GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2000 TRANSIT GRANTS

Need for Improved

Predictability, Data,

and Monitoring in

Application

Processing

GAO/RCED-00-260

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-285911 Letr

August 30, 2000

The Honorable Phil Gramm

Chairman, Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Wayne Allard

Chairman, Subcommittee on

Housing and Transportation

Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Crapo

United States Senate

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized

about $42 billion for transit programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2003.

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit Administration

(FTA) provides these funds through grants to states and local and regional

transportation providers for the construction, acquisition, improvement,

and operation of transit systems. However, a number of requirements must

be met before FTA can release funds to grant applicants. For example, the

Department of Labor (DOL) must certify that adequate labor protection

arrangements (commonly called labor protection certifications or section

13 (c) arrangements) are in place to protect the interests of employees

affected by federal transit assistance.1

You asked us to (1) review the timeliness and consistency of FTA’s

processing of grant applications, (2) identify the number of applications for

labor protection certifications for which DOL’s processing time extended

beyond 60 days and the factors contributing to any processing delays, and

(3) provide information on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in

connection with DOL’s certification process. Also, because transportation

1

DOT has determined that certain grants and loans to state and local government authorities

for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities do not require a

labor protection certification.
B-285911

Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

services are delayed when federal transit funds are not received in a timely

manner, you requested any suggestions to help ensure the timely release of

these funds.

Results in Brief FTA’s data demonstrate that it processed less than half of the transit grant

applications within its informal 90-day goal during the 21-month period

from October 1998 through June 2000. On average, the time that FTA spent

in processing the approximately 1,800 applications during this period was

136 days. Furthermore, only 1 of FTA’s 10 regional offices had an average

processing time of less than 90 days. FTA’s headquarters officials told us

that they have not analyzed why the agency’s informal goal is often not met

or why there are differences in regional processing times.

From January 1996 through April 2000, DOL provided a labor protection

certification for 93 percent of the transit grant applications within 60 days

of receipt from FTA. For the 7 percent that took longer than 60 days, the

most common factor contributing to processing delays was the submittal of

an incomplete application. Of the 273 applications that took more than 60

days to process, 117 were suspended for this reason. Delays in processing

grant applications also occur when an applicant and/or labor union objects

to the labor protection terms and conditions proposed by DOL; 105 of the

273 applications were delayed for this reason.

Representatives of the transit community have suggested that APA should

apply to the DOL certification process in order to improve the accessibility

and consistency of DOL’s decisions. However, the transit community is

concerned that some APA procedures could lengthen the grant approval

process and further delay the release of grant funds. To further the

objectives of disclosure and consistency in its labor certification process,

DOL could take actions without applying specific APA procedures that

could lengthen the grant approval process. For example, while information

on certification decisions is available on request from DOL, the agency

could broadly disseminate significant certification decisions. DOL is

working on making such information available through a Website that is

under development.

When transit applications are not processed in a timely manner, transit

benefits are delayed, and transportation needs are not met. In addition, the

lack of predictability and consistency in processing times can make

planning and project execution difficult for applicants. For example, a

delay of several weeks in application processing in regions with a
B-285911

Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

particularly short construction season could have a substantial impact on

the completion of a transit project. A periodic assessment of its grant

application process, including DOL’s certification of labor protection

arrangements, would provide a basis for FTA to identify and address

processing delays and problems. In addition, it would enable FTA to

provide the transit community and others with information on the status of

grant applications.

Therefore, to increase the predictability and timeliness of FTA’s application

processing, we are recommending that FTA, in cooperation with DOL,

periodically assess its application processing efforts and report the results

of the assessment to the Congress.

Background FTA provides states, local and regional transportation providers, and others

with grants for the construction, acquisition, improvement, and operation

of transit systems and projects through a variety of programs. TEA-21

authorized about $42 billion for transit programs for fiscal years 1998

through 2003. Currently, FTA oversees about 4,400 active grants to 860 state

and local transit providers. From October 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000,

FTA processed approximately 1,800 transit grant applications representing

over $10.5 billion in federal funds.

FTA is responsible for reviewing grant applications to determine the merits

of proposed projects and their eligibility for federal assistance. FTA carries

out its mission through 10 regional offices, and its regional staff are the

main point of contact for almost all grants. Applications for grants are

submitted through FTA’s Transportation Electronic Award and Management

(TEAM) database to applicable regional offices. FTA’s regional offices are

generally responsible for ensuring that each grant applicant has responded

to a variety of required certifications and assurances before FTA can

provide funds. One of these certifications is DOL’s labor protection

certification. DOL is responsible for certifying that fair and equitable labor

arrangements exist to protect employees who might be adversely affected

by federal assistance before FTA awards funds to transportation providers.2

In carrying out its responsibilities, DOL recommends protective terms and

conditions to grant applicants and unions to allow parties the opportunity

2

FTA tries to submit applications to DOL within 3 days of their submission to FTA, thus

enabling FTA and DOL to essentially carry out their responsibilities concurrently.
B-285911

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

to review the proposed terms and conditions and submit objections, if any,

before it provides a final labor protection certification. If an objection is

submitted, DOL considers its validity. If DOL determines that the objection

is not valid, it issues a certification that is based on the terms and

conditions that it recommended to the parties. If it determines that the

objection is valid and the parties are unable to resolve disputed matters

through negotiations, the parties can submit legal arguments (briefs) to

DOL and respond to the arguments presented. Thereafter, DOL makes a

determination and explains its reasons for requiring specific arrangements

in certification decisions. If these terms and conditions are not acceptable

to the grant applicant, DOL officials said that the grant applicant has the

option to forgo federal transit assistance.

FTA Generally Does

Not Meet Its Informal

Application Processing

Goal

Although FTA tracks overall transit grant obligation rates and projects that

are congressionally designated, FTA’s headquarters officials stated that they

do not monitor application processing because this is basically a role that is

carried out by FTA’s regional offices. However, following a Senate

Committee on Banking hearing on transit funding delays on April 25, 2000,

FTA officials told us that they recognized a need to develop basic

nationwide data on the agency’s processing of transit grant applications.

We recognized this need almost 20 years ago; in 1981 we reported that the

then federal transit agency had not established time limits for processing

grant applications and was not collecting the data it needed to monitor

regions’ grant-processing activities.3 As a result, we noted uncertainty over

the availability of federal funds and the lack of assurance that grant

applications were being processed on a timely basis. Furthermore, the lack

of predictability and consistency in processing times can make planning

and project execution difficult for applicants. For example, a delay of

several weeks in application processing in regions with a particularly short

construction season could have a substantial impact on the completion of a

transit project. FTA’s headquarters officials noted that such an adverse

affect could be mitigated if a grant applicant were permitted to incur

project costs without first receiving formal project approval from FTA. By

means of such a mechanism, a grant applicant may spend local funds for

project activities and be reimbursed by FTA if and when a project is

approved. However, FTA officials told us that no analysis has been done on

the use of such preaward authority.

3

See Soaring Transit Subsidies Must Be Controlled (CED-81-28, Feb. 26, 1981).
B-285911

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

In the spring of 2000, FTA’s headquarters officials began using FTA’s TEAM

database to gather nationwide application information, such as the number

of transit applications processed, the types of applications processed, and

regional data on processing times. The resulting FTA analysis is based on

approximately 1,800 transit applications for $10.5 billion in federal funds

awarded from October 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000. The analysis shows

that the average FTA processing time was 136 days from the submission of

an application until the award (obligation) of funds. FTA has an unofficial

goal of processing applications within 90 days, which takes into account

the multiple certifications and assurances that must be completed prior to

the award of federal funds. FTA’s headquarters officials stated that the

informal goal of 90 days was selected 15 to 20 years ago for the urban

formula grant program and that since no goals had been established for

other FTA programs, the 90-day informal formula grant goal was used for

all FTA programs in their July 2000 analysis. FTA’s analysis showed that the

goal was met for less than half—42 percent—of the applications that FTA

processed.

In addition, as shown in figure 1, FTA’s analysis indicates that only 1 of its

10 regional offices had an average processing time of less than 90 days. The

processing times for FTA’s regional offices ranged from a low of 71 days to

a high of 208 days from the receipt of an application to the award of transit

funds.
B-285911

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Figure 1: Average Processing Times by FTA Regional Offices From October 1998

Through June 2000

Note: Regional locations are Region 1—Massachusetts, Region 2—New York, Region 3—

Pennsylvania, Region 4—Georgia, Region 5—Illinois, Region 6—Texas, Region 7—Missouri, Region

8—Colorado, Region 9—California, Region 10—Washington State.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from FTA.

FTA’s headquarters officials told us that they are aware of several reasons

for application processing delays, such as environmental difficulties

associated with an application or difficulties encountered by grantees in

fulfilling planning requirements. However, FTA has not performed a

systematic assessment to determine why its informal goal is often not met

or why the processing times for its regional offices vary widely. In addition,

the agency recognizes that any attempt to analyze the data would be

difficult because the reasons for delays are not systematically tracked and

recorded in the TEAM’s database. If there is an inquiry regarding a specific

application, however, FTA officials stated that they check with the

appropriate regional office to obtain information on that application.

Days

0

50

100

150

200

250

Region

111

169

138 136

110

144

133

71

208

155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B-285911

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Furthermore, differences exist in the processing times for transit grants by

the type of grant. As shown in figure 2, the Elderly and Persons with

Disabilities Program grants took the least amount of time to process—

averaging 55 days—compared with Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility

Program grants, which averaged 204 days.4 In addition, this figure

compares FTA’s application processing time with federal program dollars.

As FTA officials noted, their largest funded program, Urbanized Area

Formula,5 is taking considerably longer than expected, with an average

processing time of 128 days from receipt of an application to the award of

grant funds. In contrast, a relatively new and small program, Job Access

and Reverse Commute,6 is taking less time than expected, with an average

processing time of 107 days. However, FTA officials told us that although

they were aware of basic factors, such as a new program with

inexperienced new grantees, that can contribute to application processing

time differences, they have not performed any assessment of what

accounts for the differences in application processing time by type of grant.

4

The Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program is designed to provide financial

assistance in meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with

disabilities where public transportation services are unavailable, insufficient, or

inappropriate. The Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program is designed to assist operators

of buses in financing the incremental costs of complying with DOT’s final rule regarding bus

accessibility required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

5

The Urbanized Area Formula Program is designed to assist in financing the acquisition,

construction, leasing, maintenance, planning, and improvement of facilities and equipment

for use in mass transportation services.

6

The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program is designed to develop transportation

services for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals to get them to and from

jobs and to bring those in rural and suburban areas to suburban employment centers.
B-285911

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Figure 2: FTA’s Grant Program Applications by Processing Time and Federal Dollars

From October 1998 Through June 2000

Note: See appendix I for official program titles and a summary of major program areas.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from FTA.

DOL’s Transit Labor

Protection

Certifications Are

Generally Timely, but

Several Factors Can

Cause Delays

In December 1995, DOL responded to congressional concerns about its

timeliness in issuing labor protection certifications by issuing guidelines

that established time frames for processing labor protection certifications

in a more expeditious and predictable manner. The guidelines became

effective in January 1996 and were intended to ensure that labor protection

certifications were provided within 60 days of DOL’s referral of protective

terms and conditions to applicants and labor unions.

Days

0

50

100

150

200

250

Urban formula

Fixed guideway

New starts

Bus

Rural formula

Elderly and

handicapped

Job access

Over-the-road bus

Type

128

140

185

194

73

55

107

204

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Dollars in millions

Processing time

Dollars in millions
B-285911

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

As outlined in our April 25, 2000 testimony, 98 percent of DOL’s applications

processed from January 1996 until January 31, 2000, met DOL’s internal 60-

day processing goal.7 But DOL’s 60-day processing goal does not count the

time it takes to refer the terms and conditions to the applicant and labor

unions and the time that an application is suspended because, for example,

it is incomplete.8 To determine DOL’s total certification processing time, we

analyzed DOL’s data from the time that DOL received an application from

FTA through the certification of labor protection arrangements, including

the time that DOL takes to refer terms and conditions to applicants and

unions and any time that DOL suspended an application as incomplete or

inactive.

From January 1996 through April 2000, DOL processed 4,073 applications

for $32 billion in federal transit assistance; DOL issued certifications for 93

percent of these applications within 60 days. For the remaining 7 percent—

273 applications, seeking approximately $2.5 billion in federal transit

assistance—DOL took more than 60 days to certify labor protection terms

and conditions. Figure 3 shows that for the 273 applications DOL took from

61 to 80 days to process 118 applications, 81 to 100 days to process 50

applications, and 101 to over 365 days for the remaining 105 applications.

7

See Transit Grants: Department of Labor’s Certification Process (GAO/T-RCED-00-157, Apr.

25, 2000).

8

DOL officials stated that DOL’s 60-day goal begins with the referral of employee protection

terms and conditions, since DOL can only begin processing those grant applications that

contain enough information to properly determine the affected employees and their

representatives.
B-285911

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Figure 3: DOL’s Processing Time Beyond 60 Days From January 1996 Through April

2000

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from DOL.

Applications

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-365 Over

365

Days

118

50

41

16 15 13

6

13

1
B-285911

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

The primary reason why DOL took longer than 60 days to issue

certifications is that applications were suspended. DOL suspended 152 (56

percent) of the 273 applications where its processing time exceeded 60

days.9 Most suspensions occurred because the application that DOL

received from FTA contained invalid or incomplete information. DOL

suspended 117 of the 152 applications because they were incomplete. For

35 of the 152 applications, DOL suspended processing and placed the

application in an inactive status because of a particular problem, such as a

conflict between the labor protection terms and conditions recommended

by DOL and state law. Furthermore, for 22 applications, processing was

suspended twice—once because DOL determined that the application was

incomplete and later because DOL determined that the application should

have been transferred to an inactive status. Neither DOL nor FTA compile

information on the reasons why applications are classified as incomplete or

inactive.

Another reason why DOL takes longer than 60 days is that the grant

applicant and/or union objects to the labor protection terms and conditions

that DOL referred to them. For 105 (38 percent) of the 273 applications

where DOL’s processing extended beyond 60 days, a party, generally a labor

union, objected to the terms and conditions referred by DOL. DOL

determines which objections are valid from criteria included in its

published guidelines. DOL provides information related to specific

objections to grantees, unions, and others upon request. However,

comprehensive information on the types of objections that have

historically been found to be valid is not widely available to the public

because DOL does not compile and distribute such data. While DOL

maintains copies of objections, it does not have electronic information that

captures the particulars related to the objections filed. Rather, its

electronic information related to objections is limited to DOL’s response to

the objections received. DOL officials advised us that the responses often

do not make much sense apart from the objections filed but that DOL is

examining different approaches to make objections and responses

available to the public.

9

DOL’s data on application suspensions may understate the number of suspensions during

the period from January 1996 through September 1997, but a new application-tracking

system that DOL has used since October 1997 is designed to systematically capture these

data.
B-285911

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Furthermore, when DOL determines that the objections are valid and the

parties are unable to resolve disputed matters through negotiations, the

parties can submit legal arguments (briefs) to DOL and respond to the

arguments presented. Thereafter, DOL makes a determination and explains

its reasons for requiring specific arrangements in certification decisions.

DOL makes information on its determinations available to the parties, and

information on DOL’s certification decisions is also available to others on

request. In addition, DOL officials advised us that they plan to post

significant certification decisions on a Website that is under development.

Neither FTA nor DOL has determined whether DOL’s labor certification

requirement delays the release of federal funds. In order to determine the

extent to which delays in DOL’s processing were delaying FTA’s release of

funds, we attempted to compare DOL’s and FTA’s processing times for the

273 applications for which DOL took longer than 60 days to issue a labor

protection certification. However, we were unable to complete this analysis

because we frequently encountered problems in reconciling application

information between the DOL’s and FTA’s databases. We found the

following problems with 43 percent—118—of the 273 applications

analyzed:

• No corresponding application numbers. For 66 of the 273 applications

reviewed in the DOL information system, there were no corresponding

FTA application numbers to permit a comparison of processing time

frames.

• Recorded dates do not make sense. FTA forwards grant applications to

DOL after an initial review, and DOL’s certification of labor protection

arrangements is a condition of federal transit assistance. However, for

52 of the 273 applications reviewed, a comparison between DOL’s and

FTA’s records indicated that the records are not synchronized, which

could lead to the inference that DOL received an application before it

was submitted to FTA or that the FTA award was made prior to the DOL

certification date.

FTA officials suggested that database discrepancies could be associated

with the fact that multiyear grants under one DOL certification are

applicable to all phases of a project. While we recognize that this may be

the case, we also note that our analysis focused on those instances in

which a DOL certification took longer than 60 days to issue, according to

DOL records. Furthermore, FTA officials noted that the agency’s data do

not indicate situations in which FTA approved grants before receiving a

DOL certification and believe that data entry mistakes gave rise to our
B-285911

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

questions. DOL officials told us that various reasons might account for the

discrepancies we identified between the two agencies’ databases, such as

changes in the project number by FTA, which occur after certification.

Furthermore, while both DOL and FTA officials expressed confidence in

the reliability of their agencies’ data, these officials told us that they would

work together to resolve data discrepancies.

Because problems were encountered for 43 percent of the 273 applications

reviewed, we did not proceed further with the planned comparison of

processing time by FTA and DOL. Furthermore, any attempt to assess FTA’s

processing of applications in relation to DOL’s issuing of transit labor

protection certifications will be compromised unless steps are taken to

resolve often irreconcilable data between the two agencies’ databases.

Administrative

Procedure Act and

DOL’s Labor

Certification Process

Representatives of the American Public Transportation Association have

proposed that the Administrative Procedure Act be applied to the DOL

certification process because of concerns about the accessibility of DOL’s

decisions and underlying rationale, as well as concerns about the

consistency of DOL’s determinations.10 However, they told us that their goal

is to obtain improvements in the accessibility and consistency of DOL’s

decisions, rather than the application of any particular APA provisions. In

addition, they have expressed concerns about the use of any procedures

that could lengthen the grant approval process and further delay the

release of grant funds.

The APA contains uniform procedural requirements for certain types of

agency decisionmaking. It establishes a relatively simple process for

informal rulemaking, and a more elaborate process for formal rulemaking

and adjudication required by statute to be made on the record after an

opportunity for an agency hearing. With regard to formal proceedings, the

APA provides for trial-type hearings typically conducted by administrative

law judges. It also sets forth the principles of judicial review and

requirements for the public disclosure of agency information.11

10The American Public Transportation Association is a nonprofit organization representing

over 1,000 transit and related entities.

11Requirements for public disclosure are contained in section 552 of title 5, United States

Code, which is commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act.
B-285911

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

DOL is subject to the provisions of the APA concerning judicial review and

the public disclosure of information in carrying out its certification

activities; however, the trial-type procedures required for formal

proceedings do not apply to the certification process. Notably, neither the

representatives of the transit industry nor a union we spoke to advocate

applying the trial-type requirements of formal adjudication under the APA

to the certification process. Similarly, DOL officials have pointed out that

the application of these procedural requirements would result in significant

delays in certification and impede DOL’s ability to issue certifications

within the time frames contained in its guidelines.

There are actions that DOL could take, and is considering, to further the

objectives of disclosure and consistency in the labor certification process

without applying additional procedures contained in the APA that could

lengthen DOL’s process. For example, DOL could maintain electronic

information capturing the substance of the objections filed by unions or

grant applicants to proposed terms and conditions, as well as DOL’s

response. Maintaining and disclosing such data would allow grant

applicants and unions to determine the types of objections that DOL has

historically found to be valid. Similarly, DOL could disseminate significant

certification decisions, along with a subject matter index. Providing such

information would heighten awareness of DOL’s positions on labor

protection issues in the transit and labor communities, help the parties to

refine their positions on disputed matters; and, by publicizing DOL’s

positions, help to ensure consistency in its decisionmaking. DOL is

currently working on making such information available through an

Internet Website that is under development.

Conclusions FTA has not established any formal goals for processing transit grant

applications. Furthermore, its informal 90-day goal was met a little less

than half the time. In addition, only 1 of FTA’s 10 regional offices had an

average processing time of less than 90 days. FTA has not analyzed why its

informal goal is often not met or why there are differences in processing

times among its regions. This lack of predictability and consistency in

processing time can make project planning and execution extremely

difficult for transit agencies.

In order to determine the reasons for delays in processing and variations

among the regions, it is important that FTA periodically assess the status of

its grant applications including DOL’s labor protection certifications. This

type of assessment would provide a basis for FTA to identify and address
B-285911

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

delays and would enable it to provide the transit community and

congressional oversight committees with information on the status and

expected processing time of grant applications. In order to conduct this

assessment, FTA and DOL will have to resolve discrepancies and

inconsistencies between the two agencies’ databases.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation establish formal goals

for processing transit grant applications and monitor the status of grant

applications. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of

Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, (1) take action

to ensure that both Departments’ transit application databases are

comparable and reliable and (2) periodically assess the status and

timeliness of federal transit application processing by both Departments,

provide data on the exceptions where the goals have not been met, and

report the results of this assessment along with measures to implement any

needed improvements to the Congress.

Agency Comments We provided DOT and DOL with copies of a draft of this report for their

review and comment. To obtain DOT’s comments on the draft of this

report, we met with agency officials, including the Director of FTA’s Office

of Resource Management and State Programs. FTA generally concurred

with our conclusions and recommendations and agreed to establish a goal

for formula grant programs that will be announced in the annual Federal

Register notice. In addition, FTA noted that it will monitor the processing

time of all its grant applications and provide reports, which will be made

available to the Congress, as to its overall accomplishment of timeliness

goals. However, FTA stated that it would not be appropriate to identify

specific grants to the Congress because this could create additional delay.

To address DOT’s concern, in part, we clarified our recommendation to say

that we would expect FTA to limit its reporting on individual grants to

those exceptions for which FTA’s processing goals have not been met. This

reporting should be facilitated by FTA’s plans to ask its regional offices to

electronically record the reasons for delays when an application takes

more than 90 days for FTA to process.

DOL commented that our draft report does not take into account certain

factors it used to establish a certification goal of 60 days. Our draft report

noted that DOL’s 60-day goal begins with the referral of employee terms and

conditions to the applicant and labor union. We recognize that DOL cannot
B-285911

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

process applications until they are complete. However, in order to provide

a full picture of the time required for certification, we counted the time

from DOL’s receipt of an application until a certification was issued. DOL’s

comments, along with our response, are included in appendix II.

Scope and

Methodology

In reviewing the timeliness and consistency of FTA’s processing of grant

applications, we obtained and analyzed data from FTA’s TEAM database.

This analysis included a review of individual grants in order to compare

FTA’s and DOL’s data on the 273 applications for which DOL took more than

60 days to issue either an interim or final labor protection certification. We

also attended a Region 9 seminar on the TEAM database. In addition, we

obtained a July 2000 analysis from FTA that we used to determine average

processing times by regional offices and program areas. Furthermore, we

discussed processing issues with senior FTA program officials and

representatives of their Office of Chief Counsel.

To identify the number of applications for which DOL’s processing time

extended beyond 60 days and the factors contributing to processing delays,

we accessed and analyzed data from DOL’s information system from

January 1996 through April 2000. While DOL’s guidelines provide that its 60-

day goal begins with the referral of protective terms and conditions, our

analysis was based on the time from DOL’s receipt of an application until a

certification was issued. Thus, we considered the time when DOL received

an application from FTA through the labor protection certification, the time

that DOL takes to refer terms and conditions to applicants and unions, and

the time that applications were suspended as incomplete or inactive. In

addition, we analyzed DOL’s data to determine the major reasons for

delays. We discussed issues regarding transit application processing with

program officials and officials in DOL’s Office of the Solicitor.

To provide information on the applicability of the APA to the transit labor

certification process, we reviewed the statute to determine which

provisions do or do not apply at present. We discussed the broader

application of APA to the labor certification process with DOL and FTA

officials, representatives of the American Public Transportation

Association, a representative of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and an

attorney who authored a legal research guide to section 13(c).12

12Transit Labor Protection—A Guide to Section 13(c) Federal Transit Act. Transit

Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest (June 1995).
B-285911

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

We performed our review from June 2000 through July 2000 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days after the

date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Honorable Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Rodney E.

Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director,

Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will

also make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-

2834. Major contributors to this report were Helen Desaulniers, Yvonne

Pufahl, Ron Stouffer and Wendy Wierzbicki.

Phyllis F. Scheinberg

Associate Director

Transportation Issues
Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Appendix I

Federal Transit Administration’s Major Grant Apendxies

Programs ApendxiI

Federal Transit

Administration’s Major

Program Area

Descriptions

Urbanized Area Formula. The objectives of urbanized area formula grants

are to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, cost-effective

leasing, maintenance, planning, and improvement of facilities and

equipment for use by operation, lease, contract, or other means in mass

transportation services. Additionally, for urbanized areas with populations

of under 200,000 the payment of operating expenses to improve or to

continue such service by operation, lease, contract, or other means are also

eligible.

Bus—Capital Investment. The Bus Category Program refers to that part of

the Capital Investment Program that provides assistance for buying or

leasing, replacing, and rehabilitating buses and related equipment and for

constructing bus-related facilities.

New Starts—Capital Investment. The New Starts Program refers to that

part of the Capital Investment Program that provides assistance for new

fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing systems. The project can

be a light-rail line, subway line, commuter rail line, automated fixedguideway system (such as a “people mover”), busway/high-occupancy

vehicle (HOV) facility, or an extension of any of these. Also, projects can

involve the development of transit corridors and markets to support the

eventual construction of fixed-guideway systems, including the purchase of

land to protect rights-of-way or construction of park-and-ride lots.

Fixed Guideway Modernization—Capital Investment. Under this part of the

Capital Investment Program, financial assistance is available for, but not

limited to, the purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock (including

railcars, locomotives, work trains, and ferryboats), track, line equipment,

and structures; signals and communications; power equipment and

substations; passenger stations and terminals; security equipment and

systems; maintenance facilities and equipment; and operational support

equipment for existing fixed guideway systems, which have been in service

for at least 7 years.

Elderly and Persons With Disabilities. The objective of the Elderly and

Persons With Disabilities Program is to provide financial assistance in

meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with

disabilities where public transportation services are unavailable,

insufficient, or inappropriate. The program is designed to supplement the

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) other capital assistance programs
Appendix I

Federal Transit Administration’s Major

Grant Programs

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

by funding transportation projects for elderly persons and persons with

disabilities in all areas—urbanized, small urban, and rural.

Nonurbanized Area Formula. The objectives of Nonurbanized Area

Formula grants are to improve, initiate, or continue public transportation

service in nonurbanized areas by providing financial assistance for

operating and administrative expenses and for the acquisition,

construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment.

Job Access and Reverse Commute. This program is designed (1) to develop

transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and lowincome individuals to and from jobs and (2) to develop transportation

services for residents of urban centers and rural and suburban areas to

suburban employment opportunities.

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility (Rural Transportation Accessibility

Incentive Program). This program is designed to assist operators of overthe-road buses to finance the incremental costs of complying with the

Department of Transportation’s final rule regarding the accessibility of

over-the-road buses required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Labor ApendxiI

Note: GAO’s comments

supplementing those in

the report’s text appear at

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Labor

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Labor

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-260 Transit Grants

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Labor’s (DOL)

letter dated August 14, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. Our report recognizes that DOL’s 60-day goal begins from the referral of

employee protection terms and conditions. However, as stated in our

report, to determine DOL’s total certification processing time, we counted

from the time that DOL received an application from FTA through the final

certification of labor protection arrangements. This time period includes

the time it takes DOL to refer terms and conditions to applicants and

unions and any time that the application is suspended because it is

incomplete or inactive.

2. Our report recognizes that DOL makes information on its certification

determinations available to the parties and others on request. Furthermore,

our report recognizes that DOL plans to post significant certification

decisions on an Internet Website that is under development.

3. Our report notes that while both DOL and FTA expressed confidence in

the reliability of their data, officials from both agencies said that they

would work together to resolve data discrepancies.

(348242) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00