To: From: Date: Subject...2016/08/31 · AUGUST 31, 2016 – 9:00 A.M. KALAMAZOO METRO TRANSIT 530...

To: Policy Committee Members

From: Jonathan R. Start, Executive Director

Date: August 24, 2016

Subject: POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 31, 2016 – 9:00 A.M. KALAMAZOO METRO TRANSIT 530 NORTH ROSE STREET

The Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee will be meeting on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at Kalamazoo Metro Transit, 530 N. Rose Street. The following items are included in the meeting packet:

1. Agenda for the Meeting2. Informational Memorandum for the August 31, 2016 Meeting3. Treasurer’s Reports4. Technical Committee Report (August 11, 2016)5. Public Transportation Monthly Report6. Regional Prosperity Initiative Report7. Southcentral Michigan Planning Council Report8. Draft Minutes from the June 29, 2016 Meeting9. Proposed amendment to the FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program10. City of Portage Proposed Safety Project Application Information11. Resolutions of Support for the City of Portage Safety Program Project Applications12. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking13. KATS Certification Letter14. Metro Transit Power Point Presentation

Policy Committee Meeting Materials for August 31, 2016 of 57

KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING August 31, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Kalamazoo Metro Transit

AGENDA

Public Comments are limited to four minutes in length.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. INTRODUCTIONS

3. ROLL CALL (Sign-in Sheet To Be Circulated)

4. CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA

Any item listed under the Consent Agenda may be moved to the Regular Agenda upon request of any member of the public, any Policy Committee Member, or any staff member.

5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (ACTION)

6. CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (Non-agenda items only. Comments on agenda items should be madeduring discussion of those items.)

7. CONSENT AGENDA (Enclosures) (ACTION)

a. ACCEPTANCE OF THE TREASURER’S REPORTS

b. ACCEPTANCE OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT (AUGUST 11, 2016)

c. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MONTHLY REPORT

d. ACCEPTANCE OF THE REGIONAL PROSPERITY INITIATIVE REPORT

e. ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOUTHCENTRAL MICHIGAN PLANNING COUNCIL REPORT

f. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 29, 2016 MEETING

8. FY 2014 – 2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT (ENCLOSURE)(ACTION)

9. FY 2018 LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAM RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT (ENCLOSURES) (ACTION)

10. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING METROPOLLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONCOORDINATION AND PLANNING AREA REFORM (ENCLOSURE)

11. KATS CERTIFICATION LETTER (ENCLOSURE)

12. METRO TRANSIT PRESENTATION (ENCLOSURE)

13. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UPDATES

14. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

15. NEW BUSINESS

16. CITIZEN COMMENTS

17. MEMBER COMMENTS

18. ADJOURNMENT

Next Meeting: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 - 9:00 a.m.


TO: Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee

FROM: Jonathan R. Start, Executive Director

DATE: August 24, 2016

SUBJECT: Information on the Policy Committee Agenda for August 31, 2016 Meeting

Here is information on Policy Committee agenda items for your information.

8. FY 2014 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment (Enclosure)(ACTION)

There is one recommended amendment for a planning project in the FY 2016 element of the FY 2014 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program. This amendment is to provide funding for the planning study that has started in the central area of Kalamazoo City. The funds are for an environmental study that will be used in conjunction with other planning activities to look at the major MDOT roads going into downtown Kalamazoo and the various modes of transportation using those roads. These funds are FY 2016 and the project is a FY 2016 project so there is no issue with amending a FY 2017 project.

The Technical Committee reviewed and discussed this amendment at their August meeting. They and staff recommend that the Policy Committee approve this amendment to the FY 2014 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program.

9. FY 2018 Local Safety Program Resolutions of Support (Enclosure) (ACTION)

Included in your packet are reports that will be sent to MDOT in application packets for the FY 2018 Local Safety Program for potential funding. This program issues a call for project applications statewide. All projects are evaluated at the state level for potential funding. The applicants usually ask for Resolutions of Support from the KATS Technical Committee and the KATS Policy Committee. The City of Portage submitted and discussed three projects that they are submitting to Lansing for possible funding under this program. The project descriptions and evaluations are included in your packet. They include:

The installation of an intersection flashing beacon at Oakland and Vanderbilt to improvethe visibility of the stop control and address right angle crashes that are resulting frommotorists missing the stop sign.

The relocation of the west leg of Lakeview Drive at Portage to the south to improve sightdistance and reduce the crashes that are occurring with the limited sight distance to thenorth.

The installation of a roundabout at Portage and Osterhout to address angle and rear endcrashes at this location.

The two projects on Portage can be coordinated with any future lane reconfigurations that may occur.


The Technical Committee approved sending resolutions of support to MDOT as part of the application package for all three projects. There were no other projects proposed by agencies to the Technical Committee for Local Safety Program funding.

Staff recommends that the Policy approve resolutions of support for these projects. The final determination of funding will be made at a statewide level. If funds are approved, then the Transportation Improvement Program will be amended to include those funds.

10. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination andPlanning Area Reform (Enclosure)

The United States Department of Transportation including the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration has proposed a rulemaking that, if approved, would affect several Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) across the country. In Michigan, several MPOs could be affected including the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study and the Battle Creek Transportation Study.

The proposed rulemaking is saying that a single urbanized area including what might be urbanized in the next 20 years must be covered by a single MPO. For those areas like KATS and BCATS, where the BKATS urbanized area extends into the KATS study area the rulemaking would give three options:

• Adjust boundaries to remove the overlap,• Develop joint Metropolitan Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement

Programs, or• Merge into one MPO.

One of the issues with this proposed rulemaking is that the basic area needed to be included in the MPO, the urbanized area, is determined every 10 years by the Census and their determination is not open for question. There has been evidence in Michigan including the KATS area where what was considered urbanized in 2000 is not in 2010 so the basic boundary unit changes. It is possible in 2020 that the Census Bureau will eliminate the connection between Augusta and the BCATS urbanized Area.

11. KATS Certification Letter (Enclosure)

The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration has sent KATS a letter stating that as a result of the certification review: “We found the process substantially meets the federal transportation planning regulations and therefore jointly certify the planning process for the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study. The details of the review and our findings will be included in a report to be issued separately.” We have not received the separate report to date. This report is expected to contain items that KATS needs to improve upon.

It is good news that we were found to be in compliance.

12. Metro Transit Presentation (Enclosure)


Metro Transit has a presentation to share which details the service changes that are coming in September as a result of the passage of the millages and the consolidation of the public transit service providers.

12. Public Transportation Updates

Members of the Kalamazoo County Transportation Authority Board, the Kalamazoo Transit Authority Board, Van Buren Public Transit, and/or staff will provide additional updates to the Policy Committee as appropriate.

13. Executive Director’s Report

Federal Aid Surface Condition Ratings – Staff has been working to gather the road surface condition ratings for the federal aid system. The City of Kalamazoo has been rated. The City of Portage and the Road Commission for Kalamazoo County including villages and other cities systems will be rated in early September.

Staff has attended the Ohio Conference on Freight and the Michigan Public Transit Association conferences in the week of August 22.


KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

TREASURER'S REPORT Policy Committee No July Meeting 2016

Beginning Balance as of June 1st 2016 $166,234.11

There were 15 checks cashed totaling $(19,100.21)

There were 08 withdraws/debits totaling $(21,861.69)

There were 05 deposit(s) / credits $5,036.34

Ending Balance as of June 30st, 2016 $130,308.55

If there are any questions regarding any of the checks or withdraws, please feel free to contact me at your convenience, and I will be happy to review the 5/3 checking statement with you.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey R. Sorensen Treasurer, Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study


KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY

TREASURER'S REPORT Policy Committee Meeting August 31st 2016

Beginning Balance as of July 1st 2016 $130,308.55

There were 22 checks cashed totaling $(17,928.86)

There were 08 withdraws/debits totaling $(21,980.36)

There were 05 deposit(s) / credits $20,739.87

Ending Balance as of July 31st, 2016 $111,139.20

If there are any questions regarding any of the checks or withdraws, please feel free to contact me at your convenience, and I will be happy to review the 5/3 checking statement with you.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey R. Sorensen Treasurer, Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study


To: Policy Committee



Subject: Technical Committee Report (August 11, 2016)

The Technical Committee met on August 11, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at Kalamazoo Metro Transit. There were two (2) action items on the agenda. The first was for a recommendation for Policy Committee approval of a proposed amendment to the FY 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. The second was to approve Resolutions of Support for three (3) FY 2018 Local Safety Program Project applications for the City of Portage. These are both action items on the Policy Committee Agenda and will be discussed further in the Policy Committee Informational Memorandum.

Other items discussed during the meeting included project submission of Transportation Alternative Project and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Project information to the State of Michigan via the Single Sign-On web portal. Kalamazoo Metro Transit presented on the September 6 service changes and public transportation updates.

There were also status reports on roads and planning activities which included:

ROAD STATUS REPORTS

Michigan Department of Transportation: Paving for the US-131 in Portage project was anticipated to be complete by mid-August, weather permitting. Ramps at Centre street have been paved. The 40th Street Project is on schedule for mid-September completion. The new bridge is open. MDOT and the City of Kalamazoo are cooperatively evaluating a potential responsive traffic signal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) Project on Stadium Drive. The West Main corridor is also being evaluated.

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County: The 9th Street Project from I-94 to Meridian is on target for completion at the end of September. The contractor is currently working on establishing shoulders and ditches south of Fulton for the 42nd Street Project. The structure is complete for the W. Avenue Bridge Project. The structure is almost complete for the D Avenue (over Kalamazoo River) Bridge Project. Scoping is being finalized for the D Avenue (over Gull Lake Outlet) Bridge Project. Grade Inspection (GI) is targeted for October for February letting. The structure has been removed for the U Avenue Bridge Project and the contractor is currently working on new abutments. The Stadium Drive from 4th Street to 6th Street and W. Michigan Avenue at 11th Street Projects have been obligated. Additional projects targeted for GI in October for February letting are the Stadium Drive from 9th Street to US-131 Project, the Stadium Drive at 11th Street Project, the Sprinkle Road, and the N Avenue from Sprinkle Road to 28th Street Project. The RCKC County-wide chip seal project has been completed. The E. Main Project is on target for September 1 completion. Only punch list items remain.

Village of Augusta: The village is working on a Comprehensive Road Improvement Plan. A consultant has been approved.

City of Portage: The Portage Road widening project is complete except final inspection. The Oosterhout Project from Westnedge to Portage Road is complete except punch list items. Mill and resurfacing on Centre between Shaver and Westnedge and Westnedge between Centre and Shaver is completed. Constitution Boulevard from Milham to Romence was scheduled for milling on August 13. The target date for completion is August 25. The Westnedge at Kilgore and Centre and Old Centre traffic


Technical Committee Report (August 11, 2016) page 2 of 2

signal upgrades are out for bid. Construction will be next year. Bid opening for Centre and Cooley was scheduled for August 11. The Romence and Westnedge Safety Project is out for bid in October. Construction will be in spring of 2017. The Lovers Lane and Kilgore Safety Project CMAQ Project is complete.

Texas Township: The paving and installation of the trail is complete. Bench installation, signage, and markings are not yet complete. Citizens have already begun using the trail despite the fact that it has not been opened to the public.

LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING UPDATES

Kalamazoo County Planning and Development: A Notice of Intent for the Kalamazoo County Master Plan was scheduled to go out on August 11. The consultant for the Master Plan update is Beckett & Raeder of Ann Arbor. The county will be visiting each local planning commission as part of the process. Requests for Proposals have been issued for Environmental Planning Agency (EPA) grants received by the county. Pictometry training was held for the Pictometry website. Webinars will be held for additional training in August and September. The 2016 imagery has been received and will be available on the website soon. There are visibility issues with the imagery due to foliage. An additional flight for new imagery will be completed in 2017 at no additional cost.

Road Commission of Kalamazoo County: New Kalamazoo County maps are now available. Kalamazoo County Planning was thanked for their assistance.

City of Portage: The city is kicking off its 2017-2027 Capital Improvement Plan process. An Open House will be held on September 29 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. to receive public input on current projects and to solicit new projects.

Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study: An RFP has been issued for the Pedestrian, Greenway, and Transit Plan. It is available on KATS and MDOT websites. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) has been issued regarding Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and overlapping Metropolitan Planning Areas (MPA). The NPRM could require multiple MPOs in an MPA to jointly develop a single plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and performance targets or merge. This issue is further complicated since urbanized area (UZA) boundaries have been subject to change with each U.S. Census. Since the Battle Creek Area Transportation Study and the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study MPAs overlap, the NPRM if passed will have a direct impact on both organizations.

Comstock Township: The Township Board adopted the Master Plan in July. The application deadline for the Township Manager position was August 12.


To: Policy Committee



Subject: Public Transportation Monthly Report

The Central County Transportation Authority/Metro Transit are in the process of publicizing fixed route service changes that are beginning in early September 2016. A presentation is on the Policy Committee agenda. The Central County Transportation Authority and the Van Buren County Transit are still in the process of formalizing their agreement. The Federal Transit Administration is being consulted to make sure that any applicable requirements are included and will be providing a draft agreement to assist in this effort.


TO: Policy Committee

From: Jonathan Start, Executive Director


Subject: Regional Prosperity Initiative Report

The Regional Prosperity Initiative Committee continues to meet. The August meeting had a good turnout. The August meeting dealt with topics that included:

Review of three proposals for Regional Prosperity funding using 2016 funds. The recommendedproject covered the entire region and will work toward closing the gap between what skillsemployers need and what the educational and training system is providing. This is intended toimprove employment in the region.

Updates to the committee from members on activities that relate and support the RegionalProsperity Initiative.

Brief discussion of the necessary review of steps needed and the desirability of moving to a TierTwo Regional Prosperity Committee. The focus will be on the two existing regional planningagencies and what areas can be identified for joint administrative services and sharedadministrative costs.

The committee continues to meet on the first Thursday of the month at various locations.


TO: Policy Committee

FROM: Jonathan Start, KATS Executive Director

DATE: August 19, 2016

SUBJECT: Southcentral Michigan Planning Council Report

During the months of June and July, 2016, KATS staff worked on the Michigan Department of Transportation Planning Activities for the Southcentral Michigan Planning Council. Work was concentrated in the following activities:

Coordinated and participated in PASER rating of paved federal aid eligible roads in Branch, Barryand St. Joseph counties

Participated in the Transportation Asset Management Council’s monthly regional PASERcoordinators conference calls

Attended the 2016 Michigan Transportation Planning Association annual conference. Sessionsof particular note: John Egelhaaf’s discussion of visioning for the St. Joseph River Harbor; RogerBelknap’s discussion of recent developments with the Transportation Asset Management Council;Darrell Harden’s summary of the current status of the Rural Task Force Program.

Prepared and distributed public notice materials for the June 20 Rural Task Force #3 meeting Facilitated the June 20 Rural Task Force #3 meeting Prepared and distributed draft minutes for the June 20 Rural Task Force meeting Prepared and mailed public notice material for the Southcentral Michigan Planning Council

Regional Safety Plan meeting for stakeholders Updated the Southcentral Michigan Planning Council website with current Region #3 Rural Task

Force materials.

The Governor’s Message on Ageing which is looking at regional public transportation has issued its report for the Southcentral Michigan Planning Council region. MDOT did award a $2,000 grant to the planning region to facilitate a meeting and identify steps that might be taken to address some of the objectives identified.

.


KALAMAZOO AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY POLICY COMMITTEE June 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Kalamazoo Metro Transit

Draft Minutes of the June 29, 2016 Meeting

CALL TO ORDER The June meeting of the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee was called to order at 9:00 a.m. at Kalamazoo Metro Transit by Chair Ulsh.

INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL-CALL Meeting attendance was recorded on the sign-in sheet.

Members Present David Anderson City of Kalamazoo Sandra Bloomfield Comstock Township Robert Britigan City of Parchment John Clement Van Buren Transit Carol Daly Village of Mattawan Marsha Drouin Richland Township Keith Diller City of Galesburg Paul Dykstra, Vice-chair Ross Township Michael Grabbe Village of Lawton Beth Griffin Van Buren County Libby Heiny-Cogswell Oshtemo Township Mark Worden Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Linda Kerr Texas Township Greg Kinney Van Buren County Road Commission Larry Nielsen Village of Paw Paw Pete Pfeiffer Michigan Department of Transportation Kalamazoo TSC Claudette Reid City of Portage Ron Reid Kalamazoo Township Jeff Sorensen Cooper Township Ron Smith Village of Vicksburg Randy Smith Brady Township Linda Teeter Kalamazoo County Transportation Authority Don Ulsh, Chair Schoolcraft Township

Members Absent Jeremiah Cook Village of Richland John Gisler Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners Keith Gunnett Village of Schoolcraft Rick Fowler Michigan Department of Transportation Lansing Garrylee McCormick Transit Authority Board * Jeff Heppler Village of Augusta Michele McGowen KATS Citizen Advisory Committee Greg Rosine Western Michigan University Thomas L. Swiat, Jr. Prairie Ronde Township Greg Thomas Pavilion Township

Others Present Megan Arndt, Mara Gericke, David Grunwald, Jason Latham, Sean McBride, Jonathan Start, Steve Stepek, Monica Zehner


CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA-NONE

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

MOTION by Sorensen, SECOND by Smith1, “to approve the agenda for the June 29, 2016 Policy Committee Meeting.” MOTION APPROVED.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS-NONE

CONSENT AGENDA Information pertaining to items on the consent agenda were included in the meeting materials. The following items were listed on the consent agenda:

• Acceptance of the Treasurer’s Report• Acceptance of the Technical Committee Report (June 9, 2016)• Acceptance of the Public Transportation Monthly Report• Acceptance of the Regional Prosperity Initiative Report• Acceptance of the Southcentral Michigan Planning Council Report• Approval of the Minutes from the May 25, 2016 Meeting

MOTION by Sorensen, SECOND by Dykstra, “to accept and approve the items on the consent agenda as listed.” MOTION APPROVED.

FY 2017 – 2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The draft FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program was included in the meeting materials.

Start reported on the FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Proposed projects were prioritized. The prioritized project list was then used to develop the recommendation for federal funding for the FY 2017-2020 TIP. The FY 2017 projects in the FY 2017-2010 TIP match the FY 2017 projects included in the FY 2014-2017 TIP. Those projects not funded were used to develop the illustrative project list. Should additionally funding become available, these projects can be amended to the TIP more quickly since the scoring has been approved and the public involvement and consultation process have already been completed.

As part of the development of the TIP, projects were evaluated for a disproportionate negative impact on Environmental Justice (EJ) areas. EJ areas are those areas with a threshold of 80% or higher minority or low income populations. The projects do not disproportionately negatively impact EJ areas.

MOTION by Nielsen, SECOND by Reid 2(Ron), “to approve the FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program as recommended and to authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution Adopting the FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program and the Certificate for the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process.” Discussion followed the motion.

Reid3 inquired about the status of the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Projects. Start reported that TAP projects for the local allocation were included in the TIP. Stepek reported that the three projects selected were projects for the Stadium Drive Sidewalk Project in Oshtemo Township, a Village of Vicksburg Non-Motorized Trail project to connect to the Village to the limits of the City of Portage, and a City of Kalamazoo Project for pedestrian upgrades on Stadium Drive. There is a project for the City of Kalamazoo that has been discussed by the subcommittee if the Village of Vicksburg cannot secure the

1 Randy Smith, Brady Township 2 Ron Reid, Kalamazoo Township 3 Ron Reid, Kalamazoo Township


local funding required for the project. State TAP funding has not yet been approved. When the funding is assigned for state TAP projects, they will be amended into the TIP.

Teeter recommended that page 35 be amended to read, “Currently, Kalamazoo Metro Transit is proposing the elimination of service in two areas due to local units of government opting not to include these two areas in the CCTA.” She opined it currently reads as if Metro Transit is proposing to eliminate the services, and the reason is not provided until further in the document. Heiny-Cogswell noted it was a more complicated issue and tied to the adoption of the Central County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Policy. Teeter noted it is Public Act 196 that requires local units of government to opt-in or out. Heiny-Cogswell observed that service is provided outside of the boundaries with other policies.

Start reported that the CCTA proposed the boundaries based upon voting precincts. Three precincts opted out of service. Texas Township, KVCC, and the CCTA approved an agreement to continue fixed route service. The agreement will provide the same level of funding that would have been generated from the millage in the precinct. Therefore, service to KVCC will continue. The second precinct which opted out includes the service for Pavilion Estates. Pavilion Estates is currently exploring transportation alternatives with Kalamazoo Metro Transit and not pursuing fixed route service. The last precinct that opted out impacts service in Oshtemo Township for fixed route service on W. Main west of US-131 to 9th Street. Currently, no agreement is in place to continue the impacted service on W. Main. Start noted that the current wording did not place blame and that it was the recommendation of staff to adopt the TIP as presented. Heiny-Cogswell noted that she would support the current wording. Britigan opined that it was addressed further in the section and wordsmithing was not necessary. Nielsen observed that currently there was no motion to amend the original motion. Chair Ulsh called for a vote on the original motion.

MOTION by Nielsen, SECOND by Reid 4, “to approve the FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program as recommended, authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution adopting the FY 2017-2020 Transportation Improvement Program, and the Certificate for the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process.” MOTION APPROVED.

KATS PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

The Draft KATS Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual was included in the meeting materials.

Nielsen reported that the KATS Finance and Personnel Subcommittee had met regarding the draft KATS Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. A great deal of consideration was given to striking a balance for the items the subcommittee felt were necessary for inclusion and the amount of detail given the small size of staff.

MOTION by Nielsen, SECOND by Anderson, “to approve the KATS Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual.” MOTION APPROVED.

TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE

A copy of the proposed change to the Traffic Data Collection Services Contract was included in the meeting materials.

Start reported that due to staff limitations, the City of Kalamazoo Engineering Department had inquired if KATS would allow a change to the contract with Traffic Tech Services for the collection of Pavement and Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) data on the federal-aid eligible and non-federal aid eligible local system in the City of Kalamazoo. The City of Kalamazoo Engineering Department has agreed to the price proposal. KATS will pay Traffic Tech Services for the services. The City of Kalamazoo will then reimburse KATS.

4 Ron Reid, Kalamazoo Township


MOTION by Reid5, SECOND by Drouin, “to approve the amendment to the Traffic Tech Services Traffic Count Contract.” MOTION APPROVED.

COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC

Start reported that the agenda item was a follow-up requested by Nieuwenhuis due to commercial traffic and truck routes resulting from traffic diversions resulting from projects. Particularly, traffic has been cutting through Midlink following the construction of the Sprinkle Road Round-about. Start noted that as part of project work, exploration of traffic alternatives is completed. However, additional impacts on alternative routes could be explored. Staff will contact local units regarding concerns and follow up.

Drouin inquired if this was related to the citizen comments received at the last Policy Committee meeting. Start reported there were two issues. The first was the impact on traffic of major projects and the second, cut through traffic by commercial trucks in neighborhoods. He observed that citizen comments pertained to a commercial truck servicing Kalamazoo College. Worden noted the concerns could be tied to the development of a freight plan.

Drouin inquired who was responsible for establishing commercial truck routes. It was noted that commercial truck routes were established by the local jurisdiction.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UPDATES

Teeter reported that the CCTA will have an Environmental Justice Workshop on July 11. Expanded service begins September 6. The Kalamazoo County Transportation Authority and the CCTA are working on a transfer agreement. The transfer will be completed October 1. Reid 6 inquired about the workshop location and time. Teeter reported that the workshop will be held at Kalamazoo Metro Transit at 11:30 a.m.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Start reported that work on the City of Kalamazoo Master Plan is ongoing. The KATS Draft Transportation Management Area Certification Review Report is anticipated to be complete in July. Tupica has left for a position with the Federal Highway Administration Oregon office.

NEW BUSINESS

Start reported that there were no action items for KATS Policy Committee for the month of July. The July meeting of the KATS Technical Committee has been cancelled. Members were asked if, given this information, if the KATS Policy Committee thought it necessary to meet in July.

MOTION by Sorensen, SECOND by Dykstra, “to cancel the July 27, 2016 Policy Committee Meeting.” MOTION APPROVED.

CITIZEN COMMENTS-NONE

MEMBER COMMENTS

Anderson asked Start if he would give additional information on the contributed service report distributed at the meeting and the shortfall. Start reported that KATS had met its contributed service requirement. Zehner noted that while overall KATS had met its local match requirement if all effort was combined, FHWA had discouraged the combining of local match and recommended that transit local match only be

5 Ron Reid, Kalamazoo Township 6 Claudette Reid, City of Portage


used to match the FTA portion of the grant to ensure balanced transportation system planning. Start noted that contributed services are combined for state reporting purposes. Federal partners have discussed with KATS the need for contributed services that more directly support KATS planning efforts.

Pfeiffer reported that bridge beams have been set for the I-94 project at exit 88. US-131 from I-94 to Shaver is progressing with dirt work in preparation for paving. US-131 at Centre restoration work is being completed.

Nielsen reported that the Village of Paw Paw is one of ten (10) communities chosen for the Governor’s Rising Tide Program. It is being coordinated with the Village Master Plan Update. Nielsen also spoke highly of the response and support of the bicycling community in the wake of the incident which took the lives of four (4) bicyclists and injured five (5) others. Griffin echoed Nielsen’s appreciation of the support of the community.

Anderson, reported that there has been a new interest from constituents in getting the City of Kalamazoo Complete Streets Policy approved. There has also been an interest in an ordination similar to the Grand Rapids language regarding the safe distance for motorists passing bicycles. Sorensen reported that one of the cyclists injured was the daughter of the Cooper Township clerk. The thoughts and prayers were appreciated.

Britigan reported that the Kindleberger Festival of the Performing Arts will be July 6-10, and Riverview Drive will be temporarily shut down.

Smith7 reported that Brady Township is exploring gravel technology. Z Avenue currently has 4 different sections of gravel. The first section is normal gravel and dust control, the second is experimenting with ground up milling and chip seal, the third section is an emulsion, and the fourth and new section utilizes asphalt recycled shingles.

Smith8 reported that the Village of Vicksburg Sunset Lake Beach is closed due to E. coli. The Village is working with Kalamazoo County Public Health Department to identify the source. Canadian geese are a potential source.

Reid9 reported that the City of Portage passed has passed an anti-discrimination ordinance.

Heiny-Cogswell reported that the sewer line has been installed for the Atlantic Avenue Project. Thirty days must pass before the line can be tested. The N. Drake Non-Motorized Project is progressing and meetings are being held for easement acquisition. N. 10th Street is currently closed for the sewer project.

Stepek introduced Mara Gericke who has been hired as KATS intern. Gericke is a student at Grand Valley State University.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no other business, Chair Ulsh adjourned the June 29, 2016 Policy Committee Meeting at 10:05 a.m.

The next meeting of the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee will be held on Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at Kalamazoo Metro Transit.

7 Randy Smith, Brady Township 8 Ron Smith, Village of Vicksburg 9 Claudette Reid, City of Portage


Required Fields

Fiscal Year County

Respon-sible

Agency Project Name Limits LengthPrimary Work

Type Project Description PhaseAdvance

Construct

Federal Cost

($1000s)

Federal Fund

SourceState Cost ($1000s)

State Fund

SourceLocal Cost ($1000s)

Local Fund

Source

Total Phase Cost ($1000s)

MDOT Job No.

Local ID No.

MPO/ Rural Action Date

Amend-ment Type

Air Quality Comments

Total Project

Cost ($1000s)

2016 Kalamazoo MDOT I-94 BL Oliver St to Harrison St 2.00 ScopingEnvironmental Study(PEL) to determine the cooridor configuration and maintenance of traffic concepts

EPE 614 NH 136 M 750 131203 08/31/16 Add E Addition of Study 750

Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study FY 2014 - 2017 Transportation Improvement Program6/26/2013 (6/29/16)


RESOLUTION Supporting the Application for Local Safety Program Funds

for the Portage Road and East Osterhout Avenue Safety Project

WHEREAS, the Transportation Act, provides Federal Local Safety Program Funding for safety improvements on the state and local road systems, and the Michigan Department of Transportation is soliciting new candidate project applications for the Local Safety Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Portage has identified an improvement project at the intersection of Portage Road and East Osterhout Avenue, and Portage Road and East Osterhout Avenue are public roads; and WHEREAS, this intersection has experienced 17 reported crashes between 2010 and 2014, including one fatality, one non-incapacitating injuries and six possible injuries; and WHEREAS, an application is being prepared to request funding for the identified project to include a roundabout to facilitate through and side street traffic and traffic calming; and WHEREAS, the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee has discussed the Local Safety Program Funding Application with the City of Portage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee supports the City of Portage’s application for Local Safety Program Funds for FY 2018.

Don Ulsh, Chairperson Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee

Date

This resolution was adopted by the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee at their August 31, 2016, meeting.



for the Oakland Drive and Vanderbilt Avenue Safety Project

WHEREAS, the Transportation Act, provides Federal Local Safety Program Funding for safety improvements on the state and local road systems, and the Michigan Department of Transportation is soliciting new candidate project applications for the Local Safety Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Portage has identified an improvement project at the intersection of Oakland Drive and Vanderbilt Avenue, and Oakland Drive and Vanderbilt Avenue are public roads; and WHEREAS, this intersection has experienced 10 reported crashes between 2010 and 2014, including four non-incapacitating injuries and three possible injuries; and WHEREAS, an application is being prepared to request funding for the identified project to include the installation of a four-way traffic signal; and WHEREAS, the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee has discussed the Local Safety Program Funding Application with the City of Portage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee supports the City of Portage’s application for Local Safety Program Funds for FY 2018.


Date




for the Portage Road and Lakeview Drive Safety Project

WHEREAS, the Transportation Act, provides Federal Local Safety Program Funding for safety improvements on the state and local road systems, and the Michigan Department of Transportation is soliciting new candidate project applications for the Local Safety Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Portage has identified an improvement project at the intersection of Oakland Drive and Vanderbilt Avenue, and Oakland Drive and Vanderbilt Avenue are public roads; and WHEREAS, this intersection has experienced 10 reported crashes between 2010 and 2014, including four non-incapacitating injuries and three possible injuries; and WHEREAS, an application is being prepared to request funding for the identified project to relocate the intersection south to provide adequate site distance; and WHEREAS, the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee has discussed the Local Safety Program Funding Application with the City of Portage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study Policy Committee supports the City of Portage’s application for Local Safety Program Funds for FY 2018.


Date



41473 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1 For simplicity, the remainder of this NPRM refers only to the planning provisions codified in title 23, although similar provisions also are codified in chapter 53 of title 49.

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: The FHWA and FTA propose revisions to the transportation planning regulations to promote more effective regional planning by States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The goal of the proposed revisions is to result in unified planning products for each urbanized area (UZA), even if there are multiple MPOs designated within that urbanized area. Specifically it would result in MPOs developing a single metropolitan transportation plan, a single transportation improvement program (TIP), and a jointly established set of performance targets for the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. If multiple MPOs are designated within that urbanized area, they would jointly prepare these unified planning products. To accomplish this, the proposed revisions clarify that the metropolitan planning area must include the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 20 years.

These proposed revisions would better align the planning regulations with statutory provisions concerning the establishment of metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundaries and the designation of MPOs. This includes the statutory requirement for the MPA to include an urbanized area in its entirety, and the exception provision to allow more than one MPO to serve a single MPA if warranted by the size and complexity of the MPA. The rulemaking would establish clearer operating procedures, and reinstate certain coordination and decisionmaking requirements for situations where there is more than one MPO serving an MPA. The proposed rule includes a

requirement for unified planning products for the MPA including jointly established performance targets within an MPA, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA in order to result in planning products that reflect the regional needs of the entire urbanized area. These unified planning products would be jointly developed by the multiple MPOs in such MPAs where more than one MPO is designated. The FHWA and FTA propose to phase in implementation of these proposed coordination requirements and the proposed requirements for MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreements over 2 years. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493–2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self- addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the DOT complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

Electronic Access and Filing

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register’s home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office’s Web site at: http://www.gpo.gov. 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:

I. Summary This regulation proposes 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. The proposed rule would emphasize the importance of applying a regional perspective during the planning process, to 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 proposed rule would strengthen the voice of MPOs in the transportation planning process.

This proposed rule would revise the regulatory definition of ‘‘metropolitan planning area’’ (MPA) to better align with the statutory requirements in 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.1 Specifically, the proposed rule would 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, include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the metropolitan transportation plan. By aligning the regulatory definition of the MPA with the statute, the proposed rule would acknowledge that the MPA is dynamic. The MPA is the basic geographic unit for metropolitan planning; therefore this requirement will ensure that planning activities consider the entire region of the urbanized area consistently.

An exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7) allows multiple MPOs to be designated within a single MPA if the Governor and MPO determine that the size and complexity of the area make multiple MPOs appropriate; the proposed rule would establish certain requirements applicable in such instances where multiple MPOs serve a single MPA. It

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jun 24, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1mst

ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



would also establish certain requirements applicable in such instances where an MPO’s urbanized area spreads into the MPAs of neighboring MPOs. First, the proposed rule would clarify that MPA boundaries are not necessarily synonymous with MPO boundaries. Second, the proposed rule would amend § 450.310(e) of the regulation to clarify that, where more than one MPO serves an MPA, the Governor and affected MPOs will establish or adjust the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by agreement. Third, the proposed rule would establish additional coordination requirements for areas where multiple MPOs are designated within the MPA. Under the proposed rule, the Governor and MPOs would determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate; if they determine it is not appropriate then the MPOs would be required to merge or adjust their jurisdiction such that there is only one MPO within the MPA. If they determine that designation of multiple MPOs is appropriate, then the MPOs may remain separate, with separate boundaries of responsibility within the MPA, as established by the affected MPOs and the Governor. However, the proposed rule would require those multiple

separate MPOs to jointly develop unified planning products: A single long range plan (referred to as the metropolitan transportation plan), a single TIP, and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA.

The requirement for unified planning products also applies to urbanized areas that cross State lines. In multistate urbanized areas, the Governors and MPOs designated within the MPA must jointly determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA warrant designation of more than one MPO and must jointly develop unified planning products.

These requirements for a single planning process and a single metropolitan transportation plan to accommodate the intended growth of a region will enable individuals within that region to better engage in the planning process and facilitate their efforts to ensure that the growth trajectory matches their vision and goals. In order to support the development of these single documents, the MPOs would be required to establish procedures for joint decisionmaking, including a process for resolving disagreements.

Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to strengthen the role that MPOs play in the planning process by requiring States

and MPOs to agree to a process for resolving disagreements and including that process in the documentation reviewed by FHWA and FTA when they make a planning finding under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8). The planning finding is a determination on whether the transportation planning process through which statewide transportation plans and programs are developed is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134–135.

These proposed changes to the planning regulations are designed to facilitate metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes that are more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional needs. The proposed rule would help 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 and particularly those measures focused on congestion and system performance. The proposed rule 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.

TABLE OF KEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE NPRM

Proposed change Description Key regulatory sections

Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundaries.

The metropolitan planning area shall include—at a minimum—the en-tire urbanized area plus any contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan.

450.104 (Definitions). 450.312 (Metropolitan planning

area boundaries).

Determination that more than one MPO in an MPA is appropriate.

If after the publication of this rule or the release of the Decennial Census, there is more than one MPO designated within a single MPA, the Governor and MPO must determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA make designation of more than one MPO appropriate. If they determine it is not appropriate, those MPOs would be required to merge.

450.310 (MPO designation and re-designation).

Coordination for multiple MPOs within an MPA.

Where multiple MPOs are designated within a metropolitan planning area, they shall jointly develop the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and performance targets for the MPA. Additionally, the MPOs shall establish procedures for joint decisionmaking as well as a process for resolving disagreements.

450.104 (Definitions). 450.306 (Scope of the metropoli-

tan transportation planning proc-ess).

450.324 (Development and con-tent of the metropolitan trans-portation plan).

450.326 (Development and con-tent of the TIP).

Coordination of planning process activities between State and MPO.

States and MPOs shall maintain a current planning agreement, in-cluding a process for resolving disagreements. States and MPOs shall coordinate on information, studies, or analyses within the MPA.

450.208 (Coordination of planning process activities).

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). 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


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



2 Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule, 81 FR 34050, May 27, 2016.

structure is to have a single MPO per urbanized area. However, the statute does create an exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7), which provides that more than one MPO may be designated within an existing MPA only if the Governor and the existing MPO determine that the size and complexity of the existing MPA make designation of more than one MPO for the area appropriate. Section 134(d)(7) reinforces the interpretation that the norm envisioned by the statute is that urbanized areas not be divided into multiple planning areas.

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was enacted with 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. This enhanced planning role for MPOs was defined in the 1993 planning regulation, which was written to carry out these changes to statute. The 1993 planning regulation described a single coordinated planning process for the metropolitan planning area (MPA) resulting in a single metropolitan transportation plan for the MPA. In several locations, the 1993 regulation recognized the possibility of multiple MPOs within a single MPA and provided expectations for coordination, which included an overall transportation plan for the entire area. (See 58 FR 58040, October 28, 1993). The 1993 regulation stated in the former § 450.310(g) that ‘‘where more than oneMPO 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 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 § 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 MPO.’’ 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 urbanized area, resulting in multiple ‘‘MPAs’’ within a single urbanized area.

In 2007, the FHWA and FTA updated the regulations to align with changes made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users and its predecessor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The revised regulations reflected the practice of having multiple ‘‘MPAs’’ within a single urbanized area, although the statute pertaining to this issue had not changed. The 2007 regulation refers to multiple MPOs within an urbanized area rather than multiple MPOs within an MPA, and the term ‘‘MPA’’ 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 proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of more than one MPA.’’ See 72 FR 7224, February 14, 2007. The FHWA and FTA adopted that language as § 450.314(d), and redesignated it in a 2016 rulemaking as § 450.314(e).2 The 2007 rule also added § 450.312(h), which explicitly recognizes that, over time, an urbanized area 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 urbanized area in its entirety.

As a result, since 2007, the language of the regulation has supported the possibility of multiple MPOs within an urbanized area rather than within an MPA. The FHWA and FTA have concluded this 2007 change in the regulatory definition has fostered confusion about the statutory requirements and resulted in less efficient planning outcomes where multiple TIPs and metropolitan transportation plans are developed within a single urbanized area. This proposed rule is designed to correct the problems that have occurred under the 2007 rule and return to the structure embodied in the rule before the 2007 amendments and envisioned in statute. The additional coordination requirements pertain to all MPOs designated within the MPA boundaries.

Illustrations of metropolitan areas are included in the docket to aid understanding of the distinction

between MPO and MPA boundaries, and also the difference between the way MPAs have been designated in practice and the minimum area that must be included as a result of this proposed rulemaking. These illustrations will help clarify the coordination requirements proposed in this rulemaking.

MPO Coordination Within an MPA The metropolitan planning statute

calls for ‘‘each MPO 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). 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 urbanized area in an MPA. Presently, such MPOs typically create separate metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs for separate parts of the urbanized area. Currently, the regulations require that where multiple MPOs exist within the same urbanized area, their written agreements must describe how they will coordinate activities. However, the extent and effectiveness of coordination varies, and in some cases effective coordination on regional needs and interests can prove challenging. Ultimately, the Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA concur, that the end result of two or more separate metropolitan transportation planning processes, resulting in two or more separate plans and TIPs for a single urbanized area is most often both inefficient and confusing to the 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 their community. They would therefore find it necessary to contribute to each MPO’s separate planning process in order to have their regional concerns adequately considered. Public participation in transportation planning is critical to ensuring that the investment decisions meet the needs of the affected communities.

Further, a regional perspective is needed if metropolitan transportation planning is to maximize economic opportunities, while also addressing the externalities of growth such as congestion, air and water quality impacts, and impacts on resilience. The


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



Secretary of Transportation believes, and FHWA and FTA concur, that joint decisionmaking is necessary in the multiple MPO situations to best ensure application of a regional perspective. 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 statewide 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 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 the State 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 Secretary of Transportation believes that the voices of MPOs will be strengthened by having a single coordinated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for each MPA, which should create a united position on transportation needs and priorities within that urbanized area. Ultimately, each relationship between State and MPO is unique, and there may not be a single coordination process that is appropriate for all areas of the country. However, it is the opinion of the Secretary of Transportation that there must be adequate cooperation between States and MPOs. The FHWA and FTA concur in those views, and therefore this proposed rule would require that States and MPOs demonstrate evidence of cooperation, including the existence of an agreed upon dispute resolution process.

The purpose of the Planning program is to use public funds effectively and FHWA and FTA welcome ideas to improve our planning processes. As such, FHWA and FTA seek comment on how DOT can incorporate processes to further ensure that Federal funds are used efficiency by States and MPOs. How can the Statewide and Non metropolitan and Metropolitan Transportation Planning process provide stronger incentives to States and MPOs to manage transportation funding more effectively?

III. Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 450.104—Definitions The proposed rule would revise the

definition of ‘‘metropolitan planning area’’ in § 450.104 to add language to align the definition with the basic statutory requirements for MPA boundaries. The purpose of the revision is to help reduce confusion about MPA requirements. The current definition describes the MPA as the geographic area determined by agreement between the MPO(s) for the area and the Governor. That definition does not include any reference to the minimum requirement in 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(A) that the MPA must include the entire urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. The revised definition would add a description of the minimum requirement from the statute, and describe the 23 U.S.C. 134(e)(2)(B) option to include more than the minimum geographic area. The FHWA and FTA specifically ask for comments on whether the rule ought to expressly address how States and MPOs should determine MPA boundaries where two or more MPAs are contiguous or can be expected to be contiguous in the near future. For example, should the rule provide that such MPAs must merge? Alternatively, should the rule allow the States and MPOs to tailor the MPA boundaries and the 20-year urbanization forecast to take the proximity of other MPAs into account?

The term ‘‘Metropolitan Transportation Plan’’ is revised by changing the location and number of MPO references in the definition, and by adding a reference to the MPA. Similar changes are proposed for the definition of ‘‘Transportation Improvement Program’’ to make it clear the definition encompasses situations where multiple MPOs in an MPA work together to develop a unified TIP. The inclusion of new references to the MPA in the definitions clarifies that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the TIP are developed through the metropolitan transportation planning process for the entire MPA.

Section 450.208—Coordination of Planning Process Activities

The proposed rule would strengthen and clarify expectations for State-MPO coordination, and would require metropolitan planning agreements to include coordination strategies and dispute resolution procedures. Section 450.208(a)(1) previously encouraged States to rely on MPO data and analysis

for areas within the MPA; the rule would now require coordination between States and MPOs. This change is proposed to ensure States and MPOs employ consistent data, assumptions and other analytical materials when doing transportation planning; this does not affect roles and responsibilities for project prioritization. The section would be further amended by adding language to require the State and MPO to maintain a current planning agreement that includes a process for resolving disagreements. The metropolitan planning agreement, and its inclusion of strategies for coordination and the resolution of disagreements would be included among the other relevant documents considered by FHWA and FTA as part of their periodic determination under 23 U.S.C. 135(g)(8) whether the transportation planning process through which statewide transportation plans and programs are developed is consistent with 23 U.S.C. 134–135.

Section 450.218—Development and Content of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

The proposed rule would change the reference to ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in two places. This is to more clearly recognize the possibility that multiple MPOs may be involved with the development of a single metropolitan TIP.

Section 450.226—Phase-In of New Requirements

The proposed rule would provide a phase-in provision for the proposed requirement in 23 CFR 450.208(a)(1) that metropolitan planning agreement must include strategies for coordination and the resolution of disagreements. In proposed § 450.226(h), the rule would provide a phase-in period of 2 years after the publication date of a final rule. The compliance date for all other proposed changes in 23 CFR part 450, subpart A would be the effective date of the final rule. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year phase-in period.

Section 450.300—Purpose

The proposed rule would add a reference to MPA in the first sentence in § 450.300(a). The addition makes it clearthat an MPO carries out the planning process for its MPA. This change will enhance the consistency in the rule, maintaining the statutory focus on the MPO as carrying out planning for its MPA, of which one or more entire urbanized areas are a part.


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



Section 450.306—Scope of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

The proposed rule would add a new paragraph to § 450.306(d). Where there are multiple MPOs for an MPA, the new provision would require the MPOs to jointly establish the MPA’s performance targets under 23 CFR part 490 (where applicable), 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). This requirement for a joint target-setting process would be consistent with the requirements established in the proposed rule for a joint metropolitan plan and TIP for the MPA shared by the MPOs. The FHWA and FTA request comments on the proposed language, and request ideas for alternatives that might better accomplish the goals embodied in the proposal. Those goals are to ensure performance targets appropriately reflect the needs and priorities of the MPA as a whole, and to avoid a situation where the MPOs within a single MPA select inconsistent or conflicting performance targets.

In paragraph (i), the proposed rule would change the reference from ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in the last sentence of the paragraph. This is to more clearly recognize the possibility that multiple MPOs may be involved with the development of an abbreviated plan or TIP using simplified procedures.

Section 450.310—Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and Redesignation

As provided in statute, some MPAs will necessarily be so large and complex that multiple MPOs are needed within the MPA. The proposed rule reflects the view, based on an interpretation of the planning statutes and on FHWA and FTA experiences, that when there are multiple MPOs within the same MPA, enhanced coordination and joint decisionmaking procedures are needed to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive planning process within the MPA. The proposed rule would revise § 450.310(e) by clarifying that more than one MPO can be designated for an MPA only when the Governor and MPO(s) determine it is warranted, in accordance with § 450.310(e). This change would reinforce the statutory principle that ordinarily only one MPO shall be designated for an MPA. The proposed rule retains the statutory standard permitting the designation of multiple MPOs within an MPA only if the Governor and existing MPO determine that the MPA’s size and complexity necessitate multiple MPOs. Several references in the existing rule to ‘‘urbanized areas’’ would be replaced

with ‘‘MPA’’ to better align with the statutory language.

The proposed rule would articulate in § 450.310(e) the limited exemption tothe requirement of one MPO per MPA and the requirements applicable when multiple MPOs are designated within the same MPA. The case could arise that multiple MPOs that were previously designated will come to be located within the same MPA, either because this rule, once effective, will require some Governors and MPOs to reevaluate the bounds of MPAs, or due to the future merger of urbanized areas following a Decennial Census. In those situations, paragraph (e) provides that the Governor and MPOs would have to determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA warrant the designation of multiple MPOs.

The statute envisions a single MPO per MPA, with the exception that more than one MPO may be designated only if the Governor and existing MPO determine that the size and complexity of the metropolitan planning area make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate. However, because of the past practice of many MPOs and Governors treating the term MPA as essentially synonymous with the territory of any particular MPO, many MPOs are not in compliance with the statute. This rule would require some MPOs and Governors to conceptualize for the first time the bounds of the MPAs as geographically distinct from the jurisdictional boundaries of the MPOs. Accordingly, for any MPOs that newly share an MPA with one or more other MPOs as a result of this rulemaking enforcing the statutory definition of MPA, the affected MPOs and Governor must make a determination that the MPA is of a size and complexity that makes multiple MPOs appropriate, or must merge the MPOs in MPAs where the Governor and MPOs determine that the size and complexity do not make multiple MPOs appropriate.

If the Governor and MPOs determine that multiple MPOs are not warranted based on the size and complexity of the MPA, those MPOs would have to merge and follow the redesignation procedures in § 450.310(h). Where it is determined that multiple MPOs are warranted, coordination still would be required among the MPOs in the affected MPA under the rule, with revisions to emphasize that the MPOs would jointly develop a unified plan, TIP, and performance targets for the entire MPA. The MPOs still would be required to establish official, written agreements that clearly identify areas of coordination, the division of

transportation planning responsibilities among and between the MPOs, and procedures for joint decisionmaking and the resolution of disagreements—all for and within the affected MPA. Together with the Governor, those MPOs would jointly establish the MPO boundaries within the MPA.

The proposed rule would change a reference to ‘‘entire MPA’’ in paragraph (m), concerning coordination in multistate metropolitan areas, to ‘‘entire metropolitan area.’’ The FHWA and FTA believe ‘‘metropolitan area’’ is consistent with ‘‘multistate metropolitan area’’ and more clearly conveys the intent of the paragraph.

Section 450.312—Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries

The proposed rule would reorganize, and make technical edits to, existing § 450.312. The proposed rule would addor clarify requirements through revisions in paragraphs (c), (f), (h), and (i).

The proposed rule would reorganize § 450.312(a) by switching the order ofthe first two sentences. The proposed rule would move certain references to ‘‘MPA’’ and add language in proposed § 450.312(a)(1) to clarify and emphasizethat an agreement between the Governor and an MPO concerning the boundaries of an MPA is subject to the minimum requirement that the MPA contain the entire existing urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. The proposed rule also adds a new § 450.312(a)(2) to clarify that whenMPOs are contiguous to the same non- urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, they must agree on their mutual MPA boundaries so that their boundaries do not overlap.

Section 450.312(b) would be reorganized. Section 450.312(b) and (c) would be edited for consistency with the requirement that an MPA contain an urbanized area in its entirety.

Section 450.312(f) would be revised to more closely align with the language of 23 U.S.C. 134(f). That provision calls for the Secretary to encourage the Governors and MPOs in a multistate metropolitan area to coordinate transportation planning across the entire metropolitan area. The FHWA and FTA concluded the statute’s use of the term ‘‘metropolitan area,’’ rather than the statutorily-defined term ‘‘MPA,’’ reflects an intention to promote coordinated planning across a broader area than a single MPA. This interpretation takes into consideration the plain language


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



3 See, e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau discussions in ‘‘Metropolitan Areas’’ available online at https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.html (as of March 2016) and ‘‘Metropolitan Areas Standards Review Project (MASRP)’’ available online at http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/masrp.html (as of march 2016); see also Office of management and Budget discussion in its Notice of Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (65 FR 82228, at 82228–82229 (December 27, 2000).

meaning of ‘‘metropolitan area.’’ as well as the historical use of the term by the Federal Government.3 The type of coordination called for in 23 U.S.C. 134(f), as reflected in the proposed revisions to § 450.312(f), reaches beyond MPAs to include not only the core urban areas but also outlying areas that are economically and socially integrated with the urban areas. The proposed rule also would add language describing the compact authority contained in 23 U.S.C. 134(f).

Section 450.312(h) would be entirely rewritten for consistency with the proposed rule’s emphasis on the statutory requirement that all of an urbanized area be contained in the same MPA. As proposed, § 450.312(h) would describe the organizational options available to Governors and MPOs where more than one MPO is designated in an MPA, as authorized by the exception in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7). Proposed § 450.312(h)(1) through (3) woulddescribe minimum requirements applicable where the multiple MPOs exist in a single MPA. The three requirements would be (1) a written agreement among the MPOs to identify how planning decisions will be made and carried out, (2) use of joint decisionmaking to develop a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA, and (3) establishment of the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA by agreement of the Governor and the affected MPOs.

The proposed rule would revise § 450.312(i), which addresses reviews ofMPA boundaries after each Census. The changes would include clarifying that the minimum requirements for MPAs apply in this situation. Following a Decennial Census, the MPO(s) are required to review the MPA boundaries to ensure compliance with the minimum statutory requirements. This includes changes in urbanized areas that result in the merging of previously separate urbanized areas, or expansion of urbanized areas into a neighboring MPA. Under the proposed rule, if a Census results in two previously separate urbanized areas being defined as a single urbanized area, the Governor and MPO(s) would have to redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that

includes the entire new urbanized area plus the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period of the transportation plan. The MPOs may remain separate only if the Governor and MPOs determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make it appropriate to have multiple MPOs designated for the area, as described in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7). This paragraph also clarifies the responsibilities when two or more MPOs may be adjacent to the same non- urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, or when an urbanized area expands into a neighboring MPA. In these situations, the Governor and MPOs are encouraged to merge adjacent MPAs when urbanized areas are contiguous or when the urbanized areas are expected to become contiguous within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan, but they must at a minimum agree on their mutual MPA boundaries. This paragraph also establishes a timeline for compliance following a Decennial Census that results in the merger of two or more previously separate MPAs.

The proposed rule would add a new paragraph—§ 450.312(j)—which would enumerate the situations in which a Governor and MPOs are encouraged to merge multiple MPAs into a single MPA, including when multiple urbanized areas are directly adjacent to each other, when they are expected to grow to become adjacent within 20 years, or when they are adjacent to the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within 20 years.

The proposed rule would change a reference in the renumbered § 450.312(k) from ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’for consistency with other proposed changes.

Section 450.314—Metropolitan Planning Agreements

The proposed rule would change several references in § 450.314 from ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ for consistency with other proposed changes in the rule.

The proposed rule would make several changes to § 450.314(e). The rule would change ‘‘an urbanized area’’ in the first sentence to ‘‘an MPA,’’ to better reflect the statutory relationship between MPOs, MPAs, and urbanized areas. The sentence would also be changed to require development of a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for an MPA. Where a proposed transportation investment extends across the boundaries of more than one MPA, the proposed rule would require

MPOs to coordinate to assure the development of consistent metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs. This would replace language in the existing rule that calls for consistent plans and TIPs across the MPA. The proposed rule would require, rather than encourage, the use of coordinated data collection, analysis, and planning assumptions across the MPA. The proposed rule would strongly encourage the use of such practices across neighboring MPOs that are not within the same MPA. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption.

The proposed rule would eliminate the phrase ‘‘urbanized area’’ from § 450.314(f), concerning multistateMPAs, and change existing references from ‘‘multistate area’’ to ‘‘multistate MPA.’’ These changes will make the provision more consistent with the planning statute and other proposed changes in the rule.

Under the proposed rule, § 450.314(g) would be revised for consistency with the statutory requirement that all of an urbanized are be included within the same MPA. The proposed rule would clarify that the rule’s existing requirement for a written agreement on roles and responsibilities for meeting transportation management area (TMA) requirements applies where more than one MPO serve the MPA containing the TMA.

Similar changes would be made in § 450.314(h), to clarify that thecooperative development and sharing of information related to performance management applies when an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA as well as an urbanized area that is not a TMA.

Section 450.316—Interested Parties, Participation, and Consultation

The proposed rule would revise § 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by changingreferences from ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s).’’ These changes would make the references consistent with other changes proposed in this rule.

Section 450.324—Development and Content of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

References to ‘‘MPO’’ in several parts of § 450.324 would be changed to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ for consistency with other proposed changes to the rule. The proposed rule would redesignate the current § 450.3249(c) through (m) as § 450.324(d) through (n), respectively,and add a new paragraph (c). The new provision would require that, if more


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



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; (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); and (3) agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption. The FHWA and FTA also request comments on the question whether additional changes are needed in FHWA and FTA regulations on performance measures and target setting (e.g., 23 CFR part 490) to cross-reference this new planning provision on target- setting.

Section 450.326—Development and Content of the Transportation Improvement Program

The proposed rule would add a sentence to § 450.326(a) to require that in MPAs with multiple MPOs the MPOs must jointly develop a single TIP for the MPA. The rule would require such MPOs, if in nonattainment or maintenance areas, to agree on a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint TIP. The FHWA and FTA seek comments on what, if any, exemptions ought to be contained in the rule from these requirements, and what criteria might be used for such an exemption.

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in paragraphs (a), (b), (j), and (p). Those changes would be made for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rulemaking.

Section 450.328—TIP Revisions and Relationship to the STIP

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in § 450.328(a), (b), and (c). The changes would be made for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.

Section 450.330—TIP Action by the FHWA and the FTA

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in § 450.330(a) and (c). Section 450.330(c) would be clarified by changing the first part of the first sentence from ‘‘[i]f an MPO has not . . .’’, to ‘‘[i]f an MPO or MPOs have not . . .’’ All these changes are for better consistency with proposed revisions in other parts of the rule concerning how planning requirements apply where

there are multiple MPOs in an MPA provisions, as authorized by the exception provision in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(7).

Section 450.332—Project Selection From the TIP

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in § 450.332(b) and (c), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rule.

Section 450.334—Annual Listing of Obligated Projects

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in § 450.334(a), for better consistency with other changes proposed in the rulemaking.

Section 450.336—Self-Certifications and Federal Certifications

The proposed rule would change ‘‘MPO’’ to ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in several places in § 450.336(b), for better consistency withother changes proposed in the rule.

Section 450.340—Phase-In of New Requirements

The proposed rule would add phase- in implementing provisions to § 450.340 for certain parts of the proposed rule. The compliance date for all other proposed changes would be the effective date of the final rule.

In a new paragraph (h), FHWA and FTA propose giving States and MPOs 2 years before they would have to be fully compliant with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in §§ 450.310 and 450.312, and with the requirements for jointly established performance targets and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA. The proposed rule would require the Governor and MPOs to document their determination of whether the size and complexity of the MPA justify the designation of multiple MPOs, however, the decision would not be subject to approval by FHWA and FTA. Full compliance for all MPOs within the MPA would be required before the earliest next regularly scheduled update of a metropolitan transportation plan for any MPO within the MPA, following the second anniversary of the effective date of a final rule, if adopted. The FHWA and FTA seek comment on the appropriateness of the proposed 2-year phase-in period.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the

comment closing date will be filed in the docket and considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA and FTA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period and after FHWA and FTA have had the opportunity to review the comments submitted.

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 proposed rule is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed regulation seeks to improve the clarity of the planning rules by addressing ambiguity in MPO boundaries and responsibilities and better aligning the regulations with the statute. Additionally, the MPOs shall establish procedures for joint decisionmaking as well as a process for resolving disagreements. These changes are also intended to result in better outcomes for the MPOs, State agencies, providers of public transportation and the public, by restoring 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 joint planning requirements of this rule affect primarily urbanized areas with multiple MPOs planning for the same area, 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. The MPOs 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 adjustment of MPA boundaries to eliminate overlap and by merging MPOs. The FHWA and FTA are seeking comments on what other


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



options affected MPOs could exercise to reduce the overlap while meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements. The FHWA and FTA expect that such responses will reduce the number of MPOs ultimately affected by these coordination requirements.

All MPOs will be required to review their agreements with State DOTs and providers of public transportation to ensure that there are written procedures for joint decisionmaking and dispute resolution. The FHWA and FTA expect that the MPOs, State DOTs and providers of public transportation will undertake this review and update as they identify how they will implement a performance based planning and programming process required by MAP– 21 and revised Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Final Rule (FHWA RIN: 2125–AF52; FTA RIN: 2132–AB10). Because FHWA and FTA anticipate that the reviews would occur due to other existing requirements and in the absence of the proposed rule, the incremental impact, to the extent that there is any, should be quite small.

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 multiple MPOs appropriate. The proposed rule would require those multiple separate MPOs to jointly develop unified planning products: A single metropolitan transportation plan, a single TIP, and a jointly established set of performance targets for the MPA. This should not create a large burden, and will in some cases reduce overall planning costs. Because MPOs within the same urban area will produce single planning documents, there will be less overlapping and duplicative work. Thus, the rule will enhance efficiency in planning processes for some areas, and generate cost-savings due to creating single rather than multiple documents as well as through pooling of resources and sharing data, models, and other tools. However, the MPOs that are not accustomed to coordinating across boundaries will have to establish relationships and protocols, and reconcile procedures. Coordination could create some initial costs, but those will diminish over time. There is also expected to be some offsetting costs for State DOTs and MPOs due to the necessity of updating metropolitan planning agreements to include dispute resolution processes. These costs are expected to be primarily experienced in the initial year, as processes are developed.

To the extent that there are any costs, 80 percent are directly reimbursable through Federal transportation funds allocated for metropolitan planning (23 U.S.C. 104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)) and for State planning and research (23 U.S.C. 505 and 49 U.S.C. 5313). Thus, the costs to the affected MPOs should be minimal.

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 the entire region, and if members of the public have an easier ability to engage in the planning process.

The FHWA and FTA seek comments and available data on the costs and benefits of the proposals of this rulemaking.

In addition, this action complies with the principles of Executive Order 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of these proposed amendments, the FHWA and FTA anticipate that the net economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. 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 ActIn 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 action on small entities and have determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendment addresses the obligation of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal- aid highway projects. The proposed 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 would 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 proposed rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.

I hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995

The FHWA and FTA have determined that this NPRM 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 proposed rule does not include a Federal 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. The FHWA and FTA will publish a final analysis, including its response to public comments, when it publishes a final rule. 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 permits this type of flexibility.

D. Executive Order 13132 (FederalismAssessment)

The FHWA and FTA have analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA and FTA have also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States’ ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

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 ActUnder the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



require through regulations. The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under the PRA and has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for 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 action 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 lead directly to construction) for FHWA, and 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and administrative activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction) for FTA. The FHWA and FTA have evaluated whether the action would involve unusual or extraordinary circumstances and have determined that this action would not.

H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This action 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)

We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA and FTA certify that this action would 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 action under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal- aid highway projects and would not impose any direct 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 action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The FHWA and FTA have determined that this 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 consider EJ.

Nothing inherent in the proposed rule would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The proposed rule establishes procedures and other requirements to guide future State and local decisionmaking on programs and projects. Neither the proposed rule nor 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 dictate the outcome of those decisions. The FHWA and FTA have determined that the proposed rule would 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 action 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.


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 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 propose to 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

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

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

■ 2. Amend § 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:

§ 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, 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 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. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 450.208 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 450.208 Coordination of planningprocess activities.

(a) * * * (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 metropolitan planning areas. 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; * * * * *

§ 450.218 [Amended]■ 4. Amend § 450.218(b) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ in both places it appears. ■ 5. Amend § 450.226 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 450.226 Phase-in of new requirements.

* * * * * (g) On and after [date 2 years after

publication of the final rule], 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 decision-making and the resolution of disagreements.

Subpart C—Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming

■ 6. Amend § 450.300 by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); and ■ b. Removing from paragraph (b) the word ‘‘Encourages’’ and adding in its place ‘‘Encourage’’.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 450.300 Purpose.

* * * * * (a) Set forth the national policy that

the MPO designated for each urbanized area 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 and bicycle transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and * * * * * ■ 7. Amend § 450.306 by adding paragraph (d)(5) and revising paragraph (i) as follows:

§ 450.306 Scope of the metropolitantransportation 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 urbanized area 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 these regulations, 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). ■ 8. Amend § 450.310 by revising paragraphs (e) and (m) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 450.310 Metropolitan planningorganization 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.


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



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: * * * * * ■ 9. Section 450.312 is revised to read as follows:

§ 450.312 Metropolitan planning areaboundaries.

(a) At a minimum, the boundaries of an MPA shall encompass the entire existing urbanized area (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 would otherwise include the same non- urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period, 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 would also

require the MPOs to merge in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in § 450.310(h), unless the Governor and MPO(s) determine that the size and complexity of the MPA make multiple MPOs appropriate, as described in § 450.310(e).

(3) The MPA boundaries may befurther expanded to encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or combined statistical area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

(b) The MPA boundaries that existed on August 10, 2005 shall be retained for an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as of August 10, 2005. Such MPA boundaries may only be adjusted by agreement of the Governor and the affected MPO(s) in accordance with the redesignation procedures described in § 450.310(h). The boundaries for an MPA that includes an urbanized area 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 the requirements in § 450.310(b).

(c) An MPA boundary may encompass more than one urbanized area, but each urbanized area 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 urbanized areas within an existing metropolitan planning area 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) Where the Governor 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;

(3) Establish the boundaries for each MPO within the MPA, by agreement among all affected MPOs and the Governor.

(i) The 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 urbanized area(s), and shall adjust them as necessary in order to encompass the entire existing urbanized area(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 urbanized areas are defined as a single urbanized area, not later than 180 days after the release of the U.S. Bureau of the Census notice of the Qualifying Urban Areas for a decennial census, the Governor and MPO(s) shall redetermine the affected MPAs as a single MPA that includes the entire new urbanized area 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 urbanized areas that are merged following a Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, the State and the MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in §§ 450.310 and 450.312, and shall determine whether the size and complexity of the MPA


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



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 redesignation procedures in § 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 two years after the release of the Qualifying Urban Areas for the Decennial Census by the Bureau of the Census, or within 4 years of the designation of the new UZA boundary, whichever occurs first.

(j) The Governor and MPOs are encouraged to consider merging multiple MPAs into a single MPA when:

(1) Two or more urbanized areas are adjacent to each other;

(2) Two or more urbanized areas are expected to expand and become adjacent within a 20 year forecast period; or

(3) Two or more neighboring MPAs would otherwise both include the same non-urbanized area that is expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period.

(k) 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. ■ 10. Section 450.314 is revised to read as follows:

§ 450.314 Metropolitan planningagreements.

(a) The MPO, 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 between 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 § 450.324) and the metropolitan TIP (see § 450.326), and

development of the annual listing of obligated projects (see § 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 proposed 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. If any part of the urbanized area 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 an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA in addition to an urbanized area that is not designated as a TMA, the non-TMA urbanized area 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 urbanized area 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 § 450.306(d)), and the collection of data for the asset management plans for the NHS for each of the following circumstances: When one MPO serves an urbanized area, when more than one MPO serves an urbanized area, and when an MPA includes an urbanized area that has been designated as a TMA as well as an


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS



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

§ 450.316 [Amended]■ 11. Amend § 450.316(b), (c), and (d) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs. ■ 12. Amend § 450.324 as follows: ■ a. In paragraph (a) replace ‘‘MPO’’ with ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs; ■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (m) as paragraphs (d) through (n), respectively; ■ c. Add new paragraph (c); and ■ 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:

§ 450.324 Development and content of thetransportation improvement program (TIP).

* * * * * (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;

(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); and

(3) Agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint plan (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). * * * * * ■ 13. Amend § 450.326 as follows: ■ a. Revise paragraph (a); and ■ b. In paragraphs (b), (j), and (p) remove ‘‘MPO’’ and add in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 450.326 Development and content of thetransportation 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 metropolitan planning area. 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 and shall agree to a process for making a single conformity determination on the joint TIP (in nonattainment or maintenance areas). 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. 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, 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). * * * * *

§ 450.328 [Amended]■ 14. Amend § 450.328(a), (b), and (c) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs.

§ 450.330 [Amended]■ 15. Amend § 450.330 (a) and (c) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs.

§ 450.332 [Amended]■ 16. Amend § 450.332(b) and (c) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs.

§ 450.334 [Amended]■ 17. Amend § 450.334(a) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs.

§ 450.336 [Amended]■ 18. Amend § 450.336(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2) by removing ‘‘MPO’’ and adding in its place ‘‘MPO(s)’’ wherever it occurs. ■ 19. Amend § 450.340 as follows: ■ a. In paragraph (a) adding ‘‘or MPOs’’ after ‘‘MPO’’ wherever it occurs; ■ b. Adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 450.340 Phase-in of new requirements.* * * * *

(h) States and MPOs shall comply with the MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreement provisions in 450.310 and 450.312, 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, before the next metropolitan transportation plan update that occurs on or after [date 2 years after the effective date of the final rule].

Title 49—Transportation

PART 613—METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE AND NONMETROPOLITAN PLANNING

■ 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. 2016–14854 Filed 6–24–16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 56 and 57

[Docket No. MSHA–2014–0030]

RIN 1219–AB87

Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of change of starting time for public hearings.

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is announcing a change to the starting time for public hearings for the proposed rule addressing Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, published on June 8, 2016. The start time for the previously announced public hearings for the proposed rule will be changed from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. to accommodate the public meetings on MSHA’s request for information on Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust. The hearing dates and locations are unchanged.

DATES: The public hearing dates and locations are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Comments for the proposed rule must be received by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 6, 2016. ADDRESSES: Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for the rulemaking record may be sent to


ocks

till o

n D

SK

3G9T

082P

RO

D w

ith P

RO

PO

SA

LS


8/19/2016

1

Metro Transit

Service ChangesStarting Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Open House Presentation

www.KMetro.com

Welcome!Why the Changes

INTRODUCINGLate Night Bus ServiceSunday Bus ServiceRoute ChangesWhat’s Next

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

2

Why the Changes?• Listening to Riders

Rider Surveys and Discussions

• Community NeedsJob Access Housing Medical Services

• August 4, 2015 Vote62% in favor of millage vote

www.KMetro.com

Why the Changes?• Meetings with Staff and Drivers

Developed system hours to meet needs

• Focus Group and public meetingsheld in February to get input on proposed changes

• Approved Late Night and Sunday Service byCentral County Transportation Authority (CCTA)March 14, 2016

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

3

1 – Westnedge2 – Portage3 – West Michigan5 – East Main7 – Alamo8 – Egleston

9 – Gull11 – Stadium14 – West Main15 – Paterson16 – Lovell21 – Solon / Kendall / Lafayette

Buses until 12:15 a.m.(last bus arriving at

Kalamazoo Transportation Center)

www.KMetro.com

4 – Oakland10 – Comstock

13 – South Burdick

Buses until 11:15 p.m.(last bus arriving at

Kalamazoo Transportation Center)

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

4

6 – Parchment (last bus to Kalamazoo Transportation Center arrives at 10:10 p.m.)

26 ‐ Centre(last bus to Milham Meadows at 10:33 p.m.)

27 ‐ Romence(last bus to Crossroads Mall arrives at 10:20 p.m.)

Buses after 10:00 p.m.

www.KMetro.com

1 – Westnedge2 – Portage3 – West Michigan4 – Oakland5 – East Main6 – Parchment7 – Alamo8 – Egleston9 – Gull

10 – Comstock11 – Stadium13 – South Burdick14 – West Main15 – Paterson16 – Lovell26 – West Centre27 – Romence

No Sunday Bus Service on 12‐Duke or 21‐Solon Kendall Lafayette

www.KMetro.com

Last Bus to Kalamazoo Transportation Center


8/19/2016

5

Route Changes1 – Westnedge Monday ‐ FridayAdditional bus from 2:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Leaving Kalamazoo Transportation Center2:00 2:15 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:45

Arriving at Crossroads2:10 2:25 2:40 3:10 3:25 3:40 4:10 4:25 4:40 5:10 5:25 5:40

www.KMetro.com

Route Changes2 – Portage Monday‐FridayAdditional bus from 7:45 – 9:45 a.m. Leaving Kalamazoo Transportation Center7:15 7:45 8:15 8:45 9:15Arriving at Devonshire Apartments7:45 8:15 8:45 9:15 9:45

Additional bus from 2:45 – 6:45 p.m. Leaving Kalamazoo Transportation Center2:45 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15Arriving at Devonshire Apartments3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

6

Route Changes8 – Egleston Monday‐FridayAdditional bus from 3:15 – 4:45 p.m. Leaving Kalamazoo Transportation Center3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 6:15

Arriving at Industrial Park3:40 4:10 4:40 5:10

Saturday Service at :45 ending at Kalamazoo Transportation Center at 9:38 pm

Bus switches to :15 hour at 5:15 p.m.Remain at :45 from 5:55 a.m. – 4:45 p.m.

Route Changes9 – Gull Monday‐FridayAdditional bus at 6:15 a.m. Leaving Kalamazoo Transportation Center6:15 7:15

Arriving at Walmart6:45 7:45

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

7

Route Changes21 – Solon Kendall Lafayette Saturday ONLYAdditional bus during Fall and Winter Semesters (September – April)

Leaving WMU Loading Zone to Knollwood11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30

Leaving WMU Loading Zone to Solon Kendall11:15 11:45 12:15 12:45 1:15 1:45 2:15 2:45

www.KMetro.com

Route Changes11 ‐ StadiumAdditional service to Elm Valley Groves Bronson Health CenterArrive at Bronson Health CenterAM Morning: 8:03 9:03 10:03 11:03 PM Afternoon: 12:03 1:03 2:03 3:03 4:03 5:03

Monday – Friday Only

Service to WMU Student Rec Center hourly at :15 after hour


8/19/2016

8

Route Changes

www.KMetro.com

Route Changes14 – West Main Monday ‐ FridayStopped Service to West Main & 9th Street Area (west of US‐131)

Arrive at Maple Hill Mall :00 (until 6:00 pm) :25 (until 6:25 pm)

:30 (until 11:30 pm) :55 (until 11:55 pm)

Arrive at Hardings Market:15 (until 6:15):45 (until 11:45 pm)

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

9

Route Changes14 – West Main Saturday & SundayStopped Service to West Main and 9th Street Area

Arrive at Maple Hill Mall :30 (until 9:30 pm) :55 (until 9:45 pm) Saturday:00 (until 6:00 pm) :25 (until 6:25 pm) Saturday:30 (until 4:30 pm) :55 (until 4:55 pm) Sunday

Arrive at Hardings Market:15 (until 6:15 pm) Saturday

:45 (until 9:45 pm) Saturday:45 (until 4:45 pm) Sunday

www.KMetro.com

Route Changes

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

10

Route Changes27 – Romence Monday ‐ SaturdayStopped Service to N Avenue and Pavilion EstatesAdded Service to Walmart and Meijer along Shaver Road

Arrive at Crossroads:20 (until 10:20 pm)

Arrive at Brown and Currier:00 (until 10:00 pm)

Arrive at Walmart Shaver Road:03 (until 10:03 pm)

Arrive at Meijer Shaver Road:05 (until 10:05 pm)

www.KMetro.com

Route Changes27 – Romence SundayStopped Service to N Avenue and Pavilion EstatesAdded Service to Walmart and Meijer along Shaver Road

Arrive at Crossroads:20 (until 4:20 pm)

Arrive at Brown and Currier:00 (until 4:00 pm)

Arrive at Walmart Shaver Road:03 (until 4:03 pm)

Arrive at Meijer Shaver Road:05 (until 4:05 pm)

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

11

New SchedulesNew Route Maps

Coming in September!

www.KMetro.com

What’s Next?

New WebsiteTrack My Bus Updates

Coming This Fall!

Real Time Bus Information Available from the Track My Bus App

www.KMetro.com


8/19/2016

12

More Information Available at:

www.KMetro.com

Customer Service: 337‐8222

www.KMetro.com


To: From: Date: Subject...2016/08/31 · AUGUST 31, 2016 – 9:00 A.M. KALAMAZOO METRO TRANSIT 530...

Documents

Transcript of To: From: Date: Subject...2016/08/31 · AUGUST 31, 2016 – 9:00 A.M. KALAMAZOO METRO TRANSIT 530...