraordinary size of the MPA, the large number of MPOs or State/
local governmental jurisdictions required to participate, and/or 
because of Clean Air Act planning requirements; or
    (ii) Complying with paragraph (h)(2) requirements would produce 
adverse results that contravene the effective regional planning 
purposes of paragraph (h)(2).
    (2) The request must include documentation demonstrating that:
    (i) The MPOs already use coordinated planning procedures that 
result in consistent plans, TIPs, performance targets, and air quality 
conformity analyses and other planning products that effectively 
address regional transportation and air quality issues;
    (ii) The MPOs have jointly adopted a formal written agreement with 
adequate procedures for coordination among the MPOs to achieve the 
effective regional planning purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section; and
    (iii) Coordination and decisionmaking during at least the two most 
recent STIP update cycles that produced results consistent with the 
effective planning purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (3) Based on the documentation provided with the request, the 
Secretary will determine whether to approve an exception to the 
requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If the Secretary 
determines that the request does not meet the requirements established 
under this paragraph, the Secretary will send the MPOs and Governor(s) 
a written notice of the denial of the exception, including a 
description of the deficiencies. The Governor(s) and MPOs shall have 90 
days from receipt of the notice to address the deficiencies identified 
in the notice and submit supplemental information addressing the 
identified deficiencies to the Secretary for review and a final 
determination. The Secretary may extend the 90-day period to cure 
deficiencies upon request.
    (4) An approved exception is permanent. When FHWA and FTA do 
certification reviews and make planning findings, FHWA and FTA will 
evaluate whether the MPOs covered by the exception are sustaining 
effective coordination processes that meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (j) The Governor(s) and MPO(s) (in cooperation with the State and 
public transportation operator(s)) shall review the MPA boundaries 
after each Census to determine if existing MPA boundaries meet the 
minimum statutory requirements for new and updated UZA(s), and the 
Governor(s) and MPOs shall adjust them as necessary in order to 
encompass the entire existing UZA(s) plus the contiguous area expected 
to become urbanized within the 20-year forecast period of the 
metropolitan transportation plan. If after a Census, two previously 
separate UZAs are defined as a single UZA, not later than 2 years after 
the release of the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice of the Qualifying 
Urban Areas for a decennial census, the Governor(s) and MPO(s) shall 
redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the entire 
new UZA plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 
the 20-year forecast period of the metropolitan transportation plan. As 
appropriate, additional adjustments should be made to reflect the most 
comprehensive boundary to foster an effective planning process that 
ensures connectivity between modes, improves access to modal systems, 
and promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies. If 
more than one MPO is designated for UZAs that are merged following a 
Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, the Governor(s) and the 
MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  450.310 and 450.312, and the Governor(s) and 
MPOs shall determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make it 
appropriate for there to be more than one MPO designated within the 
MPA. If the size and complexity of the MPA do not make it appropriate 
to have multiple MPOs, the MPOs shall merge, in accordance with the

[[Page 93472]]

redesignation procedures in Sec.  450.310(h). If the size and 
complexity do warrant the designation of multiple MPOs within the MPA, 
the MPOs shall comply with the requirements for jointly established 
performance targets, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and 
TIP for the entire MPA, before the next metropolitan transportation 
plan update that occurs on or after 2 years after the release of the 
Qualifying Urban Areas for the Decennial Census by the Bureau of the 
Census.
    (k) The Governor and MPOs are encouraged to consider merging 
multiple MPAs into a single MPA when:
    (1) Two or more UZAs are adjacent to each other;
    (2) Two or more UZAs are expected to expand and become adjacent 
within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan; or
    (3) Two or more neighboring MPAs otherwise both include the same 
non-UZA that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast 
period for the metropolitan transportation plan.
    (l) Following MPA boundary approval by the MPO(s) and the Governor, 
the MPA boundary descriptions shall be provided for informational 
purposes to the FHWA and the FTA. The MPA boundary descriptions shall 
be submitted either as a geo-spatial database or described in 
sufficient detail to enable the boundaries to be accurately delineated 
on a map.

0
10. Section 450.314 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  450.314   Metropolitan planning agreements.

    (a) The MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public 
transportation shall cooperatively determine their mutual 
responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation 
planning process. These responsibilities shall be clearly identified in 
written agreements among the MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of 
public transportation serving the MPA. To the extent possible, a single 
agreement among all responsible parties should be developed. The 
written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for the 
development of financial plans that support the metropolitan 
transportation plan (see Sec.  450.324) and the metropolitan TIP (see 
Sec.  450.326), and development of the annual listing of obligated 
projects (see Sec.  450.334).
    (b) The MPO(s), the State(s), and the providers of public 
transportation should periodically review and update the agreement, as 
appropriate, to reflect effective changes.
    (c) If the MPA does not include the entire nonattainment or 
maintenance area, there shall be a written agreement among the State 
department of transportation, State air quality agency, affected local 
agencies, and the MPO(s) describing the process for cooperative 
planning and analysis of all projects outside the MPA within the 
nonattainment or maintenance area. The agreement must also indicate how 
the total transportation-related emissions for the nonattainment or 
maintenance area, including areas outside the MPA, will be treated for 
the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the EPA's 
transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). The 
agreement shall address policy mechanisms for resolving conflicts 
concerning transportation related emissions that may arise between the 
MPA and the portion of the nonattainment or maintenance area outside 
the MPA.
    (d) In nonattainment or maintenance areas, if the MPO is not the 
designated agency for air quality planning under section 174 of the 
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504), there shall be a written agreement 
between the MPO and the designated air quality planning agency 
describing their respective roles and responsibilities for air quality 
related transportation planning.
    (e) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, there 
shall be a written agreement among the MPOs, the State(s), and the 
public transportation operator(s) describing how the metropolitan 
transportation planning processes will be coordinated to assure the 
development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for 
the MPA. In cases in which a transportation investment extends across 
the boundaries of more than one MPA, the MPOs shall coordinate to 
assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans 
and TIPs with respect to that transportation improvement. If any part 
of the UZA is a nonattainment or maintenance area, the agreement also 
shall include State and local air quality agencies. If more than one 
MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, the metropolitan 
transportation planning processes for affected MPOs must reflect 
coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across 
the MPA. Coordination of data collection, analysis, and planning 
assumptions is also strongly encouraged for neighboring MPOs that are 
not within the same MPA. Coordination efforts and outcomes shall be 
documented in subsequent transmittals of the UPWP and other planning 
products, including the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP, to 
the State(s), the FHWA, and the FTA.
    (f) Where the boundaries of the MPA extend across two or more 
States, the Governors with responsibility for a portion of the 
multistate MPA, the appropriate MPO(s), and the public transportation 
operator(s) shall coordinate transportation planning for the entire 
multistate MPA, including jointly developing planning products for the 
MPA. States involved in such multistate transportation planning may:
    (1) Enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law 
of the United States, for cooperative efforts and mutual assistance in 
support of activities authorized under this section as the activities 
pertain to interstate areas and localities within the States; and
    (2) Establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as the States may 
determine desirable for making the agreements and compacts effective.
    (g) If an MPA includes a UZA that has been designated as a TMA in 
addition to an UZA that is not designated as a TMA, the non-TMA UZA 
shall not be treated as a TMA. However, if more than one MPO serves the 
MPA, a written agreement shall be established between the MPOs within 
the MPA boundaries, which clearly identifies the roles and 
responsibilities of each MPO in meeting specific TMA requirements 
(e.g., congestion management process, Surface Transportation Program 
funds suballocated to the UZA over 200,000 population, and project 
selection).
    (h) The MPO(s), State(s), and the providers of public 
transportation shall jointly agree upon and develop specific written 
provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related 
to transportation performance data, the selection of performance 
targets, the reporting of performance targets, the reporting of 
performance to be used in tracking progress toward attainment of 
critical outcomes for the region of the MPO (see Sec.  450.306(d)), and 
the collection of data for the State asset management plans for the NHS 
for each of the following circumstances: When one MPO serves an UZA, 
when more than one MPO serves an UZA, and when an MPA includes an UZA 
that has been designated as a TMA as well as a UZA that is not a TMA. 
These provisions shall be documented either as part of the metropolitan 
planning agreements required under paragraphs (a), (e), and (g) of this 
section, or documented it in some other means outside of the 
metropolitan planning agreements as determined cooperatively

[[Page 93473]]

by the MPO(s), State(s), and providers of public transportation.


Sec.  450.316   [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  450.316, in paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c), and 
(d) by removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it 
occurs.

0
12. Amend Sec.  450.324 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove ``MPO'' and add in its place ``MPO(s)'' 
wherever it occurs;
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (m) as paragraphs (d) through 
(n), respectively;
0
c. Add new paragraph (c); and
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g)(10), 
(g)(11)(iv), (h), (k), (l), and (n), remove ``MPO'' with and add in its 
place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  450.324   Development and content of the metropolitan 
transportation plan.

* * * * *
    (c) If more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those 
MPOs within the MPA shall:
    (1) Jointly develop a single metropolitan transportation plan for 
the MPA; and
    (2) Jointly establish, for the MPA, the performance targets that 
address the performance measures described in 23 CFR part 490 (where 
applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  450.326 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a); and
0
b. In paragraphs (b), (j), and (p) remove ``MPO'' and add in its place 
``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.    450.326 Development and content of the transportation 
improvement program (TIP).

    (a) The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected 
public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the MPA. If 
more than one MPO has been designated to serve an MPA, those MPOs 
within the MPA shall jointly develop a single TIP for the MPA. The TIP 
shall reflect the investment priorities established in the current 
metropolitan transportation plan and shall cover a period of no less 
than 4 years, be updated at least every 4 years, and be approved by the 
MPO(s) and the Governor(s). However, if the TIP covers more than 4 
years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the 
additional years as informational. The MPO(s) may update the TIP more 
frequently, but the cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with 
the STIP development and approval process. The TIP expires when the 
FHWA/FTA approval of the STIP expires. Copies of any updated or revised 
TIPs must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. In nonattainment and 
maintenance areas subject to transportation conformity requirements, 
the FHWA and the FTA, as well as the MPO(s), must make a conformity 
determination on any updated or amended TIP, in accordance with the 
Clean Air Act requirements and the EPA's transportation conformity 
regulations (40 CFR part 93, subpart A).
* * * * *


Sec.  450.328   [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  450.328 by removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place 
``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.


Sec.  450.330   [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  450.330, in paragraphs (a) and (c) by removing ``MPO'' 
and adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.


Sec.  450.332   [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  450.332, in paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing ``MPO'' 
and adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.


Sec.  450.334   [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  450.334, in paragraph (a) by removing ``MPO'' and 
adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' and in paragraph (c) by removing 
``MPO's'' and adding in its place ``MPO(s)''.


Sec.  450.336   [Amended]

0
18. Amend Sec.  450.336, in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) and (b)(2) by 
removing ``MPO'' and adding in its place ``MPO(s)'' wherever it occurs.

0
19. Amend Sec.  450.340 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a) adding ``or MPOs'' after ``MPO'' wherever it 
occurs; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (h).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  450.340   Phase-in of new requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) With respect to requirements added in Sec. Sec.  450.306(d)(5); 
450.310(e); 450.312(a), (h), (i), and (j); 450.314(e), (f), (g), and 
(h); 450.324(c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (k), (l), and (n); 450.326; 
450.330; 450.332(c); 450.334(a); and 450.336(b) on January 19, 2017: 
States and MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries 
agreement provisions, shall document the determination of the Governor 
and MPO(s) whether the size and complexity of the MPA make multiple 
MPOs appropriate, and the MPOs shall comply with the requirements for 
jointly established performance targets, and a single metropolitan 
transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA, prior to the next 
metropolitan transportation plan update occurring on or after the date 
that is 2 years after the date the U.S. Census Bureau releases its 
notice of Qualifying Urban Areas following the 2020 census.

Title 49--Transportation

PART 613--METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN PLANNING

0
20. The authority citation for part 613 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 134, 135, and 217(g); 42 U.S.C. 3334, 
4233, 4332, 7410 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306, 5323(k); and 49 CFR 
1.51(f) and 21.7(a).

[FR Doc. 2016-30478 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P