Policy Guidance on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Representation |
|---|
|
Therese McMillan
Federal Transit Administration
Gregory G. Nadeau
Federal Highway Administration
June 2, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31214-31219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12163]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 613
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 450
[Docket No. FTA-2013-0029]
Policy Guidance on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Representation
AGENCIES: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Policy guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FTA and FHWA are jointly issuing this guidance on
implementation of provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21), that require representation by providers of
public transportation in each metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
that serves a transportation management area (TMA) no later than
October 1, 2014. The purpose of this guidance is to assist MPOs and
providers of public transportation in complying with this new
requirement.
DATES: Effective June 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Weeks, FTA Office of Planning
and Environment, telephone (202) 366-4033 or Dwayne.Weeks@dot.gov; or
Harlan Miller, FHWA Office of Planning, telephone (202) 366-0847 or
Harlan.Miller@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The FTA and FHWA are jointly issuing this policy guidance on the
implementation of 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B),
as amended by sections 1201 and 20005 of MAP-21, Public Law 112-141,
which require representation by providers of public transportation in
each MPO that serves an area designated as a TMA by October 1, 2014.\1\
A TMA is defined as an urbanized area with a population of over 200,000
individuals as determined by the 2010 census, or an area with a
population of fewer than 200,000 individuals that is designated as a
TMA by the request of the Governor and the MPO designated for the
area.\2\ As of the date of this guidance, of the approximately 420 MPOs
throughout the Nation, approximately 210 MPOs serve an area designated
as a TMA. The FTA and FHWA will issue a joint notice of proposed
rulemaking to amend 23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part 613 to make these
planning regulations consistent with these and other current statutory
requirements. Once FTA and FHWA issue a final rule amending the
planning regulations, MPOs must comply with the requirements in those
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the
Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012, each metropolitan
planning organization that serves an area designated as a
transportation management area shall consist of . . . officials of
public agencies that administer or operate major modes of
transportation in the metropolitan area, including representation by
providers of public transportation.'' 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B). See
also 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B).
\2\ 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(1); 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid
highway and Federal transit programs and to improve project
decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming, MAP-
21 establishes a performance management framework. The MAP-21 requires
FHWA to establish, through a separate rulemaking, performance measures
and standards to be used by States to assess the condition of the
pavements and bridges, serious injuries and fatalities, performance of
the Interstate System and National Highway System, traffic congestion,
on-road mobile source emissions, and freight movement on the Interstate
System.\3\ The MAP-21 also requires FTA to establish, through separate
rulemakings, state of good repair and safety performance measures, and
requires each provider of public transportation to establish
performance targets in relation to these performance measures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 23 U.S.C. 150(c).
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 5326(b), (c), 5329(b), (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish performance targets that address these performance
measures, States and MPOs must coordinate their targets with each other
to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable.\5\ For
transit-related performance targets, States and MPOs must coordinate
their targets relating to safety and state of good repair with
providers of public transportation to ensure consistency with other
performance-based provisions applicable to providers of public
transportation, to the maximum extent practicable.\6\ An MPO must
describe in its metropolitan transportation plans the performance
measures and targets used to assess the performance of its
transportation system.\7\ Statewide and metropolitan transportation
[[Page 31215]]
improvement programs (STIPs and TIPs) must include, to the maximum
extent practicable, a description of the anticipated effect of the
program toward achieving the performance targets established in the
statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, linking investment
priorities and the highway and transit performance targets.\8\ These
changes to the planning process will be addressed in FHWA and FTA's
anticipated joint rulemaking amending 23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part
613.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2); 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2).
\6\ 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2); 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2).
\7\ 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B).
\8\ 23 U.S.C. 134(j)(2)(D); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D) (TIPs) and
23 U.S.C. 135(g)(4); 49 U.S.C. 5304(g)(4) (STIPs).
\9\ FHWA RIN 2125-AF52; FTA RIN 2132-AB10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its performance management framework, MAP-21 assigns
MPOs the new transit-related responsibilities described above, i.e., to
establish performance targets with respect to transit state of good
repair and transit safety and to address these targets in their
transportation plans and TIPs. Representation by providers of public
transportation in each MPO that serves a TMA will better enable each
MPO to define performance targets and to develop plans and TIPs that
support an intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan area.
Including representation by providers of public transportation in each
MPO that serves an area designated as a TMA is an essential element of
MAP-21's performance management framework and will support the
successful implementation of a performance-based approach to
transportation decisionmaking.
The FTA conducted an On-Line Dialogue on the MAP-21 requirement to
include representation by providers of public transportation in each
MPO that serves an area designated as a TMA from March 5 through March
29, 2013. Through this forum, FTA received input from MPOs, local
elected officials, transit agencies, and the general public, with over
3,000 visits to the Web site. Over 100 ideas were submitted from 340
registered users who also provided hundreds of comments and votes on
these ideas. Participants discussed the complex nature of MPOs and the
advantages of providing flexibility for MPOs and providers of public
transportation to decide locally how to include representation by
providers of public transportation in the MPO.
To assist MPOs and providers of public transportation in
understanding and satisfying the new requirement by the statutory
deadline, FTA and FHWA issued proposed policy guidance for review and
comment on September 30, 2013, with a 30-day comment period, under
Docket Number FTA-2013-0029.\10\ The FTA and FHWA received 53
individual responses that contained approximately 160 comments. This
guidance incorporates FTA and FHWA's responses to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 78 FR 60015 (Sept. 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed
Guidance
The proposed guidance sought comments on several specific issues:
(1) The specifically designated representative; (2) the eligibility of
representatives of providers of public transportation to serve as
specifically designated representatives; (3) the cooperative process to
select a specifically designated representative in MPOs with multiple
providers of public transportation; (4) the role of the specifically
designated representative; and (5) restructuring the MPOs to include
representation by providers of public transportation.
The FTA and FHWA received 53 individual responses that contained
approximately 160 comments: 25 MPOs, 10 providers of public
transportation, 9 individuals, 4 trade associations, 4 others
(including municipalities and advocacy organizations), and a State
department of transportation. Several comments were outside the scope
of this guidance and are therefore not addressed in this guidance. For
example, some comments were specific to a situation in a particular
metropolitan area. Where appropriate, FTA has reached out to the
commenters to address their concerns. Comments pertaining to the
guidance and FTA and FHWA's responses are discussed below.
The Need for Guidance in General
The FTA and FHWA received 19 comments supporting the need for
policy guidance to implement MAP-21's changes to 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B)
and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B). These commenters agreed that policy
guidance would provide needed direction on how MPOs and providers of
public transportation may meet the MAP-21 requirements for
representation of providers of public transportation on MPOs.
The FTA and FHWA received three comments that stated the change in
language to 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B) does not
warrant policy guidance because of the long history of granting MPOs
latitude in deciding the composition of their policy boards. Moreover,
these comments stated that the responsibilities added by the new
language can be addressed through the existing certification review
process and do not warrant additional guidance.
The FTA and FHWA have determined that policy guidance is necessary
to provide direction to MPOs and providers of public transportation on
how to meet this new statutory provision within the 2-year time frame.
A Specifically Designated Public Transportation Representative
Twenty-three commenters expressed concurrence with the proposed
guidance that the intent of the MAP-21 provision to include
``representation by providers of public transportation'' is that
representatives of providers of public transportation, once designated,
should have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities as the other
members that are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a TMA.
Thirteen commenters indicated that they did not support that
interpretation of the provision and urged FTA and FHWA to provide
flexibility to allow MPOs to include transit representation in ways
that would fit the unique circumstances of each metropolitan area. Two
of these commenters asserted that MAP-21 did not change a local
jurisdiction's authority to assign voting rights to policy board
members. One commenter stated there is no basis in law for requiring
MPOs to alter their board compositions. Many asserted that including
public transit agencies as non-voting members or on MPO technical or
policy committees is adequate to satisfy 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B). A few commenters stated that a policy or
technical committee would be more appropriate for transit
decisionmaking, as MPO policy boards deal with many issues outside of
transportation.
The clear intent of this legislative provision is to ensure that
providers of public transportation are represented on the MPO board and
should have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities as the other
members that are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a TMA.
Contrary to the conclusions of some of the commenters, 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2) expressly provide that MPOs serving
TMAs must alter their board compositions, if necessary, in order to
attain the statutorily required structure. Congress amended 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B) to provide that, among other
mandatory MPO members, MPOs serving an area designated as a TMA
specifically ``shall consist of . . . representation by providers of
public transportation.'' Congress also amended 23 U.S.C.
[[Page 31216]]
134(d)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(5)(B) to provide that an MPO ``may
be restructured to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) without
undertaking a redesignation.'' Additionally, the Conference Report
accompanying MAP-21 states, ``The conference committee requires the
structure of all Metropolitan Planning Organizations include officials
of public agencies that administer or operate public transportation
systems within two years of enactment.'' \11\ Congress also made clear
that the term metropolitan planning organization refers to ``the policy
board'' of the organization, not its advisory or non-decisionmaking
elements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ H.R. Conf. Rep. 112-557 (2012).
\12\ 23 U.S.C. 134(b)(2); 49 U.S.C. 5303(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple MPOs that serve areas designated as TMAs commented that 23
U.S.C. 134(d)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(3) exempt them from having to
comply with 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2) because the
MPOs are acting pursuant to authority created under State law that was
in effect on December 18, 1991. The exemption has existed in statute in
some form since 1991. The FTA and FHWA's long-standing interpretation
of this provision is that an exemption from the MPO structure
requirements is only appropriate for an MPO where (1) the MPO operates
pursuant to a State law that was in effect on or before December 18,
1991; (2) such State law has not been amended after December 18, 1991,
as regards to the structure or organization of the MPO; and (3) the MPO
has not been designated or re-designated after December 18, 1991. An
MPO that claims an exemption should self-certify its exempt status with
FTA and FHWA as part of the MPO certification process described at 23
CFR 450.334 or through some other documentation.
With respect to who should be eligible to represent providers of
public transportation on the MPO, two commenters, including a transit
industry trade association, requested that FTA and FHWA establish that
the representative ``must'' be an elected official on the policy board
of a provider being represented or a direct representative employed by
a provider being represented. Another commenter expressed concern that
the proposed qualifications of the representative were too specific. A
few commenters requested that, in addition to the representative being
an officer of a provider of public transportation or an elected
official that serves on the board of directors of the provider of
public transportation, the representative may also be a non-elected
member appointed to the board of directors of the provider of public
transportation. The FTA and FHWA concur that an appointed member of a
public transportation provider's board of directors also can serve as a
representative of providers of public transportation on the MPO. In
keeping with FTA and FHWA's goal of providing flexibility to MPOs, the
representative should be either a board member (elected or appointed)
or officer of a provider of public transportation being represented on
the MPO. The guidance remains suggestive rather than mandatory in this
respect.
Fourteen entities requested that the guidance state definitively
that a representative of providers of public transportation cannot
fulfill multiple roles on an MPO board, for example, due to that
person's position as a local elected official or an appropriate State
official. These commenters asserted that an ``MPO board member cannot
simultaneously represent multiple organizations'' and that an elected
official who is appointed to the MPO as a representative of that
official's local government does not necessarily represent the
interests of transit, even if he or she happens to be on the public
transportation provider's board. Eight commenters asserted that the
presence on the MPO of local elected officials should fully satisfy the
new requirement. Seven commenters sought clarity generally on this
provision. The FTA and FHWA agree that this proposed provision needed
clarification. The policy guidance states that a public transportation
representative on an MPO should not serve as one of the other mandatory
MPO members set forth in 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2).
For example, a member of an MPO board whose assignment comes by virtue
of his or her position as an elected official should not also attempt
to serve as a representative of providers of public transportation on
the MPO board.
A few commenters highlighted the potential conflict that could
arise when a representative of providers of public transportation is
the subordinate of another MPO board member and the superior board
member's and the public transportation providers' interests do not
align. Two commenters noted that when a local government is the
provider of public transportation, that local government effectively
would be given an additional vote, upsetting a carefully constructed
balance on the MPO. Another commenter noted that a conflict could
result when a public transportation provider other than the designated
recipient \13\ serves as the representative of the providers of public
transportation on the MPO board. The FTA and FHWA appreciate that
recommending a separate and distinct representative of providers of
public transportation could introduce a conflict or upset a carefully
constructed balance on the MPO. However, 23 U.S.C. 134(a)(2) and 49
U.S.C. 5303(a)(2) state that ``it is in the national interest . . . to
encourage the continued improvement and evolution of the metropolitan
and statewide planning processes by metropolitan planning
organizations, State departments of transportation, and public transit
operators.'' The MAP-21's establishment of a performance-based approach
to transportation decisionmaking evolves and improves the metropolitan
and statewide planning processes, increasing the accountability and
transparency of the Federal surface transportation program and
improving project decisionmaking. The inclusion of a representative of
providers of public transportation in each MPO that serves a TMA is a
critical element of MAP-21's performance management framework as it
will enable the MPO to establish balanced performance targets and
improve its ability to develop plans and programs that support an
intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan area. As such, it
contributes to the continued improvement and evolution of the
cooperative and collaborative metropolitan planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term ``designated recipient'' means ``(A) an entity
designated, in accordance with the planning process under sections
5303 and 5304, by the Governor of a State, responsible local
officials, and publicly owned operators of public transportation, to
receive and apportion amounts under section 5336 to urbanized areas
of 200,000 or more in population; or (B) a State or regional
authority, if the authority is responsible under the laws of a State
for a capital project and for financing and directly providing
public transportation.'' 49 U.S.C. 5302(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three commenters suggested that the term FTA and FHWA used to refer
to a public transportation representative on an MPO board,
``specifically designated representative,'' implied a role and
responsibilities that differed from other members of the MPO board or
``create[d] a subclass of board member.'' This was not the intention of
the proposed guidance. The guidance affirms that a representative of
providers of public transportation on an MPO that serves a TMA, once
designated, should have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities as
the other members that are on the policy board of an MPO that serves a
TMA. The FTA and FHWA
[[Page 31217]]
recognize that the term ``specifically designated representative''
generated considerable confusion. Consequently, the terms
``representative of providers of public transportation'' and ``public
transportation representative'' replace it in the guidance.
Providers of Public Transportation
Eight commenters stated that to require the representative of
providers of public transportation to be a direct recipient of the
Urbanized Area Formula funding program is too restrictive, arguing that
many large urbanized areas allocate transit funding through sub-
recipients that would be precluded from participating in the MPO
process. Four additional commenters interpreted this language to mean
that a city or county that is not a direct recipient would be precluded
from being able to represent transit interests on the MPO board. One
commenter asserted that ``all public transportation agencies within the
MPO should be eligible to serve in this important role.''
The FTA and FHWA agree that the use of the term ``direct
recipient'' was overly restrictive. The policy guidance clarifies that
the representative of providers of public transportation on an MPO that
serves an area designated as a TMA should be a provider of public
transportation in the metropolitan planning area and a designated
recipient, a direct recipient, or a sub-recipient of Urbanized Area
Formula funding, or another public transportation entity that is
eligible to receive Urbanized Area Formula funding. The FTA and FHWA
recommend selecting a representative from among those public
transportation providers that are eligible to receive Urbanized Area
Formula funding because most Federal transit funding planned by MPOs
serving TMAs is awarded under this program, and an eligible recipient
of Urbanized Area Formula funding will be in the best position to
represent transit interests on the MPO.
Process for the Selection of Public Transportation Representatives
Three providers of public transportation expressed support for the
proposed policy that MPOs that serve an area designated as a TMA should
cooperate with providers of public transportation and the State to
amend their metropolitan planning agreements to include the cooperative
process for selecting representatives of providers of public
transportation on the MPO board. Conversely, while agreeing that MPOs
should use a cooperative process to select representatives of providers
of public transportation, eight MPOs encouraged either the elimination
or the softening of this policy recommendation, which would be ``an
unnecessary burden'' that is not needed to meet the goals of MAP-21.
The metropolitan planning agreement is a productive mechanism that
facilitates the working relationships among MPOs, States, and providers
of public transportation as they fulfill their metropolitan
transportation planning requirements. Regulations require that MPOs,
States, and public transportation operators cooperatively determine
their mutual responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan
transportation planning process and that these responsibilities be
clearly identified in written agreements among the MPO, the State, and
the public transportation operators serving the metropolitan planning
area.\14\ The process to select representatives of the providers of
public transportation for the MPO board is one of the mutual
responsibilities of the MPO, the State, and the providers of public
transportation. Thus, FTA and FHWA encourage, but do not require, MPOs,
States, and providers of public transportation to amend their
metropolitan planning agreements to document the process for selecting
representatives of providers of public transportation. However, given
the statutory deadline of October 1, 2014, and the expectation that
MPOs, States, and providers of public transportation may need to update
their agreements to address the MAP-21 performance management
requirements once finalized through rulemaking, the policy guidance
clarifies that an MPO board resolution, or other documentation,
adopting the process to select representatives of providers of public
transportation should be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 23 CFR 450.314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the guidance recommends that MPOs formally adopt some kind of
process for the selection of public transportation representatives, the
guidance does not prescribe a specific selection process. This guidance
affords the flexibility for providers of public transportation, States,
and MPOs to determine the process to select representatives of
providers of public transportation for the MPO policy board. This could
include the selection of representatives by the providers of transit
services themselves, as suggested by one commenter who said that ``it
should be up to the transit agencies to select whom they want to
represent their interests [and] the vote for this representative should
occur solely between the transit operators, and should be completely
independent of the MPO board and staff's decision making.'' By analogy,
in many urbanized areas, providers of public transportation engage with
each other to select a designated recipient or to allocate Urbanized
Area Formula funds that have been apportioned to the urbanized area.
The guidance clarifies that MPOs, States, and providers of public
transportation have the flexibility to determine the most effective
process that best serves the interests of the metropolitan planning
area.
Role of the Public Transportation Representative
Four commenters expressed concern that the requirement to specify
the role and responsibilities of the representative of providers of
public transportation would place restrictions on the role of the
transit representative. This is not the intent. In the guidance, FTA
and FHWA recommend that MPOs establish, at a minimum, that a
representative must consider the needs of all eligible public
transportation providers that provide service in the metropolitan
planning area and, in exercising this responsibility, the
representative should have equal decisionmaking rights and authorities
as the other members that are on the policy board of an MPO that serves
a TMA. This guidance is intended to recommend a base level for
effective representation and is not intended to restrict the role of a
transit representative on an MPO.
While one commenter expressed support for the proposal that MPOs
serving TMAs should amend their bylaws to describe the collaborative
process of selecting representatives of providers of public
transportation and the role the selected representative should play
``because it would help ensure that transit-related issues and
interests are appropriately and meaningfully represented in MPO
decision-making,'' 10 commenters expressed strong concern, claiming
that the proposal was unnecessary, onerous, and that it had no basis in
law. The proposed policy guidance did not propose to require MPOs to
establish or amend bylaws, but only recommended such action. The FTA
and FHWA have retained in the policy guidance that MPOs should amend
their bylaws, if the MPO has them, to provide that a public
transportation representative should consider the needs of all eligible
public transportation providers that provide service in the
metropolitan planning area and that, in exercising this responsibility,
the representative should have equal decisionmaking rights and
[[Page 31218]]
authorities as the other members that are on the policy board of an MPO
that serves a TMA. The guidance also recommends that an MPO could
affirm these two policies in a board resolution or other documentation.
Restructuring MPOs To Include Representation by Providers of Public
Transportation
Eighteen commenters expressed support for the proposal that an MPO
that serves a TMA that has multiple providers of public transportation
should cooperate \15\ with the eligible providers to determine how the
MPO will include representation by providers of public transportation
on its policy board. The example methods that FTA and FHWA described in
the proposed guidance included having all providers represented by a
single board position, rotating the board position among several
providers, or proportional representation of all eligible providers on
the board. Many commenters proposed that representation should not be
limited to a single transit representative. Thirteen commenters
proposed that all providers of public transportation that operate in a
TMA should be given representation on the MPO board. One commenter
opined that ``each transit agency/provider should have a vote in
matters before the MPO rather than having several transit providers
share a single vote.'' Another commenter suggested that ``the best
approach is one that rotates the board position among all eligible
providers.'' Still another commenter proposed that ``all efforts be
made to include the largest providers of public transportation in a
region'' as this policy would ``ensure that the majority of public
transportation users were represented in [the] MPO decision making
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Cooperation means that ``the parties involved in carrying
out the transportation planning and programming processes work
together to achieve a common goal or objective.'' 23 CFR 450.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FTA and FHWA acknowledge that there are multiple ways to
include representation of providers of public transportation on MPO
boards and note that many MPOs currently do so. For example, the
Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG); the Portland, Oregon, MPO (JPACT); the Miami
Valley Regional Planning Commission; the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board that serves the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area; and the Ozarks Transportation Organization in
Springfield, Missouri, all cited their inclusion of transit
representatives as voting members on their MPO boards.
An MPO serving one of the Nation's newest TMAs, the Portland Area
Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) MPO in Portland, Maine,
accommodates representation by providers of public transportation on
the MPO policy board through a cooperative process. As documented in
the PACTS bylaws, seven providers of public transportation serve on the
Transit Committee of PACTS. The PACTS Transit Committee identifies a
representative from the seven providers to serve on the Policy
Committee, the Technical Committee, the Planning Committee, and the
Executive Committee, and to represent transit for the entire
metropolitan planning area. The representatives serve for 2 years and
may serve successive terms.
The policy guidance provides MPOs, States, and providers of public
transportation with the flexibility to determine the most effective
arrangement to best serve the interests of the metropolitan planning
area.
Policy Guidance
Representatives of Providers of Public Transportation
By October 1, 2014, MPOs that serve an area designated as a TMA
must include ``(A) local elected officials; (B) officials of public
agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in
the metropolitan area, including representation by providers of public
transportation; and (C) appropriate State officials.'' \16\ The
requirement to include ``representation by providers of public
transportation'' is a new requirement under MAP-21. The intent of this
provision is that representatives of providers of public
transportation, once designated, should have equal decisionmaking
rights and authorities as the other members that are on the policy
board of an MPO that serves a TMA. This expectation reflects the long-
standing position of FHWA and FTA with respect to statutorily required
MPO board members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2); 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A representative of providers of public transportation should be an
elected or appointed member of the provider's board of directors or a
senior officer of the provider, such as a chief executive officer or a
general manager.
A representative of providers of public transportation should not
also attempt to represent other entities on the MPO. For example, if a
local elected official is also a member of the board of directors of a
provider of public transportation and the elected official represents
his or her local jurisdiction's interests on the MPO, the local
official should not also serve as a representative of public
transportation providers generally.
An MPO is exempt from the structure requirements of 23 U.S.C.
134(d)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2) if (1) the MPO operates pursuant to
a State law that was in effect on or before December 18, 1991; (2) such
State law has not been amended after December 18, 1991, as regards the
structure or organization of the MPO; and (3) the MPO has not been
designated or re-designated after December 18, 1991. An MPO that claims
an exemption should self-certify its exempt status with FTA and FHWA as
part of the MPO self-certification process described at 23 CFR 450.334
or through some other documentation.
Eligible Providers of Public Transportation
To satisfy 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(2)(B), a
representative of a provider of public transportation that operates in
a TMA should be eligible to be a designated recipient, a direct
recipient, or a sub-recipient of the Urbanized Area Formula funding
program.
Process for the Selection of Representatives of Providers of Public
Transportation
To select representatives of providers of public transportation,
MPOs, States, and providers of public transportation have the
flexibility to determine the most effective process that best serves
the interests of the metropolitan planning area. The FTA and FHWA
encourage MPOs that serve an area designated as a TMA to amend their
metropolitan planning agreements in cooperation with providers of
public transportation and the State to include the cooperative process
they have developed to select representatives of providers of public
transportation for inclusion on the MPO board. The Metropolitan
Transportation Planning rule at 23 CFR 450.314 provides for
metropolitan planning agreements in which MPOs, States, and providers
of public transportation cooperatively determine their mutual
responsibilities in carrying out the metropolitan transportation
planning process. Alternatively, an MPO should formally adopt the
cooperative selection process through a board resolution or other
documentation.
[[Page 31219]]
Role of a Representative of Providers of Public Transportation
A representative of providers of public transportation should
consider the needs of all eligible public transportation providers that
provide service in the metropolitan planning area. In exercising this
responsibility, the representative should have equal decisionmaking
rights and authorities as the other members that are on the policy
board of an MPO that serves a TMA. An MPO serving a TMA should formally
establish through a board resolution the role and responsibilities of a
representative of providers of public transportation, including, at a
minimum, that the transit representative should (1) consider the needs
of all eligible providers of public transportation in the metropolitan
planning area and to address those issues that are relevant to the
responsibilities of the MPO, and (2) have equal decisionmaking rights
and authorities as the other members that are on the policy board of an
MPO that serves a TMA.
To the extent that an MPO has bylaws, the MPO should, in
consultation with transit providers in the TMA, develop bylaws that
describe the establishment, roles, and responsibilities of transit
representatives. These bylaws should explain the process by which the
public transportation representative will identify transit-related
issues for consideration by the MPO policy board and verify that
transit priorities are considered in planning products to be adopted by
the MPO. In TMAs with multiple providers of public transportation, the
bylaws also should outline how representatives will consider the needs
of all eligible providers of public transportation and address issues
that are relevant to the responsibilities of the MPO.
Restructuring MPOs To Include Representation by Providers of Public
Transportation
Title 23 U.S.C. 134(d)(5)(B) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(d)(5)(B) provide
that an MPO may be restructured to meet the law's representation
requirements without having to secure the agreement of the Governor and
units of general purpose government as part of a redesignation.
There are multiple providers of public transportation within most
TMAs. An MPO that serves an area designated as a TMA that has multiple
providers of public transportation may need to cooperate with the
eligible providers to determine how the MPO will meet the requirement
to include representation by providers of public transportation. There
are various approaches to meeting this requirement. For example, an MPO
may allocate a single board position to eligible providers of public
transportation collectively, providing that one representative of
providers of public transportation must be agreed upon through a
cooperative process. The requirement for representation might also be
met by rotating the board position among all eligible providers or by
providing all eligible providers with proportional representation.
However the representation is ultimately designated, the MPO should
formally adopt the revised structure through a board resolution,
bylaws, a metropolitan planning agreement, or other documentation, as
appropriate.
Apart from the requirement for representation on the MPO's policy
board, an MPO also may allow for transit representation on policy or
technical committees. Eligible providers of public transportation that
do not participate on the MPO's policy board may hold positions on
advisory or technical committees.
The FHWA and FTA encourage MPOs, States, local stakeholders, and
providers of public transportation to take this opportunity to
determine the most effective governance and institutional arrangements
to best serve the interests of the metropolitan planning area.
Issued on: May 21, 2014.
Therese McMillan,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
Gregory G. Nadeau,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-12163 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P