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, 13456-13468 [06-2444]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13456
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Guidance for FY06
Implementation; notice and request for
comment for FY07 implementation; and
announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Anyone interested in attending the
March meeting should RSVP to Easter
Seals Project ACTION at 1–800–659–
6428 or via e-mail at
(stibbs@easterseals.com). 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: https://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 https://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 https://
dms.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents and
comments received, go to https://
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 email, Henrika.BuchananSmith@fta.dot.gov;
Bryna.Helfer@fta.dot.gov; or Bonnie
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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@fta.dot.gov.
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)?
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 § 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 (§ 5310), Job Access
and Reverse Commute (§ 5316), and
New Freedom (§ 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 transithuman service plans and other planning
processes; (3) the competitive selection
process; (4) technical assistance and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
(stibbs@easterseals.com). 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13457
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 transithuman 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
13458
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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 (§ 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 § 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 (§ 5310) program in
FTA Circular 9070.1E.
Certifications and Assurances
FTA’s FY 2006 Certifications and
Assurances include basic program
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 https://
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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13459
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, email, 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 crosssection 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;
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
13460
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
• 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Improvement Program; (5) the
relationship between the requirements
for consultation and public
participation included in the
development of the public transithuman 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 (§ 5310), Job Access
and Reverse Commute (JARC) (§ 5316),
and New Freedom (§ 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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, employmentrelated 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 (§ 5307) and the Other Than
Urbanized Formula (§ 5311) programs in
the coordinated planning process.
Recipients of § 5307 and § 5311
assistance are the ‘‘public transit’’ in the
public transit-human service
transportation plan and their
participation is assumed and expected.
Further, § 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
§ 5311(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of
Transportation to determine that a
State’s § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13461
Urbanized area program (§ 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
13462
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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
(§ 5311) and/or the Elderly Individuals
and Individuals with Disabilities
(§ 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 § 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
§ 5307(a)(2)(A) which provides:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
(§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 5307) funds
is the same as the designated recipient
for JARC and New Freedom funds, FTA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
(§ 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
with Disabilities (§ 5310), JARC (§ 5316),
and New Freedom(§ 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
(https://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
(§ 5310), JARC (§ 5316) and New
Freedom (§ 5317) programs in rural
areas.
In addition, recipients may use up to
10% of their Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities (§ 5310),
JARC (§ 5316) and New Freedom
(§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:25 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 standalone 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13463
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 crosscutting 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 JARCrelated services for low-income
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
13464
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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 (§ 5307)
designated recipients and will be
implemented as a new requirement
under SAFETEA–LU for Other Than
Urbanized Formula program (§ 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 postaward 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 § 5309 (Bus
and Capital Investment) and § 5320
(Public Land) activities. This includes
the § 5307 Urbanized Area and the
§ 5311 Other Than Urbanized Area
programs. It also includes the § 5310
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities,
the § 5316 Job Access and Reverse
Commute and the § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
‘‘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
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13465
not door-to-door service should be
considered beyond the ADA. Under 49
CFR 37.129, ADA complementary
paratransit service is defined as ‘‘originto-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-todoor 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-todestination service, stating, ‘‘where the
local planning process establishes curbto-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 originto-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 impairmentrelated 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.
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
13466
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
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 § 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
The regulation contemplates that an
entity may provide ADA
complementary paratransit service
exceeding that provided for in 49 CFR
§ 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 (§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 (§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13467
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 (§ 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 § 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:
Æ Use of transit by workers with nontraditional work schedules;
Æ use of transit voucher programs by
appropriate agencies for welfare
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
13468
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
recipients and other low-income
individuals;
Æ development of employer-provided
transportation such as shuttles,
ridesharing, carpooling; or
Æ 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:
Æ Establish regional mobility
managers or transportation brokerage
activities;
Æ Apply Geographic Information
System (GIS) tools;
Æ Implement Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), including
customer trip information technology;
Æ Integrate automated regional public
transit and human service
transportation information, scheduling
and dispatch functions; and
Æ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 (§ 5307) program. The law
specifically allows States to transfer
JARC funds to the Other Than
Urbanized (§ 5311) or the Urbanized
(§ 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
(§ 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
§ 5310 program: (1) Whether, if funds
from these three programs are mixed in
a local application, the § 5333(b) [aka
§ 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
(§ 5310) projects, even when funds are
transferred to Urbanized Area Formula
(§ 5307) or Other Than Urbanized
Formula (§ 5311) programs. Previously,
States were able to transfer § 5310 funds
to § 5307 or § 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 § 5316 and § 5317. The
§ 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 § 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, § 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 § 120(b)(1)
based on the list included in FHWA
Notice N 4540.12, but in order to obtain
the higher match for § 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13456-13468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
(stibbs@easterseals.com). 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: https://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 https://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 https://
dms.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
comments received, go to https://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, Henrika.Buchanan-
Smith@fta.dot.gov; Bryna.Helfer@fta.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@fta.dot.gov.
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
(stibbs@easterseals.com). 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 https://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 (https://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 Tech
