> Lauren DeVore (DNREC): Will the new jurisdictions that added to MPObe subject to the Conformity budgets already established? James Doolin: Can you provide a lists of MPOs that could be affected by this new rule making. Alabama Department of Transportation. Jim Doolin Florida DOT: What happens if currently, the MPO boundary is more than the prescribed MPA definition? Alaska DOT&PF Central Region Planning: What entity will proivde the 20 year forecast ofthe urbanized area? Lydia McIntyre: To the extent the proposed regulation would force redesignations in some instances without local concurence, the regulation would violate 23 usc section 134 (d) 4 & 5 MPO designation and redesignation clauses under which MPO designations remain in effect until a redesignation occurs. Redesignation requires the concurrence of local govt including 75% or pop including largest city. How can the proposed regulatory language be justified given it is in conflict with the clear language of the statute? Bill Keyrouze (AMPO): Would the rule require redrawing the boundaries in two years? If so does the MPO size and complexity decision need to be made to retain all the existing MPO(s) or do any MPOs that existed prior to the redrawing of boundaries remain? Jeff Kramer: Just for clarity, there are situations that look similar to Example 3, but include multiple UZAs (well over 10) that string together across a state or states. MWCOG: Have you considered having this requirment kick in only when a certain percentage of an MPA UZA's lies outside the MPO boundary? Like 5 or 10%? Courtney: Can you provide maps of forecasted 20 year UZA growth? James Doolin: What happens if an attainment takes in a non-attainment area? Lynne Goldsmith: My main concerns of new Fed rules: (1) increased and improved participation by the public (current MPO system does not encourage particpation by the public - it is primarily an "accademic exercise" of open houses, if that), (2) re performance measures that are only vehicle focused when other modes of travel need to be prioritized. KYTC: The proposed rule requires multistate MPOs to provide coordinated transportation planning for the entire metropolitan area - not just the MPA. Does "metropolitan area" refer to the MSA? Glenn: If there are two adjacent UZAs and two MPOs, with one of the MPOs MPA boundary taking in a small portion of the adjacent UZA, but not overlapping with the other MPA Boundary ,would the two MPOs be required to develop 1 Plan, 1 TIP, and 1 UPWP? Guest1: why require 1 set of docs/plans if the local action is not merge ? obviously this lack of merger indicates a willingness to operate and meet all planing regs Holly: Is the dispute resolution process requirement between MPOs who do not merge but produce joint planning products, between the States and MPOs, or both? Jessica Vargas Astaiza: Thanks for the clarification! Lower CT River Valley COG: The proposed rule makes the claim that there will be minimal cost associated from this rule. The merger of Midstate MPO and CT River Estuary MPO cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and lost productivity. We can document the costs of our MPO merger. Also, will MPO merger costs be a PL eligible expense? Guest1: where are the state DOT's on this matter ? I see very little input from the states ? Cliff Sinnott: In our view the UZA is not alwasys (and frequently is not) a sound basis for a trasnportation planning area, particularly in very large UZAs that have grown and merged from smaller ones based on Census USA definitions. If MPAs must equal an entire UZA you may be forcing illogical planning regions onto the process. MWCOG: GIven the additional resources that would be needed to produce joint planning products for an even larger area; in particular for the Metropolitan Washington region, we would be required to have joint products with Baltimore, FAMPO, Southern MD, possibly parts of PE-- possibly possibly 5 states, will there be an increase in PL funds t? CMAP: Where in the statute does it require joint planning products for an MPA? Brandon Kovnat: how does the MPO boundary differ from the MPA Guest1: why/how will "governors" / stateDOT's being asked to be the decision maker in this federally created concept ? Levi Roberts: You mentioned that you determined that this would affect 142 MPOs? Can you share the list of MPO's that this would affect? CMAP: are MPA boundaries impacted or treated differently if they are in non-attainment zones? Guest1: who creates ideas like this ? was this the outcome of some major issue at FHWA, FTA, etc. ? MJ: I looked on the document but couldn't find the list of 142 MPOs that would be potentially affected. Where can I find this. MJ: correction - meant to say "looked on the docket..." Lower CT River Valley COG: What does the 180-day limit for comforming MPAs to the new UZAs mean? Does this mean that affected MPOs have only 180 days to redesignate? Our experience in CT is that the necessary votes and gubenatorial approval took much longer to occur. Courtney: link: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FHWA-2016-0016-0002 Miguelito: Is this rule intended fto ameliorate emergent FHWA budgetary concerns? Tom Sills: How would the growth of a non-TMA urbanized area to the boundary of a TMA NOT impact the TMA status of the smaller UA as they are now contiguous? Mike Greenwald: The response to the TMA question doesn't seem accurate. Based on the answer provided, it is entirely possible that a new MPO that covers two adjoining UZAs which, individually were below the population threshold, could EASILY be recategorized as a TMA when combined. Also, what happens if the two MPOs under consideration have different Air Quality conformity designations? william haas: It appears the supplemental information on the docket page, including the list of anticipated MPOs is now gone or at least hidden Florida DOT: Are the terms "State", "State DOT", and "Governor" being used interchangably? Miguelito: :) Mark Hamilton: MPO Boundaries: http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/ Kari Snyder MDOT: Two MPO's swap land from their UZA's to conform to county boundry lines. Can they continue to do this or would this trigger this ruling? GHMPO: is the underlying goal of the proposed rules to reduce the number of MPOs VDOT: What is the impact of this proposed rule on transportation conformity? Lower CT River Valley COG: If a municipality is split between two MPOs because it contains portions of two UZAs, could that municipality be a member of two MPOs and have votes on two different policy boards? Since these fringe areas are usually whiter and wealthier than the central cities, does this create environmental justice issues? Levi Roberts: For clarification, is the one planning product, which multiple overlapping MPO's would not need to produce essentially the Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan? Erich Zimmermann: Can you discuss the specific statutory authority that calls for the creation of unified planning documents? Connecticut DOT: Section 450.300 seems to remove references to intermodal facilities that support intercity transportation, including intercity buses, intercity bus facilities and commuter vanpool providers as well as the removal of references to take into consideration resiliency needs. These references were included in the FAST Act and included in this Section in the recently published final planning rules. Is the removal of these references in this NPRM, an omission? SJTPO: We cannot find a map or shapefile of MPAs on the FHWA Planning website - please provide us with a link. :) CMAP: You reference bringing the definition of MPA back in line with statute, did DOT/FHWA/FTA ever make a general counsel opinion on the current definition statisfying the statute? Cliff Sinnott: THe question has been rasied several times but not answered: what if the Governor and MPO(s) do not agree on the need or lack of need to remain as separate MPOs? The rule should anticipate what happens in a stalemate. Bob Herrington: Can MPOs that currently have their own LRTPs and TIPs but also have regional coordination agreements as well as regional roadway networks and conflict resolution process with neighboring MPOs continue to have both? Jeff Kramer: Was this NPRM based on research conducted by USDOT, VOLPE or other similar agencies? Lauren DeVore (DNREC): Will the addition of new areas into the MPO KATS: If two MPOs agree to remain as they are and develop joint MTP and TIP would the estimates for federal funds be considered separately as the joint documents are prepared? Lynne Goldsmith: Thank you for not asking my question, it did not pertain to this discussion. Lauren DeVore (DNREC): Will the addition of new areas incorporated into existing MPOs be subject to the conformity budgets that have already been determined by those particular MPOs? Lower CT River Valley COG: Will the final rule include a conflict resolution process when MPOs and Governors do not agree? Mark Hamilton: SJTPO, here is the link: http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/. You need to check "MPO Boundary" in Layers and zoom in to see boundaries. CMAP: the NPRM allows an MPA to include "additional areas" beyond the UZA + 20 year projections, are there any restrictions on how large or how many UZAs an MPA can get? Mark Kirstner: We have looked for the list 142 potentially impacted MPO's in docket but can not find it. CDTC: Is the urbanized area defined as the official census bureau urbanized area or the adjusted or smoothed uab's that many MPO's use? DeLania Hardy, AMPO: Is it intential to make it difficult to have a new MPO? CMRPC: MPOs only project population, employment and household growth not UZA growth. We generally use the decenniel census information of the UZA boundaries. Are there any examples with MPOs/States that project UZA boundaries? Kari Snyder MDOT: MPA boundaries http://www.census.gov/population/metro/files/metro_micro_Feb2013.pdf Lydia McIntyre: 450.312(f)3 (i) says "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." Would this require consolidation regardless of governor and local agreement or could they they just do the joint plan and TIP under the proposed regulation? Guest1: continuing to alter and adjust organization is not the way to get programs and MPo products and federal infrastructure to the public any faster - merging and regionalism is not a way to fix all issues at the federal level Mike Greenwald: At the close of the public comment period, who on the FHWA/FTA staff will be responsible for reading and summarizing the comments? Will they be required to respond to comments in the same manner MPO staff is required to do? Richmond Regional TPO: If two MPOs within an MPA first decide to comply by producing joint planning products initially, and then later (after 2020 Census) jointly reconsider consolidating into a single MPO what is the process for this to take place? Paul (2): Dear SJTPO: For the MPO boundaries, see http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/ Jessica: In the case were 3 MPOs do not merge but a joint product is required, which MPO Board will approve the joint product? Will a new entity/committee/council need to be created to approve the joint planning product? SPC: Since this rule requires significant addtional coordination among mpos will timetables for update of plans and tips be extended during the implementation period? Erich Zimmermann: Follow up to earlier questions about statutory authority regarding unified planning. The relevant section says "Each metropolitan planning organization shall prepare and update a transportation plan for its MPA." But if multiple MPOs are allowed and required to create unified documents, then would "each" be creating a transportation plan? Karl D Welzenbach: The statuatory language has not changed in over 20 years. Neither has the regulatory interpretation. Where in the current FAST Act is the statuatory authorization for this new interpretation? Jackie Eastwood: Comment: If you look at the map of MPOs in Wisconsin, you would get the impression that MPO boundaries and MPA boundaries are the same. http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/plning-orgs/map.pdf Spencer Stevens: for those still looking for the MPO list https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FHWA-2016-0016 Spencer Stevens: Look under supporting documents SPC: In areas where other laws define regional boundaries such as Local Development Districts in the Appalachian region will alignment of these other geographic boundaries be considered in approval of an MPO boundary? Lower CT River Valley COG: Between the 2000 and 2010 the U.S. Census increased the length of a jump by 60% when calculating UZAs. How is anyone supposed to know what methodology the U.S. Census Bureau may choose for the 2020 census? Cliff Sinnott: THe USDOT has effectively overlooked the statutory mandate that MPA=UZA for 20+ years. Why the change? Is a faulty original statute the root of the issue here? Mark Hamilton: Under the proposed rule, MPA boundaries can still only grow to the combined statistical area as defined by OMB, is this correct?