Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14851 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system or relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as 

detailed below. 

Docket Number FRA–2007–27411 

Applicants: Union Pacific Railroad 

Company, Mr. Thomas T. Ogee, 

Assistant Vice President, Engineering 

Design, 1400 Douglas Street, Mail Stop 

0910, Omaha, Nebraska 68179. 

The Union Pacific Railroad Company 

(UP) seeks approval of the proposed 

discontinuance of a traffic control 

system on the Pocatello Yard Runner 

Track and the removal of Absolute 

Signal H1E, at approximately milepost 

211.8, on UP’s Pocatello Subdivision, in 

East Pocatello, Idaho. The proposed 

changes consist of the discontinuance of 

the signal system and removal of signal 

H1E. 

The reason given for the proposed 

changes is that the signal is no longer 

needed for train operations. 

Any interested party desiring to 

protest the granting of an application 

shall set forth specifically the grounds 

upon which the protest is made, and 

contain a concise statement of the 

interest of the party in the proceeding. 

Additionally, one copy of the protest 

shall be furnished to the applicant at the 

addresses listed above. 

All communications concerning this 

proceeding should be identified by the 

docket number (FRA–2007–27411) and 

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 

DOT Central Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. Communications received 

within 45 days of the date of this notice 

will be considered by the FRA before 

final action is taken. Comments received 

after that date will be considered as far 

as practicable. 

All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

FRA wishes to inform all potential 

commenters that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–

78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FRA expects to be able to determine 

these matters without an oral hearing. 

However, if a specific request for an oral 

hearing is accompanied by a showing 

that the party is unable to adequately 

present his or her position by written 

statements, an application may be set 

for public hearing. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 

2007. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–5745 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No. FTA–2006–24037] 

Elderly Individuals and Individuals 

With Disabilities, Job Access and 

Reverse Commute, and New Freedom 

Programs: Final Circulars 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Circulars. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) has placed in the 

docket and on its website final guidance 

in the form of circulars to assist grantees 

in implementing the Elderly Individuals 

and Individuals with Disabilities 

(Section 5310), Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC), and New Freedom 

Programs. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of these circulars is: May 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith or Bryna 

Helfer, Office of Program Management, 

Federal Transit Administration, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Room 9114, 

Washington, DC, 20590, phone: 202–

366–4020, fax: 202–366–7951, or e-mail, 

Henrika.Buchanan-Smith@dot.gov; 

Bryna.Helfer@dot.gov; or Bonnie Graves, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Room 9316, Washington, DC, 20590, 

phone: 202–366–4011, fax: 202–366–

3809, or e-mail, Bonnie.Graves@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Final Circulars 

You may download the circulars from 

the Department’s Docket Management 

System (http://dms.dot.gov) by entering 

docket number 24037 in the search 

field, and then clicking on ‘‘reverse 

order.’’ The circulars are the most 

recently posted documents. You may 

also download an electronic copy of the 

circulars from FTA’s Web site, at 

www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies of the 

circulars may be obtained by calling 

FTA’s Administrative Services Help 

Desk, at 202–366–4865. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis 

A. Chapter I—Introduction and 

Background 

B. Chapter II—Program Overview 

C. Chapter III—General Program 

Information 

1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities (Section 5310) 

2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 

and New Freedom 

D. Chapter IV—Program Development 

1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities (Section 5310) 

2. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) 

and New Freedom 

E. Chapter V—Coordinated Planning 

F. Chapter VI—Program Management and 

Administrative Requirements 

G. Chapter VII—State and Program 

Management Plans 

H. Chapter VIII—Other Provisions 

I. Appendices 

I. Overview 

This notice provides summaries of the 

Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom 

program circulars, and addresses 

comments received in response to the 

September 6, 2006, Federal Register 

notice (71 FR 52610). These programs 

are affected by the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU, 

Pub. L. 109–59), signed into law on 

August 10, 2005. 

The Section 5310 program provides 

funding, allocated by a formula, to 

States for capital projects to assist in 

meeting the transportation needs of 

older adults and persons with 

disabilities. The States administer this 

program. FTA is updating the existing 

Section 5310 circular, last revised in 

1998, to reflect changes in the law. 

The JARC program was authorized as 

a discretionary program under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21, Pub. L. 105–178, June 

9, 1998), changed to a formula program 

under SAFETEA–LU and codified at 49 

U.S.C. 5316. The JARC program 

provides formula funding to States and 

designated recipients to support the 

development and maintenance of job 

access projects designed to transport 

welfare recipients and eligible lowincome individuals to and from jobs and 

activities related to their employment. 

The JARC program also supports reverse 

commute projects designed to transport 

residents of urbanized areas and other 

than urbanized areas to suburban 

employment opportunities. FTA is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
14852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 

issuing a new circular for the JARC 

program. 

SAFETEA–LU established the New 

Freedom Program under 49 U.S.C. 5317. 

The purpose of the New Freedom 

program is to provide new public 

transportation services and public 

transportation alternatives beyond those 

required by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 

et seq.) that assist individuals with 

disabilities with transportation, 

including transportation to and from 

jobs and employment support services. 

FTA is issuing a new circular for the 

New Freedom program. 

FTA conducted extensive outreach to 

develop these final circulars. First, FTA 

held listening sessions in Washington, 

DC, in September 2005. Then, FTA 

requested comments related to the 

Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom 

programs in a Federal Register notice 

published November 30, 2005, (70 FR 

71950), and held listening sessions in 

five cities around the country. 

Subsequent to that notice, FTA 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 15, 2006 (71 FR 13456), proposed 

strategies for implementing these 

programs and requested comments on 

those strategies. In addition, FTA 

conducted an all-day public meeting on 

March 23, 2006, and held a number of 

meetings and teleconferences with 

stakeholders. To ensure that we heard 

from a broad range of stakeholders and 

interested parties, we extended the 

comment period of the March 15, 2006, 

Federal Register notice through May 22, 

2006. FTA received more than 200 

comments from State departments of 

transportation (DOTs), trade 

associations, public and private 

providers of transportation services, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs), individuals, and advocates. 

Finally, we published the proposed 

circulars on our website 

(www.fta.dot.gov) and a Federal 

Register notice (71 FR 52610) on 

September 6, 2006, seeking public 

comment on the proposed circulars. 

FTA received an additional 70 

comments in response to the September 

6, 2006, notice and proposed circulars. 

This document does not include the 

final circulars; electronic versions of the 

circulars may be found in the docket, at 

http://dms.dot.gov, docket number 

FTA–2006–24037, or on FTA’s Web site, 

at www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies of the 

circulars may be obtained by contacting 

FTA’s Administrative Services Help 

Desk, at 202–366–4865. 

FTA recognizes that implementation 

of the Section 5310, JARC and NF 

programs is still in the early stages. We 

expect to continue to learn from our 

experience in administering the grants 

and from grantees’ experiences in 

implementing the provisions at the State 

and local level. FTA will be monitoring 

the implementation of the programs, 

and we continue to be open to 

comments and suggestions. We value 

input from grantees and others as we 

put these programs into action, and we 

urge interested parties to communicate 

with FTA regional offices regarding 

successes, questions, and concerns that 

may arise. 

Effect of Interim Guidance 

On October 31, 2006, FTA issued a 

Federal Register notice (71 FR 63838) 

stating that the proposed circulars, 

developed after extensive notice and 

comment, should be used as interim 

guidance for grant applications filed in 

FY 2007 to the extent possible. In the 

notice, FTA acknowledged that some 

grantees may have proceeded with the 

interim guidance published on March 

15, 2006, and noted that grantees would 

be ‘‘held harmless’’ for applications 

submitted in FY 2007 ‘‘based on 

coordinated planning or competitive 

selection processes substantially 

complete before the issuance of final 

guidance.’’ The final circulars will take 

effect May 1, 2007; however, this ‘‘hold 

harmless’’ provision will continue to 

apply to FY 2007 grant applications for 

grantees who have substantially 

completed their planning or competitive 

selection processes using earlier 

guidance issued by FTA. 

Three commenters requested that FTA 

allow the same flexibility in FY 2008 for 

developing the coordinated plan that we 

allowed in the interim guidance for FY 

2007; namely, that planning agencies 

simply make ‘‘good faith efforts’’ to 

meet the planning requirements. The 

beginning of FY 2008 is a full two years 

after the passage of SAFETEA–LU, and 

FTA provided a phased-in approach for 

FY 2007. Because the law requires a 

coordinated plan, all grants obligated in 

FY 2008 and beyond must be in full 

compliance with the requirements of 

these circulars. 

II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis 

All three circulars generally follow 

the same format. Where possible, this 

notice discusses the chapters in general 

terms. Where the chapters vary 

significantly, as in Chapters III and IV, 

the discussion is specific to each 

program. This section briefly describes 

the content of each chapter and 

addresses public comments received in 

response to the September 6, 2006, 

notice. In addition to making changes to 

the circulars in response to public 

comments, FTA has edited for clarity 

and consistency among the circulars. 

One commenter suggested that FTA 

develop one coordinated circular for 

Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom, 

especially since much of the material in 

the circulars is the same, and only a 

couple of chapters have programspecific information. FTA determined 

that many recipients would only receive 

funds from one of the three programs, 

and did not want to burden those 

recipients with unnecessary 

information; therefore, we developed 

three distinct circulars, one for each 

program. 

A. Chapter I—Introduction and 

Background 

Chapter I is an introductory chapter in 

all three circulars. This chapter covers 

general information about FTA and how 

to contact us, provides a brief review of 

the authorizing legislation for the 

specific program (i.e., Section 5310, 

JARC, or New Freedom), provides 

information about Grants.gov, includes 

definitions applicable to the specific 

program, and provides a brief program 

history. 

Several commenters had suggestions 

for additional definitions of terms. 

Where we agreed with those 

suggestions, we have incorporated them 

into the circulars. For example, we 

added a definition for ‘‘elderly 

individuals’’ to the Section 5310 and 

New Freedom circulars, and we added 

a definition for ‘‘chief executive officer 

of a State’’ to all three circulars. We did 

not, however, change the definitions of 

‘‘individual with a disability,’’ ‘‘eligible 

low-income individual,’’ or ‘‘welfare 

recipient.’’ FTA acknowledges that there 

are many definitions for these terms. 

Since the circulars were developed 

under the authority of Federal transit 

law, we have decided to use the 

definitions in the transit law—49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53. We also did not include 

definitions for ‘‘unavailable, 

insufficient, or inappropriate’’ public 

transportation services in the Section 

5310 circular, as we believe the 

dictionary definitions of those terms are 

sufficient. We did not add, in the 

definition of coordinated plan, that 

passengers with disabilities be a part of 

the planning process. We have 

described the requirements for outreach 

and stakeholder input in Chapter V. 

Further, we declined to include local 

Workforce Investment Boards in the 

definition of human service 

transportation (as we did not include 

any specific agencies in that definition), 

but we did reference the Board in 

Chapter V in all three circulars. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14853 

One commenter asked FTA to identify 

the source data for ‘‘welfare recipients’’

for apportionment of JARC funds. The 

Census identifies persons whose income 

is at 150 percent of poverty level and 

below—this includes welfare recipients. 

The U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services data on welfare 

recipients are not disaggregated in such 

a way that FTA could use the data for 

apportionment purposes; therefore, we 

use Census data for persons living at 

150 percent of poverty or below. 

B. Chapter II—Program Overview 

Chapter II provides more detail about 

the programs. This chapter starts with 

the statutory authority for the specific 

program, including how authorized 

funds are apportioned. One commenter 

suggested that the amounts authorized 

for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 

should not be part of the circulars, as 

the circulars are expected to be in effect 

past the authorization period of 

SAFETEA–LU. We agree, and have 

removed the authorized amounts, but 

retained the information regarding how 

the funds are apportioned. The chapter 

then discusses the goals of the program. 

We have added the performance 

measures for each program to this 

chapter, and, in response to comments, 

clarified that the indicators specified are 

targeted to capture program information 

on a National level—these measures 

will not be used to assess individual 

grants. 

Next is a brief description of the State 

or recipient’s role and FTA’s role in 

program administration, followed by an 

overview of how the specific program 

relates to other FTA programs, and a 

description of coordination with other 

Federal programs through the Federal 

Interagency Coordinating Council on 

Access and Mobility (CCAM). The 

section on coordination has been 

updated to reflect CCAM’s recent 

adoption of policies on coordinated 

planning and vehicle sharing. In 

addition, in response to a commenter, 

the New Freedom circular contains a 

reference to joint guidance on funding 

resources regarding access to work, 

which was originally only in the 

proposed JARC circular. 

Chapter II is an ‘‘overview’’ chapter 

that contains valuable information but 

not in the detail that later chapters 

cover. Some commenters requested that 

more information be included in this 

chapter; however, we believe it is more 

appropriate to include detail in later 

chapters. We have, however, provided 

more references to later chapters to 

direct readers toward the detailed 

information they are seeking. 

C. Chapter III—General Program 

Information 

Due to the differences in program 

requirements, the discussion of this 

chapter is divided by program. 

1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals 

With Disabilities (Section 5310) 

The final Section 5310 circular hereby 

supersedes the Section 5310 circular 

last revised in 1998 (FTA Circular 

9070.1E), and incorporates changes in 

transit law. Significantly, Section 5310, 

as amended by SAFETEA–LU, permits 

the use of up to 10 percent of funding 

for expenses related to program 

administration, planning, and technical 

assistance (consistent with FTA’s 

longstanding administrative practice). 

The law increases coordination 

requirements and allows the local 

funding share to include amounts 

available for transportation from other 

non-DOT Federal agencies, as well as 

Federal lands highway funding. 

SAFETEA–LU also establishes a pilot 

program that allows seven States to use 

up to 33 percent of their Section 5310 

funds for operating expenses. One 

commenter requested that the pilot 

program be referenced in the circular; 

FTA issued general guidance for the 

pilot program in a Federal Register 

notice (70 FR 69201, Nov. 14, 2005) and 

announced the States selected to 

participate in a later Federal Register 

notice (71 FR 59101, Feb. 3, 2006). 

Since the pilot program has its own 

guidance, FTA did not include any 

specific guidance regarding this 

program in the final circular, however, 

we did make note of the pilot program 

in Chapter III. 

Chapter III addresses State agency 

designation, apportionment of Section 

5310 funds, when the funds are 

available to the States, under what 

circumstances funds may be transferred, 

consolidation of grants to insular areas, 

who is an eligible subrecipient, 

administrative expenses, eligible capital 

expenses, and Federal/local match 

requirements. This information 

compares to information found in 

Chapter II of the 1998 circular. 

FTA made two changes to this chapter 

in response to comments. First, in 

paragraph 7, ‘‘State Administrative 

Expenses,’’ we added a provision 

allowing the administrative funds for 

Section 5310, JARC, and/or New 

Freedom to be combined to support 

activities such as coordinated planning 

that are common to all three programs. 

In the September 6, 2006, notice, we 

stated this was allowable, but we did 

not include this information in the 

proposed circular. Second, in paragraph 

9, ‘‘Federal/Local Matching 

Requirements’’ we removed the 

reference to specific Federal programs 

and instead used generic terms to 

describe the types of programs that are 

a potential source for local match, 

including employment, training, aging, 

medical, community services, and 

rehabilitation services. 

One commenter requested that the 

sliding scale table for Federal match, 

which addresses the ‘‘Sliding Scale Rate 

for Transit Capital Grants’’ include the 

‘‘increased Federal share for operating 

assistance’’ for States participating in 

the Section 5310 pilot program. Section 

3012 of SAFETEA–LU, which 

established the pilot program, caps the 

Federal share for operating expenses for 

this program at 50 percent (see Section 

3012(b)(3)), so the sliding scale rate does 

not apply to the pilot program. As stated 

previously, FTA issued general 

guidance for the pilot program in a 

Federal Register notice (70 FR 69201, 

Nov. 14, 2005) and announced the 

States selected to participate in a later 

Federal Register notice (71 FR 59101, 

Feb. 3, 2006). Individuals interested in 

this program should refer to those 

documents. 

Most comments on this chapter 

related to eligible activities. FTA 

proposed that eligible capital expenses 

would remain substantially the same as 

in the 1998 circular, with the addition 

of mobility management activities as 

eligible expenses. We pointed out in the 

September 6, 2006, Federal Register 

notice and the proposed circular that 

the list of eligible activities is 

illustrative and not exhaustive. Two 

commenters wanted to see mention of 

contracted service, or purchase-ofservice agreements as an eligible capital 

expense. This item is in paragraph 8(m). 

One commenter asserted that any 

Intelligent Transportation Service (ITS) 

project should be eligible under all three 

programs. ITS is mentioned in 

paragraph 8(o), and is further identified 

as a project that is part of mobility 

management under paragraph 8(p)(7). 

One commenter asked FTA to 

reconsider funding the coordinated plan 

under mobility management. As we 

explained in the September 6, 2006, 

notice, mobility management is an 

eligible expense and includes project 

planning activities. However, any 

planning project must be derived from 

a coordinated plan. Therefore, mobility 

management funds may not be used to 

develop the coordinated plan. Mobility 

management activities are a capital 

expense funded at an 80/20 Federal/ 

local funding share pursuant to 49 U.S.C 

5310(c). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
14854 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 

One commenter explored the 

differences among the Section 5310, 

JARC, and New Freedom programs, and 

seemed to disagree with the fact that 

States are not required to competitively 

select Section 5310 programs. The 

commenter also seemed to imply that 

having Section 5310 projects included 

in the Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) and the 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) was a new requirement. Under 

Section 5310, States allocate funds to 

private non-profit organizations or 

governmental authorities. Most States 

choose to use a competitive process, and 

FTA encourages the practice, but the 

law does not require competitive 

selection for 5310 as it does for JARC 

and New Freedom. All grant funds are 

subject to planning requirements; 

Section 5310 projects have always had 

to be part of the STIP and TIP. 

One commenter wanted to know if 

States could ‘‘pool’’ their JARC, New 

Freedom, and Section 5310 funds into a 

combined set of funds, provided that 

they could show that the priorities of all 

programs are being met. The transfer 

provisions in SAFETEA–LU do not 

permit such a pooling of funds; funds 

may not be ‘‘flexed’’ from one program 

to another. One commenter asserted that 

the authority granted in SAFETEA–LU 

to designated urbanized area recipients 

to develop their own competitive 

selection criteria for apportioned 

Section 5316 (JARC) and 5317 (New 

Freedom) funds could be extended to 

the Section 5310 program if States were 

permitted to sub-apportion some of their 

5310 funds to the designated recipient. 

FTA notes again that while most States 

conduct a competitive selection process 

for Section 5310, there is no statutory 

competitive selection requirement for 

Section 5310. Second, States may 

allocate funds to government authorities 

(e.g., designated recipients) only when 

the government authority is approved 

by the State to coordinate services for 

elderly individuals and individuals 

with disabilities, or if the authority 

certifies that there are no non-profit 

organizations readily available to 

provide the special services, which is 

unlikely in a large urbanized area. 

2. Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(JARC) and New Freedom 

The JARC and New Freedom 

programs have similar statutory 

requirements, so Chapter III, with the 

exception of Eligible Activities, is the 

same or similar for each circular. This 

chapter covers recipient designation, 

including designation in urbanized 

areas where there are multiple 

recipients; the role of the designated 

recipient; eligible direct recipients and 

subrecipients; apportionment, 

availability and transfer of funds; 

consolidation of grants to insular areas; 

recipient administrative expenses; 

eligible activities; and Federal/local 

matching requirements. 

a. Recipient Designation 

FTA proposed, and adopts in the final 

circulars, that the designated recipient 

for JARC and/or New Freedom in 

urbanized areas over 200,000 in 

population may be the same as the 

designated recipient for Section 5307 

(Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

Program) funds; however, it does not 

have to be the same designated 

recipient. The MPO, State, or another 

public agency may be a preferred choice 

based on local circumstances. The 

designation of a recipient shall be made 

by the governor in consultation with 

responsible local officials and publicly 

owned operators of public 

transportation, as required in 49 U.S.C. 

5307(a)(2). Since the State is a public 

entity, a single State agency could be 

designated as the recipient of JARC and/ 

or New Freedom funds apportioned to 

large urbanized areas. The recipient for 

JARC and New Freedom funds will 

apply to FTA for these funds on behalf 

of subrecipients within the recipient’s 

area. Regardless of whether the JARC 

and New Freedom recipient is the same 

as or different from the Section 5307 

designated recipient, the governor shall 

issue new designation of JARC and New 

Freedom recipient letters. Designations 

remain in effect until changed by the 

governor by official notice of 

redesignation to the appropriate FTA 

Regional Administrator. 

In urbanized areas with populations 

less than 200,000 and in other than 

urbanized areas, the State is the 

designated recipient for JARC and New 

Freedom funds. The governor designates 

a State agency responsible for 

administering the funds and notifies the 

appropriate FTA regional office in 

writing of that designation. The 

governor may designate the State agency 

receiving Other Than Urbanized Area 

formula funds (Section 5311) and/or 

Section 5310 funds to be the JARC and/ 

or New Freedom recipient, or the 

governor may designate a different 

agency. 

FTA encourages the designation of a 

single designated recipient for each 

urbanized area over 200,000 in 

population, in order to streamline the 

administration of the program and foster 

coordination although some 

commenters asserted that a single 

designated recipient should be a 

requirement. However, FTA respects the 

complexity of geographical and 

institutional histories of different areas, 

so this remains a local decision. Further, 

nothing precludes the designation of 

multiple designated recipients. When 

more than one recipient is designated 

for a single large urbanized area, the 

designated recipients must agree on 

how to divide the single apportionment 

to the urbanized area and notify FTA 

annually of the division and the 

geographic area each recipient will be 

responsible for managing. For multiState urbanized areas of less than 

200,000 in population, the designated 

recipient for each State is responsible 

for that State’s portion. 

In response to comments, FTA made 

two changes in order to clarify the 

responsibilities of designated recipients 

and direct recipients. First, we note that 

in some large urbanized areas, the 

competitive selection process may result 

in projects being awarded to a transit 

agency that is not the designated 

recipient for the JARC or New Freedom 

programs but is a Section 5307 

designated recipient. If this happens 

and the 5307 designated recipient wants 

to apply directly to FTA for a JARC or 

New Freedom grant, the JARC or New 

Freedom designated recipient must 

enter into a supplemental agreement 

with the Section 5307 recipient. The 

supplemental agreement will release the 

designated recipient from any liability 

under the grant agreement. 

Second, we note that if a State 

transfers JARC or New Freedom funds to 

a Section 5307 recipient in a small 

urbanized area (population between 

50,000 and 200,000) for administration 

of a competitively selected project, the 

transfer of funds also transfers the 

oversight responsibilities from the State 

to the grant recipient. In this situation, 

the State will only be responsible for the 

program requirements (e.g., coordinated 

planning, competitive selection) and 

data collection for annual reporting 

purposes. When the funds are 

transferred to the 5307 direct recipient, 

the 5307 direct recipient could apply to 

FTA directly for the funds; however, the 

application must be submitted as a 

separate grant. For oversight purposes, 

FTA will include the JARC/New 

Freedom projects in the triennial review 

of the 5307 direct recipient. 

One commenter encouraged FTA to 

accept Section 5307 designation for the 

JARC and New Freedom programs. 

These are new programs, and the 

recipients must go through the process 

of being designated by the Governor. If 

a State has a ‘‘blanket certification’’ that 

the State is the designated recipient for 

all FTA programs, the State simply 

needs an amendment to the certification 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14855 

or an affirmation that the State or other 

designated recipient will be the 

designated recipient for all FTA 

programs, including JARC and New 

Freedom. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

about the ‘‘administrative burden’’

associated with a designated recipient’s 

oversight responsibilities of 

subrecipients, some of which may be 

private operators. One commenter 

suggested that the burden of certifying 

compliance with Federal requirements 

could discourage selection of nongovernmental entities for funding, and 

another suggested that private operators 

selected for funding should report 

directly to FTA, and not to the 

designated recipient. In response, FTA 

notes that the competitive selection 

process must be open and fair—criteria 

set by the designated recipient cannot 

discourage private participation. In 

addition, oversight of subrecipients is 

the responsibility of the designated 

recipient. 

b. Apportionment, Availability and 

Transfer of Funds 

FTA did not make any substantive 

changes to these sections of the 

circulars. One commenter wanted to 

confirm that recipients must obligate 

apportioned funds within the year of 

apportionment plus two years, and once 

obligated, they may be spent sometime 

after that period of availability. That is 

correct; only if funds remain 

unobligated after the period of 

availability will they lapse and be reapportioned by FTA. This includes 

funds that have been administratively 

transferred to a Section 5307 recipient—

the funds must be obligated within the 

period of availability or they will be reapportioned by FTA. One commenter 

suggested that if JARC funds remain 

unobligated due to an absence of 

applications or insufficient local 

matching funds, States should have the 

flexibility to transfer those unobligated 

JARC funds to rural or large urbanized 

areas, if unmet needs exist in those 

areas. Another commenter wanted to 

know if there are any mechanisms to 

transfer JARC or New Freedom funds 

between urbanized and nonurbanized 

areas, or between urbanized areas. As 

stated in 49 U.S.C. 5316(c)(3), a State 

may use JARC funds apportioned for 

small urbanized and rural areas for 

projects serving either of these areas of 

the State, if the State’s chief executive 

officer certifies that all of the objectives 

of JARC are being met in the specified 

areas. Funds may also be transferred for 

use anywhere in the State including 

large urbanized areas, if the State has 

established a statewide program for 

meeting JARC program goals. There is 

no authority to transfer funds 

apportioned to large urbanized areas to 

small urbanized or rural areas. 

New Freedom funds cannot be 

transferred from one population area 

(such as rural) to another population 

area (such as small urbanized) within a 

State. While such a transfer provision is 

statutorily permitted under the JARC 

program, this provision is not included 

in the New Freedom program. 

Therefore, FTA cannot allow this 

transfer of funds. States may, however, 

transfer JARC and New Freedom funds 

to Section 5307 or Section 5311(c) to 

ease program administration, as long as 

the transferred funds are used for 

competitively selected JARC or New 

Freedom projects, respectively. Transfer 

requests must be submitted to the 

appropriate FTA Regional 

Administrator in writing. One 

commenter suggested that FTA permit 

transfers of funds between the JARC and 

New Freedom programs. The law does 

not permit such a transfer; funds must 

be used for the program for which they 

were apportioned except in insular 

areas. 

c. Recipient Expenses (10 Percent) for 

Administration, Planning, and 

Technical Assistance 

Up to 10 percent of program funds are 

available for the administration, 

planning, and technical assistance of 

Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom 

programs. These funds may be used 

directly by the designated recipient or 

they may be passed through to 

subrecipients for these purposes. For 

example, the designated recipient may 

award grants to local areas to support 

the development of the coordinated 

plan. The competitive selection process 

is part of ‘‘administering’’ the programs 

and, therefore, these funds may be used 

to conduct the competitive selection 

process. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that 10 percent of the amount 

apportioned may not be sufficient to 

administer the program. FTA notes that 

there is no local match requirement for 

this funding, and we revised the final 

circulars to state that the administrative 

funding available under Section 5310, 

JARC, and New Freedom may be 

combined in order to develop a single 

coordinated plan to meet the needs of 

persons with disabilities, older adults, 

and low-income individuals. Further, as 

we stated in the September 6, 2006, 

notice, FTA treats the limitation on 

administrative funds as applicable to 

funds apportioned to recipients over 

time, not necessarily to the 

apportionment for a particular fiscal 

year. A recipient may accumulate the 

‘‘entitlement’’ to administrative funds 

for the year of apportionment plus two 

years to augment the funds available for 

a special administrative need in a 

subsequent year. 

One commenter asked FTA to 

reconsider funding the coordinated plan 

under mobility management. As we 

explained in the September 6, 2006, 

notice, (and noted in the Section 5310 

discussion of eligible activities, above) 

mobility management is an eligible 

expense and includes project planning 

activities. However, any planning 

project must be derived from a 

coordinated plan. Therefore, mobility 

management funds may not be used to 

develop the coordinated plan. Mobility 

management activities are funded at an 

80/20 Federal/local ratio pursuant to the 

applicable program share requirements 

under Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. 

d. JARC Eligible Activities 

Section 5316, as amended by 

SAFETEA–LU, requires that JARC 

projects selected for funding be derived 

from a coordinated plan (see Chapter V) 

and that grants will be awarded on a 

competitive basis (see Chapter IV). 

Funds are available for capital, 

planning, and operating expenses that 

support the development and 

maintenance of transportation services 

designed to transport low-income 

individuals to and from jobs and 

activities related to their employment, 

and for reverse commute projects. The 

list of eligible projects included in the 

final circular is consistent with the use 

of funds described in FTA’s April 8, 

2002, Federal Register notice for JARC 

Program Grants (67 FR 16790). As 

requested by commenters, this list of 

eligible activities is illustrative, not 

exhaustive. In the final circular, we 

added reverse commute activities to the 

list of eligible activities. That is the only 

change we made to JARC eligible 

activities from the proposed circular to 

the final circular. 

Commenters generally disagreed with 

FTA’s proposal that transit passes 

should not be an eligible expense under 

the JARC program. In addition to 

comments to the docket, on February 4, 

2007, FTA received a letter from a trade 

association expressing their support for 

funding transit passes through the JARC 

program. FTA posted this letter to the 

docket. FTA strongly supports the 

implementation of transit pass programs 

and believes that such activities offer 

low-income persons affordable 

transportation opportunities, 

particularly during periods when 

transitioning from public assistance to 

employment. JARC legislation does 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
14856 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 

explicitly provide for the promotion of 

such transit pass programs for lowincome persons as an eligible JARC 

expense, but the statute does not 

expressly provide language for the 

actual funding of transit passes. The 

JARC program instead concentrates on 

building additional transportation 

capacity to connect low-income persons 

to jobs and support services and to 

provide connections to suburban 

employment sites. 

FTA notes that many other Federal 

human service partner programs are 

available to support customer fares on 

existing transit services. Examples 

include the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program, 

Workforce Investment Act funds, and 

other Federal, state, and local human 

services programs that assist 

individuals. These opportunities may be 

pursued within the new locally 

developed coordinated public transithuman services planning process where 

many of these agencies and 

organizations will be participating 

stakeholders. Further, the Internal 

Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. 132(f) allows 

employers to pay for transit passes and 

the employee does not pay taxes on this 

transportation fringe benefit. Promotion 

of transit pass programs remains an 

eligible expense. 

Several commenters expressed an 

interest in FTA approving all car 

ownership program models as eligible 

JARC projects, including car ownership 

programs that are not loan programs, 

such as rehabilitation or donation 

programs. The commenters requested 

that FTA remove the shared ride 

participation requirement, and remove 

the requirement that the agency 

administering the program hold the lien 

on the title of the vehicle, since the 

lending institution usually holds title. 

FTA appreciates the interest of 

commenters in car ownership programs. 

In keeping with the original April 8, 

2002, Federal Register notice, FTA has 

decided to continue funding auto loan 

programs but not rehabilitation or 

donation programs. In addition, FTA 

will continue the shared-ride 

requirement, which maximizes the 

benefits of the Federal investment to 

low-income populations. As for the lien 

on the title of the vehicle, the agency 

administering the loan program can 

often be a lien holder, in addition to the 

lending institution. FTA believes this is 

the best way to ensure satisfactory 

continuing control, which is a 

requirement under Section 5307. 

One commenter asserted they should 

be able to prioritize existing JARC 

projects for funding. FTA believes this 

is a local decision made through the 

planning process. Some existing JARC 

projects will be selected for funding 

while others may not, especially if new 

projects are considered more costeffective and/or better serve a need of a 

community. 

e. New Freedom Eligible Activities 

Section 5317, as amended by 

SAFETEA–LU, requires that New 

Freedom projects selected for funding 

be derived from a coordinated plan (see 

Chapter V) and that grants will be 

awarded on a competitive basis (see 

Chapter IV). Funds are available for 

capital, planning, and operating 

expenses that support new public 

transportation services and new public 

transportation alternatives beyond those 

required by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), that assist 

individuals with disabilities with 

transportation, including transportation 

to and from jobs and employment 

support services. As requested by 

commenters, the list of eligible activities 

is illustrative, not exhaustive. 

FTA proposed, in our September 6, 

2006, Federal Register notice, that 

‘‘new’’ service is any service or activity 

that was not operational before August 

10, 2005, (the date of passage of 

SAFETEA–LU) and did not have an 

identified funding source as of August 

10, 2005, as evidenced by inclusion in 

the Transportation Improvement Plan 

(TIP) or the State Transportation 

Improvement Plan (STIP). In other 

words, if not for the New Freedom 

program, these projects would not be 

considered for funding and proposed 

service enhancements would not be 

available for individuals with 

disabilities. Some commenters were 

concerned that this definition of ‘‘new’’

would eliminate projects that were in 

place before August 10, 2005, but 

terminated due to a lack of funding 

prior to August 10, 2005. To address 

this concern, we have changed the 

wording to reflect that projects not 

operational on August 10, 2005, and 

without a dedicated funding source as 

evidenced by inclusion in the TIP or 

STIP at that time are considered ‘‘new.’’

This will allow projects discontinued 

prior to August 10, 2005, to be 

reinstated if the coordinated planning 

process determines the service is 

needed. Inclusion of projects in the 

metropolitan or statewide long-range 

transportation plans does not constitute 

a funding commitment. However, once 

a project is included in the TIP/STIP, it 

has an identified funding source. 

Therefore, projects identified in a longrange metropolitan or statewide plan 

may be eligible for New Freedom 

funding, but not projects in the fouryear program period of the TIP/STIP. 

One commenter asked how long 

projects could be considered new; in 

other words, if a multi-year project is 

successful, does it lose its ‘‘new’’ status 

at some point? In response, eligible 

projects funded by New Freedom may 

continue to be eligible for New Freedom 

funding indefinitely as long as they 

remain part of the coordinated plan. 

Many commenters objected to FTA’s 

interpretation that New Freedom 

projects are those that are both ‘‘new’’

and ‘‘beyond the ADA,’’ while others 

were in favor of the policy position set 

forth in the proposed circular. In 

addition, FTA received feedback from 

both Administration and Congressional 

offices in support of the proposed policy 

that New Freedom projects be ‘‘new 

public transportation services beyond 

those required by the ADA’’ and ‘‘new 

public transportation alternatives 

beyond those required by the ADA.’’

Therefore, we have not changed the 

description of eligible activities in the 

final circular. The only change we made 

in eligible activities was to clarify that 

Intelligent Transportation Services is an 

eligible project, and the incremental 

cost (if any) of changing the basic mode 

of service of an ADA paratransit system 

from curb-to-curb to door-to-door is an 

eligible project. 

One commenter asserted that, in rural 

areas, it was difficult to conceptualize 

any new public transportation that is 

‘‘beyond the ADA.’’ The commenter 

sought more examples of eligible rural 

New Freedom public transportation 

projects where the service in those areas 

is demand-responsive. One commenter 

wanted to know if demand-responsive 

or flex route services would be eligible 

for New Freedom funding, or if only 

fixed route and ADA paratransit were 

eligible. FTA acknowledges there are 

limits to the use of New Freedom funds 

in rural systems that operate only 

demand-response service; however, the 

substantial increase in funding to the 

Section 5311 program under SAFETEA–

LU should be sufficient to cover many 

of the needs of these communities. 

Certainly vehicle modifications that are 

beyond the ADA, such as equipment to 

accommodate over-sized wheelchairs, or 

increased securement locations on 

vehicles, would be an eligible New 

Freedom expense on demand-response 

vehicles as well as other public 

transportation vehicles. Travel training 

and mobility management activities may 

be valuable public transportation 

activities in rural areas, as would the 

addition of new feeder service to 

outlying transit stations for which ADA 

complementary paratransit is not 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14857 

required, such as commuter rail 

stations, express or commuter bus 

service, or an intercity bus stop or rail 

station. In addition, alternatives to 

public transportation such as accessible 

taxis and volunteer driver programs can 

be invaluable to rural residents. FTA 

encourages rural operators (as well as 

urbanized area operators) to use the 

planning process to create innovative 

solutions to meet the needs of 

individuals with disabilities in their 

communities. 

One commenter asserted that the 

current U.S. DOT ADA proposed 

rulemaking (71 FR 9761, Feb. 27, 2006) 

introducing ‘‘reasonable modification’’

of policies and practices will essentially 

nullify the New Freedom program as it 

will be difficult for any service to be 

beyond the ADA. FTA disagrees with 

this assertion. As we understand the 

proposed rulemaking, it would call on 

transportation providers to make 

exceptions to otherwise appropriate 

general policies and practices on a caseby-case basis where needed to make 

service available to a particular 

individual. The purpose of New 

Freedom, on the other hand, is to 

enhance the availability of 

transportation services to persons with 

disabilities in a community. 

One commenter asserted that the ADA 

regulations allow same-day service for 

ADA paratransit but do not require it, 

and similarly, allow door-to-door 

service but do not require it. The 

commenter asked why the 

implementation of same day service 

would be considered an eligible New 

Freedom project but door-to-door 

service would not. As we stated in the 

September 6, 2006, notice, the ADA 

regulation requires ‘‘origin-todestination’’ service, and U.S. DOT 

guidance issued on September 1, 2005, 

reiterates the ‘‘origin-to-destination’’

language and notes that, ‘‘service may 

need to be provided to some 

individuals, or at some locations, in a 

way that goes beyond curb-to-curb 

service.’’ The difference is that the 

provision of door-to-door service as a 

reasonable modification to make service 

possible to a particular individual in a 

system that otherwise provides curb-tocurb service may allow someone to use 

the service who otherwise could not 

access ADA paratransit at all. Same day 

service is an enhancement that makes 

the system more convenient and easier 

to use for all passengers. 

FTA is persuaded, however, that the 

incremental cost increase (if any) of 

changing the basic mode of an 

operator’s entire ADA paratransit 

service from curb-to-curb to door-todoor could be considered eligible for 

New Freedom funding in the same 

manner as same-day service, inasmuch 

as the Department’s ADA regulations 

and related guidance do not specify a 

basic mode of service beyond origin-todestination. Therefore, if a change in 

mode of service from curb-to-curb to 

door-to-door is new, and is part of the 

coordinated plan, the incremental cost 

increase (if any)—and only the 

incremental cost increase—is an eligible 

expense. FTA has modified the eligible 

project list accordingly. The availability 

of New Freedom funds for this purpose 

does not imply that any transit system 

must change its service to door-to-door; 

it is simply one option among many 

possible projects that may be funded 

with New Freedom funds if it is part of 

the coordinated plan. A system that 

maintains a general curb-to-curb policy 

may not use New Freedom funds to 

provide a ‘‘reasonable modification’’ to 

the general policy of curb-to-curb to 

provide door-to-door service to 

individuals on a case-by-case basis. 

Two commenters suggested that 

‘‘travel training’’ should be included as 

an eligible project under mobility 

management, and therefore eligible for 

funding as a capital project. Travel 

training is listed as an eligible project, 

both independently and as part of 

mobility management. Travel training is 

eligible for up to an 80 percent Federal 

match. 

f. Federal/Local Match Requirements 

A grant for a capital project under the 

JARC and New Freedom programs may 

not exceed 80 percent of the net cost of 

the project. A grant for operating costs 

under these programs may not exceed 

50 percent of the net operating costs of 

the project. One commenter expressed 

concern that a 50 percent match for 

operating expenses for New Freedom 

may prove to be too high for smaller 

organizations; however, these limits are 

set by law. (See 49 U.S.C. 5316(h) and 

5317(g)). Finally, a grant for 

administrative expenses incurred by 

these programs (up to 10 percent of the 

annual apportionment), may be fully 

funded by FTA. The circular lists the 

potential sources of local funding 

match, including the types of other 

Federal programs that provide funding 

for transportation. 

One commenter noted that the 

Section 5310 and Section 5311 circulars 

allow local match to come from DOT’s 

Federal lands highways program, and 

suggested that Federal lands highways 

funds be available as local match for 

JARC and New Freedom, as well. The 

law specifically permits Federal lands 

highways funds to be used as local 

match for Sections 5310 and 5311; 

however, this same provision is not in 

the JARC or New Freedom authority. 

Therefore, Federal lands highways 

funds may not be used as local match 

for the JARC and New Freedom 

programs. 

One commenter asserted that if there 

are other Federal funding sources that 

can be used as local match for the JARC 

program, the circular should list the 

criteria which would qualify agencies to 

receive funding from these sources. 

Federal programs supporting human 

service transportation are listed on the 

United We Ride Web site: 

www.unitedweride.gov. We have 

included this link in the final circulars 

in the discussion of local match. 

D. Chapter IV—Program Development 

Due to the differences in program 

requirements, the discussion of this 

chapter is divided by program. 

1. Elderly Individuals and Individuals 

With Disabilities (Section 5310) 

Chapter IV provides an overview of 

planning requirements (described in 

further detail in Chapter V); describes 

the program of projects (POP), including 

the approval of and revisions to the 

POP; and describes pre-award authority, 

labor protections, and when public 

hearings are required. This information 

compares to information found in 

Chapter III of the 1998 Section 5310 

circular (FTA C 9070.1E). 

FTA proposed and adopted four 

changes to this chapter. First, the 

planning requirements now reference 

the coordinated plan required under 

SAFETEA–LU. Second, the 1998 

circular states that grants are awarded 

on a quarterly release cycle; the new 

circular reflects FTA’s current 

commitment to promptly process grants 

upon receipt of a complete and 

acceptable grant application. Third, 

under ‘‘Revisions to Program of 

Projects,’’ FTA included a new 

paragraph for when grant revisions need 

to be made in FTA’s Transportation 

Electronic Award and Management 

(TEAM) system. And fourth, the ‘‘Public 

Hearing’’ section clarifies and provides 

the statutory authority regarding public 

hearing requirements. 

Two commenters suggested that 

contact information for subrecipients 

should be added to the list of 

information that FTA receives regarding 

the POP, including the specific 

geographical area served. As a result of 

the Federal Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–

282, Sept. 26, 2006), all Federal agencies 

are required to publish to a public Web 

site information regarding recipients of 

Federal grants, contracts, and other 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
14858 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 

forms of financial assistance equal to or 

greater than $25,000. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

U.S. DOT will be developing criteria to 

allow FTA to report on grants awarded 

to subrecipients. To prepare for this new 

government-wide requirement, FTA is 

adding the location of the subrecipient 

(city, State and Congressional district) 

and primary location of project 

performance under the award to the 

subrecipient information for all three 

programs. Specific contact information 

(i.e., addresses, phone numbers, e-mail 

addresses) will not be included, but the 

name and location of the subrecipient 

will be, thus allowing interested parties 

to find contact information for 

subrecipients. 

2. Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(JARC) and New Freedom 

The JARC and New Freedom 

programs have the same statutory 

requirements for the areas covered by 

this chapter, so Chapter IV is the same 

for both circulars. This chapter provides 

a summary of the planning and 

coordination requirements (described in 

further detail in Chapter V); describes 

the competitive selection process and 

what constitutes a fair and equitable 

distribution of funds; describes the 

program of projects (POP), including 

approval of and revisions to the POP; 

and addresses certifications and 

assurances and pre-award authority. 

Chapter IV includes guidance on how 

a designated recipient should conduct 

the competitive selection process. Some 

commenters continue to have concerns 

about a perceived ‘‘conflict of interest’’

if the designated recipient for JARC or 

New Freedom is also bidding on a 

project. The designated recipient is, by 

law, responsible for the competitive 

selection process. The designated 

recipient may take steps it deems 

appropriate to mitigate any conflict of 

interest, such as contracting out the 

competitive selection process. FTA 

declines to require designated recipients 

to establish conflict of interest 

provisions. 

One commenter disagreed with the 

concept of competitive selection, stating 

that the development of a coordinated 

plan, coupled with current local, 

regional, and State coordination of 

projects provides an adequate means of 

coordinating projects and programs. The 

law requires that designated recipients 

and States conduct a ‘‘solicitation for 

applications for grants to the recipient 

and subrecipients under [the JARC and 

New Freedom programs].’’ (See 49 

U.S.C. 5316(d) and 5317(d). One 

commenter wondered for what purpose 

is the competitive selection; the purpose 

is to select recipients and subrecipients 

that will carry out JARC and New 

Freedom projects. 

Another commenter thought that once 

the planning process is complete and 

projects have been selected for funding, 

it would be reasonable to have existing 

FTA grantees subcontract with other 

providers, thus keeping the grant 

administrative process to a minimum. 

This commenter asserted that allowing 

anyone and everyone to compete for 

eligible projects will be cumbersome in 

oversight, coordination, and contradict 

the original purpose of streamlining 

processes. In our proposed circulars, 

FTA proposed significant flexibility 

within the process to address concerns 

such as these, and we have retained that 

flexibility in the final circulars. It is 

important to understand that projects to 

be funded are not selected through the 

planning process. Projects are 

prioritized, but selection occurs 

competitively. Anyone can compete for 

projects, including private non-profit 

and private for-profit companies. 

Entities selected to carry out the projects 

will be subrecipients, not 

subcontractors. 

One commenter suggested that, for 

New Freedom funds, FTA should 

include in the selection process a 

requirement that a review of other 

funding sources occurs in order to 

ensure that limited New Freedom funds 

are not spent where other funds could 

be used. FTA declines to explicitly 

make this a requirement, but we note 

that a coordinated plan includes an 

assessment of existing resources and 

services—we expect this to be part of 

the plan. FTA strongly encourages 

communities to include potential 

strategies that could be funded from 

multiple sources, including other 

Federal programs. 

Several commenters objected to the 

proposed two-year competitive selection 

cycle, and some suggested that the 

competition should occur at a 

‘‘reasonable interval’’ based on local 

circumstances. In response, FTA has 

changed this so the competition may be 

held annually or at intervals up to three 

years as determined by the designated 

recipient based on local needs. Three 

years allows a sufficient period to 

determine if a multi-year project is 

successful and should be continued. If 

the competitive selection process is less 

frequent than every three years, it is 

possible that new needs will not be 

addressed, and interested participants 

may be shut out of the process. FTA 

encourages ongoing efforts of looking at 

how the needs are being met, and if the 

project selected is meeting the needs 

identified in the plan. 

Several commenters wanted to see 

further clarification on what constitutes 

a ‘‘fair and equitable’’ distribution of 

funds. One commenter asked FTA to 

clearly state that fair and equitable does 

not mean funds are distributed on a pro 

rata basis, while another wanted to 

ensure ‘‘equal’’ allocation of resources 

among projects and communities. 

Several commenters asked about 

geographic distribution, in terms of 

evaluating ‘‘areas’’ rather than 

‘‘projects’’ (example two in the selection 

process examples), and in terms of Title 

VI and Environmental Justice. As we 

stated in the September 6, 2006, notice, 

(and we have added this language to the 

final circular) equitable distribution 

refers to equal access to—and equal 

treatment by—a fair and open 

competitive process. The result of such 

a process may not be an ‘‘equal’’

allocation of resources among projects 

or communities. FTA added 

‘‘geographic distribution’’ to the list of 

selection criteria that may be considered 

by designated recipients and States, but 

it is possible that some areas may not 

receive any funding at the conclusion of 

the competitive selection process. A 

successful competitive selection process 

will, however, minimize perceptions of 

unfairness in the allocation of program 

resources. 

Some commenters had questions 

about the examples we provided in the 

proposed circulars. We have attempted 

to clarify the language in response to 

comments. Two commenters noticed 

that there was no language in the 

proposed circulars requiring designated 

recipients to choose projects/needs in 

order of the priority established in the 

coordinated plan. While the designated 

recipient certainly should consider the 

priorities identified in the plan, there 

may be times when the resources 

available are not sufficient to fund the 

first or second priorities listed. In cases 

such as these, it would be appropriate 

for the designated recipient to look at 

the resources available and fund what is 

possible, which may mean going further 

down the list of prioritized projects or 

strategies than the first one or two items. 

Therefore, we decline to require 

designated recipients to choose projects/ 

needs in order of priority identified in 

the coordinated plan. 

The rest of this chapter addresses the 

Program of Projects (POP). In response 

to commenters, we added some 

clarifying language and language 

addressing the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2006 (discussed above). Two 

commenters were concerned that 

categorizing projects as ‘‘A’’ or ‘‘B’’

could delay or deny funding. A POP is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14859 

necessary at the time of the grant 

application, but not at the time of 

developing the planning documents, 

unless a local area’s process requires 

projects to be listed in the STIP at the 

project level rather than at the program 

level. Since projects can be described at 

either the project level or the program 

level, if the projects are listed in the 

STIP at the program level, then neither 

the STIP nor the TIP would need to be 

amended when projects are moved from 

category ‘‘B’’ to category ‘‘A.’’ ‘‘A’’ and 

‘‘B’’ categories differentiate between 

levels of readiness. This allows the 

designated recipient flexibility and 

reduces delays in FTA’s grant process. 

Additional comments received about 

inclusion of projects in the STIP/TIP 

will be addressed in Chapter V. 

E. Chapter V—Coordinated Planning 

The Section 5310, JARC, and New 

Freedom programs all require the 

development of a locally developed, 

coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan 

(‘‘coordinated plan’’). Each of the 

circulars for these three programs has 

the same requirements for coordinated 

planning; therefore, Chapter V is 

identical in all three circulars. This 

chapter includes the definition of a 

coordinated plan, how a coordinated 

plan is developed, the level of public 

participation that is expected and 

strategies for inclusion, and the 

relationship of the coordinated plan to 

other planning processes. 

FTA made changes to this chapter as 

a result of comments received. The 

required elements of a coordinated plan 

have been modified for clarification 

purposes. For example, in paragraph 

2(b)(3), we have expanded the element 

as follows: ‘‘[s]trategies, activities and/ 

or projects to address the identified gaps 

between current services and needs, as 

well as opportunities to improve 

efficiencies in service delivery.’’ We 

made additional clarifying changes to 

paragraph 4, ‘‘Relationship to Other 

Transportation Planning Processes.’’

With regard to the relationship of the 

coordinated plan with other planning 

processes, we have added a new 

Appendix E to the Section 5310 

circular, and Appendix G to the JARC 

and New Freedom circulars, and 

included a schematic drawing to clarify 

the timing and other elements related to 

the coordinated planning process, 

competitive selection, POP, and 

inclusion of projects in the STIP/TIP. 

One commenter recommended 

allowing a ‘‘community’’ to be defined 

as a separate area within a larger 

urbanized area where different 

transportation solutions are necessary, 

and allow the designated recipient to be 

made up of local municipalities. 

Another commenter asked if a ‘‘county’’

could be a local area for planning 

purposes. As we stated in the September 

6, 2006, notice, the decision as to the 

boundaries of the local planning areas 

should be made in consultation with the 

State, designated recipients, and/or the 

MPO. In addition, ‘‘designated 

recipient’’ is defined in the law as an 

entity designated, in accordance with 

planning processes, by the chief 

executive officer of a State, responsible 

local officials, publicly owned operators 

of public transportation, or a State. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that 10 percent of the amount 

apportioned may be insufficient to 

administer the program. Some requested 

that FTA allow program funds to be 

used for the initial coordinated plan. As 

we stated above, the law allows up to 10 

percent of funds to be used for 

administering the program, and 

development of the coordinated plan is 

part of that program administration—

program funds may not be used to fund 

the coordinated plan. FTA notes that 

there is no local match requirement for 

this funding, and we revised the 

circulars to state that the administrative 

funding available under Section 5310, 

JARC, and New Freedom may be 

combined in order to develop a single 

coordinated plan to meet the needs of 

persons with disabilities, older adults, 

and low-income individuals. Several of 

the strategies outlined in Chapter V offer 

approaches that may be done with a 

range of resources based on local 

interest and need. Further, 

administrative funds for the 

coordination strategies discussed in 

Chapter V may be supplemented with 

Sections 5303 and 5304 Metropolitan 

Planning and Statewide Planning funds, 

Section 5307 formula funds, and 

administrative funding available under 

Section 5311. 

One commenter suggested that FTA 

should maintain a central list that 

includes the designated planning entity 

in each community, contact 

information, and sample coordinated 

plans. A second commenter suggested 

that FTA regional offices collect 

coordinated plans and have a procedure 

for obtaining a copy. A third suggested 

that FTA facilitate information sharing 

across regions on plan development and 

implementation. A fourth commenter 

suggested that technical assistance from 

FTA could assist regions in managing 

expectations of what the coordinated 

plans can be expected to achieve. In 

response, FTA is funding several 

technical assistance centers to assist 

States and local communities during the 

development and implementation of 

coordinated public transit-human 

service transportation plans. The 

Federal Interagency Coordinating 

Council on Access and Mobility 

(CCAM) has posted State Coordination 

Plans on the United We Ride Web site 

(www.unitedweride.gov) which will also 

be linked to FTA’s public Web site. 

Some commenters asserted that other 

key Federal agencies need to be 

mandated to participate in the process, 

and that true coordination, without the 

involvement of those agencies, has little 

hope of substantive success. One 

commenter suggested that FTA actively 

seek opportunities to include similar 

coordination requirements in the 

authorizing legislation for all Federal 

programs receiving Federal dollars to 

provide transportation to their clients. 

As stated in our March 15, 2006, and 

our September 6, 2006, Federal Register 

notices, FTA is committed to working 

with our Federal partners through the 

United We Ride initiative and CCAM to 

encourage agencies that receive Federal 

funding to participate in the 

coordinated planning process. In the 

2005 Report to the President, CCAM 

outlined five recommendations for 

future action related to coordinated 

human services transportation. These 

recommendations include two policy 

statements adopted by CCAM members 

in late 2006 related to coordinated 

planning and vehicle sharing. We have 

included summaries of the policy 

statements in Chapter III of each 

circular, and Web links to the full policy 

statements. CCAM will work with each 

member Department to implement the 

policy statements that build 

participation in coordinated human 

service transportation services at the 

local level. In addition to these efforts, 

FTA encourages State DOT offices to 

work closely with their partner agencies 

and local governmental officials to 

educate policy makers about the 

importance of partnering with human 

service transportation programs and the 

opportunities that are available when 

building a coordinated system. 

One commenter suggested that each 

plan should include a description of the 

planning process, specifically outlining 

how the planning entity involved the 

disability community in developing the 

plan. The commenter felt that including 

this description in the plan would be a 

safeguard to ensure that all interested 

stakeholders had an opportunity to be 

involved. Another commenter 

wondered why documentation of 

efforts, the process for adopting the 

plan, and human service needs related 

to intercity transportation are included 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
14860 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 

in the body of the circulars but not as 

required elements. 

In an effort to streamline, we have 

identified what we believe are the key 

elements in the plan. A description of 

the planning process, documenting 

efforts, and adopting the plan are not 

elements. Further, whether available 

intercity transportation is meeting the 

needs of the community or not is part 

of identifying the needs, which is one of 

the required elements. Designated 

recipients must certify annually that 

projects selected were derived from a 

coordinated plan, and the plan must be 

developed through a process that 

includes members of the public, which 

includes persons with disabilities. 

FTA’s oversight of these programs will 

include review of the outreach efforts 

engaged in by the designated recipient, 

as well as the list of participants, to 

ensure that interested parties are invited 

to participate. 

One commenter asked if a State could 

unilaterally update a plan developed by 

a locally chosen lead agency. A second 

asserted that the MPO, as well as the 

designated recipient, should have a role 

in the planning process. A State should 

not be unilaterally updating a local 

coordinated plan—the planning team 

that developed the plan should do the 

updating as necessary. The circulars and 

the planning regulations encourage a 

collaborative process for developing the 

coordinated plan that includes key 

players such as the MPO and the 

designated recipient. As we stated in 

both previous Federal Register notices, 

the ‘‘public transit’’ in ‘‘locally 

developed coordinated public transithuman service transportation plan’’ is 

the local transit agency, which is often, 

but not always, the designated recipient, 

and that entity is expected to participate 

in the coordinated planning process. 

When everyone is at the planning 

table—the MPO; the designated 

recipient(s); passengers who are elderly, 

low income, or have disabilities; and 

other interested stakeholders—the 

opportunity for producing a truly 

coordinated plan that works for the 

whole community is realized. 

FTA received several comments on 

the relationship between the 

coordinated planning process and other 

transportation planning processes. As 

stated previously, in response to 

comments, we have added an 

‘‘Appendix E’’ to the Section 5310 

circular and an ‘‘Appendix G’’ to the 

JARC and New Freedom circulars 

describing in more detail the 

relationship between the coordinated 

planning process and other 

transportation planning processes. Some 

commenters asserted that small JARC or 

New Freedom projects may not rise to 

the level of ‘‘regionally significant’’ and 

therefore should be included in the 

STIP at the program level, rather than at 

the project level. FTA agrees, and stated 

that in the proposed circulars. We have 

retained that language in the final 

circulars, and therefore retained the 

language that projects should be 

‘‘included in’’ the STIP, and not merely 

‘‘consistent with’’ the STIP. 

F. Chapter VI—Program Management 

and Administrative Requirements 

Chapter VI provides more details for 

States and direct recipients on how to 

manage the administrative aspects of the 

three grant programs, and is similar for 

all three programs. FTA notes that 

Chapter VI in the final circulars is 

largely a reorganization of the Program 

Management chapter in the 1998 

Section 5310 Circular 9070.1E (Chapter 

V). The chapter starts by noting that the 

basic grant management requirements 

for State and local governments are 

contained in DOT regulations, ‘‘Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments,’’ 49 CFR part 

18, and ‘‘Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and 

Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations,’’ 49 CFR part 19, 

which are collectively referred to as the 

‘‘common grant rule.’’ Chapter VI 

provides summary information about 

certain aspects of the common grant 

rule, and how management of those 

aspects may be applied to these three 

programs. Chapter VI also notes that 

more detailed information about general 

program and grant management is found 

in FTA Circular 5010.1C, ‘‘Grant 

Management Guidelines.’’

The common grant rule allows States 

to use slightly different standards for the 

establishment of equipment 

management, procurement, and 

financial management systems than are 

required for other FTA recipients. 

Therefore, throughout Chapter VI, 

distinctions are made between the 

requirements for States and other 

designated recipients. In addition, the 

Section 5310 circular has a section on 

leasing vehicles that is specific to that 

program. The only change made to the 

final circulars was in the section on 

‘‘Reporting Requirements’’ regarding 

program performance measures. 

FTA received a number of comments 

on our proposed performance measures; 

some in support, and others against. In 

response to comments, we have 

modified the reporting measures 

somewhat, placed them in Chapter II as 

well as Chapter VI, and clarified that the 

indicators specified are targeted to 

capture program information on a 

National level—these measures will not 

be used to assess individual grants. Each 

program has different performance 

measures. 

Two commenters noted that the 

circulars require States to submit annual 

reports, but urbanized areas must 

submit quarterly reports, and they 

questioned why there is a difference. 

This reporting requirement is consistent 

with FTA’s reporting requirements for 

Section 5307 and 5309 grants. 

One commenter suggested adding a 

provision to the Section 5310 circular 

that would require vehicles purchased 

with Section 5310 funds to be available 

in disasters and emergency situations, 

especially lift-equipped vehicles. FTA 

declines to add this provision to the 

final circular. Each community and/or 

State develops its own emergency plans, 

and should certainly have an inventory 

of available vehicles that includes those 

vehicles purchased with Section 5310 

funds. In many cases, the non-profit 

agencies that own those vehicles use 

them to evacuate their consumers in 

cases of emergency. When necessary, 

however, those vehicles should be a part 

of a communities’ emergency 

evacuation plan. 

One commenter, in responding to 

paragraph 5(c) regarding transfers of 

equipment to another subrecipient 

when the property is no longer needed 

for the original grant purpose, and 

showing the transfer in an active POP, 

asserted that adding transferred 

property to a current POP is problematic 

if the grant under which the property 

was purchased has been closed. FTA 

does not view this as a problem. 

Recording the transferred equipment in 

an active grant is sufficient to indicate 

that the entity responsible for use of the 

vehicle has changed. The original grant 

does not have to be modified. 

G. Chapter VII—State and Program 

Management Plans 

FTA requires States and designated 

recipients responsible for implementing 

the Section 5310, JARC, and New 

Freedom (and Section 5311) programs to 

document their approach to managing 

the programs. Chapter VII includes 

guidance on how to create and use State 

Management Plans (SMP) (for the Statemanaged aspects of the programs), and 

Program Management Plans (PMP) (for 

designated recipient-managed aspects of 

the programs). The primary purposes of 

Management Plans are to serve as the 

basis for FTA management reviews of 

the program, and to provide public 

information on the administration of the 

programs. Chapter VII in the final 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Notices 14861 

circulars is largely a restatement of the 

SMP chapter in the 1998 Section 5310 

Circular 9070.1E (Chapter VII). FTA did 

not make any changes to the proposed 

Chapter VII; we have adopted the 

proposed Chapter VII as the final 

Chapter VII. 

In all three program circulars, the first 

two parts of Chapter VII explain the 

general requirements and purpose of 

Management Plans. The third part, 

‘‘Reviews,’’ differs slightly among the 

programs. The Section 5310 circular 

discusses only State Management 

Reviews (as it is an entirely Statemanaged program), while the JARC and 

New Freedom circulars discuss reviews 

at both the State and designated 

recipient level. The ‘‘Reviews’’ part of 

Chapter VII is an addition to the 1998 

Section 5310 circular. 

The fourth part of Chapter VII 

discusses the content of Management 

Plans. The suggested content of SMPs 

and PMPs is essentially identical in all 

three circulars, but the Section 5310 

circular reflects the fact that Section 

5310 is entirely State administered. 

Management Plans are to include a 

section on use of the 10 percent of the 

apportionment available for 

administration and technical assistance, 

and a description of how the State or 

designated recipient makes additional 

resources available to local areas. 

The final part of Chapter VII, which 

discusses revisions to the Management 

Plan, is the same for all three circulars, 

and mirrors the language in the 1998 

Section 5310 circular. 

One commenter requested that FTA 

make the information in the SMP and 

PMP more available to the public. 

Members of the public can obtain this 

information from the FTA regional 

office that serves the designated 

recipient or State. In addition, some 

grantees make this information available 

on their Web sites. 

H. Chapter VIII—Other Provisions 

This chapter is an expansion of the 

current ‘‘Other Provisions’’ chapter in 

the 1998 Section 5310 circular, and is 

virtually the same for all three circulars. 

Chapter VIII summarizes a number of 

FTA-specific and other Federal 

requirements that FTA grantees are held 

to in addition to the program-specific 

requirements and guidance provided in 

these circulars. This chapter explains 

some of the most relevant requirements 

and provides citations to the actual 

statutory or regulatory text. Grantees 

should use this document in 

conjunction with FTA’s ‘‘Master 

Agreement’’ and the current fiscal year 

‘‘Certifications and Assurances’’ to 

assure that they have met all 

requirements. Grantees may contact 

FTA Regional Counsel for more details 

about these requirements. 

In paragraph 10(b) of the proposed 

JARC circular, describing transit 

employee protection under 49 U.S.C. 

5333(b), FTA stated that we anticipate 

the Department of Labor (DOL) will 

revise the warranty and procedures 

currently in use relative to Section 5311. 

One commenter wanted to know, until 

such action is taken by DOL, what 

provisions are being made to allow the 

Section 5311 process to be applied to 

rural grantees of the JARC program. We 

have removed this language from the 

JARC circular, and will amend the 

circular when/if DOL changes its 

procedures. Until DOL changes its 

procedures, the Section 5311 warranty 

will not apply to rural JARC projects, 

and FTA must transmit JARC grants to 

DOL for certification. JARC projects 

should not be combined in a single 

grant with Section 5311 funds. 

Paragraph 14 discusses the Drug and 

Alcohol testing requirements for Section 

5310, JARC, and New Freedom. 

Recipients that only receive Section 

5310, JARC, or New Freedom funds are 

not subject to FTA’s drug and alcohol 

testing rules, but must comply with the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration’s rule for employees 

who hold Commercial Driver’s Licenses. 

Recipients of other FTA programs that 

also receive Section 5310, JARC, or New 

Freedom funds should include any 

employees funded under these programs 

in their testing program. One 

commenter asserted that FTA rules do 

not allow employees not covered by 

FTA’s drug and alcohol rules to be 

tested under FTA rules, and therefore 

they would have to have two testing 

programs. An FTA compliant testing 

program, as required by the receipt of 

FTA operating or capital funding (5307, 

5309, 5311), can be used for Section 

5310, JARC, and New Freedom 

employees; there is no need to have two 

testing programs. Employees of a 

subrecipient of Section 5310, JARC, or 

New Freedom funds from a designated 

recipient of another FTA program (such 

as 5307 or 5311) should also be 

included in the designated recipient’s 

testing program. 

I. Appendices 

The Appendices sections for the 

Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom 

programs are intended as tools for 

developing a grant application. 

Appendix A specifically addresses steps 

and instructions for preparing a grant 

application, including pre-application 

and application stages. Appendix A also 

includes an application checklist and 

information for registering with the 

Electronic Clearinghouse Operation 

System (ECHO). One commenter 

questioned why both an Allocation 

Letter and a Program of Projects (POP) 

needed to be submitted at the same 

time, since the POP is included with the 

grant application and includes the same 

information as the Allocation Letter. We 

have revised the language in paragraph 

1(f) of Appendix A to state that the 

Allocation Letter is only necessary if the 

State is allowing a public entity in a 

small urbanized area under 200,000 in 

population to apply for funds directly 

from FTA. 

Appendix B includes a sample 

program of projects. Appendix C in the 

5310 circular and Appendix E in the 

JARC and New Freedom circulars 

provides contact information for FTA’s 

regional offices. In the JARC and New 

Freedom circulars, Appendix C includes 

budget information and provides 

specific activity line item (ALI) codes 

for specific types of eligible costs (i.e., 

capital, operating, planning, etc.). A 

sample approved budget is included in 

Appendix D. Appendix C in the Section 

5310 circular and Appendix E in the 

JARC and New Freedom circulars 

contain contact information for FTA’s 

regional and metropolitan offices. 

Appendix D in Section 5310 and 

Appendix F in the JARC and New 

Freedom circulars list potential sources 

of technical assistance. In the final 

circulars, we added Appendix E in the 

Section 5310 circular and Appendix G 

in the JARC and New Freedom circulars, 

‘‘Relationship Between Coordinated 

Planning and Metropolitan and 

Statewide Planning.’’ The final 

Appendix in each circular is a list of 

References, traditionally at the front of 

FTA circulars. FTA has moved this list 

to an appendix for ease of reading. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 22nd day 

of March 2007. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–5734 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–55 (Sub–No. 672X)] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.—

Abandonment Exemption—in Manatee 

County, FL 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has 

filed a notice of exemption under 49 

CFR part 1152 Subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon a 0.66-mile 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES