National Transit Database: Amendments to Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual, 30997-31004 [2011-13286]

Agencies

• Federal Transit Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30997-31004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13286]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[Docket No: FTA-2010-0027]


National Transit Database: Amendments to Urbanized Area Annual 
Reporting Manual

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Amendments to 2011 National Transit Database 
Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the adoption of certain amendments for 
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) 2011 National Transit 
Database (NTD) Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual (Annual Manual). 
On October 11, 2010, FTA published a notice in the Federal Register (73 
FR 7361) inviting comments on proposed amendments to the 2011 Annual 
Manual. This notice provides responses to those comments, and announces 
the adoption of certain amendments for the 2011 Annual Manual.

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, John D. Giorgis, 
Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5430 (telephone); (202) 366-7989 
(fax); or john.giorgis@dot.gov (e-mail). For legal issues, Richard 
Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0675 (telephone); (202) 
366-3809 (fax); or richard.wong@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The National Transit Database (NTD) is the Federal Transit 
Administration's (FTA's) primary database for statistics on the transit 
industry. Congress established the NTD to ``help meet the needs of * * 
* the public for information on which to base public transportation 
service planning * * *'' (49 U.S.C 5335). Currently, over 700 transit 
providers in urbanized areas report to the NTD through its online 
reporting system. Each year, performance data from these submissions 
are used to apportion over $6 billion of FTA funds under the Urbanized 
Area Formula (Section 5307) Grants and the Fixed Guideway Modernization 
Grants Programs. These data are made available on the NTD website at 
https://www.ntdprogram.gov for the benefit of the public, transit 
systems, and all levels of government. These data are also used in the 
annual National Transit Summaries and Trends report, the biennial 
Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, and in meeting FTA's 
obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act. Reporting 
requirements are governed by a Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and an 
Annual Reporting Manual that is issued each year. Both the USOA and the 
Annual Manual are available for review on the NTD Web site at https://www.ntdprogram.gov. Additionally, urbanized area transit systems also 
make monthly reports to the NTD on safety and security incidents 
through the NTD Safety & Security Module and on ridership and vehicle 
operations through the NTD Monthly Module.
    In an ongoing effort to improve the NTD reporting system, to be 
responsive to the needs of transit providers reporting to the NTD, and 
to the needs of the transit data user community, FTA annually refines 
and clarifies reporting requirements to the NTD. This notice announces 
the adoption of certain amendments for the 2011 Annual Reporting 
Manual.

II. Comments and FTA Response to Comments

    On October 11, 2010, FTA published a notice in the Federal Register 
(75 FR 192) inviting comments on proposed amendments to the 2011 Annual 
Manual. FTA received responses from 38 commenters.

(a) Vanpool Eligibility

    FTA currently requires all vanpools reported to the NTD to have a 
public sponsor, a requirement that is currently interpreted as meaning 
that all vanpool reports to the NTD involving the private sector must 
be reported by the public sponsor as a ``purchased transportation'' 
contract. FTA proposed to replace this requirement with a new four-part 
test for determining that vanpools were publicly available, compliant 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA), and able to 
report fully-allocated costs to the NTD. FTA also proposed that all 
existing vanpools in the NTD would have to recertify their reporting 
eligibility for the 2011 Report Year, and that NTD ID's for vanpools 
would be assigned to vanpool sponsors.

[[Page 30998]]

    FTA received 12 comments on the above proposal. Nine of the 
commenters were generally in favor of the proposal, including two 
industry associations, an industry supplier, a private vanpool 
operator, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and four transit 
agencies. Three of the commenters, a large metropolitan planning 
organization, a large transit agency in a different city, and a mid-
sized transit agency in a third city, objected to the proposal. The MPO 
and the large transit agency expressed concern that allowing additional 
vanpool reporters into the NTD could result in a ``larger base of 
eligible beneficiaries'' of FTA's Section 5307 funding and result in a 
redirection of FTA's Section 5307 funding away from ``replacing and 
rehabilitating transit capital assets.'' Two commenters also stated 
that public sponsors were best-positioned to monitor compliance with 
the above criteria, and that allowing additional organizations to 
report to the NTD increased the likelihood of non-compliant vanpools 
reporting to the NTD and increased the possibility of duplicate data 
being submitted to the NTD. On the other hand, FTA also received 
comments from an industry association, an industry supplier, a private 
vanpool operator, and a mid-sized transit agency specifically 
expressing support for allowing private providers of vanpool 
transportation to report directly to the NTD.
    FTA Response: FTA has previously allowed both public and private 
operators of fixed-route transit systems to report to the NTD on a 
voluntary basis. This policy will extend the same opportunity to 
private operators of the vanpool mode to report to the NTD, and to 
allow them to report to the NTD directly. FTA reminds the commenters 
that NTD Data is used to apportion dollar amounts for the Urbanized 
Area Formula Program (UAFP) at the urbanized area level. The designated 
recipient for each urbanized area then makes project selections from 
the apportioned amounts based on the local Transportation Improvement 
Plan. Thus, since apportionment is done at the urbanized area level, 
inclusion in the National Transit Database does not create a binding 
claim for individual transit providers from the UAFP apportionment to 
the urbanized area.
    In response to some of the concerns raised by the commenters, FTA 
will amend the final policy to retain the requirement that all vanpools 
in the NTD must have a public sponsor. However, this requirement will 
no longer be interpreted as requiring that private providers of vanpool 
services may only report as providers under a ``purchased 
transportation'' contract (``PT service'') to a public provider. 
Instead, private providers of vanpool transportation that are operating 
as subrecipients to a public sponsor will be required to follow the 
same NTD guidance as other modes, which requires subrecipients to 
either report directly to the NTD, or have the sponsor report on their 
behalf to the NTD through a ``consolidated reporting ID'' of multiple 
subrecipients. In requesting a consolidated reporting ID, the public 
entity takes responsibility for collecting all necessary information 
from the transit providers included in the consolidated reporting ID 
according to NTD reporting requirements, and submits a report to the 
NTD on behalf of those providers. Furthermore, private providers of 
vanpool transportation that are operating completely independently may 
report directly to the NTD on a voluntary basis, provided that they 
submit a letter to the NTD from a public sponsor indicating that the 
public sponsor considers the private provider's vanpool transportation 
services as contributing towards meeting the overall transit needs of 
the urbanized area.
    A mid-sized transit agency objected to the proposal on the grounds 
that prohibiting vanpools that are restricted a priori to riders from a 
particular employer from reporting to the NTD would result in the 
discontinuation of this service. A large industry association also 
objected to this proposal, and suggested that all vanpools operated by 
public transportation agencies should be included in the NTD, 
regardless of whether the vehicles were restricted a priori to 
particular employers.
    FTA Response: This proposal is based on the statutory language at 
49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(10), which specifies that public transportation is 
``regular and continuing general or special transportation to the 
public.'' Transportation that is restricted a priori to riders from a 
particular employer is not being provided ``to the public,'' and so 
does not meet the statutory definition of public transportation. As 
such, FTA cannot include these services in the National Transit 
Database, even when these services are provided by public 
transportation agencies. This is not a change in policy for the NTD, as 
it reflects existing law. Any transit systems that have inadvertently 
been reporting data to the NTD for vanpools restricted a priori to a 
particular employer must discontinue doing so. Furthermore, FTA's 
updated vanpool policy for the NTD refines this policy by requiring 
that vanpool operators actively engage in matching interested members 
of the public to vans in its program with available seats.
    A mid-sized transit agency also requested clarification on the 
third part of the proposal, requiring the vanpool to be in compliance 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA).
    FTA Response: The ADA requires that providers of public 
transportation service make reasonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities. Under the Department of Transportation's implementing 
regulation (49 CFR 37.31) this does not require that every van in the 
vanpool program be accessible to persons with disabilities, the vanpool 
program must be prepared to make reasonable accommodations whenever the 
need arises. Interested parties should contact FTA's Office of Civil 
Rights for more information on the specific requirements of the ADA as 
it applies to vanpools.
    FTA received several comments regarding our proposal to require all 
vanpools currently in the NTD to recertify for the 2011 Report Year. 
One private vanpool operator asked FTA to clarify its intent regarding 
the proposed recertification requirements. One public transit agency 
requested clarification of the logistics of the certification process, 
and whether it will be an annual process.
    FTA Response: Given the updated policy regarding the inclusion of 
vanpools in the NTD, the intent of the recertification requirement is 
to ensure that all vanpools reporting to the NTD for the 2011 Report 
Year are in compliance with the updated policy. Each reporter to the 
NTD will be contacted by a validation analyst and required to submit a 
written self-certification of compliance with the new vanpool policy, 
and to upload this as an attachment to the efile of the NTD Online 
Reporting System. This is intended to be a one-time process for the 
2011 Report Year, but eligibility questions may be reviewed by the 
validation analysts in future years during the course of the normal 
data validation process. Consistent with the NTD Rule (49 CFR Part 
630), FTA may request additional supporting materials from any NTD 
reporter when necessary to validate the report. This process will also 
confirm that NTD IDs are properly assigned according to the updated NTD 
policies. Namely, that the ID is assigned to one of the following: (1) 
A sponsor that is directly operating a vanpool; (2) a sponsor that is 
operating a vanpool through a true ``purchase of service'' purchased 
transportation contract; (3) a public or private vanpool operator that

[[Page 30999]]

is a subrecipient to a vanpool sponsor, and is directly operating the 
vanpool; or (4) a private vanpool operator that is directly operating a 
vanpool without public assistance from the public vanpool sponsor;
    One industry association and one mid-sized transit agency commented 
with a concern about the requirement for reporting fully-allocated 
costs including ``ridesharing promotion'' expenses that must be 
reported by vanpools, but are not required to be reported by other 
modes of transit. Another mid-sized transit agency and an MPO also 
requested clarification of what FTA meant by its requirement to report 
fully-allocated costs.
    FTA Response: The updated requirements for vanpool reporting to the 
NTD state that the vanpool must actively engage in matching interested 
members of the public to vans with available seats. This is an 
essential activity for the vanpool mode of public transportation, as 
opposed to vanpools that do not meet the definition of public 
transportation at 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(10). To the extent that third 
parties engage in activities to generally promote the use of public 
transportation or generally promote carpooling or vanpooling, then 
these costs do not need to be reported. However, to the extent that a 
third party (e.g. other than the operator of the vanpool and other than 
a public sponsor with a purchased transportation relationship with a 
vanpool operator) engages in the essential activity of matching 
interested members of the public to vans with available seats, then 
these costs must be reported. An essential purpose of the NTD is to 
allow FTA to report to Congress on the costs of public transportation 
services and future investment needs for public transportation. Thus, 
the NTD must collect fully-allocated capital and operating costs for 
all of the reported services, including vanpool public transportation 
service.
    One industry association submitted a comment on an unrelated issue 
regarding the rules used by FTA to validate current NTD reports. One 
private vanpool operator submitted comments on a number of unrelated 
issues, including a concern about the processes used in developing the 
Transportation Improvement Plan, and the structure of NTD data 
products. One public transit agency expressed concern about the burden 
of current NTD data collection requirements on vanpool operators, 
particularly the requirement to report fuel consumption.
    FTA Response: FTA thanks the commenters for their submissions. FTA 
will continue to review its validation procedures, data products, and 
data collection requirements to minimize reporting burden and to 
improve the accuracy and usefulness of NTD reports.
    Final Policy: Based on the comments received, FTA revises and 
adopts its proposed policy as follows:
    Vanpool programs reporting to the NTD must submit a written self-
certification to the NTD for the 2011 Report Year, or else for the 
first year in which reporting for the vanpool is to begin, that: (1) 
The vanpool is open to the public and that any vans that are restricted 
a priori to particular employers and which do not participate in the 
public ride-matching service of the vanpool are excluded from the NTD 
report; (2) the vanpool is actively engaged in advertising the vanpool 
service to the public and in matching interested members of the public 
to vans with available seats; (3) that the vanpool program, whether 
operated by a public or private entity, is operated in compliance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and implementing 
regulations at 49 CFR 37.31; and (4) that the vanpool has a record-
keeping system in place to meet all NTD Reporting Requirements, 
consistent with other modes, including collecting and reporting fully-
allocated operating and capital costs for the service. At the same 
time, the vanpool program must certify that it is publicly sponsored, 
as either (1) directly-operated by a public entity; (2) operated by a 
public entity via a contract for purchased transportation service with 
a private provider; (3) operated by a private entity as a grant 
recipient or subrecipient from a public entity; or (4) operated by an 
independent private entity with approval from a public entity that 
certifies that the vanpool program is helping meet the overall 
transportation needs of the local urbanized area.
    Reporting of fully-allocated operating costs means that the vanpool 
must report on the total cost of the service, including any fuel, 
insurance, and maintenance costs paid by vanpool participants; and 
including any costs paid by any third-parties to support essential 
features of the vanpool program.
    Under this policy NTD IDs for vanpool programs will be assigned 
according to existing NTD policies on the basis of the entity that is 
operating the vanpool. A vanpool operator may be a public provider 
directly-operating the vanpool, a public entity operating the vanpool 
through a purchased transportation contract with a private provider, or 
a private provider that is directly operating the vanpool. The operator 
of the vanpool is the entity sets the service area of the vanpool 
program, sets the vanpool participant costs and operating regulations, 
and generally has control of the vanpool service.

(b) New Modes

    FTA proposed creating four new modes to be used in NTD reporting: 
Commuter Bus (CB), Bus Rapid Transit (RB), Streetcar Rail (SR), and 
Hybrid Rail (YR). FTA noted that many systems will make a 100% 
transition from one mode to the other, but proposed to offer waivers of 
up to two years upon request for reporters who would need time to 
separate their data.
    FTA received 17 comments on this proposal. An industry association 
expressed specific support for the proposal to create the commuter bus 
mode. A large transit agency and an MPO expressed support for the 
proposal in general. Another large transit agency expressed support for 
the proposed two years of waivers upon request. 11 transit systems and 
one large industry association expressed concern that the proposal to 
create the Commuter Bus and Bus Rapid Transit modes would create too 
much additional reporting burden through additional reporting for 
relatively small slices of service. For example, several transit 
agencies cited examples where various local aspects of geography would 
cause one or two individual bus routes to meet the proposed definition 
for Commuter Bus of five miles of closed door service. Other concerns 
included the burden of making additional cost allocations and of 
additional passenger mile sampling. Another large transit system 
expressed concern that 1 out of its 5 current Light Rail mode routes 
would fall under the new Streetcar Rail mode, and that it would not be 
able to separate service data for the new Bus Rapid Transit Mode based 
on on-busway service vs. off-busway service. One large transit agency 
requested that the new modes be made optional. Another large transit 
agency requested the existing motorbus mode and the proposed Commuter 
Bus mode be allowed to file a single set of financial, asset, and 
resource forms. FTA did not receive any comments opposing the proposed 
Hybrid Rail mode.
    FTA Response: FTA understands the concern of many of these 
commenters in regards to increased reporting burden. However, FTA also 
believes that there would be significant benefits to data users in 
distinguishing data for systems that primarily use motorcoaches (or 
``over-the-road buses'') to provide peak service connecting outlying 
areas to central cities vs. data for systems that

[[Page 31000]]

primarily use low-floor transit buses to provide general local transit 
service. Additionally, given the significant interest by public 
transportation service planners in BRT as an alternative to light rail, 
and in using streetcars as urban circulators, FTA believes that there 
would be very significant benefits in producing separate data for these 
modes as well. Furthermore, these benefits would only occur if separate 
data is reported according to the separate modes.
    In response to the concerns about addition burden, FTA notes that 
it has recently updated its passenger mile sampling guidance by using 
modern statistical procedures to significantly reduce required sample 
sizes. Additionally, the updated passenger mile sampling guidance 
relies upon stratification of services to reduce overall sample sizes. 
Thus, many transit systems should already be using stratification to 
collect separate passenger mile samples for the services that would 
become the separate modes.
    FTA also reminds the commenters that variations in service do not 
constitute a separate mode, and so not all services highlighted by 
commenters would be reported as separate modes under this proposal. For 
example, although the Heavy Rail mode is generally characterized by use 
of exclusive guideway and the Light Rail mode is generally 
characterized by guideway with at-grade-crossings or mixed-traffic 
guideway, there are Heavy Rail systems in the NTD that do have at-
grade-crossings. The service on those sections with at-grade-crossings 
is not reported as Light Rail: the entirety of the service is reported 
as Heavy rail. Under the same principles, a single bus route that 
occasionally meets the criteria of five miles of closed-door service 
would not constitute a separate mode for NTD reporting purposes if the 
bus route does not meet any of the other characteristics of the 
Commuter Bus mode, and if the vehicles and employees operating that 
mode are regularly interchanged with operations for the Motorbus mode. 
Similarly, service reported under the Bus Rapid Transit mode may 
include some stretches of off-busway service, provided that the 
preponderance of the service meets the characteristics of the Bus Rapid 
Transit mode, then the entire service should be reported as Bus Rapid 
Transit mode, including both the on-busway and off-busway portions of 
the service. However, just as under existing reporting requirements, 
only the on-busway portions of the service would be credited as fixed-
guideway service for purposes of the formula apportionments.
    A set of services that substantially share vehicles, employees, and 
operating policies constitute a single mode for NTD reporting purposes, 
and would be classified to the most-appropriate mode based on the 
predominant characteristics of the group of services as a whole. The 
whole group of services is then reported as a single mode. In order to 
maintain consistency of the data, it is important that modal 
definitions be applied using consistent principles, rather than being 
made optional.
    One large transit agency expressed concern that part of FTA's 
proposed definition of the Bus Rapid Transit mode as including systems 
that ``operate their entire routes predominantly on fixed-guideways 
(other than on highway HOV or shoulder lanes, such as for commuter bus 
service)'' would exclude motorbus service provided over HOV lanes as 
``fixed-guideway'' service for purposes of the formula apportionments. 
This large transit agency also expressed concern that FTA's proposed 
definition of the Bus Rapid Transit mode would not include certain 
services it was promoting as BRT service. One small transit agency 
requested clarification if a bus route connecting to suburban areas 
would qualify as commuter bus.
    FTA responds: Nothing in the establishment of these new modes 
changes the treatment of fixed-guideway service for the apportionments. 
Although bus service provided to commuters over HOV lanes would not be 
reported under the Bus Rapid Transit mode, it would continue to be 
reported as fixed-guideway service. The definition of Bus Rapid Transit 
mode for use in the NTD parallels the definition of BRT used by FTA's 
New Starts Program. FTA is intentionally proposing a ``high bar'' for 
reporting service as Bus Rapid Transit mode to the NTD, and the 
proposed definition will not include all bus service that operates 
using one or more characteristics of BRT. However, this definition will 
help minimize reporting burden by minimizing the number of cases where 
an NTD reporter might need to split their bus service between the 
Motorbus mode and the Bus Rapid Transit mode in NTD reporting. 
Additionally, as noted previously, not every service meets the NTD 
modal definitions exactly. In these cases, services are reported 
according to the modal definition that is the ``best fit'' for the 
preponderance of the service. A service between two suburban areas, for 
example, would be classified as either Commuter Bus or Motorbus on this 
basis. FTA will continue to provide technical assistance, as always, to 
any transit agency in need of assistance in determining under what 
modes to report their service.
    One mid-sized transit agency asked FTA to consider establishing a 
separate mode for deviated demand response.
    FTA Response: Establishing a separate deviated demand response mode 
is beyond the scope of this notice, but is something that FTA may 
consider in proposing updates for future report years.
    Final Policy: FTA adopts the following four new modes for the 2011 
NTD Report Year. NTD reporters needing additional time to implement 
reporting for these modes may receive upon request waivers for up to 
two consecutive years for reporting these new modes. A set of services 
that substantially share vehicles, employees, and operating policies 
constitute a single mode for NTD reporting purposes, and would be 
classified to the most-appropriate mode based on the predominant 
characteristics of the group of services as a whole.
    Bus Rapid Transit (RB): Fixed-route bus systems that either (1) 
operate their routes predominantly on fixed-guideways (other than on 
highway HOV or shoulder lanes, such as for commuter bus service) or (2) 
that operate routes of high-frequency service with the following 
elements: Substantial transit stations, traffic signal priority or pre-
emption, low-floor vehicles or level-platform boarding, and separate 
branding of the service. High-frequency service is defined as 10-minute 
peak and 15-minute off-peak headways for at least 14 hours of service 
operations per day. This mode may include portions of service that are 
fixed-guideway and non-fixed-guideway.
    Commuter Bus (CB): Fixed-route bus systems that are primarily 
connecting outlying areas with a central city through bus service that 
operates with at least five miles of continuous closed-door service. 
This service typically operates using motorcoaches (aka over-the-road 
buses), and usually features peak scheduling, multiple-trip tickets, 
and multiple stops in outlying areas with limited stops in the central 
city.
    Streetcar Rail (SR): Rail systems operating routes predominantly on 
streets in mixed-traffic. This service typically operates with single-
car trains powered by overhead catenaries and with frequent stops.
    Hybrid Rail (YR): Rail systems primarily operating routes on the 
National system of railroads, but not operating with the 
characteristics of commuter rail. This service typically operates light 
rail-type vehicles as diesel

[[Page 31001]]

multiple-unit trains (DMU's). These trains do not meet Federal Railroad 
Administration standards, and so must operate with temporal separation 
from freight rail traffic.

(c) Definitional Clarification

    FTA proposed to reclassify Aerial Tramway (TR) Mode as a rail mode 
in NTD data products, and to combine Monorail (MO) Mode and Automated 
Guideway (AG) Mode into a single Monorail/Automated Guideway (MG) Mode. 
Finally, FTA proposed to provide additional clarification on how to 
calculate the miles of rail for ``At Grade with Mixed and Cross 
Traffic'' and ``At Grade with Cross Traffic'' on the Transit Way 
Mileage (A-20) Form.
    FTA received six comments on this proposal. Two industry 
associations and three transit agencies supported the proposal. One 
industry association and one transit agency had questions on how these 
proposals would impact formula funding. One large transit agency 
opposed the proposal for changing the way fixed-guideway miles were 
calculated as being too burdensome. One large transit agency requested 
clarification of the definition of At-grade with mixed and cross 
traffic.
    FTA Responds: These definitional clarifications are simply 
administrative changes and would not impact funding under the formulas 
specified in current law. These formulas base funding on the basis of 
being fixed-guideway, rather than on the basis of being ``rail,'' and 
aerial tramway would remain a fixed-guideway mode. FTA believes that 
the clarification in how to calculate miles of rail is necessary to 
support data users. Currently some reporters are calculating miles of 
fixed-guideway classified as At Grade with Cross Traffic solely on the 
basis of the length of each intersection. FTA believes that this is not 
the intent of the data collection, and significantly limits the 
usability of the current data. In response to the question, FTA 
confirms that ``mixed traffic'' includes alignments where rail and 
rubber-tired vehicles travel in the same lanes, and alignments where 
pedestrians can cross freely.
    Final Policy: FTA adopts the proposed definitional clarifications 
as originally proposed.

(d) Reporting Requirements for Small Systems

    FTA proposed to align the reporting requirements for systems with 
nine or fewer vehicles with the reporting requirements for recipients 
of Section 5311 funding in the Rural NTD. This would make it much 
simpler for systems that receive both Section 5307 and Section 5311 
funding to determine which NTD reports they must complete, and it would 
also provide additional data in NTD reports on these systems. These new 
requirements paralleling the Rural NTD would still exempt these small 
systems from requirements to conduct passenger mile sampling. FTA also 
proposed to require all urbanized area transit systems to file monthly 
reports to the Monthly Module and Safety & Security Module of the NTD. 
Furthermore, FTA proposed to extend these reduced reporting 
requirements to systems with 30 or fewer vehicles and no fixed-guideway 
service. However, any system with 30 or fewer vehicles could continue 
to file a full report if they wished to have passenger mile data 
including in the formula apportionments.
    FTA received 12 comments on this proposal. Two transit agencies 
with between 10 and 30 vehicles support the proposal to receive reduced 
reporting requirements. Another transit agency with between 10 and 30 
vehicles asked for clarification on how the 30 total vehicles would be 
calculated, and how use of this waiver would impact the formula 
apportionments.
    FTA Responds: Waivers for systems with 30 vehicles would be 
calculated on the basis of the vehicles operated in maximum (peak) 
service (VOMS) across all modes, including fixed-route motorbus, demand 
response, and vanpool service. A transit agency making use of this 
waiver would not report passenger mile data to the NTD. As such, use of 
this waiver might slightly impact the apportionments to urbanized areas 
(UZAs) over 200,000 in population, although the apportionment to such 
UZAs is likely to be largely determined by data reported from transit 
agencies with more than 30 vehicles operating in that UZA. 
Additionally, a transit agency making use of this waiver would not make 
their passenger mile data available for meeting any of the three Small 
Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) apportionment benchmarks that rely upon 
passenger mile data. However, data from a transit agency making use of 
this waiver would still be used to help a UZA qualify for any of the 
three other STIC benchmarks that do not rely upon passenger mile data.
    Two transit systems with fewer than nine vehicles objected to the 
proposal for increased reporting requirements from systems with nine or 
fewer vehicles in urbanized areas. A large transit agency that reports 
to the NTD on behalf of many smaller transit systems through a 
consolidated report requested that they continue to be allowed to 
submit the consolidated report, rather than requiring each small system 
to report directly to the NTD under these requirements.
    FTA Responds: FTA confirms that these increased reporting 
requirements do not change the existing NTD policies regarding 
consolidated reporting, and consolidated reports will continue to be 
accepted on behalf of small operators. FTA is mindful of the increased 
burden of this proposal on small systems with nine or fewer vehicles. 
However, FTA believes that this concern is outweighed by the interest 
in closing the current data ``doughnut hole,'' in which the NTD is able 
to report data to the public on small systems in rural areas and of 
urbanized systems with ten or more vehicles, but not of urbanized area 
systems with nine or fewer vehicles. FTA will continue to seek to 
minimize the burden of NTD reporting on small systems through programs 
like consolidated reporting and by continuing to seek to minimize and 
automate reporting requirements. To further minimize this burden, FTA 
will modify its original proposal to exempt systems receiving a thirty 
or fewer vehicles waiver from reporting to the Monthly Module and from 
reporting to the Safety & Security Module.
    Two State Departments of Transportation (DOT's) and two industry 
associations objected to the proposal to reduce reporting requirements 
for some systems with between 10 and 30 vehicles to a level similar to 
that required of rural systems. In particular, these State DOT's noted 
that the Rural NTD reporting requirements do not include operating 
expenditures by function, nor by object class--only sources of funds 
for operating expenditures are reported. These State DOT's argued that 
the reporting burden of this data is relatively low, and that this data 
is essential for making performance comparisons between small systems. 
An industry association also noted that the rural reporting 
requirements do not include the reporting of sampled data for passenger 
miles, and passenger miles are a key element of many performance 
benchmark comparisons.
    FTA Responds: FTA is sympathetic to the desire of data users for as 
much data as possible, and in particular, FTA strongly supports the use 
of NTD data in performance benchmarking. These desires, however, must 
be balanced against the need to minimize the burden on the public. 
FTA's past experience with the NTD has shown that the requirement to 
allocate operating expenses across both object class (e.g. salaries and 
wages, fuel, utilities, etc.)

[[Page 31002]]

and across functions (e.g. vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, 
general administration, etc.) can be a significant source of reporting 
burden for small transit systems. Despite the recent introduction of 
the new Sampling Manual, which has greatly reduced the overall burden 
of sampling, FTA recognizes that sampling for passenger miles can still 
be burdensome and labor-intensive, particularly for small transit 
operators. Instead, FTA would prefer to align the reporting 
requirements for these small systems as much as possible with the 
reporting requirements for rural systems, in order to minimize the 
confusion among reporters, and to minimize the burden to FTA on 
presenting final nationwide transit data to users. Additionally, these 
reduced reporting requirements will minimize the administrative burden 
to FTA of validating reports from these small transit systems. Since 
systems with 30 or fewer vehicles account for less than 3.5% of 
urbanized area transit service and less than 2% of urbanized area 
ridership, the overall impact on data users should be small from a 
national perspective. For data users primarily interested in small 
transit markets, FTA also notes that under this proposal, data from 
these small systems will not be completely lost, as some systems with 
thirty or fewer vehicles may choose to not benefit from this waiver in 
order to benefit from the reporting of passenger miles data for the 
formula apportionments. Additionally, some States may choose to require 
all transit systems in their State to file full NTD reports as a 
condition of receiving State funding in order to support performance 
benchmarking. FTA believes that these two factors will produce a 
somewhat suitable cadre of complete reports from small transit systems 
to support continuing some level of peer analysis among these small 
systems.
    Final Policy: Based on the comments received, FTA adopts this final 
policy: Starting with the 2011 NTD Report, transit systems operating 
nine or fewer vehicles will be required to submit a report to the NTD 
that is aligned with the requirements for rural transit systems, and 
which continues to support the data required for the Urbanized Area 
Formula Program apportionment. Systems with nine or fewer vehicles that 
need additional time to comply with this requirement will be granted 
reporting waivers for up to two consecutive years. Additionally transit 
systems operating 30 or fewer vehicles in maximum service across all 
modes, and not operating any service over fixed-guideways, may request 
the same ``small systems waiver'' for reduced reporting requirements. 
Transit systems receiving a small systems waiver will be exempt from 
reporting to the Monthly Module and from the Safety & Security Module. 
Data from transit systems using this small systems waiver will have 
their data included in the formula apportionments for any factors not 
using passenger miles or some other unreported data element under the 
waiver. Any system wishing to have their passenger mile data considered 
in the formula apportionments must submit a full NTD report.

(e) Financial Assets and Liabilities Reporting

    FTA has previously proposed, in 2009, to consolidate the reporting 
of bonds and loans on a single form. FTA now proposed to also include 
consolidated reporting of financial assets, along with financial 
liabilities, according to categories already established in the Uniform 
System of Accounts (USOA), since the reporting of liabilities without 
the concurrent reporting of asset does not present a full picture of 
the financial capacity of the transit system. FTA received 13 comments 
on this proposal. An industry association, two large transit agencies, 
and three mid-sized transit agencies all supported the proposal. 
Another industry association requested that FTA engage in additional 
consultation before adopting the proposal, and three large transit 
agencies expressed concern about the additional burden of this 
reporting. Two mid-sized transit agencies expressed concern that they 
already find it challenging to complete NTD reports on financial 
information by the current deadline of four months after the close of 
the fiscal year, and these new requirements will make meeting that 
deadline even more difficult. One of the large transit agencies and one 
of the mid-sized transit agencies noted that this requirement would not 
apply to transit systems that operate as a unit of city or local 
government, and so do not carry their own financial assets or 
liabilities. Two large transit agencies asked that the value of capital 
assets be included in the reporting, as well as of financial assets. 
One small transit agency also requested clarification of how to report 
funding surpluses or shortfalls.
    FTA Responds: FTA believes that there continues to be great 
interest in the overall financial capacity and financial health of 
transit agencies, and so this information would be important to public 
transportation service planners. At this time, this reporting would not 
apply to those transit systems operating as a unit of city or local 
government, and which do not have their own financial assets and 
liabilities. FTA reminds the commenters that they are required to 
submit a ``best available'' report to the NTD by the established 
deadline in order to begin the validation process, but revisions may be 
made during the validation process. Finally, given the difficulty in 
valuing many transit capital assets, let alone the difficulty of 
liquidating those assets in order to meet financial liabilities, FTA 
has decided to minimize reporting burden by not including the reporting 
of the value of capital assets to the NTD at this time. FTA reminds the 
commenters that unlike in the Rural NTD, the sources of funds received 
reported in column c of the F-10 Form need not equal the sources of 
funds applied to operating and capital expenses on columns d and e of 
the F-10 Form. Transit systems requiring additional clarification of 
how to report financial surpluses or shortfalls should contact either 
their NTD Validation Analyst or FTA NTD Staff for further assistance.
    Final Policy: FTA adopts the proposed reporting of financial asset 
and liabilities as originally proposed. FTA will grant waivers from 
this requirement for the 2011 Report Year for any reporter that needs 
additional time to comply with this requirement.

(f) Revision of Rules for Urbanized Area Allocations

    FTA proposed to require that any transit service connecting more 
than one urbanized area, or a rural area and an urbanized area, must 
split that service on the FFA-10 Form among each of the geographic 
areas served according to some reasonable representation of the areas 
served. FTA received 25 comments on this proposal from a variety of 
industry associations and transit systems of various sizes, almost all 
of which were opposed to this proposal, with none clearly in favor of 
this proposal. Comments from several different transit agencies 
expressed concern that this proposal would increase reporting burden, 
as well as increase the burden of managing grants from FTA that were 
allocated through each separate urbanized area. In particular, transit 
systems operating commuter rail or vanpool service were concerned that 
these rules would cause them to split their data among a large number 
of areas, and that many of these areas do not currently provide funding 
to support these services. These commenters noted that many of these 
areas would not receive any benefit in the formula apportionments under 
current law from being credited with a

[[Page 31003]]

portion of these services, and the end result of this policy change 
might well be reductions in transit service to these areas. 
Additionally one industry associated and a vanpool operated noted that 
vanpools often connect rural areas and small UZAs with a large UZA, 
with the intent of meeting the air quality or congestion goals of the 
large UZA. Another industry association and a large transit agency also 
noted that current law allows transit service to be credited to the 
urbanized area served, and argued that transit service connecting more 
than one urbanized area need not necessarily be credited as serving 
both urbanized areas as FTA proposed. A small transit agency noted that 
the current rules provide for unequal treatment of small UZAs relative 
to large UZAs. In particular, service connecting a small UZA to a large 
UZA may be allocated 100% to the large UZA, but the reverse is not 
true--the vehicle revenue miles physically occurring in the large UZA 
must be allocated to the large UZA under current rules, even if the 
large UZA does not provide any funding to the transit agency operating 
the service. One large transit agency proposed that service connecting 
two UZAs should always be allocated to the larger of the two UZAs. Two 
transit agencies proposed that FTA should collect one allocation of 
transit service for data purposes, and a separate allocation of transit 
service for formula apportionment purposes. One large transit agency 
requested that any change be deferred until the reauthorization of 
SAFETEA-LU, and a mid-sized transit agency and an MPO requested that 
the change be deferred until the 2012 Report Year.
    FTA Responds: FTA recognizes the concerns expressed by the 
commenters that FTA's proposed policy would further disconnect the 
formula apportionment from the areas that fund a service to those 
areas. FTA also recognizes the concern of one of the commenters that 
the current rules often require a transit operator from a small UZA to 
allocate a portion of their service to a large UZA, even if that large 
UZA does not provide any funding to the transit service. FTA also 
remains concerned that the current allocation rules are understating a 
certain amount of rural transit services provided by operators in 
urbanized areas. Thus, FTA will modify its proposed policy to respond 
to the concerns of the commenters, and to more closely connect the 
allocation of services on the FFA-10 Form to the jurisdiction funding 
the service. The modified policy will give reporting transit agencies 
the flexibility to allocate their data based on the geographic area 
being served, and to tie their allocation to the geographic area or 
areas funding the service. The only restriction on this flexibility 
will be that services funded out of FTA's rural formula program must be 
allocated as rural services. FTA did consider collecting separate 
allocations for data purposes and for formula apportionment purposes, 
but the additional burden of conducting two separate allocations, and 
then validating and publishing the data, led us to decide not to adopt 
that proposal. FTA believes that the benefits of this increased 
flexibility and of a more-representative allocation of data in the NTD 
merit implementing this policy with the 2011 Report Year. The 
modifications to our proposal based on the comments should minimize the 
impacts of implementation. Additionally, implementation in the 2011 
Report Year will cause the remaining impacts to occur simultaneously 
with the implementation of new UZA definitions based on the 2010 
Census, thus allowing all needed adjustments to occur at the same time. 
The revised allocation rules are also simpler and provide increased 
flexibility to reporting transit agencies, which should also ease the 
reporting burden of implementing the new UZA definitions from the 2010 
Census.
    Final Policy: Beginning with the 2011 Report Year, transit service 
that connects one or more urbanized areas, or transit service that 
connects rural areas with one or more urbanized areas, may generally be 
allocated by one of two methods, either: (1) Allocated entirely to the 
geographic area that the reporting transit agency determines is being 
primarily served by each service, or (2) allocated proportionally among 
each of the geographic areas served according to some reasonable and 
consistent methodology. This rule will apply regardless of whether the 
service connects two or more large UZAs, two or more small UZAs, some 
combination of small and large UZAs, or one or more UZAs of any size to 
rural areas. However, any transit service that benefits from grants 
provided by FTA's Section 5311 Other Than Urbanized Area Formula 
Program (OTUAFP) must be allocated entirely to rural areas (labeled as 
UZA-0 on the FFA-10 Form), regardless of whether that service benefits 
from grants for operating expenses or for capital expenditures from the 
Section 5311 Program, and regardless of whether that service benefits 
from capital assets funded by the Section 5307 Program. The only 
exception to the required rural area allocation is that if service 
connecting a rural area to a UZA, particularly a small UZA, is 
benefiting from operating assistance from both the Section 5307 Program 
and from the Section 5311 Program, then that service may be allocated 
on a pro-rated basis to the urbanized area served based on the 
percentage of operating expenses being funded by the Section 5307 UAFP 
Program (including the local matching funds for the Section 5307 
funds).

(g) Special Procedures for New UZA Definitions from the 2010 Census

    The Census Bureau is expected to publish new UZA definitions from 
the 2010 Census in spring 2012. FTA proposed that for the 2011 Report 
Year, reporting transit systems should complete their FFA-10 form 
allocating data according to the UZA definitions from the 2000 Census 
according to the normal reporting schedule. Once the new UZA 
definitions are released, FTA then proposed to later require each 
reporting transit system to submit a new form addenda to allocate their 
service among the new UZA boundaries, and to sub-allocate their service 
by State for any UZA that includes portions of more than one State. FTA 
received 13 comments on this proposal. Two large transit systems 
supported the proposal, with one asking for FTA to delay requiring the 
form addenda until information on the new UZAs is available at the 
Census tract level. The remaining comments from two industry 
associations and nine large-to-mid-sized transit systems opposed the 
proposal on the grounds of imposing additional reporting burden with 
only a short time period for compliance. Five transit agencies asked 
FTA to delay implementation of the new Census UZAs until the 2012 
Report Year. One industry association and one large transit agency 
asked FTA to seek legislative relief allowing it to delay 
implementation of the new Census UZAs until the 2012 Report Year.
    FTA Responds: FTA understands the concerns of the commenters, and 
will seek to minimize the reporting burden of this proposal. However, 
FTA notes that it is required by law to implement data from the 2010 
Census for use in the Fiscal Year 2013 apportionments, if it is 
available, and thus, to implement them in the 2011 NTD Report Year. FTA 
has already proposed to not require re-submission of the CEO 
Certification nor of the Independent Auditor Statement in regards to 
this additional data. To further reduce the reporting burden, FTA 
withdraws its proposal to require sub-allocation of UZA data by State 
in

[[Page 31004]]

cases where a UZA crosses State lines. Additionally, in response to the 
comments about the increased workload, FTA will only require the FFA-10 
Form to be filled out once, during the additional reporting period, and 
will not require an FFA-10 Form to be filled out reflecting the UZA 
definitions from the 2000 Census. FTA also hopes that its new policy on 
urbanized area allocations will provide greater flexibility to 
reporting transit agencies, and so will reduce the overall effort 
needed to complete the FFA-10 Form this year and in future years. FTA 
will also seek to follow the recommendation of the commenter to delay 
release of the form addenda until the Census makes detailed maps of the 
new UZA boundaries available in summer 2012.
    FTA will not, however, seek legislative relief from the requirement 
to use the new urbanized area definitions from the 2010 Census in the 
Fiscal Year 2013 apportionments. Many urbanized areas will show large 
increases of population in the 2010 Census, and will no doubt want to 
benefit from the 2010 Census data in the apportionment as quickly as 
possible. FTA does not wish to take sides among those that would 
benefit from a delay in the use of 2010 Census data, and those that 
would not. In the event that legislative change is sought by some of 
the commenters, and a legislative change is enacted into law, then FTA 
will of course modify its policy to accommodate the change in statute.
    Final Policy: Based on the comments received, FTA adopts the 
following policy for the 2011 Report Year: NTD Reports for the 2011 
Report Year will be due according to the regular deadlines, except that 
the FFA-10 Form following the UZA definitions from the 2000 Census will 
not be required. Following the release of detailed maps from the Census 
Bureau of the new UZA definitions from the 2010 Census, FTA will notify 
all urbanized area NTD reporters to logon to the NTD Online Reporting 
System and resubmit their B-10 Form identifying which of the new UZAs 
they serve and to submit a FFA-10 Form reflecting the new UZA 
definitions.

(h) Announcement of Suspension of Personal Security Reporting

    FTA also announced that it was suspending indefinitely the 
reporting of personal security events to the Safety & Security Module 
of the NTD, effective with the publication of the previous notice. 
Although FTA did not specifically request comments on this effort to 
reduce reporting burden, FTA received comments from an industry 
association and two large transit agencies in support of this action.
    FTA Responds: FTA thanks the commenters.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 24th day of May 2011.
Peter Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-13286 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P