[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14851-14861]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-140]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2006-24037]
Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access
and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom Programs: Final Circulars
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Circulars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the
docket and on its website final guidance in the form of circulars to
assist grantees in implementing the Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities (Section 5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute
(JARC), and New Freedom Programs.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of these circulars is: May 1,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henrika Buchanan-Smith or Bryna
Helfer, Office of Program Management, Federal Transit Administration,
400 Seventh Street SW., Room 9114, Washington, DC, 20590, phone: 202-
366-4020, fax: 202-366-7951, or e-mail,
Henrika.Buchanan-Smith@dot.gov; Bryna.Helfer@dot.gov; or Bonnie Graves, Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room 9316,
Washington, DC, 20590, phone: 202-366-4011, fax: 202-366-3809, or e-
mail, Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Circulars
You may download the circulars from the Department's Docket
Management System (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov) by entering docket number 24037
in the search field, and then clicking on ``reverse order.'' The
circulars are the most recently posted documents. You may also download
an electronic copy of the circulars from FTA's Web site, at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies of the circulars may be obtained by
calling FTA's Administrative Services Help Desk, at 202-366-4865.
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis
A. Chapter I--Introduction and Background
B. Chapter II--Program Overview
C. Chapter III--General Program Information
1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities
(Section 5310)
2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom
D. Chapter IV--Program Development
1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities
(Section 5310)
2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom
E. Chapter V--Coordinated Planning
F. Chapter VI--Program Management and Administrative
Requirements
G. Chapter VII--State and Program Management Plans
H. Chapter VIII--Other Provisions
I. Appendices
I. Overview
This notice provides summaries of the Section 5310, JARC, and New
Freedom program circulars, and addresses comments received in response
to the September 6, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 52610). These
programs are affected by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-
59), signed into law on August 10, 2005.
The Section 5310 program provides funding, allocated by a formula,
to States for capital projects to assist in meeting the transportation
needs of older adults and persons with disabilities. The States
administer this program. FTA is updating the existing Section 5310
circular, last revised in 1998, to reflect changes in the law.
The JARC program was authorized as a discretionary program under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, Pub. L.
105-178, June 9, 1998), changed to a formula program under SAFETEA-LU
and codified at 49 U.S.C. 5316. The JARC program provides formula
funding to States and designated recipients to support the development
and maintenance of job access projects designed to transport welfare
recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and
activities related to their employment. The JARC program also supports
reverse commute projects designed to transport residents of urbanized
areas and other than urbanized areas to suburban employment
opportunities. FTA is
[[Page 14852]]
issuing a new circular for the JARC program.
SAFETEA-LU established the New Freedom Program under 49 U.S.C.
5317. The purpose of the New Freedom program is to provide new public
transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond
those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) that assist individuals with disabilities with
transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and
employment support services. FTA is issuing a new circular for the New
Freedom program.
FTA conducted extensive outreach to develop these final circulars.
First, FTA held listening sessions in Washington, DC, in September
2005. Then, FTA requested comments related to the Section 5310, JARC,
and New Freedom programs in a Federal Register notice published
November 30, 2005, (70 FR 71950), and held listening sessions in five
cities around the country. Subsequent to that notice, FTA published in
the Federal Register on March 15, 2006 (71 FR 13456), proposed
strategies for implementing these programs and requested comments on
those strategies. In addition, FTA conducted an all-day public meeting
on March 23, 2006, and held a number of meetings and teleconferences
with stakeholders. To ensure that we heard from a broad range of
stakeholders and interested parties, we extended the comment period of
the March 15, 2006, Federal Register notice through May 22, 2006. FTA
received more than 200 comments from State departments of
transportation (DOTs), trade associations, public and private providers
of transportation services, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs),
individuals, and advocates. Finally, we published the proposed
circulars on our website (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fta.dot.gov) and a Federal Register
notice (71 FR 52610) on September 6, 2006, seeking public comment on
the proposed circulars. FTA received an additional 70 comments in
response to the September 6, 2006, notice and proposed circulars.
This document does not include the final circulars; electronic
versions of the circulars may be found in the docket, at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov
, docket number FTA-2006-24037, or on FTA's Web site, at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies of the circulars may be obtained by
contacting FTA's Administrative Services Help Desk, at 202-366-4865.
FTA recognizes that implementation of the Section 5310, JARC and NF
programs is still in the early stages. We expect to continue to learn
from our experience in administering the grants and from grantees'
experiences in implementing the provisions at the State and local
level. FTA will be monitoring the implementation of the programs, and
we continue to be open to comments and suggestions. We value input from
grantees and others as we put these programs into action, and we urge
interested parties to communicate with FTA regional offices regarding
successes, questions, and concerns that may arise.
Effect of Interim Guidance
On October 31, 2006, FTA issued a Federal Register notice (71 FR
63838) stating that the proposed circulars, developed after extensive
notice and comment, should be used as interim guidance for grant
applications filed in FY 2007 to the extent possible. In the notice,
FTA acknowledged that some grantees may have proceeded with the interim
guidance published on March 15, 2006, and noted that grantees would be
``held harmless'' for applications submitted in FY 2007 ``based on
coordinated planning or competitive selection processes substantially
complete before the issuance of final guidance.'' The final circulars
will take effect May 1, 2007; however, this ``hold harmless'' provision
will continue to apply to FY 2007 grant applications for grantees who
have substantially completed their planning or competitive selection
processes using earlier guidance issued by FTA.
Three commenters requested that FTA allow the same flexibility in
FY 2008 for developing the coordinated plan that we allowed in the
interim guidance for FY 2007; namely, that planning agencies simply
make ``good faith efforts'' to meet the planning requirements. The
beginning of FY 2008 is a full two years after the passage of SAFETEA-
LU, and FTA provided a phased-in approach for FY 2007. Because the law
requires a coordinated plan, all grants obligated in FY 2008 and beyond
must be in full compliance with the requirements of these circulars.
II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis
All three circulars generally follow the same format. Where
possible, this notice discusses the chapters in general terms. Where
the chapters vary significantly, as in Chapters III and IV, the
discussion is specific to each program. This section briefly describes
the content of each chapter and addresses public comments received in
response to the September 6, 2006, notice. In addition to making
changes to the circulars in response to public comments, FTA has edited
for clarity and consistency among the circulars.
One commenter suggested that FTA develop one coordinated circular
for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom, especially since much of the
material in the circulars is the same, and only a couple of chapters
have program-specific information. FTA determined that many recipients
would only receive funds from one of the three programs, and did not
want to burden those recipients with unnecessary information;
therefore, we developed three distinct circulars, one for each program.
A. Chapter I--Introduction and Background
Chapter I is an introductory chapter in all three circulars. This
chapter covers general information about FTA and how to contact us,
provides a brief review of the authorizing legislation for the specific
program (i.e., Section 5310, JARC, or New Freedom), provides
information about Grants.gov, includes definitions applicable to the
specific program, and provides a brief program history.
Several commenters had suggestions for additional definitions of
terms. Where we agreed with those suggestions, we have incorporated
them into the circulars. For example, we added a definition for
``elderly individuals'' to the Section 5310 and New Freedom circulars,
and we added a definition for ``chief executive officer of a State'' to
all three circulars. We did not, however, change the definitions of
``individual with a disability,'' ``eligible low-income individual,''
or ``welfare recipient.'' FTA acknowledges that there are many
definitions for these terms. Since the circulars were developed under
the authority of Federal transit law, we have decided to use the
definitions in the transit law--49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. We also did not
include definitions for ``unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate''
public transportation services in the Section 5310 circular, as we
believe the dictionary definitions of those terms are sufficient. We
did not add, in the definition of coordinated plan, that passengers
with disabilities be a part of the planning process. We have described
the requirements for outreach and stakeholder input in Chapter V.
Further, we declined to include local Workforce Investment Boards in
the definition of human service transportation (as we did not include
any specific agencies in that definition), but we did reference the
Board in Chapter V in all three circulars.
[[Page 14853]]
One commenter asked FTA to identify the source data for ``welfare
recipients'' for apportionment of JARC funds. The Census identifies
persons whose income is at 150 percent of poverty level and below--this
includes welfare recipients. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services data on welfare recipients are not disaggregated in such a way
that FTA could use the data for apportionment purposes; therefore, we
use Census data for persons living at 150 percent of poverty or below.
B. Chapter II--Program Overview
Chapter II provides more detail about the programs. This chapter
starts with the statutory authority for the specific program, including
how authorized funds are apportioned. One commenter suggested that the
amounts authorized for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 should not be
part of the circulars, as the circulars are expected to be in effect
past the authorization period of SAFETEA-LU. We agree, and have removed
the authorized amounts, but retained the information regarding how the
funds are apportioned. The chapter then discusses the goals of the
program. We have added the performance measures for each program to
this chapter, and, in response to comments, clarified that the
indicators specified are targeted to capture program information on a
National level--these measures will not be used to assess individual
grants.
Next is a brief description of the State or recipient's role and
FTA's role in program administration, followed by an overview of how
the specific program relates to other FTA programs, and a description
of coordination with other Federal programs through the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM). The
section on coordination has been updated to reflect CCAM's recent
adoption of policies on coordinated planning and vehicle sharing. In
addition, in response to a commenter, the New Freedom circular contains
a reference to joint guidance on funding resources regarding access to
work, which was originally only in the proposed JARC circular.
Chapter II is an ``overview'' chapter that contains valuable
information but not in the detail that later chapters cover. Some
commenters requested that more information be included in this chapter;
however, we believe it is more appropriate to include detail in later
chapters. We have, however, provided more references to later chapters
to direct readers toward the detailed information they are seeking.
C. Chapter III--General Program Information
Due to the differences in program requirements, the discussion of
this chapter is divided by program.
1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities (Section 5310)
The final Section 5310 circular hereby supersedes the Section 5310
circular last revised in 1998 (FTA Circular 9070.1E), and incorporates
changes in transit law. Significantly, Section 5310, as amended by
SAFETEA-LU, permits the use of up to 10 percent of funding for expenses
related to program administration, planning, and technical assistance
(consistent with FTA's longstanding administrative practice). The law
increases coordination requirements and allows the local funding share
to include amounts available for transportation from other non-DOT
Federal agencies, as well as Federal lands highway funding. SAFETEA-LU
also establishes a pilot program that allows seven States to use up to
33 percent of their Section 5310 funds for operating expenses. One
commenter requested that the pilot program be referenced in the
circular; FTA issued general guidance for the pilot program in a
Federal Register notice (70 FR 69201, Nov. 14, 2005) and announced the
States selected to participate in a later Federal Register notice (71
FR 59101, Feb. 3, 2006). Since the pilot program has its own guidance,
FTA did not include any specific guidance regarding this program in the
final circular, however, we did make note of the pilot program in
Chapter III.
Chapter III addresses State agency designation, apportionment of
Section 5310 funds, when the funds are available to the States, under
what circumstances funds may be transferred, consolidation of grants to
insular areas, who is an eligible subrecipient, administrative
expenses, eligible capital expenses, and Federal/local match
requirements. This information compares to information found in Chapter
II of the 1998 circular.
FTA made two changes to this chapter in response to comments.
First, in paragraph 7, ``State Administrative Expenses,'' we added a
provision allowing the administrative funds for Section 5310, JARC,
and/or New Freedom to be combined to support activities such as
coordinated planning that are common to all three programs. In the
September 6, 2006, notice, we stated this was allowable, but we did not
include this information in the proposed circular. Second, in paragraph
9, ``Federal/Local Matching Requirements'' we removed the reference to
specific Federal programs and instead used generic terms to describe
the types of programs that are a potential source for local match,
including employment, training, aging, medical, community services, and
rehabilitation services.
One commenter requested that the sliding scale table for Federal
match, which addresses the ``Sliding Scale Rate for Transit Capital
Grants'' include the ``increased Federal share for operating
assistance'' for States participating in the Section 5310 pilot
program. Section 3012 of SAFETEA-LU, which established the pilot
program, caps the Federal share for operating expenses for this program
at 50 percent (see Section 3012(b)(3)), so the sliding scale rate does
not apply to the pilot program. As stated previously, FTA issued
general guidance for the pilot program in a Federal Register notice (70
FR 69201, Nov. 14, 2005) and announced the States selected to
participate in a later Federal Register notice (71 FR 59101, Feb. 3,
2006). Individuals interested in this program should refer to those
documents.
Most comments on this chapter related to eligible activities. FTA
proposed that eligible capital expenses would remain substantially the
same as in the 1998 circular, with the addition of mobility management
activities as eligible expenses. We pointed out in the September 6,
2006, Federal Register notice and the proposed circular that the list
of eligible activities is illustrative and not exhaustive. Two
commenters wanted to see mention of contracted service, or purchase-of-
service agreements as an eligible capital expense. This item is in
paragraph 8(m). One commenter asserted that any Intelligent
Transportation Service (ITS) project should be eligible under all three
programs. ITS is mentioned in paragraph 8(o), and is further identified
as a project that is part of mobility management under paragraph
8(p)(7). One commenter asked FTA to reconsider funding the coordinated
plan under mobility management. As we explained in the September 6,
2006, notice, mobility management is an eligible expense and includes
project planning activities. However, any planning project must be
derived from a coordinated plan. Therefore, mobility management funds
may not be used to develop the coordinated plan. Mobility management
activities are a capital expense funded at an 80/20 Federal/local
funding share pursuant to 49 U.S.C 5310(c).
[[Page 14854]]
One commenter explored the differences among the Section 5310,
JARC, and New Freedom programs, and seemed to disagree with the fact
that States are not required to competitively select Section 5310
programs. The commenter also seemed to imply that having Section 5310
projects included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was a new
requirement. Under Section 5310, States allocate funds to private non-
profit organizations or governmental authorities. Most States choose to
use a competitive process, and FTA encourages the practice, but the law
does not require competitive selection for 5310 as it does for JARC and
New Freedom. All grant funds are subject to planning requirements;
Section 5310 projects have always had to be part of the STIP and TIP.
One commenter wanted to know if States could ``pool'' their JARC,
New Freedom, and Section 5310 funds into a combined set of funds,
provided that they could show that the priorities of all programs are
being met. The transfer provisions in SAFETEA-LU do not permit such a
pooling of funds; funds may not be ``flexed'' from one program to
another. One commenter asserted that the authority granted in SAFETEA-
LU to designated urbanized area recipients to develop their own
competitive selection criteria for apportioned Section 5316 (JARC) and
5317 (New Freedom) funds could be extended to the Section 5310 program
if States were permitted to sub-apportion some of their 5310 funds to
the designated recipient. FTA notes again that while most States
conduct a competitive selection process for Section 5310, there is no
statutory competitive selection requirement for Section 5310. Second,
States may allocate funds to government authorities (e.g., designated
recipients) only when the government authority is approved by the State
to coordinate services for elderly individuals and individuals with
disabilities, or if the authority certifies that there are no non-
profit organizations readily available to provide the special services,
which is unlikely in a large urbanized area.
2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom
The JARC and New Freedom programs have similar statutory
requirements, so Chapter III, with the exception of Eligible
Activities, is the same or similar for each circular. This chapter
covers recipient designation, including designation in urbanized areas
where there are multiple recipients; the role of the designated
recipient; eligible direct recipients and subrecipients; apportionment,
availability and transfer of funds; consolidation of grants to insular
areas; recipient administrative expenses; eligible activities; and
Federal/local matching requirements.
a. Recipient Designation
FTA proposed, and adopts in the final circulars, that the
designated recipient for JARC and/or New Freedom in urbanized areas
over 200,000 in population may be the same as the designated recipient
for Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program) funds; however,
it does not have to be the same designated recipient. The MPO, State,
or another public agency may be a preferred choice based on local
circumstances. The designation of a recipient shall be made by the
governor in consultation with responsible local officials and publicly
owned operators of public transportation, as required in 49 U.S.C.
5307(a)(2). Since the State is a public entity, a single State agency
could be designated as the recipient of JARC and/or New Freedom funds
apportioned to large urbanized areas. The recipient for JARC and New
Freedom funds will apply to FTA for these funds on behalf of
subrecipients within the recipient's area. Regardless of whether the
JARC and New Freedom recipient is the same as or different from the
Section 5307 designated recipient, the governor shall issue new
designation of JARC and New Freedom recipient letters. Designations
remain in effect until changed by the governor by official notice of
redesignation to the appropriate FTA Regional Administrator.
In urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 and in other
than urbanized areas, the State is the designated recipient for JARC
and New Freedom funds. The governor designates a State agency
responsible for administering the funds and notifies the appropriate
FTA regional office in writing of that designation. The governor may
designate the State agency receiving Other Than Urbanized Area formula
funds (Section 5311) and/or Section 5310 funds to be the JARC and/or
New Freedom recipient, or the governor may designate a different
agency.
FTA encourages the designation of a single designated recipient for
each urbanized area over 200,000 in population, in order to streamline
the administration of the program and foster coordination although some
commenters asserted that a single designated recipient should be a
requirement. However, FTA respects the complexity of geographical and
institutional histories of different areas, so this remains a local
decision. Further, nothing precludes the designation of multiple
designated recipients. When more than one recipient is designated for a
single large urbanized area, the designated recipients must agree on
how to divide the single apportionment to the urbanized area and notify
FTA annually of the division and the geographic area each recipient
will be responsible for managing. For multi-State urbanized areas of
less than 200,000 in population, the designated recipient for each
State is responsible for that State's portion.
In response to comments, FTA made two changes in order to clarify
the responsibilities of designated recipients and direct recipients.
First, we note that in some large urbanized areas, the competitive
selection process may result in projects being awarded to a transit
agency that is not the designated recipient for the JARC or New Freedom
programs but is a Section 5307 designated recipient. If this happens
and the 5307 designated recipient wants to apply directly to FTA for a
JARC or New Freedom grant, the JARC or New Freedom designated recipient
must enter into a supplemental agreement with the Section 5307
recipient. The supplemental agreement will release the designated
recipient from any liability under the grant agreement.
Second, we note that if a State transfers JARC or New Freedom funds
to a Section 5307 recipient in a small urbanized area (population
between 50,000 and 200,000) for administration of a competitively
selected project, the transfer of funds also transfers the oversight
responsibilities from the State to the grant recipient. In this
situation, the State will only be responsible for the program
requirements (e.g., coordinated planning, competitive selection) and
data collection for annual reporting purposes. When the funds are
transferred to the 5307 direct recipient, the 5307 direct recipient
could apply to FTA directly for the funds; however, the application
must be submitted as a separate grant. For oversight purposes, FTA will
include the JARC/New Freedom projects in the triennial review of the
5307 direct recipient.
One commenter encouraged FTA to accept Section 5307 designation for
the JARC and New Freedom programs. These are new programs, and the
recipients must go through the process of being designated by the
Governor. If a State has a ``blanket certification'' that the State is
the designated recipient for all FTA programs, the State simply needs
an amendment to the certification
[[Page 14855]]
or an affirmation that the State or other designated recipient will be
the designated recipient for all FTA programs, including JARC and New
Freedom.
Some commenters expressed concern about the ``administrative
burden'' associated with a designated recipient's oversight
responsibilities of subrecipients, some of which may be private
operators. One commenter suggested that the burden of certifying
compliance with Federal requirements could discourage selection of non-
governmental entities for funding, and another suggested that private
operators selected for funding should report directly to FTA, and not
to the designated recipient. In response, FTA notes that the
competitive selection process must be open and fair--criteria set by
the designated recipient cannot discourage private participation. In
addition, oversight of subrecipients is the responsibility of the
designated recipient.
b. Apportionment, Availability and Transfer of Funds
FTA did not make any substantive changes to these sections of the
circulars. One commenter wanted to confirm that recipients must
obligate apportioned funds within the year of apportionment plus two
years, and once obligated, they may be spent sometime after that period
of availability. That is correct; only if funds remain unobligated
after the period of availability will they lapse and be re-apportioned
by FTA. This includes funds that have been administratively transferred
to a Section 5307 recipient--the funds must be obligated within the
period of availability or they will be re-apportioned by FTA. One
commenter suggested that if JARC funds remain unobligated due to an
absence of applications or insufficient local matching funds, States
should have the flexibility to transfer those unobligated JARC funds to
rural or large urbanized areas, if unmet needs exist in those areas.
Another commenter wanted to know if there are any mechanisms to
transfer JARC or New Freedom funds between urbanized and nonurbanized
areas, or between urbanized areas. As stated in 49 U.S.C. 5316(c)(3), a
State may use JARC funds apportioned for small urbanized and rural
areas for projects serving either of these areas of the State, if the
State's chief executive officer certifies that all of the objectives of
JARC are being met in the specified areas. Funds may also be
transferred for use anywhere in the State including large urbanized
areas, if the State has established a statewide program for meeting
JARC program goals. There is no authority to transfer funds apportioned
to large urbanized areas to small urbanized or rural areas.
New Freedom funds cannot be transferred from one population area
(such as rural) to another population area (such as small urbanized)
within a State. While such a transfer provision is statutorily
permitted under the JARC program, this provision is not included in the
New Freedom program. Therefore, FTA cannot allow this transfer of
funds. States may, however, transfer JARC and New Freedom funds to
Section 5307 or Section 5311(c) to ease program administration, as long
as the transferred funds are used for competitively selected JARC or
New Freedom projects, respectively. Transfer requests must be submitted
to the appropriate FTA Regional Administrator in writing. One commenter
suggested that FTA permit transfers of funds between the JARC and New
Freedom programs. The law does not permit such a transfer; funds must
be used for the program for which they were apportioned except in
insular areas.
c. Recipient Expenses (10 Percent) for Administration, Planning, and
Technical Assistance
Up to 10 percent of program funds are available for the
administration, planning, and technical assistance of Section 5310,
JARC, and New Freedom programs. These funds may be used directly by the
designated recipient or they may be passed through to subrecipients for
these purposes. For example, the designated recipient may award grants
to local areas to support the development of the coordinated plan. The
competitive selection process is part of ``administering'' the programs
and, therefore, these funds may be used to conduct the competitive
selection process.
Several commenters expressed concern that 10 percent of the amount
apportioned may not be sufficient to administer the program. FTA notes
that there is no local match requirement for this funding, and we
revised the final circulars to state that the administrative funding
available under Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom may be combined in
order to develop a single coordinated plan to meet the needs of persons
with disabilities, older adults, and low-income individuals. Further,
as we stated in the September 6, 2006, notice, FTA treats the
limitation on administrative funds as applicable to funds apportioned
to recipients over time, not necessarily to the apportionment for a
particular fiscal year. A recipient may accumulate the ``entitlement''
to administrative funds for the year of apportionment plus two years to
augment the funds available for a special administrative need in a
subsequent year.
One commenter asked FTA to reconsider funding the coordinated plan
under mobility management. As we explained in the September 6, 2006,
notice, (and noted in the Section 5310 discussion of eligible
activities, above) mobility management is an eligible expense and
includes project planning activities. However, any planning project
must be derived from a coordinated plan. Therefore, mobility management
funds may not be used to develop the coordinated plan. Mobility
management activities are funded at an 80/20 Federal/local ratio
pursuant to the applicable program share requirements under Title 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53.
d. JARC Eligible Activities
Section 5316, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, requires that JARC projects
selected for funding be derived from a coordinated plan (see Chapter V)
and that grants will be awarded on a competitive basis (see Chapter
IV). Funds are available for capital, planning, and operating expenses
that support the development and maintenance of transportation services
designed to transport low-income individuals to and from jobs and
activities related to their employment, and for reverse commute
projects. The list of eligible projects included in the final circular
is consistent with the use of funds described in FTA's April 8, 2002,
Federal Register notice for JARC Program Grants (67 FR 16790). As
requested by commenters, this list of eligible activities is
illustrative, not exhaustive. In the final circular, we added reverse
commute activities to the list of eligible activities. That is the only
change we made to JARC eligible activities from the proposed circular
to the final circular.
Commenters generally disagreed with FTA's proposal that transit
passes should not be an eligible expense under the JARC program. In
addition to comments to the docket, on February 4, 2007, FTA received a
letter from a trade association expressing their support for funding
transit passes through the JARC program. FTA posted this letter to the
docket. FTA strongly supports the implementation of transit pass
programs and believes that such activities offer low-income persons
affordable transportation opportunities, particularly during periods
when transitioning from public assistance to employment. JARC
legislation does
[[Page 14856]]
explicitly provide for the promotion of such transit pass programs for
low-income persons as an eligible JARC expense, but the statute does
not expressly provide language for the actual funding of transit
passes. The JARC program instead concentrates on building additional
transportation capacity to connect low-income persons to jobs and
support services and to provide connections to suburban employment
sites.
FTA notes that many other Federal human service partner programs
are available to support customer fares on existing transit services.
Examples include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, Workforce Investment Act funds, and other Federal, state, and
local human services programs that assist individuals. These
opportunities may be pursued within the new locally developed
coordinated public transit-human services planning process where many
of these agencies and organizations will be participating stakeholders.
Further, the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. 132(f) allows employers
to pay for transit passes and the employee does not pay taxes on this
transportation fringe benefit. Promotion of transit pass programs
remains an eligible expense.
Several commenters expressed an interest in FTA approving all car
ownership program models as eligible JARC projects, including car
ownership programs that are not loan programs, such as rehabilitation
or donation programs. The commenters requested that FTA remove the
shared ride participation requirement, and remove the requirement that
the agency administering the program hold the lien on the title of the
vehicle, since the lending institution usually holds title.
FTA appreciates the interest of commenters in car ownership
programs. In keeping with the original April 8, 2002, Federal Register
notice, FTA has decided to continue funding auto loan programs but not
rehabilitation or donation programs. In addition, FTA will continue the
shared-ride requirement, which maximizes the benefits of the Federal
investment to low-income populations. As for the lien on the title of
the vehicle, the agency administering the loan program can often be a
lien holder, in addition to the lending institution. FTA believes this
is the best way to ensure satisfactory continuing control, which is a
requirement under Section 5307.
One commenter asserted they should be able to prioritize existing
JARC projects for funding. FTA believes this is a local decision made
through the planning process. Some existing JARC projects will be
selected for funding while others may not, especially if new projects
are considered more cost-effective and/or better serve a need of a
community.
e. New Freedom Eligible Activities
Section 5317, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, requires that New Freedom
projects selected for funding be derived from a coordinated plan (see
Chapter V) and that grants will be awarded on a competitive basis (see
Chapter IV). Funds are available for capital, planning, and operating
expenses that support new public transportation services and new public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), that assist individuals with disabilities with
transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and
employment support services. As requested by commenters, the list of
eligible activities is illustrative, not exhaustive.
FTA proposed, in our September 6, 2006, Federal Register notice,
that ``new'' service is any service or activity that was not
operational before August 10, 2005, (the date of passage of SAFETEA-LU)
and did not have an identified funding source as of August 10, 2005, as
evidenced by inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or
the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). In other words, if
not for the New Freedom program, these projects would not be considered
for funding and proposed service enhancements would not be available
for individuals with disabilities. Some commenters were concerned that
this definition of ``new'' would eliminate projects that were in place
before August 10, 2005, but terminated due to a lack of funding prior
to August 10, 2005. To address this concern, we have changed the
wording to reflect that projects not operational on August 10, 2005,
and without a dedicated funding source as evidenced by inclusion in the
TIP or STIP at that time are considered ``new.'' This will allow
projects discontinued prior to August 10, 2005, to be reinstated if the
coordinated planning process determines the service is needed.
Inclusion of projects in the metropolitan or statewide long-range
transportation plans does not constitute a funding commitment. However,
once a project is included in the TIP/STIP, it has an identified
funding source. Therefore, projects identified in a long-range
metropolitan or statewide plan may be eligible for New Freedom funding,
but not projects in the four-year program period of the TIP/STIP.
One commenter asked how long projects could be considered new; in
other words, if a multi-year project is successful, does it lose its
``new'' status at some point? In response, eligible projects funded by
New Freedom may continue to be eligible for New Freedom funding
indefinitely as long as they remain part of the coordinated plan.
Many commenters objected to FTA's interpretation that New Freedom
projects are those that are both ``new'' and ``beyond the ADA,'' while
others were in favor of the policy position set forth in the proposed
circular. In addition, FTA received feedback from both Administration
and Congressional offices in support of the proposed policy that New
Freedom projects be ``new public transportation services beyond those
required by the ADA'' and ``new public transportation alternatives
beyond those required by the ADA.'' Therefore, we have not changed the
description of eligible activities in the final circular. The only
change we made in eligible activities was to clarify that Intelligent
Transportation Services is an eligible project, and the incremental
cost (if any) of changing the basic mode of service of an ADA
paratransit system from curb-to-curb to door-to-door is an eligible
project.
One commenter asserted that, in rural areas, it was difficult to
conceptualize any new public transportation that is ``beyond the ADA.''
The commenter sought more examples of eligible rural New Freedom public
transportation projects where the service in those areas is demand-
responsive. One commenter wanted to know if demand-responsive or flex
route services would be eligible for New Freedom funding, or if only
fixed route and ADA paratransit were eligible. FTA acknowledges there
are limits to the use of New Freedom funds in rural systems that
operate only demand-response service; however, the substantial increase
in funding to the Section 5311 program under SAFETEA-LU should be
sufficient to cover many of the needs of these communities. Certainly
vehicle modifications that are beyond the ADA, such as equipment to
accommodate over-sized wheelchairs, or increased securement locations
on vehicles, would be an eligible New Freedom expense on demand-
response vehicles as well as other public transportation vehicles.
Travel training and mobility management activities may be valuable
public transportation activities in rural areas, as would the addition
of new feeder service to outlying transit stations for which ADA
complementary paratransit is not
[[Page 14857]]
required, such as commuter rail stations, express or commuter bus
service, or an intercity bus stop or rail station. In addition,
alternatives to public transportation such as accessible taxis and
volunteer driver programs can be invaluable to rural residents. FTA
encourages rural operators (as well as urbanized area operators) to use
the planning process to create innovative solutions to meet the needs
of individuals with disabilities in their communities.
One commenter asserted that the current U.S. DOT ADA proposed
rulemaking (71 FR 9761, Feb. 27, 2006) introducing ``reasonable
modification'' of policies and practices will essentially nullify the
New Freedom program as it will be difficult for any service to be
beyond the ADA. FTA disagrees with this assertion. As we understand the
proposed rulemaking, it would call on transportation providers to make
exceptions to otherwise appropriate general policies and practices on a
case-by-case basis where needed to make service available to a
particular individual. The purpose of New Freedom, on the other hand,
is to enhance the availability of transportation services to persons
with disabilities in a community.
One commenter asserted that the ADA regulations allow same-day
service for ADA paratransit but do not require it, and similarly, allow
door-to-door service but do not require it. The commenter asked why the
implementation of same day service would be considered an eligible New
Freedom project but door-to-door service would not. As we stated in the
September 6, 2006, notice, the ADA regulation requires ``origin-to-
destination'' service, and U.S. DOT guidance issued on September 1,
2005, reiterates the ``origin-to-destination'' language and notes that,
``service may need to be provided to some individuals, or at some
locations, in a way that goes beyond curb-to-curb service.'' The
difference is that the provision of door-to-door service as a
reasonable modification to make service possible to a particular
individual in a system that otherwise provides curb-to-curb service may
allow someone to use the service who otherwise could not access ADA
paratransit at all. Same day service is an enhancement that makes the
system more convenient and easier to use for all passengers.
FTA is persuaded, however, that the incremental cost increase (if
any) of changing the basic mode of an operator's entire ADA paratransit
service from curb-to-curb to door-to-door could be considered eligible
for New Freedom funding in the same manner as same-day service,
inasmuch as the Department's ADA regulations and related guidance do
not specify a basic mode of service beyond origin-to-destination.
Therefore, if a change in mode of service from curb-to-curb to door-to-
door is new, and is part of the coordinated plan, the incremental cost
increase (if any)--and only the incremental cost increase--is an
eligible expense. FTA has modified the eligible project list
accordingly. The availability of New Freedom funds for this purpose
does not imply that any transit system must change its service to door-
to-door; it is simply one option among many possible projects that may
be funded with New Freedom funds if it is part of the coordinated plan.
A system that maintains a general curb-to-curb policy may not use New
Freedom funds to provide a ``reasonable modification'' to the general
policy of curb-to-curb to provide door-to-door service to individuals
on a case-by-case basis.
Two commenters suggested that ``travel training'' should be
included as an eligible project under mobility management, and
therefore eligible for funding as a capital project. Travel training is
listed as an eligible project, both independently and as part of
mobility management. Travel training is eligible for up to an 80
percent Federal match.
f. Federal/Local Match Requirements
A grant for a capital project under the JARC and New Freedom
programs may not exceed 80 percent of the net cost of the project. A
grant for operating costs under these programs may not exceed 50
percent of the net operating costs of the project. One commenter
expressed concern that a 50 percent match for operating expenses for
New Freedom may prove to be too high for smaller organizations;
however, these limits are set by law. (See 49 U.S.C. 5316(h) and
5317(g)). Finally, a grant for administrative expenses incurred by
these programs (up to 10 percent of the annual apportionment), may be
fully funded by FTA. The circular lists the potential sources of local
funding match, including the types of other Federal programs that
provide funding for transportation.
One commenter noted that the Section 5310 and Section 5311
circulars allow local match to come from DOT's Federal lands highways
program, and suggested that Federal lands highways funds be available
as local match for JARC and New Freedom, as well. The law specifically
permits Federal lands highways funds to be used as local match for
Sections 5310 and 5311; however, this same provision is not in the JARC
or New Freedom authority. Therefore, Federal lands highways funds may
not be used as local match for the JARC and New Freedom programs.
One commenter asserted that if there are other Federal funding
sources that can be used as local match for the JARC program, the
circular should list the criteria which would qualify agencies to
receive funding from these sources. Federal programs supporting human
service transportation are listed on the United We Ride Web site:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.unitedweride.gov. We have included this link in the final circulars
in the discussion of local match.
D. Chapter IV--Program Development
Due to the differences in program requirements, the discussion of
this chapter is divided by program.
1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities (Section 5310)
Chapter IV provides an overview of planning requirements (described
in further detail in Chapter V); describes the program of projects
(POP), including the approval of and revisions to the POP; and
describes pre-award authority, labor protections, and when public
hearings are required. This information compares to information found
in Chapter III of the 1998 Section 5310 circular (FTA C 9070.1E).
FTA proposed and adopted four changes to this chapter. First, the
planning requirements now reference the coordinated plan required under
SAFETEA-LU. Second, the 1998 circular states that grants are awarded on
a quarterly release cycle; the new circular reflects FTA's current
commitment to promptly process grants upon receipt of a complete and
acceptable grant application. Third, under ``Revisions to Program of
Projects,'' FTA included a new paragraph for when grant revisions need
to be made in FTA's Transportation Electronic Award and Management
(TEAM) system. And fourth, the ``Public Hearing'' section clarifies and
provides the statutory authority regarding public hearing requirements.
Two commenters suggested that contact information for subrecipients
should be added to the list of information that FTA receives regarding
the POP, including the specific geographical area served. As a result
of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
(Pub. L. 109-282, Sept. 26, 2006), all Federal agencies are required to
publish to a public Web site information regarding recipients of
Federal grants, contracts, and other
[[Page 14858]]
forms of financial assistance equal to or greater than $25,000. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and U.S. DOT will be developing
criteria to allow FTA to report on grants awarded to subrecipients. To
prepare for this new government-wide requirement, FTA is adding the
location of the subrecipient (city, State and Congressional district)
and primary location of project performance under the award to the
subrecipient information for all three programs. Specific contact
information (i.e., addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses) will not
be included, but the name and location of the subrecipient will be,
thus allowing interested parties to find contact information for
subrecipients.
2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom
The JARC and New Freedom programs have the same statutory
requirements for the areas covered by this chapter, so Chapter IV is
the same for both circulars. This chapter provides a summary of the
planning and coordination requirements (described in further detail in
Chapter V); describes the competitive selection process and what
constitutes a fair and equitable distribution of funds; describes the
program of projects (POP), including approval of and revisions to the
POP; and addresses certifications and assurances and pre-award
authority.
Chapter IV includes guidance on how a designated recipient should
conduct the competitive selection process. Some commenters continue to
have concerns about a perceived ``conflict of interest'' if the
designated recipient for JARC or New Freedom is also bidding on a
project. The designated recipient is, by law, responsible for the
competitive selection process. The designated recipient may take steps
it deems appropriate to mitigate any conflict of interest, such as
contracting out the competitive selection process. FTA declines to
require designated recipients to establish conflict of interest
provisions.
One commenter disagreed with the concept of competitive selection,
stating that the development of a coordinated plan, coupled with
current local, regional, and State coordination of projects provides an
adequate means of coordinating projects and programs. The law requires
that designated recipients and States conduct a ``solicitation for
applications for grants to the recipient and subrecipients under [the
JARC and New Freedom programs].'' (See 49 U.S.C. 5316(d) and 5317(d).
One commenter wondered for what purpose is the competitive selection;
the purpose is to select recipients and subrecipients that will carry
out JARC and New Freedom projects.
Another commenter thought that once the planning process is
complete and projects have been selected for funding, it would be
reasonable to have existing FTA grantees subcontract with other
providers, thus keeping the grant administrative process to a minimum.
This commenter asserted that allowing anyone and everyone to compete
for eligible projects will be cumbersome in oversight, coordination,
and contradict the original purpose of streamlining processes. In our
proposed circulars, FTA proposed significant flexibility within the
process to address concerns such as these, and we have retained that
flexibility in the final circulars. It is important to understand that
projects to be funded are not selected through the planning process.
Projects are prioritized, but selection occurs competitively. Anyone
can compete for projects, including private non-profit and private for-
profit companies. Entities selected to carry out the projects will be
subrecipients, not subcontractors.
One commenter suggested that, for New Freedom funds, FTA should
include in the selection process a requirement that a review of other
funding sources occurs in order to ensure that limited New Freedom
funds are not spent where other funds could be used. FTA declines to
explicitly make this a requirement, but we note that a coordinated plan
includes an assessment of existing resources and services--we expect
this to be part of the plan. FTA strongly encourages communities to
include potential strategies that could be funded from multiple
sources, including other Federal programs.
Several commenters objected to the proposed two-year competitive
selection cycle, and some suggested that the competition should occur
at a ``reasonable interval'' based on local circumstances. In response,
FTA has changed this so the competition may be held annually or at
intervals up to three years as determined by the designated recipient
based on local needs. Three years allows a sufficient period to
determine if a multi-year project is successful and should be
continued. If the competitive selection process is less frequent than
every three years, it is possible that new needs will not be addressed,
and interested participants may be shut out of the process. FTA
encourages ongoing efforts of looking at how the needs are being met,
and if the project selected is meeting the needs identified in the
plan.
Several commenters wanted to see further clarification on what
constitutes a ``fair and equitable'' distribution of funds. One
commenter asked FTA to clearly state that fair and equitable does not
mean funds are distributed on a pro rata basis, while another wanted to
ensure ``equal'' allocation of resources among projects and
communities. Several commenters asked about geographic distribution, in
terms of evaluating ``areas'' rather than ``projects'' (example two in
the selection process examples), and in terms of Title VI and
Environmental Justice. As we stated in the September 6, 2006, notice,
(and we have added this language to the final circular) equitable
distribution refers to equal access to--and equal treatment by--a fair
and open competitive process. The result of such a process may not be
an ``equal'' allocation of resources among projects or communities. FTA
added ``geographic distribution'' to the list of selection criteria
that may be considered by designated recipients and States, but it is
possible that some areas may not receive any funding at the conclusion
of the competitive selection process. A successful competitive
selection process will, however, minimize perceptions of unfairness in
the allocation of program resources.
Some commenters had questions about the examples we provided in the
proposed circulars. We have attempted to clarify the language in
response to comments. Two commenters noticed that there was no language
in the proposed circulars requiring designated recipients to choose
projects/needs in order of the priority established in the coordinated
plan. While the designated recipient certainly should consider the
priorities identified in the plan, there may be times when the
resources available are not sufficient to fund the first or second
priorities listed. In cases such as these, it would be appropriate for
the designated recipient to look at the resources available and fund
what is possible, which may mean going further down the list of
prioritized projects or strategies than the first one or two items.
Therefore, we decline to require designated recipients to choose
projects/needs in order of priority identified in the coordinated plan.
The rest of this chapter addresses the Program of Projects (POP).
In response to commenters, we added some clarifying language and
language addressing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency
Act of 2006 (discussed above). Two commenters were concerned that
categorizing projects as ``A'' or ``B'' could delay or deny funding. A
POP is
[[Page 14859]]
necessary at the time of the grant application, but not at the time of
developing the planning documents, unless a local area's process
requires projects to be listed in the STIP at the project level rather
than at the program level. Since projects can be described at either
the project level or the program level, if the projects are listed in
the STIP at the program level, then neither the STIP nor the TIP would
need to be amended when projects are moved from category ``B'' to
category ``A.'' ``A'' and ``B'' categories differentiate between levels
of readiness. This allows the designated recipient flexibility and
reduces delays in FTA's grant process. Additional comments received
about inclusion of projects in the STIP/TIP will be addressed in
Chapter V.
E. Chapter V--Coordinated Planning
The Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs all require the
development of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan (``coordinated plan''). Each of the
circulars for these three programs has the same requirements for
coordinated planning; therefore, Chapter V is identical in all three
circulars. This chapter includes the definition of a coordinated plan,
how a coordinated plan is developed, the level of public participation
that is expected and strategies for inclusion, and the relationship of
the coordinated plan to other planning processes.
FTA made changes to this chapter as a result of comments received.
The required elements of a coordinated plan have been modified for
clarification purposes. For example, in paragraph 2(b)(3), we have
expanded the element as follows: ``[s]trategies, activities and/or
projects to address the identified gaps between current services and
needs, as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service
delivery.'' We made additional clarifying changes to paragraph 4,
``Relationship to Other Transportation Planning Processes.'' With
regard to the relationship of the coordinated plan with other planning
processes, we have added a new Appendix E to the Section 5310 circular,
and Appendix G to the JARC and New Freedom circulars, and included a
schematic drawing to clarify the timing and other elements related to
the coordinated planning process, competitive selection, POP, and
inclusion of projects in the STIP/TIP.
One commenter recommended allowing a ``community'' to be defined as
a separate area within a larger urbanized area where different
transportation solutions are necessary, and allow the designated
recipient to be made up of local municipalities. Another commenter
asked if a ``county'' could be a local area for planning purposes. As
we stated in the September 6, 2006, notice, the decision as to the
boundaries of the local planning areas should be made in consultation
with the State, designated recipients, and/or the MPO. In addition,
``designated recipient'' is defined in the law as an entity designated,
in accordance with planning processes, by the chief executive officer
of a State, responsible local officials, publicly owned operators of
public transportation, or a State.
Several commenters expressed concern that 10 percent of the amount
apportioned may be insufficient to administer the program. Some
requested that FTA allow program funds to be used for the initial
coordinated plan. As we stated above, the law allows up to 10 percent
of funds to be used for administering the program, and development of
the coordinated plan is part of that program administration--program
funds may not be used to fund the coordinated plan. FTA notes that
there is no local match requirement for this funding, and we revised
the circulars to state that the administrative funding available under
Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom may be combined in order to develop
a single coordinated plan to meet the needs of persons with
disabilities, older adults, and low-income individuals. Several of the
strategies outlined in Chapter V offer approaches that may be done with
a range of resources based on local interest and need. Further,
administrative funds for the coordination strategies discussed in
Chapter V may be supplemented with Sections 5303 and 5304 Metropolitan
Planning and Statewide Planning funds, Section 5307 formula funds, and
administrative funding available under Section 5311.
One commenter suggested that FTA should maintain a central list
that includes the designated planning entity in each community, contact
information, and sample coordinated plans. A second commenter suggested
that FTA regional offices collect coordinated plans and have a
procedure for obtaining a copy. A third suggested that FTA facilitate
information sharing across regions on plan development and
implementation. A fourth commenter suggested that technical assistance
from FTA could assist regions in managing expectations of what the
coordinated plans can be expected to achieve. In response, FTA is
funding several technical assistance centers to assist States and local
communities during the development and implementation of coordinated
public transit-human service transportation plans. The Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) has
posted State Coordination Plans on the United We Ride Web site
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.unitedweride.gov) which will also be linked to FTA's public Web
site.
Some commenters asserted that other key Federal agencies need to be
mandated to participate in the process, and that true coordination,
without the involvement of those agencies, has little hope of
substantive success. One commenter suggested that FTA actively seek
opportunities to include similar coordination requirements in the
authorizing legislation for all Federal programs receiving Federal
dollars to provide transportation to their clients.
As stated in our March 15, 2006, and our September 6, 2006, Federal
Register notices, FTA is committed to working with our Federal partners
through the United We Ride initiative and CCAM to encourage agencies
that receive Federal funding to participate in the coordinated planning
process. In the 2005 Report to the President, CCAM outlined five
recommendations for future action related to coordinated human services
transportation. These recommendations include two policy statements
adopted by CCAM members in late 2006 related to coordinated planning
and vehicle sharing. We have included summaries of the policy
statements in Chapter III of each circular, and Web links to the full
policy statements. CCAM will work with each member Department to
implement the policy statements that build participation in coordinated
human service transportation services at the local level. In addition
to these efforts, FTA encourages State DOT offices to work closely with
their partner agencies and local governmental officials to educate
policy makers about the importance of partnering with human service
transportation programs and the opportunities that are available when
building a coordinated system.
One commenter suggested that each plan should include a description
of the planning process, specifically outlining how the planning entity
involved the disability community in developing the plan. The commenter
felt that including this description in the plan would be a safeguard
to ensure that all interested stakeholders had an opportunity to be
involved. Another commenter wondered why documentation of efforts, the
process for adopting the plan, and human service needs related to
intercity transportation are included
[[Page 14860]]
in the body of the circulars but not as required elements.
In an effort to streamline, we have identified what we believe are
the key elements in the plan. A description of the planning process,
documenting efforts, and adopting the plan are not elements. Further,
whether available intercity transportation is meeting the needs of the
community or not is part of identifying the needs, which is one of the
required elements. Designated recipients must certify annually that
projects selected were derived from a coordinated plan, and the plan
must be developed through a process that includes members of the
public, which includes persons with disabilities. FTA's oversight of
these programs will include review of the outreach efforts engaged in
by the designated recipient, as well as the list of participants, to
ensure that interested parties are invited to participate.
One commenter asked if a State could unilaterally update a plan
developed by a locally chosen lead agency. A second asserted that the
MPO, as well as the designated recipient, should have a role in the
planning process. A State should not be unilaterally updating a local
coordinated plan--the planning team that developed the plan should do
the updating as necessary. The circulars and the planning regulations
encourage a collaborative process for developing the coordinated plan
that includes key players such as the MPO and the designated recipient.
As we stated in both previous Federal Register notices, the ``public
transit'' in ``locally developed coordinated public transit-human
service transportation plan'' is the local transit agency, which is
often, but not always, the designated recipient, and that entity is
expected to participate in the coordinated planning process. When
everyone is at the planning table--the MPO; the designated
recipient(s); passengers who are elderly, low income, or have
disabilities; and other interested stakeholders--the opportunity for
producing a truly coordinated plan that works for the whole community
is realized.
FTA received several comments on the relationship between the
coordinated planning process and other transportation planning
processes. As stated previously, in response to comments, we have added
an ``Appendix E'' to the Section 5310 circular and an ``Appendix G'' to
the JARC and New Freedom circulars describing in more detail the
relationship between the coordinated planning process and other
transportation planning processes. Some commenters asserted that small
JARC or New Freedom projects may not rise to the level of ``regionally
significant'' and therefore should be included in the STIP at the
program level, rather than at the project level. FTA agrees, and stated
that in the proposed circulars. We have retained that language in the
final circulars, and therefore retained the language that projects
should be ``included in'' the STIP, and not merely ``consistent with''
the STIP.
F. Chapter VI--Program Management and Administrative Requirements
Chapter VI provides more details for States and direct recipients
on how to manage the administrative aspects of the three grant
programs, and is similar for all three programs. FTA notes that Chapter
VI in the final circulars is largely a reorganization of the Program
Management chapter in the 1998 Section 5310 Circular 9070.1E (Chapter
V). The chapter starts by noting that the basic grant management
requirements for State and local governments are contained in DOT
regulations, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,'' 49 CFR part
18, and ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements
with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations,'' 49 CFR part 19, which are collectively referred to as
the ``common grant rule.'' Chapter VI provides summary information
about certain aspects of the common grant rule, and how management of
those aspects may be applied to these three programs. Chapter VI also
notes that more detailed information about general program and grant
management is found in FTA Circular 5010.1C, ``Grant Management
Guidelines.''
The common grant rule allows States to use slightly different
standards for the establishment of equipment management, procurement,
and financial management systems than are required for other FTA
recipients. Therefore, throughout Chapter VI, distinctions are made
between the requirements for States and other designated recipients. In
addition, the Section 5310 circular has a section on leasing vehicles
that is specific to that program. The only change made to the final
circulars was in the section on ``Reporting Requirements'' regarding
program performance measures.
FTA received a number of comments on our proposed performance
measures; some in support, and others against. In response to comments,
we have modified the reporting measures somewhat, placed them in
Chapter II as well as Chapter VI, and clarified that the indicators
specified are targeted to capture program information on a National
level--these measures will not be used to assess individual grants.
Each program has different performance measures.
Two commenters noted that the circulars require States to submit
annual reports, but urbanized areas must submit quarterly reports, and
they questioned why there is a difference. This reporting requirement
is consistent with FTA's reporting requirements for Section 5307 and
5309 grants.
One commenter suggested adding a provision to the Section 5310
circular that would require vehicles purchased with Section 5310 funds
to be available in disasters and emergency situations, especially lift-
equipped vehicles. FTA declines to add this provision to the final
circular. Each community and/or State develops its own emergency plans,
and should certainly have an inventory of available vehicles that
includes those vehicles purchased with Section 5310 funds. In many
cases, the non-profit agencies that own those vehicles use them to
evacuate their consumers in cases of emergency. When necessary,
however, those vehicles should be a part of a communities' emergency
evacuation plan.
One commenter, in responding to paragraph 5(c) regarding transfers
of equipment to another subrecipient when the property is no longer
needed for the original grant purpose, and showing the transfer in an
active POP, asserted that adding transferred property to a current POP
is problematic if the grant under which the property was purchased has
been closed. FTA does not view this as a problem. Recording the
transferred equipment in an active grant is sufficient to indicate that
the entity responsible for use of the vehicle has changed. The original
grant does not have to be modified.
G. Chapter VII--State and Program Management Plans
FTA requires States and designated recipients responsible for
implementing the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom (and Section 5311)
programs to document their approach to managing the programs. Chapter
VII includes guidance on how to create and use State Management Plans
(SMP) (for the State-managed aspects of the programs), and Program
Management Plans (PMP) (for designated recipient-managed aspects of the
programs). The primary purposes of Management Plans are to serve as the
basis for FTA management reviews of the program, and to provide public
information on the administration of the programs. Chapter VII in the
final
[[Page 14861]]
circulars is largely a restatement of the SMP chapter in the 1998
Section 5310 Circular 9070.1E (Chapter VII). FTA did not make any
changes to the proposed Chapter VII; we have adopted the proposed
Chapter VII as the final Chapter VII.
In all three program circulars, the first two parts of Chapter VII
explain the general requirements and purpose of Management Plans. The
third part, ``Reviews,'' differs slightly among the programs. The
Section 5310 circular discusses only State Management Reviews (as it is
an entirely State-managed program), while the JARC and New Freedom
circulars discuss reviews at both the State and designated recipient
level. The ``Reviews'' part of Chapter VII is an addition to the 1998
Section 5310 circular.
The fourth part of Chapter VII discusses the content of Management
Plans. The suggested content of SMPs and PMPs is essentially identical
in all three circulars, but the Section 5310 circular reflects the fact
that Section 5310 is entirely State administered. Management Plans are
to include a section on use of the 10 percent of the apportionment
available for administration and technical assistance, and a
description of how the State or designated recipient makes additional
resources available to local areas.
The final part of Chapter VII, which discusses revisions to the
Management Plan, is the same for all three circulars, and mirrors the
language in the 1998 Section 5310 circular.
One commenter requested that FTA make the information in the SMP
and PMP more available to the public. Members of the public can obtain
this information from the FTA regional office that serves the
designated recipient or State. In addition, some grantees make this
information available on their Web sites.
H. Chapter VIII--Other Provisions
This chapter is an expansion of the current ``Other Provisions''
chapter in the 1998 Section 5310 circular, and is virtually the same
for all three circulars. Chapter VIII summarizes a number of FTA-
specific and other Federal requirements that FTA grantees are held to
in addition to the program-specific requirements and guidance provided
in these circulars. This chapter explains some of the most relevant
requirements and provides citations to the actual statutory or
regulatory text. Grantees should use this document in conjunction with
FTA's ``Master Agreement'' and the current fiscal year ``Certifications
and Assurances'' to assure that they have met all requirements.
Grantees may contact FTA Regional Counsel for more details about these
requirements.
In paragraph 10(b) of the proposed JARC circular, describing
transit employee protection under 49 U.S.C. 5333(b), FTA stated that we
anticipate the Department of Labor (DOL) will revise the warranty and
procedures currently in use relative to Section 5311. One commenter
wanted to know, until such action is taken by DOL, what provisions are
being made to allow the Section 5311 process to be applied to rural
grantees of the JARC program. We have removed this language from the
JARC circular, and will amend the circular when/if DOL changes its
procedures. Until DOL changes its procedures, the Section 5311 warranty
will not apply to rural JARC projects, and FTA must transmit JARC
grants to DOL for certification. JARC projects should not be combined
in a single grant with Section 5311 funds.
Paragraph 14 discusses the Drug and Alcohol testing requirements
for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom. Recipients that only receive
Section 5310, JARC, or New Freedom funds are not subject to FTA's drug
and alcohol testing rules, but must comply with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's rule for employees who hold Commercial
Driver's Licenses. Recipients of other FTA programs that also receive
Section 5310, JARC, or New Freedom funds should include any employees
funded under these programs in their testing program. One commenter
asserted that FTA rules do not allow employees not covered by FTA's
drug and alcohol rules to be tested under FTA rules, and therefore they
would have to have two testing programs. An FTA compliant testing
program, as required by the receipt of FTA operating or capital funding
(5307, 5309, 5311), can be used for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom
employees; there is no need to have two testing programs. Employees of
a subrecipient of Section 5310, JARC, or New Freedom funds from a
designated recipient of another FTA program (such as 5307 or 5311)
should also be included in the designated recipient's testing program.
I. Appendices
The Appendices sections for the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom
programs are intended as tools for developing a grant application.
Appendix A specifically addresses steps and instructions for preparing
a grant application, including pre-application and application stages.
Appendix A also includes an application checklist and information for
registering with the Electronic Clearinghouse Operation System (ECHO).
One commenter questioned why both an Allocation Letter and a Program of
Projects (POP) needed to be submitted at the same time, since the POP
is included with the grant application and includes the same
information as the Allocation Letter. We have revised the language in
paragraph 1(f) of Appendix A to state that the Allocation Letter is
only necessary if the State is allowing a public entity in a small
urbanized area under 200,000 in population to apply for funds directly
from FTA.
Appendix B includes a sample program of projects. Appendix C in the
5310 circular and Appendix E in the JARC and New Freedom circulars
provides contact information for FTA's regional offices. In the JARC
and New Freedom circulars, Appendix C includes budget information and
provides specific activity line item (ALI) codes for specific types of
eligible costs (i.e., capital, operating, planning, etc.). A sample
approved budget is included in Appendix D. Appendix C in the Section
5310 circular and Appendix E in the JARC and New Freedom circulars
contain contact information for FTA's regional and metropolitan
offices. Appendix D in Section 5310 and Appendix F in the JARC and New
Freedom circulars list potential sources of technical assistance. In
the final circulars, we added Appendix E in the Section 5310 circular
and Appendix G in the JARC and New Freedom circulars, ``Relationship
Between Coordinated Planning and Metropolitan and Statewide Planning.''
The final Appendix in each circular is a list of References,
traditionally at the front of FTA circulars. FTA has moved this list to
an appendix for ease of reading.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of March 2007.
James S. Simpson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-5734 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P