[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13456-13468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2444]
[[Page 13456]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2006-24037]
Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access
and Reverse Commute, New Freedom Programs and Coordinated Public
Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans: Notice of Public Meeting,
Interim Guidance for FY06 Implementation, and Proposed Strategies for
FY07
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Guidance for FY06 Implementation; notice and request for
comment for FY07 implementation; and announcement of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is developing
guidance in the form of circulars to assist grantees in implementing
the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program, the
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, and the New Freedom Program
beginning in FY07.
FTA solicited public comment in 2005 through a Federal Register
Notice (Transit Program Changes, Authorized Funding Levels and
Implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 70 FR 71950, November
30, 2005) and public listening sessions held in five locations around
the country.
Drawing on the public comment received, FTA developed proposed
strategies, described in this Notice, for implementation of the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom
programs, including the cross-cutting requirement to develop a
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan for FY07.
By this Notice, FTA seeks additional public comment to assist us in
developing circulars for these programs. This notice also includes
guidance for FY06 implementation for those requirements that go into
effect immediately.
DATES: Comments should be submitted by April 21, 2006. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Public Meeting Date
FTA will host a public meeting on March 23, 2006 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
at the Hilton Hotel (1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314). This
meeting is intended to further define program strategies discussed in
today's Notice. Anyone interested in attending the March meeting should
RSVP to Easter Seals Project ACTION at 1-800-659-6428 or via e-mail at
([email protected]). A summary of the meeting will be posted in
the docket. Attendees, in order to have their comments fully considered
by FTA, should post their comments to the public docket either before
or immediately after the meeting.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
[FTA-2006-24037] by any of the following methods:
1. Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
2. Fax: 202-493-2251.
3. Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
4. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit
Administration and Docket number (FTA-2006-24037) for this Notice at
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive
confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be
posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal
information provided and will be available to Internet users. You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
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, [email protected]; [email protected]; 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, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview
II. Public Meeting
III. Interim Guidance for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom Grants For FY 2006
IV. Aspects of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan
A. What are the elements of a coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan?
B. How do we ensure participation in the coordinated public
transit-human services transportation planning process?
1. Adequate outreach to allow for participation
2. Recognition of outreach efforts for inclusion
3. Participation from partner agencies and organizations
V. The Relationship of the Coordinated Plan to the Metropolitan and
Statewide Transportation Planning Processes
A. What is the relationship of the coordinated plan to the
metropolitan and statewide planning process regulations specified in
23 CFR Part 450?
B. What is the relationship between the coordinated planning
process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
processes?
C. What is the relationship between the requirement for public
participation in the coordinated plan and the requirement for public
participation in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning?
D. What is the cycle and duration of the coordinated plan?
E. What is the role of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) or State in certifying that projects are derived from a
locally developed coordinated plan?
F. What is the role of transportation providers that receive FTA
funding under the Urbanized Formula and Other Than Urbanized Formula
programs in the coordinated planning process?
VI. Competitive Selection Process
A. What is the role of the designated recipient and the
metropolitan planning organization in the competitive selection
process?
B. What is FTA's guidance on the competitive selection process
in urbanized areas?
C. What is fair and equitable distribution of funds?
VII. Technical Assistance and Training
VIII. Strategies for Evaluation and Oversight
A. What is the relationship of the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs to the
State Management Plan (SMP)?
[[Page 13457]]
B. What program evaluation and performance measures will FTA use
to implement and manage the programs?
C. What will FTA's reporting requirements by grant recipients
be?
D. How will FTA monitor the implementation of the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom
programs?
IX. The Application of Mobility Management Concepts
X. Management of the Administrative Aspects of the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom
programs
A. Can designated recipients transfer New Freedom funds to
projects serving areas other than the area specified in the New
Freedom program?
B. Use of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs funds for
administration, planning and technical assistance
XI. New Freedom Program
A. Do projects have to be both ``new'' and ``beyond the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?'
B. What types of enhancements to ADA complementary paratransit
service will FTA consider eligible for New Freedom funding?
C. How does FTA propose to define ``new'' service?
D. What other activities may be eligible for New Freedom funds?
E. Other comments.
XII. Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
A. Will previously funded JARC projects be continued?
B. What other projects may be eligible for JARC funding?
C. Can designated recipients transfer JARC funds to the
Urbanized Area Formula program?
D. Are there funding limitations for reverse commute projects?
XIII. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program
A. Will FTA impose Sec. 5333(b) labor protection requirements?
B. What are the sliding scale match requirements for grant
recipients?
I. Overview
FTA requested comments in several specific areas in the November
30, 2005 Notice (70 FR 71950) related to the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities (Sec. 5310), Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Sec. 5316), and New Freedom (Sec. 5317) FTA funded programs.
Commenters raised several other key questions and concerns throughout
the comment process, both in the docket and during listening sessions.
These included: (1) Aspects of the coordinated planning processes; (2)
the relationship between public transit-human service plans and other
planning processes; (3) the competitive selection process; (4)
technical assistance and training that would be helpful to grantees;
(5) strategies and performance measures that could be employed to
evaluate the successes of these programs; (6) management of the
administrative aspects of these programs; (7) types of projects that
should be considered for eligibility under New Freedom as they relate
to new public transportation services and alternatives to public
transportation beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and
(8) types of projects that are eligible under the Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. The public comment period and listening
sessions assisted FTA with developing the strategies proposed in this
Notice for addressing the above areas. Commenters included public and
private transportation providers, trade associations, State departments
of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, advocacy
groups, human service providers, and individuals with disabilities.
This document includes several items. First, this document provides
details on the public meeting, designed to inform final guidance to
implement programs beginning in FY07. Second, it establishes interim
program guidance for FY06 funds for the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs. These
requirements are based on provisions in the statute as well as issues
raised and commented on during public comment and listening sessions
held in December 2005. Finally, FTA solicits further comments on cross
cutting and program specific elements of the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs.
II. Public Meeting
FTA will host a public meeting on March 23, 2006 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
at the Hilton Hotel (1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314). This
meeting is intended to further define program strategies discussed in
today's Notice. Anyone interested in attending the March meeting should
RSVP to Easter Seals Project ACTION at 1-800-659-6428 or via e-mail at
([email protected]). A summary of the meeting will be posted in
the docket. Attendees, in order to have their comments fully considered
by FTA, should post their comments to the public docket either before
or immediately after the meeting.
III. Interim Guidance for the Elderly Individuals and Individuals With
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom Grants for FY 2006
FTA received questions asking how the coordinated planning
provisions under the three programs should be addressed in FY 2006 and
about grant awards in advance of the issuance of final program guidance
for the JARC and New Freedom programs. Based on statutory provisions
and in response to comments received to date, FTA is adopting the
following guidelines for JARC and New Freedom grants for FY 2006.
Coordinated Plan
For the New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities programs, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects selected be
derived from a coordinated plan beginning in FY 2007. This requirement
allows time for the development of a coordinated plan and permits
projects to be funded in FY 2006 even if a coordinated plan is not yet
in place. FTA encourages designated recipients to conduct coordinated
planning activities and consultation with planning partners before the
selection of FY 2006 projects, but it is not required in FY 2006 that
the projects selected be derived from a completed coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan.
For JARC programs, however, there is no delay in the requirement
that projects be derived from a coordinated plan, since a similar
requirement was in place for JARC under TEA-21. For areas that
previously received JARC discretionary funding, the previously required
JARC plan may satisfy the coordinated planning requirement for FY 2006.
In areas with no current JARC plan, for FY 2006, the planning partners
should at a minimum be consulted about projects and where possible
expressions of support should be obtained and documented. Each grant
application must describe activities undertaken to reach out to
stakeholders, including providers and users of service, to identify
community-wide needs and to begin to catalog available resources.
Beginning in FY 2007, the requirement for a coordinated plan will
apply fully to all three programs.
Designated Recipient
As discussed later in this document in Section VI(A), the Governor
must designate recipients for JARC and New Freedom funds. In the
Federal Register Notice of November 30, 2005, FTA indicated that the
Governor must
[[Page 13458]]
designate the recipient for JARC and New Freedom funds allocated to the
State before the first grant application is submitted. For funds
allocated to large urbanized areas, FTA will accept FY 2006 grant
applications for JARC and New Freedom from the designated recipient for
urbanized areas (Sec. 5307), pending formal designation by the
Governor. However, if the designated recipient for JARC and New Freedom
will not be the same agency as the designated recipient for Sec. 5307,
the new recipient must be officially designated before applying for FY
2006 funds.
Competitive Selection
The requirement that the designated recipient competitively select
the projects for funding under JARC and New Freedom is effective in FY
2006. An applicant for funds before the issuance of final guidance for
the programs must at a minimum include in the application a description
explaining the steps taken to assure that the projects were selected
consistent with a competitive process established at the statewide
level (for funds apportioned to the State) or for the large urbanized
area.
Final Guidelines
If FTA subsequently establishes more specific criteria for the
coordinated planning or competitive selection process, or for project
eligibility, that were not met by early applicants for FY 2006 funds,
the requirements will not be applied retroactively to grants awarded
prior to the issuance of the guidance.
Administrative Costs
Designated recipients may apply for the administrative funds
allowed under the program in advance of selecting projects in order to
support the planning and selection process.
Project and Subrecipient Eligibility
Projects selected prior to the issuance of guidance should conform
to the basic statutory eligibility requirements; specifically, in the
case of JARC, access to jobs and reverse commute projects, and in the
case of New Freedom, new public transportation services and public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA that
assist individuals with disabilities with transportation. Subrecipient
eligibility is defined in statute. Guidance exists for the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec. 5310) program in
FTA Circular 9070.1E.
Certifications and Assurances
FTA's FY 2006 Certifications and Assurances include basic program
requirements for the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities (category 17); JARC (category 19); and New Freedom
(category 20) programs. These certifications and assurances must be
signed prior to submission of an application.
IV. Aspects of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Plan
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), (Pub.L. No. 109-59, August 10,
2005) requires that projects selected for funding under the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom
programs be ``derived from a locally developed, coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan'' and that the plan be
``developed through a process that includes representatives of public,
private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and
participation by the public.''
Commenters requested clarification of the coordinated public
transit-human services transportation planning process with regard to:
(1) Elements of a coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan (``coordinated plan''); (2) participation in the
coordinated planning process; and (3) the relationship of the
coordinated planning process to the metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes. In addition to requesting
clarification, comments submitted included specific questions on and
proposed strategies for the coordinated public transit-human services
transportation planning process. Commenters' questions, strategies, and
requests for clarification are addressed below.
A. What are the elements of a coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan?
SAFETEA-LU requires that formula programs for the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse
Commute (JARC), and New Freedom, be derived from a coordinated plan.
However, SAFETEA-LU does not define coordinated plan. From comments
received and FTA's experience, we propose to define the coordinated
plan as a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation
service delivery that identifies the transportation needs of
individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with
limited incomes, lays out strategies for meeting these needs, and
prioritizes services. FTA suggests that a coordinated plan should
maximize the programs' collective coverage by minimizing duplication of
services. Further, a coordinated plan should be developed through a
process that includes representatives of public, private and nonprofit
transportation and human services providers, and participation by the
public. In addition, FTA proposes that a coordinated plan should
incorporate activities offered under other programs sponsored by
Federal, State, and local agencies to greatly strengthen its impact.
SAFETEA-LU also does not specify the required elements for a
coordinated plan. Again, drawing on feedback from stakeholder meetings
as well as FTA experience through the United We Ride initiative and the
JARC program, FTA proposes that the key elements of a coordinated plan
include the following:
An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with
disabilities, older adults, and persons with limited incomes;
An inventory of available services that identifies areas
of redundant service and gaps in service;
Strategies to address the identified gaps in service;
Identification of coordination actions to eliminate or
reduce duplication in services and strategies for more efficient
utilization of resources; and,
Prioritization of implementation strategies.
FTA suggests that States and communities utilize the United We Ride
Framework for Action when developing a coordinated plan. The Framework
for Action (available at http://www.unitedweride.gov) is a self
assessment tool for communities and States. It addresses each of the
core elements of a fully coordinated transportation system.
FTA further suggests that States and communities utilize the
Facilitator's Guide that accompanies the Framework for Action. The
Facilitator's Guide enables leaders at the Federal, State and community
levels to guide a coordinating council, interagency working group,
local group of human service agencies, public and private transit
providers and stakeholders through a transportation coordination
assessment and a plan for action by offering detailed advice on how to
choose an existing group or construct an ad hoc group. In addition, it
describes how to develop key elements of a plan, such as identifying
the needs of targeted populations, assessing gaps and duplications in
services, and developing strategies to meet needs and coordinate
services. While the Framework for
[[Page 13459]]
Action and the Facilitator's Guide will not produce the coordinated
plan, they will serve as useful tools in the development of a
coordinated plan. The components and related overview of the sections
included in the Framework for Action are outlined below:
Making Things Happen by Working Together: This section addresses
the process for establishing leadership and partnerships. It recommends
that coordinators view individuals and organizations as catalysts for
envisioning, organizing, and sustaining a coordinated system that
provides mobility and access to transportation for all.
Taking Stock of Community Needs and Moving Forward: This section
assesses the capacity of human service agencies to coordinate
transportation services. The assessment, used for planning and action,
is a completed and regularly updated community transportation
evaluation process that identifies assets, expenditures, services
provided, duplication of services, specific mobility needs of the
various target populations, and opportunities for improvement.
Putting Customers First: This section provides elements to consider
for implementation that addresses consumer needs. For example, one
element to consider is that customers, including people with
disabilities, older adults, and low-income riders, have a convenient
and accessible means of accessing information about transportation
services. Another element to consider is that customers are regularly
engaged in the evaluation of services and identification of needs.
Adapting Funding for Greater Mobility: This section provides that
coordinators should and often do employ innovative accounting
procedures to support transportation services by combining various
Federal, State, and local funds. This strategy creates customer
friendly payment systems while maintaining consistent reporting and
accounting procedures across programs.
Technology: This section recognizes that technology is a tool that
is being used to design and manage coordinated transportation systems
in real time with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Technology is
also an integrated component of many of the other sections included in
the Framework for Action.
Moving People Efficiently: This section discusses creating
multimodal and multi-provider transportation networks that are seamless
for the customer and operationally and organizationally sound for the
providers. This involves setting up a ``family of services'' that
includes but is not limited to fixed route, flex route, demand
response, and volunteer services.
In addition to clarification of the elements of a coordinated plan,
some commenters asked which agency should be the lead agency in
developing the coordinated plan. FTA proposes that choosing a lead
agency is a local decision. Further, some commenters questioned how FTA
would define ``local'' in ``locally developed, coordinated public
transit-human services plan.'' FTA proposes that this decision be made
at the State, regional, and local levels.
FTA received comments from stakeholders that already have a local
planning process in place for human services transportation
coordination. FTA recognizes the importance of local flexibility in
developing plans for human service transportation and strongly supports
current planning processes in human service transportation conducted
with stakeholders and partners. FTA notes, however, that all new
Federal requirements must be met. Therefore, FTA proposes that
communities modify their plans or processes as necessary to meet these
requirements. FTA also encourages communities to consider inclusion of
new partners, new outreach strategies, and new activities related to
the targeted programs and populations.
B. How do we ensure participation in the coordinated public transit-
human services transportation planning process?
Many commenters expressed concern about participation in the
planning process. These concerns were particularly focused on issues
regarding: (1) Ensuring adequate outreach; (2) recognition of outreach
efforts; and (3) participation from non-DOT funded partner agencies and
organizations. Drawing on suggestions from the public docket and
listening sessions, FTA proposes the following possible strategies:
1. Adequate Outreach to Allow for Participation
SAFETEA-LU requires recipients to certify that the coordinated plan
was developed through a process that included representatives of
public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services
providers, and participation by the public. Many commenters asked FTA
to ensure that they and others would be given sufficient notice and an
opportunity to participate in the development of coordinated plans.
Some requested that FTA establish specific outreach requirements, while
others asked FTA to refrain from establishing such requirements.
FTA recognizes that outreach strategies and potential participants
will vary from area to area. Potential outreach strategies could
include notices or flyers in centers of community activity, newspaper
or radio announcements, e-mail lists, Web postings, and invitation
letters to other government agencies, transportation providers, and
advocacy groups. Conveners should note that not all potential
participants have access to the Internet and they should not rely
exclusively on electronic communications. FTA recommends allowing many
ways to participate, including in-person testimony, mail, e-mail, and
teleconference. Additionally, accessible formats such as interpreters
and large print should be provided upon request and as required by law.
Some commenters suggested that specific types of groups and
organizations be included in the coordinated planning process. FTA
proposes to provide illustrative examples in the guidance of who should
be involved in the planning process. FTA recommends that the lead
agency developing the coordinated plan would invite the participants,
and proposes that the lead agency include the following groups and
organizations in the coordinated planning process:
Area transportation planning agencies;
Transit riders and potential riders, including both
general and targeted populations--those individuals with lower incomes,
a representational cross-section of individuals with disabilities, and
older Americans;
Public transportation providers;
Private transportation providers, including private
transportation brokers, ADA paratransit providers, taxi services,
intercity bus operators, etc.;
Non-profit transportation providers;
Human service agencies funding and/or supporting access
for transportation services;
Other government agencies that administer health,
employment, or other support programs for targeted populations.
Examples of such programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Vocational
Rehabilitation, Medicaid, Community Action (CAP), Independent Living
Centers, and Agency on Aging (AoA) programs;
[[Page 13460]]
Non-profit organizations that serve the targeted
populations intended for transportation services;
Advocacy organizations working on behalf of targeted
populations;
Security and emergency management agencies;
Any other appropriate local or State officials;
Tribes and tribal representatives;
Representatives of the business community (e.g.,
employers);
Community-based organizations;
Economic development agencies;
Job training and placement agencies; and
Elected officials.
FTA recognizes that this proposed list would not limit
participation by other groups, or require participation by every group
listed. FTA expects that planning participants will have an active role
in the development and implementation of the plan.
2. Recognition of Outreach Efforts for Inclusion
Several comments received through both the listening sessions and
the public docket noted the lack of participation from some targeted
groups. Specifically, commenters indicated that recipients did not want
to be penalized in an FTA oversight review for lack of participation
from targeted stakeholders when they made an effort to include these
groups at the table.
FTA recognizes that participation may remain low even though a good
faith effort is made by the lead agency to involve the public,
representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and
human services providers, and others. FTA proposes that the lead agency
convening the coordinated planning meeting(s) document the efforts they
utilized, such as those suggested above, to solicit involvement.
3. Participation From Partner Agencies and Organizations
Commenters from all regions of the country expressed concern about
the lack of participation from targeted partner agencies and
organizations. These comments specifically expressed concern about the
lack of participation by government funded partners. For example, some
commenters noted they have had difficulty engaging other agencies that
support and/or provide human services transportation, especially when
these agencies have no requirements or incentive to participate. Some
commented that it is incumbent upon FTA, as the leader of the United We
Ride initiative, to coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure
that government and non-profit agencies that receive Federal assistance
from sources other than the U.S. Department of Transportation to
participate in the coordinated planning process.
FTA will continue to work with its Federal partners through the
United We Ride initiative to encourage agencies that receive Federal
funding to participate in the coordinated planning process. In
addition, FTA proposes that State DOT offices work closely with their
partner agencies to educate policy makers about the importance of
partnering with human services transportation programs and the
opportunities that are available when building a coordinated system.
FTA also proposes that States work with their partner agencies to
provide information to their local constituents regarding the
importance of a coordinated public transit and human services
transportation system.
In addition, Federal, State, regional, and local policy makers,
providers, and advocates need to consistently engage in outreach
efforts that enhance the coordinated process, because it is important
that all stakeholders identify the opportunities that are available in
building a coordinated system. Therefore, FTA encourages States,
regional and local communities to utilize the Framework for Action and
other tools to build relationships and dialogue with partner agencies.
FTA further proposes that recipients demonstrate a good faith effort to
reach out to specific targeted partners by maintaining copies of
notices, newspaper ads, letters, etc., to document their outreach
efforts. FTA recipients should also continue to work with those
partners who are interested in coordinating efforts in the interim.
V. The Relationship of the Coordinated Plan to the Metropolitan and
Statewide Transportation Planning Processes
FTA received a number of questions and proposed strategies from
commenters concerning the relationship of the coordinated human
services planning process to the broader transportation planning
process. These comments addressed: (1) The relationship of the
coordinated plan to the metropolitan and statewide planning process
regulations specified in 23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part 613; (2) the
incorporation of the public transit-human services coordinated plan
into the metropolitan and statewide plan; (3) the ability to build on
current planning processes in human services transportation at the
local and State level; (4) the process for including projects from the
coordinated plan in the Transportation Improvement Program/State
Transportation Improvement Program; (5) the relationship between the
requirements for consultation and public participation included in the
development of the public transit-human services coordinated plan and
the public participation requirements in metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning; (6) the cycle and life of a public transit-
human services coordinated transportation plan; (7) the ability to
incorporate activities and projects that are supported by funding
sources other than the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities (Sec. 5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Sec.
5316), and New Freedom (Sec. 5317) into the public transit-human
services transportation plan, and (8) the role of the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) or State in certifying that projects are
derived from a locally developed coordinated plan. FTA proposes and
seeks comments on the following strategies to address the issues
outlined above.
A. What is the relationship of the coordinated plan to the metropolitan
and statewide planning process regulations specified in 23 CFR Part
450?
FTA's Office of Program Management and Office of Planning and
Environment are working closely together to develop guidance on the
coordinated plan that would ensure that it is consistent with the new
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations now under development.
B. What is the relationship between the coordinated planning process
and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes?
FTA proposes flexibility in this area. The coordinated plan can
either be developed separately from the metropolitan and statewide
transportation planning processes and then incorporated into the
broader plans, or be developed as a part of the metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning processes.
In either case, FTA proposes that the MPO or State be responsible
for determining that the projects selected within a coordinated plan
are incorporated in the metropolitan and statewide transportation
plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and Statewide
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). All projects developed for
funding by the coordinated planning process must be incorporated in the
TIP and STIP by the MPO in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000
or more, or
[[Page 13461]]
incorporated into the STIP by the State for areas under 50,000 in
population. Like all federally funded transportation programs, projects
must be incorporated into the STIP before receiving a grant. FTA
strongly urges the partners developing the coordinated plan to
communicate with the relevant MPOs or State planning agencies at an
early stage in plan development.
Depending upon the structure established by local decision-makers,
the coordinated planning process may or may not become an integral part
of the metropolitan or statewide transportation planning processes. FTA
understands the fundamental differences in scope, time horizon, and
level of detail between the coordinated planning process and the
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. FTA also
recognizes that there are areas of overlap between the coordinated
planning process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning processes. Areas of overlap may include: (1) Needs assessments
based on the distribution of targeted populations and locations of
employment centers, employment-related activities, community services
and activities, medical centers, housing and other destinations; (2)
inventories of transportation providers/resources, levels of
utilization, duplication of service and unused capacity; (3) gap
analysis; (4) any eligibility restrictions; and (5) opportunities for
increased coordination of transportation services. As such, FTA
encourages local communities to choose the method for developing plans
that best fits their needs and circumstances.
C. What is the relationship between the requirement for public
participation in the coordinated plan and the requirement for public
participation in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning?
SAFETEA-LU strengthened the public participation requirements for
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. Title 49 U.S.C.
5303(i)(5) and 5304(f)(3), as amended by SAFETEA-LU requires MPOs and
States provide ``interested parties'' with a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the transportation improvement plan. ``Interested parties''
include, among others, affected public agencies, private providers of
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, and
representatives of individuals with disabilities.
FTA proposes that MPOs and States coordinate schedules, agendas,
and strategies of the coordinated planning process with metropolitan
and statewide planning in order to minimize additional costs and avoid
duplication of efforts. MPOs and States must still provide
opportunities for participation when planning for transportation
related activities beyond human service specific activities.
D. What is the cycle and duration of the coordinated plan?
FTA proposes that the coordinated plan follow the update cycles for
metropolitan transportation plans (i.e., four years in air quality
nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in air quality
attainment areas). However, FTA recommends that there be opportunities
to update the coordinated plan to harmonize with the competitive
selection process.
E. What is the role of the MPO or State in certifying that projects are
derived from a locally developed coordinated plan?
It is the designated recipient's responsibility to competitively
select projects and certify that they are derived from a coordinated
plan. The designated recipient may be the MPO in an urbanized area with
a population over 200,000, and will be the State in rural areas and
urban areas under 200,000 in population.
F. What is the role of transportation providers that receive FTA
funding under the Urbanized and Other Than Urbanized Formula programs
in the coordinated planning process?
FTA received questions about the role of transportation providers
that receive FTA funding under the Urbanized Formula (Sec. 5307) and
the Other Than Urbanized Formula (Sec. 5311) programs in the
coordinated planning process. Recipients of Sec. 5307 and Sec. 5311
assistance are the ``public transit'' in the public transit-human
service transportation plan and their participation is assumed and
expected. Further, Sec. 5307(c)(5) requires that, ``Each recipient of
a grant shall ensure that the proposed program of projects provides for
the coordination of public transportation services * * * with
transportation services assisted from other United States Government
sources.'' In addition, the Sec. 5311(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine that a
State's Sec. 5311 projects ``provide the maximum feasible coordination
of public transportation service * * * with transportation service
assisted by other Federal sources.'' Further, since States are required
to expend 15 percent of the amount available under the Other Than
Urbanized area program (Sec. 5311) to support intercity bus service,
FTA expects the coordinated planning process to take into account human
service needs that require intercity transportation.
VI. Competitive Selection Process
JARC and New Freedom require a recipient of funds to conduct a
competitive selection process that is separate from the planning
process. Sections 5316 and 5317 of 49 U.S.C., as amended by SAFETEA-LU,
provide the following:
``(d) Competitive Process for Grants to Subrecipients.--
(1) Areawide solicitations.--A recipient of funds apportioned
under subsection (c)(1)(A) [urbanized areas with a population over
200,000] shall conduct, in cooperation with the appropriate
metropolitan planning organization, an area wide solicitation for
applications for grants to the recipient and sub recipients under
this section.
(2) Statewide solicitation.--A recipient of funds apportioned
under subsection (c)(1)(B) [urbanized areas with a population of
less than 200,000] or (c)(1)(C) [Other Than Urbanized areas] shall
conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for grants to the
recipient and sub recipients under this section.
(3) Application.--Recipients and sub recipients seeking to
receive a grant from funds apportioned under subsection (c) shall
submit to the recipient an application in the form and in accordance
with such requirements as the recipient shall establish.
(4) Grant awards.--The recipient shall award grants under
paragraphs (1) and (2) on a competitive basis.''
FTA received a significant number of comments regarding the
competitive selection process required for New Freedom and JARC.
Specifically, commenters had questions regarding: (1) The role of the
designated recipient and the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
in the competitive selection process, particularly when the designated
recipient also has an interest in applying for funds under a specific
program; (2) the importance of establishing clear guidance on the
competitive selection process; and (3) the importance of establishing a
fair and equitable distribution as outlined in SAFETEA-LU.
A. What is the role of the designated recipient and the metropolitan
planning organization in the competitive selection process?
In urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 and in Other
Than Urbanized areas, the State is the designated recipient. For these
areas, the governor designates a State agency that will be responsible
for administering the JARC and New
[[Page 13462]]
Freedom programs, and officially notifies the appropriate FTA regional
office in writing of that designation. The governor may designate the
State agency that receives Other Than Urbanized area (Sec. 5311) and/
or the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.
5310) funds to be the JARC or New Freedom recipient, or the governor
may designate a different agency.
In urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, the recipient is
designated as prescribed in Sec. 5307(a)(2). FTA interprets the
provision regarding the designated recipient for JARC and New Freedom
to mean that a recipient charged with administering the JARC and New
Freedom programs must be officially designated through a process
consistent with the provision in Sec. 5307(a)(2)(A) which provides:
an entity designated in accordance with the planning process under
sections 5303, 5304, and 5306, by the chief executive officer of a
State, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of
public transportation, to receive and apportion amounts under
section 5336 that are attributable to transportation management
areas identified under section 5303.
Many commenters expressed concern that a ``conflict of interest''
could exist in large urbanized areas when the designated recipient both
conducts the competitive selection process and is itself eligible for
funds through that same process. Some commenters suggested that the MPO
should hold the competitive selection process instead. However, JARC
and New Freedom require that in urbanized areas, ``a recipient of
funds. * * * shall conduct, in cooperation with the appropriate
metropolitan planning organization, an area wide solicitation * * *''
49 U.S.C. 5316()(1), 49 U.S.C. 5317(d)(1).
To address this concern, FTA proposes that the designated recipient
for JARC and New Freedom does not have to be the same as the designated
recipient for Urbanized Area Formula (Sec. 5307) funds. The potential
``conflict of interest'' is resolved when a designation of recipient is
made for the JARC and New Freedom programs separate from the
designation made for the Urbanized Area program (Sec. 5307). FTA
recommends the designated recipient for these funds not be a provider
of transportation services. When the MPO is the designated recipient of
these funds, FTA proposes that the MPO would be responsible for
conducting the competitive selection. FTA seeks comment on this
proposed strategy. When the recipient of Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.
5307) funds is the same as the designated recipient for JARC and New
Freedom funds, FTA proposes a competitive selection process that is
transparent, as described below. Further, FTA believes that the
requirement for recipients to certify that the selection of projects is
``fair and equitable'' as required by 49 U.S.C. 5316(f)(2) and 49
U.S.C. 5317(e)(2) also provides an opportunity to ensure that the
process is conducted fairly (see below).
B. What is FTA's guidance on the competitive selection process in
urbanized areas?
SAFETEA-LU requires that selected projects be derived from the
locally developed coordinated plan and meet the intent of the program.
In addition to this requirement, FTA encourages recipients for large
urbanized areas in which the designated recipient for JARC and New
Freedom is the same as the Urbanized Area Formula program (Sec. 5307)
recipient or another transit provider, to follow a simple and
straightforward selection process. Below is a list of potential
strategies, drawn from public comment, that FTA believes are useful for
recipients to consider when implementing a competitive selection
process. FTA proposes that a recipient can:
Assure greater inclusion at the onset of the coordinated
planning process to allow private sector participation or participation
by others who have not been involved in the MPO planning process to
alleviate concerns about a level playing field;
Provide for transparency and documentation in both the
coordinated planning process and the competitive selection process to
minimize conflict of interest concerns;
Publish an announcement that lays out program requirements
and the process for receiving funds, which may help communities
initiate planning activities as well as lay out the recipient's
timeline for the competitive selection process;
Conduct the competitive selection process in cooperation
with the MPO to capitalize on the MPO's experience in project
evaluation and selection processes for Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIPs);
Rank projects using any of the following approaches: peer
review; third party review; best practices advice; or a panel of
planning partners; and then publish a list of selected projects for
each State/locale; and
Evaluate who should provide services and ensure fair and
equitable competition, by allowing communities to build on transit
agencies' experience with third party contracting for specialized
services.
FTA may also suggest additional criteria for recipients to use when
establishing priorities for selecting projects. Such additional
criteria may include selecting projects that: (1) Address gaps in
current service provisions for targeted communities; (2) make use of
available resources and leverage resources to the extent possible; (3)
are considered for geographic distribution to encourage some level of
diverse geographic disbursement; (4) coordinate with other Federal
programs (e.g., coordinated services, financial partnership); (5) can
be achieved with the given technical capacity of project sponsor; and
(6) show evidence of broad solicitation for input (coordinated planning
process).
C. What is fair and equitable distribution of funds?
Several comments also addressed the importance of oversight and
accountability to ensure a fair and equitable competitive selection
process. Sections 5316(f)(2) and 5317(e)(2) provide that ``a recipient
of a grant under this section shall certify to the Secretary that
allocations of the grant to subrecipients are distributed on a fair and
equitable basis.'' A transparent and inclusive competitive selection
and planning process should serve as the basis for the certifications.
Regardless of the process utilized, FTA embraces the importance of
demonstrating evidence of a fair and equitable process, especially in
the context of potential conflict of interest. FTA proposes that fair
and equitable distribution would be addressed in the State Management
Review for State administered programs and in the Planning
Certification Review and Triennial Review Processes in urbanized areas
over 200,000 in population. FTA further proposes that States document
the competitive selection process as part of a State Management Plan
and that designated recipients in urban areas document the competitive
selection process in the annual solicitation notice or some other
format available to the public. FTA believes that building on existing
reviews would not slow down project implementation and would allow
implementation and lessons learned to be examined. FTA seeks public
comment on this proposal.
VII. Technical Assistance and Training
FTA solicited comments on the technical assistance needs and
activities that should be undertaken to assist States and transit
agencies with implementation of the requirements for the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals
[[Page 13463]]
with Disabilities (Sec. 5310), JARC (Sec. 5316), and New
Freedom(Sec. 5317). Commenters identified the need for technical
assistance and training in: (1) The development of coordinated plans;
(2) technical assistance for transportation providers in rural and
urban settings; (3) training for non-profit and private transportation
providers; (4) technical assistance for human service agencies
regarding their role in transportation planning; and (5) training for
consumers on skills required for using various transportation
resources.
In addition to the two national technical assistance centers
related to senior transportation and coordinated human service
transportation established by SAFETEA-LU, FTA will continue to engage
an existing network of technical assistance resources charged with
addressing needs related to human service transportation. These
resources include: Easter Seals Project ACTION (a national technical
assistance center specializing in accessible transportation); JobLINKS
(a national technical assistance program specializing in employment
transportation); and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and
Planning Peer to Peer projects (both of which offer on-site, phone, and
e-mail consultation on targeted issues). Additionally, FTA will engage
the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, which launched the United
We Ride Ambassador program, to provide technical assistance directly to
State agencies on implementing the coordinated planning process. FTA
will also use the United We Ride Web site (http://www.unitedweride.gov)
to communicate useful practices from around the country. The National
Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) is also available to
assist States in implementing their RTAPs, in building capacity in
coordinated human service transportation, and implementing the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec. 5310), JARC (Sec.
5316) and New Freedom (Sec. 5317) programs in rural areas.
In addition, recipients may use up to 10% of their Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec. 5310), JARC (Sec.
5316) and New Freedom (Sec. 5317) funds to provide technical
assistance, as well as administrative and planning functions, to
localities and consumer groups on human service coordination.
Designated recipients and States may use the funds directly for these
purposes or to provide funding to subrecipients for technical
assistance purposes. Regardless of structure, FTA encourages recipients
to develop a strategy for offering technical assistance to local
communities.
VIII. Strategies for Evaluation and Oversight
FTA received comments on issues concerning evaluation and
oversight. These comments addressed the following issues: (1) The
relationship of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom to the State Management Plan, (2)
performance measures, (3) reporting requirements, and (4) oversight of
these programs.
A. What is the relationship of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom to the State Management Plan
(SMP)?
FTA recognizes that portions of the JARC and New Freedom programs
will be managed by States. Therefore, FTA proposes that States be
required to create an SMP for JARC and New Freedom. Like the current
requirement for other FTA programs (e.g., Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, Other Than Urbanized Formula, etc), the
SMP may be a stand-alone plan for each program, or it may be a
consolidated plan that addresses all State-managed programs (Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New Freedom).
B. What program evaluation and performance measures will FTA use to
implement and manage the programs?
Commenters were interested in evaluation measures that focus on
specified performance outcomes and impacts, having the same data
collection and reporting requirements for the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New Freedom programs and that data
collection that is simple and straightforward.
FTA recognizes the importance of evaluation in the implementation
and management of programs. FTA is working with the Federal Interagency
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to develop performance
measures for coordination of human services transportation. Once
finalized, FTA proposes to adopt these measures for application to the
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New
Freedom programs. FTA seeks comments on the following proposed
measures:
Performance Measure One: Efficiency of Operations. Increase the
number of rides for persons who are older, persons with disabilities
and persons with limited incomes for the same or lower cost.
Definition (Performance Measure One): To increase by x% from
baseline the number of communities and States reporting the use of
shared resources (e.g., staff, equipment, funding, etc) between
different agencies and organizations so they can provide more rides for
more people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower
incomes at a lower cost.
Performance Measure Two: Program Effectiveness. Increase the number
of communities with easier access to transportation services for
persons who are older, persons with disabilities and persons with
limited incomes.
Definition (Performance Measure Two): To increase by x% from
baseline the number of communities (e.g., urban, rural, other) which
have a simple point of entry-coordinated human service transportation
system for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with
lower incomes so they have easier access to transportation services.
Performance Measure Three: Customer Satisfaction. Increase the
quality of transportation services for persons who are older, persons
with disabilities and persons with limited incomes.
Definition (Performance Measure Three): To increase by x% from
baseline the level of customer satisfaction reported in areas related
to the availability, the affordability, the acceptability and the
accessibility of transportation services for people with disabilities,
older adults, and individuals with lower incomes.
The percentage of increase is stated in terms of an annual target,
which will be established after a baseline has been determined and
validated during the first year. In addition to the cross-cutting
performance measures proposed above, FTA will be proposing new
evaluation measures for each of the human services related programs
(e.g., Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC and
New Freedom). At the time of this Federal Register Notice, specific
performance measures for the New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities programs are not developed. FTA seeks
comments on outcome measures for consideration in these areas.
The JARC program has been collecting data for a number of years,
and this year JARC will test a new measurement to evaluate outcome and
impact. The following measure will be tested and baseline measurements
will be obtained during FY06: cumulative number of jobs reached through
the provision of JARC-related services for low-income
[[Page 13464]]
individuals and welfare recipients. FTA plans to set an annual goal of
two million jobs reached and/or job-related services accessed. As a
result of this new measure, only data necessary for understanding this
impact of JARC will be included in future data collection efforts.
FTA recognizes that past data collection efforts associated with
the JARC program have been difficult and cumbersome at times and the
information collected has not been useful to the measure program
effectiveness. Therefore, FTA is researching options to streamline data
collection efforts using existing data collection mechanisms including
the National Transit Database (NTD). NTD is a reporting mechanism
required for the Urbanized Area Formula (Sec. 5307) designated
recipients and will be implemented as a new requirement under SAFETEA-
LU for Other Than Urbanized Formula program (Sec. 5311) recipients at
the State level.
C. What will FTA's reporting requirements be?
Comments received addressed the need to ensure that reporting
elements are identified and defined early in the implementation of
programs. Commenters suggested using existing processes and products in
the reporting process. Commenters also expressed concern about
difficult and burdensome requirements, such as the past reporting
requirements in the previous JARC program.
FTA proposes that reporting requirements focus on the minimum data
needed to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program
Assessment Rating Tool, and other performance initiatives set forth by
Congress and OMB. FTA proposes to build on existing infrastructure and
data collection mechanisms including the use of the National Transit
Database beginning in FY 2007. FTA seeks further comments on this
approach.
D. How will FTA monitor the implementation of the Elderly Individuals
and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs?
FTA will monitor implementation of these programs through our
preaward review of grant applications and post-award grant management.
FTA will also conduct oversight of these programs through its State
Management Review for State managed areas and the Planning
Certification Review and Triennial Review Process in urbanized areas
over 200,000 in population.
IX. Mobility Management
Some commenters requested clarification regarding the use of
capital funds for ``mobility management.'' Mobility management
activities are eligible capital expenses, defined as ``consisting of
short-range planning and management activities and projects for
improving coordination among public transportation and other
transportation services providers carried out by a recipient or sub-
recipient through an agreement entered into with a person, including a
government entity, under this chapter (other than sections 5309 and
5320); but excluding operating public transportation services.'' 49
U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)(L). Mobility management activities can be funded
under all FTA programs that provide capital assistance, excluding Sec.
5309 (Bus and Capital Investment) and Sec. 5320 (Public Land)
activities. This includes the Sec. 5307 Urbanized Area and the Sec.
5311 Other Than Urbanized Area programs. It also includes the Sec.
5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, the Sec. 5316 Job Access
and Reverse Commute and the Sec. 5317 New Freedom programs. While
mobility management funds may not be used for the direct provision and
operation of coordinated transportation services, including the
scheduling, dispatching and monitoring of vehicles, FTA proposes the
following as eligible mobility management activities:
The development of coordinated plans;
The support of State and local coordination policy bodies
and councils;
The maintenance and operation of transportation brokerages
to coordinate providers, funding agencies and customers;
The development and maintenance of other transportation
coordination bodies and their activities, including employer-oriented
Transportation Management Organizations, human service organization
customer-oriented travel navigator systems and neighborhood travel
coordination activities;
The development and support of one-stop transportation
traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all
travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements
for customers among supporting programs; and
The acquisition and operation of intelligent
transportation technologies to help plan and operate coordinated
systems inclusive of Global Information Systems (GIS) mapping,
coordinated vehicle scheduling, dispatching and monitoring technologies
as well as technologies to track costs and billing in a coordinated
system and single smart customer payment systems.
X. Management of the Administrative Aspects of the Elderly Individuals
and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access Reverse Commute, and New
Freedom Programs
Comments received on various management and administrative cases
addressed transfers of funds and the use of 10% of funds for
administration, planning, and technical assistance.
A. Can designated recipients transfer New Freedom funds to projects
serving areas other than the area specified in the New Freedom program?
FTA received several comments related to transfer of funds.
Specifically, commenters suggested that in order to maximize
flexibility, particularly where area allocations are very small, the
New Freedom Program should follow JARC language which provides that,
``[a] State may use funds * * * for projects serving areas other than
the area specified * * * if the Governor of the State certifies that
all of the objectives of this section are being met in the specified
area; or for projects anywhere in the State if the State has
established a statewide program for meeting the objectives of this
section.'' 49 U.S.C. 5316(c)(3).
In response, FTA notes that the exception identified above in the
JARC program was not included in New Freedom. Therefore, FTA cannot
extend this exception to the New Freedom program.
B. Use of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities,
JARC, and New Freedom Funds for Administration, Planning and Technical
Assistance
FTA received comments concerning the use of the ten percent of
funds available for administration, planning, and technical assistance.
Funds for these purposes (up to ten percent) do not require a local
match.
Commenters suggested that funds for administration should be
available up front to facilitate development of the coordinated plan in
order to provide an incentive for an agency to step forward as lead.
This will mitigate the risk that funds will lapse because no one was
willing to take on the task of leading the coordinated planning
process.
FTA will allow recipients to apply for the ten percent of the
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New
Freedom
[[Page 13465]]
program funding that can be used for planning, technical assistance, or
project administration to cover costs associated with the development
and implementation of the coordinated plan and the competitive
selection process prior to applying for the project implementation.
Preaward authority may be used for these activities. Preaward
authority, however, cannot be used for project implementation prior to
meeting the Federal requirements associated with the program.
Other commenters wanted to know if the salary cost for an employee
administering the New Freedom and other programs would be eligible
expenses. The ten percent of funding available does include costs, such
as staff time, associated with administering the program.
XI. New Freedom Program
FTA requested comments on the following topics: (1) The projects
and activities stated in SAFETEA-LU that might be funded under the New
Freedom program and how they relate to what is ``beyond the ADA;'' (2)
activities related to ADA complementary paratransit services beyond the
minimum requirements outlined in 49 CFR part 37; and (3) the types of
projects and services that should be considered for eligibility under
the New Freedom program. FTA also requested comments regarding
technical assistance strategies and measures for evaluating the success
of the program. Those comments were addressed in Sections VII and VIII
above, respectively.
A. Do projects have to be both ``new'' and ``beyond the ADA?'
The New Freedom Program specifies that ``the Secretary may make
grants under this section to a recipient for new public transportation
services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required
by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that assist individuals
with disabilities with transportation * * *'' 49 U.S.C. 5317(b)(1).
Many commenters requested clarification regarding what would be
considered ``new'' transportation service and what constitutes ``beyond
the ADA.'' Commenters suggested FTA take an expansive view of the types
of projects that could be funded through the New Freedom program.
FTA proposes that ``new public transportation services'' and
``public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA''
be considered separate categories of service. That is, to be eligible,
a project must either be a ``new public transportation service'' OR ``a
public transportation alternative beyond those required by the ADA.''
In either case, the project must ``assist individuals with disabilities
with transportation.'' Therefore, new service is not required to go
beyond the ADA. Rather, it must simply be new service that (1) is
targeted toward people with disabilities; and (2) meets the intent of
the program by removing barriers to transportation and assisting
persons with disabilities with transportation, including transportation
to and from jobs and employment services. One example would be
extension of a fixed bus route to serve a particular location
identified as in need of service by the disability community.
FTA believes this interpretation allows the New Freedom program to
fund projects identified by the conference report (H.R. Rpt. 109-203 at
Sec. 3019, July 28, 2005) accompanying SAFETEA-LU and disability
advocates that would not have been eligible if services had to be both
new and beyond the ADA. Examples include new routes targeted to serve
people with disabilities, station accessibility improvements, and
existing paratransit services beyond the required \3/4\ mile on either
side of a fixed route--all of which may not have been eligible if
funded services or improvements had to be both new and beyond the ADA.
FTA proposes that local communities may prioritize for funding those
projects that are both new and beyond the ADA. FTA seeks public comment
on these proposals.
FTA reminds transit providers and other interested parties that all
eligible activities must be derived from the locally developed public
transit-human services coordinated plan, and determined based on a
competitive selection process.
B. What types of enhancements to ADA complementary paratransit service
will FTA consider eligible for New Freedom funding?
The ``ADA'' means the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Pub.L. No. 101-336, as codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and
the Department of Transportation's implementing regulations, at 49 CFR
parts 37 and 38. Commenters requested clarification on the types of
projects and activities that would be considered beyond the ADA,
particularly in the area of enhancements to paratransit service
operated under 49 CFR part 37, subpart F.
One area of particular interest to a number of commenters involved
the nature of complementary paratransit service under the ADA, and
whether or not door-to-door service should be considered beyond the
ADA. Under 49 CFR 37.129, ADA complementary paratransit service is
defined as ``origin-to-destination'' service, which may be defined by
local communities as either curb-to-curb or door-to-door. A number of
commenters requested that door-to-door service, in a community in which
curb-to-curb service is provided, be considered beyond the ADA and
therefore eligible for New Freedom funds.
When the regulation was first promulgated, the preamble language
stated, ``it is reasonable to think that service for some individuals
or locations might be better if it is door-to-door, while curb-to-curb
might be better in other instances. This is exactly the sort of
detailed operational decision best left to the development of
paratransit plans at the local level.'' (56 FR 45604; September 6,
1991). In guidance issued on September 1, 2005, the Department of
Transportation provided further clarification of the nature of origin-
to-destination service, stating, ``where the local planning process
establishes curb-to-curb service as the basic paratransit service mode,
however, provision should still be made to ensure that the service
available to each passenger actually gets the passenger from his or her
point of origin to his or her destination point. To meet this origin-
to-destination requirement, service may need to be provided to some
individuals, or at some locations, in a way that goes beyond curb-to-
curb service.'' It would appear, then, that door-to-door service,
whether provided across a community or only in circumstances in which a
particular passenger needs additional assistance, is not beyond the
ADA. FTA proposes that door-through-door service, however, may be
eligible for New Freedom funding.
ADA complementary paratransit service may include feeder service to
permit individuals who use wheelchairs or who have a specific
impairment-related condition which prevents the person from traveling
to a boarding location or from a disembarking location to access the
fixed route. 49 CFR 37.129. Requirements for ADA complementary
paratransit service do not apply to commuter bus, commuter rail, or
intercity rail systems. 49 CFR 37.121(c). FTA proposes that feeder
service to outlying transit stations for which complementary
paratransit is not required, such as commuter rail stations, express or
commuter bus service, or an intercity bus stop or rail station, may be
eligible for New Freedom funding.
[[Page 13466]]
ADA complementary paratransit service is provided to origins and
destinations within corridors with a width of \3/4\ mile on each side
of each fixed route, including, within the core service area, those
small areas not inside any corridors but surrounded by corridors. 49
CFR 37.131. Outside of the core service area, a transit provider may
designate corridors from \3/4\ mile up to one and one half miles on
each side of a fixed route. While ADA complementary paratransit
services provided in such locations might be argued to be within the
scope of the ADA, the conference report accompanying SAFETEA-LU clearly
indicates an intent by Congress to consider paratransit service beyond
\3/4\ mile of the fixed route to be eligible for New Freedom funding by
listing it as an example of the type of activity Congress would like
the program to fund. H.R. Rpt. 109-203, at Sec. 3019 (July 28, 2005).
The paratransit service area for rail is a circle with a radius of
\3/4\ mile around each station. Again, while the ADA permits local
entities to consider paratransit service within a radius of up to one
and one half miles around each station as part of their ADA
complementary paratransit system, following the same logic as above,
FTA proposes to regard any service beyond the minimum \3/4\ mile as
eligible for New Freedom funding.
Commenters stated that some paratransit operators already provide
service outside of the \3/4\ mile corridor, and they expressed a desire
to use New Freedom funds to continue that service. FTA proposes to
permit New Freedom funds be used for this purpose as long as it is part
of the coordinated plan, and the project is competitively selected
pursuant to statute.
Next day service is required pursuant to 49 CFR 37.131(b). While
the Department's ADA regulations permit same-day service, they do not
require it. For this reason, FTA proposes to regard same-day service as
eligible for funding under the New Freedom program.
ADA complementary paratransit service shall be available during the
same hours and days of service as fixed route service. 49 CFR
37.131(e). Paratransit service provided in addition to these hours is
beyond the ADA. For example, if the fixed-route system does not operate
between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., but complementary paratransit
service is available 24 hours a day, FTA proposes that New Freedom
funding may be sought to support paratransit service between the hours
of midnight and 5 a.m.
The regulation contemplates that an entity may provide ADA
complementary paratransit service exceeding that provided for in 49 CFR
Sec. 37.131. Any service that exceeds the regulatory requirement is
beyond the ADA and therefore may be eligible for New Freedom funding.
C. How does FTA propose to define ``new'' service?
Commenters requested clarification of what would be considered
``new'' service and requested that FTA take an expansive view of the
types of projects eligible for New Freedom funds. As suggested
previously, FTA proposes that enhancing fixed-route service by adding
routes or providing additional hours of service in order to target
groups of individuals with disabilities would be considered new service
that assists individuals with disabilities with transportation, and
therefore, eligible for New Freedom funds. Similarly, in rural areas
where no service exists, if new service--whether demand response or
fixed route--is added that meets the needs of persons with
disabilities, that service would be new public transportation service
and thus eligible for New Freedom funds. New service may in fact serve
a greater population than just individuals with disabilities. FTA
proposes that new service that meets the needs of older adults,
individuals with low incomes, and/or the general public, if it
primarily meets the needs of individuals with disabilities, may be
eligible for New Freedom funds or may be supported with New Freedom
funds in combination with other funding sources such as the Other Than
Urbanized Formula Programs (Sec. 5311).
The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG), as well as the Department of Transportation's ADA regulations,
require new transportation facilities, including stations, bus stops,
bus stop pads, terminals, buildings or other transportation facilities
to be accessible. Further, when a transportation facility is altered,
then each altered element, space, feature or area must be accessible,
unless compliance is technically infeasible, in which case the
alteration shall provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible.
Finally, when an area of primary function is altered, the ADA
regulations require alterations to the path of travel and other
elements serving the area of primary function, unless the cost of doing
so would be disproportionate. Specific requirements for transportation
facility alterations, including definitions of ``maximum extent
feasible,'' ``primary function,'' ``path of travel'' and
``disproportionate,'' can be found in subpart C to 49 CFR part 37.
FTA proposes that New Freedom funds may be used to improve
accessibility at existing transportation facilities, so long as the
projects are clearly intended to remove barriers to existing stations
that would otherwise have remained, and are not projects that are part
of an already planned station renovation or alteration. In other words,
FTA is drawing a distinction between funding a new accessibility
enhancement to a station that is not otherwise being altered and the
required accessibility portion of a planned alteration. Only the first
would be eligible for New Freedom funds. The second would not be
similarly eligible.
FTA believes that permitting New Freedom funds to be used for new
accessibility enhancements meets the intent of the program as it
removes barriers to people with disabilities so they may access greater
portions of public transportation systems, such as fixed-route bus
service, commuter rail, light rail and rapid rail. This may include
building an accessible path to a bus stop that is currently
inaccessible, including curbcuts, sidewalks, pedestrian signals or
other accessible features. It may include adding an elevator or ramps,
detectable warnings, improving signage, or other accessibility
improvements to a non-key station. It may also include the
implementation of technology improvements that enhance accessibility
for persons with disabilities. FTA seeks comment on the types of
technology improvements that may be funded, as well as additional types
of accessibility improvements or barrier removals that may be funded
with New Freedom funds.
Commenters suggested that a ``new'' project for purposes of
eligibility in the New Freedom program would be any otherwise eligible
project that did not already exist on the day SAFETEA-LU was signed
into law, that is, August 10, 2005. FTA proposes that projects not
included in a TIP and/or STIP as of August 10, 2005, would be eligible
for New Freedom funds.
D. What other activities may be eligible for New Freedom funds?
In keeping with the language of the SAFETEA-LU conference report,
(H.R.Rpt. 109-203 at Sec. 3019, July 28, 2005), as well as comments
received, FTA proposes that the following projects also be eligible for
New Freedom funding:
Purchasing vehicles and supporting accessible taxi, ride
sharing, and vanpooling programs; including staff
[[Page 13467]]
training, administration, and maintenance. FTA proposes to define an
accessible taxi as a vehicle having the capacity to accommodate a
passenger who uses a ``common wheelchair'' as defined under 49 CFR
37.3, at a minimum, while remaining in his/her personal mobility device
inside the vehicle, and meeting the same requirements for lifts, ramps
and securement systems specified in 49 CFR part 38, subpart B;
Administering voucher and transit pass programs for
transportation services offered by transit and human services
providers. This activity supports the management of these activities,
and does not support the direct expense for the cost of vouchers or
passes;
Administering volunteer driver and aide programs to
support the management of driver recruitment, safety, background
checks, scheduling, coordination with consumers, and other related
support functions;
Supporting mobility management among public transportation
providers and other human service agencies providing coordinated
transportation services;
Training for individual users on awareness, knowledge, and
skills of public and alternative transportation options available in
their communities. This includes travel instruction and travel training
services; and,
Corridor services providing transportation access for
populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a
community. For example, a non-profit agency receiving funding through
New Freedom could not limit the services it provides to its own
clientele; it would coordinate usage of vehicles with other non-
profits. These services are intended to build coordination with other
existing providers and service options.
E. Other Comments
The source of local match was a concern for several commenters. FTA
received comments which suggested that ``in-kind'' services, or the
increased cost of expanded paratransit service be considered a source
of local match. The New Freedom statute provides that grants for
capital projects may not exceed 80 percent of the net capital costs of
the project, and grants for operating assistance may not exceed 50
percent of the net operating costs of the project. In-kind match may be
allowed pursuant to 49 CFR 18.24 or 49 CFR 19.23 as appropriate. Other
commenters suggested charging a premium fare for expanded paratransit
service, and questioned whether the premium fare could be used for
local match. Fare box revenue generally must be subtracted from gross
project costs to derive net project costs and is not eligible to be
used as local match. Revenue from service contracts can be used as
local match along with local funds and other non-DOT Federal funds.
Commenters expressed concern that the ``stringent Federal
requirements'' for the New Freedom program might discourage agencies
from applying for these funds, and suggested a threshold amount, such
as $10,000, could be established before the Federal requirements take
effect. The statute does not contemplate such a threshold. Any
recipient applying for New Freedom funds must meet the requirements as
outlined in the statute.
One commenter quoted a statement from the November 30, 2005,
Notice, which provided that ``funding is available for transportation
services provided by public, non-profit, or private-for-profit
operators' and noted that this seems to preclude awards to individuals.
This is correct. A recipient is defined as, ``a designated recipient
(as defined in Section 5307(a)(2)) and a State that receives a grant
under this section directly.'' 49 U.S.C. 5317(a)(1). A subrecipient is
defined as, ``a State or local governmental authority, nonprofit
organization, or operator of public transportation services that
receives a grant under this section indirectly through a recipient.''
49 U.S.C. 5317(a)(2).
Commenters asked whether New Freedom monies could be used for
operating expenses in urbanized areas with populations over 200,000.
Operating expenses are eligible under the New Freedom program subject
to a 50% local matching share.
XII. Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
Comments relating to the JARC program focused on issues such as:
continuation of prior year funding; eligible projects and expenses; the
designated recipient's ability to transfer funds to Urbanized Area
Formula program (Sec. 5307); and funding limitations.
A. Will previously funded JARC projects be continued?
As discussed previously, FTA proposes that previously funded JARC
projects may continue to receive funding under the JARC program.
Projects must be derived from the coordinated planning process, which
means that local areas will decide if previously funded JARC projects
should be continued. In addition, starting in FY 2006, the projects
must be competitively selected by the State (for urbanized areas under
200,000 and rural areas) or the designated recipient (for large
urbanized areas). FTA seeks comments addressing this proposal.
B. What other projects may be eligible for JARC funding?
In general, projects and expenses eligible for JARC funding must
relate to ``the development and maintenance of transportation services
designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income
individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their
employment.'' 49 U.S.C. 5316(a)(1).
During implementation of the TEA-21 JARC provisions, FTA's policy
limited JARC funds to ``new and expanded'' services. The ``maintenance
of transportation services'' language in SAFETEA-LU (above) suggests
that not only continuing JARC projects could be funded, but also
existing projects that meet the intent of the program but were
previously funded by other programs such as the Urbanized Area Formula
program (Sec. 5307). FTA is interested in comments that address the
eligibility of existing services that meet the objectives of the JARC
program, but may have been funded previously under a different program.
In the conference report (109-203) accompanying SAFETEA-LU, the
conferees stated an expectation that FTA would ``continue its practice
of providing maximum flexibility to job access projects that are
designed to meet the needs of individuals who are not effectively
served by public transportation, consistent with the use of funds
described in the Federal Register, Volume 67 (April 8, 2002).''
H.R.Rpt. 109-203, at Sec. 3018 (July 28, 2005). That Federal Register
Notice, (67 FR 16790) provides that eligible projects may include, but
are not limited to:
Late-night and weekend service;
Guaranteed ride home service;
Shuttle service;
Expanding fixed-route mass transit routes;
Demand-responsive van service;
Ridesharing and carpooling activities;
Bicycling;
Local car loan programs that assist individuals in
purchasing and maintaining vehicles for shared rides; and
Promotion, through marketing efforts, of the:
[cir] Use of transit by workers with non-traditional work
schedules;
[cir] use of transit voucher programs by appropriate agencies for
welfare
[[Page 13468]]
recipients and other low-income individuals;
[cir] development of employer-provided transportation such as
shuttles, ridesharing, carpooling; or
[cir] use of transit pass programs and benefits under Section 132
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Further, the Federal Register Notice encouraged
communities to:
[cir] Establish regional mobility managers or transportation
brokerage activities;
[cir] Apply Geographic Information System (GIS) tools;
[cir] Implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), including
customer trip information technology;
[cir] Integrate automated regional public transit and human service
transportation information, scheduling and dispatch functions; and
[cir] Deploy vehicle position-monitoring systems.
FTA seeks comments addressing this list of projects and requests
input regarding additional projects that might be funded under JARC. In
addition, FTA has required that JARC projects comply with the
definition of public transportation by ensuring shared use of vehicles
and availability to the public. Projects supporting bicycling and
individual car use or ownership have at times had difficulty meeting
this criterion. FTA is interested in comments on how nontraditional
public transportation options (e.g., car loan or ownership programs,
shared-use station cars, etc.) should be treated under the JARC
program.
Previously, promotion of the use of transit vouchers was an
eligible expense, but purchase of the vouchers themselves was not an
eligible expense under JARC on existing services. For new services,
such as guaranteed-ride home taxi programs, where contracts were based
on individual rides, purchase of vouchers was an eligible expense. This
policy was adopted by FTA because JARC focused on expanding
transportation connections to jobs and support services, especially to
suburban jobs, late night and weekend jobs and to support services like
child care, and not on purchasing transit passes for existing services.
FTA seeks comment on whether we should now allow JARC funds to support
user-side subsidies for eligible individuals on all services of an
existing system (e.g., transit passes to low-income workers entering
the workforce for a specified startup period). If so, how should the
program goal of removing transportation service gaps be addressed?
C. Can designated recipients transfer JARC funds to the urbanized area
formula program?
Some commenters recommended that the designated recipient in a
large urbanized area be allowed to transfer JARC funds to the Urbanized
Area Formula (Sec. 5307) program. The law specifically allows States
to transfer JARC funds to the Other Than Urbanized (Sec. 5311) or the
Urbanized (Sec. 5307) formula programs. (49 U.S.C. 5316(e)). However,
there is no comparable provision regarding transfer by designated
recipients. FTA does not have the discretion to allow such transfers.
The designated recipient, however, can communicate in writing to FTA
the allocation of JARC funds to other eligible Urbanized Area Formula
(Sec. 5307) recipients in the urbanized area and FTA will make JARC
grants directly to those recipients.
D. Are there funding limitations for reverse commute projects?
The law no longer limits the amounts that can be used for Reverse
Commute projects. The decision to use funds for either Job Access or
Reverse Commute projects is made at the local level through the
coordinated planning process.
XIII. Section 5310 (Elderly Individuals and Individuals With
Disabilities Programs)
The following specific questions were raised about implementation
of the Sec. 5310 program: (1) Whether, if funds from these three
programs are mixed in a local application, the Sec. 5333(b) [aka Sec.
13(c) labor] requirements convey to the New Freedom and Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities programs, and, (2) with
regard to ``sliding scale'' matching requirements for the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities programs, whether it is
possible to obtain matches greater than 80 percent.
A. Will FTA impose Sec. 5333(b) labor protection requirements?
FTA is working with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as DOL
develops revised procedures for labor certifications for all FTA
programs where labor certifications are required. Labor protective
arrangements are not required for New Freedom projects or, except for a
few case-by-case exceptions, for the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities (Sec. 5310) projects, even when funds
are transferred to Urbanized Area Formula (Sec. 5307) or Other Than
Urbanized Formula (Sec. 5311) programs. Previously, States were able
to transfer Sec. 5310 funds to Sec. 5307 or Sec. 5311 to supplement
those program objectives. However, as stated in the November 30, 2005
Notice, SAFETEA-LU provides that the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities, funds that are transferred must be used
for eligible projects under the Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities program. This is consistent with transfer provisions
included in Sec. 5316 and Sec. 5317. The Sec. 5333(b) requirements
of the original program remain attached to the funds even when they are
transferred.
B. What are the sliding scale match requirements?
SAFETEA-LU allows a higher Federal share for the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program for States
described in Sec. 120(b) of title 23 in accordance with the formula
under that section for States with a large amount of Federal lands.
Section 120(b)(1) provides a limited list of 14 states with specific
``enhanced'' match ratios for projects that would otherwise have an 80%
Federal share under FTA funded projects. In addition, Sec. 120(b)(2)
provides a higher Federal share to all States. For those States on the
(b)(1) list, the (b)(2) shares are higher than the (b)(1) shares, but
in order to obtain the (b)(2) rates the State has to have a specific
agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreeing to
spend the difference in local share on highway projects. FTA will honor
the match ratio for Sec. 120(b)(1) based on the list included in FHWA
Notice N 4540.12, but in order to obtain the higher match for Sec.
120(b)(2) the State will have to provide evidence that it has a current
agreement with FHWA.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 8th day of March, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-2444 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P