79350 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

included in the discussion of 

meaningful connections. 

Eligibility of New Intercity Bus 

Facilities. In Chapter IX, FTA specified 

that constructing new intercity terminal 

facilities for rural passengers is an 

eligible activity under Section 5311(f), 

in addition to improvements for existing 

facilities. 

Eligible Subrecipients of Section 5311 

funds. FTA amended language in 

Chapter IX regarding when an intercity 

bus operator elects to be a contractor or 

a subrecipient. A ‘‘contract’’ is a legal 

instrument by which a recipient or 

subrecipient purchases property or 

services needed to carry out its project 

or program under a Federal award. In 

contrast, a ‘‘subaward’’ is an award 

provided by a pass-through entity to a 

subrecipient for the subrecipient to 

carry out part of a Federal award 

received by the pass-through entity. The 

requirements for each are similar but the 

terms and conditions, including 

oversight and enforcement, may be 

different. 

ADA Regulations for Intercity Bus 

Service Operated by Private Entities 

Using Over-the-Road Buses (OTRBs). In 

Chapter IX, FTA added language 

clarifying that vehicles used by intercity 

bus services provided by a public entity 

or under contract or other arrangement 

or relationship to a public entity must 

be compliant with both 49 CFR 38.23 

and subpart G of 49 CFR part 38, as well 

as 49 CFR part 37. 

Update to the Capitalization 

Threshold for Equipment. FTA received 

several comments inquiring about the 

$5,000 capitalization threshold for 

equipment, with some commenters 

requesting the threshold be raised. In its 

recent final rule, codified at 2 CFR 

200.1, OMB increased the threshold for 

the definition of equipment to $10,000, 

and FTA has made this change in the 

final circular. 

State Planning Requirement for 

Intercity Bus. FTA received three 

comments from one commenter 

requesting language reflecting new State 

planning requirements as updated in 

FAST Act. FTA added a section to 

Chapter IX, Intercity Bus, emphasizing 

that transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs 

must provide for intermodal facilities 

that support intercity transportation, 

including intercity buses and intercity 

bus facilities. Chapter V, Planning & 

Program Development, subsection 2 

(‘‘Metropolitan, Statewide, and NonMetropolitan Planning’’) already 

specifies that States requesting Section 

5311 or Section 5339(a) assistance must 

comply with the planning requirements 

of 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304 and 5306. 

Tribal Transit Matching Funds. 

Consistent with a recent Tribal 

consultation (89 FR 48593, June 10, 

2024), no local match is required for the 

Tribal Transit Competitive Program. 

FTA has updated Chapter XI to reflect 

this change. 

C. 2 CFR Part 200 Updates 

As stated above, OMB’s 2024 update 

to 2 CFR part 200 increased the 

threshold, from $5,000 to $10,000, for 

the value of equipment, which impacts 

how a recipient may retain, sell, or 

dispose of the equipment at closeout. 

Items under $10,000 are considered 

supplies. In addition, the threshold for 

expenditures at which recipients of 

Federal awards are required to have 

independent audits conducted annually 

increased from $750,000 to $1,000,000. 

FTA has updated the final circular to 

reflect these changes. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22163 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No. FTA–2023–0009] 

Urbanized Areas Formula Grant 

Programs Guidance, Final Circular 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

circular and response to comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) has finalized a 

new circular entitled, ‘‘Urbanized Areas 

Formula Grant Programs Guidance,’’ 

which consolidates and replaces the 

circulars for the Urbanized Area 

Formula Grants Program (FTA Circular 

C 9030.1), the State of Good Repair 

Grants Program (FTA Circular C 5300.1), 

and the Urbanized Area formula 

component of the Grants for Buses and 

Bus Facilities Program (FTA Circular C 

5100.1). The update and consolidation 

of the circulars incorporate provisions 

from the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act; the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), 

enacted as the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act; the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for 

Federal awards to non-Federal entities; 

and current FTA policies and 

procedures. This notice responds to the 

comments FTA received on the 

proposed circular, which was published 

in the Federal Register on July 12, 2023. 

DATES: The applicable date of this 

circular is November 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: One may view the 

comments at docket number FTA–2023– 

0009. For access to the docket, please 

visit https://www.regulations.gov or the 

Docket Operations office located in the 

West Building of the United States 

Department of Transportation, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

State of Good Repair Grant program 

questions, Ciara Williams, Office of 

Transit Programs, Federal Transit 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Room E44–412, Washington, DC 

20590, phone: (202) 366–8954, or email, 

ciara.williams@dot.gov. For Urbanized 

Area Formula Grant program questions, 

Nichole Neal, Office of Transit 

Programs, Federal Transit 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Room E44–451, Washington, DC 

20590, phone: (202) 366–7865, or email, 

nichole.neal@dot.gov. For Buses and 

Bus Facilities program questions, 

Kirsten Wiard-Bauer, Office of Transit 

Programs, Federal Transit 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 

366–7052, or email, kirsten.wiardbauer@dot.gov. For legal questions, Jerry 

Stenquist, Office of Chief Counsel, same 

address, Room E56–314, phone: (202) 

493–8020, or email, Jerry.Stenquist@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Response to Public Comments 

A. Comments for Which No Changes Were 

Made 

B. Changes Based on Public Comments 

III. Other Changes 

I. Introduction 

This notice announces the availability 

of FTA Circular C 9050.1A, ‘‘Urbanized 

Areas Formula Grant Programs 

Guidance,’’ which is a consolidation of 

guidance for the administration of 

grants for the Urbanized Area Formula 

Grants Program under 49 U.S.C. 5307 

(FTA Circular C 9030.1), State of Good 

Repair Grants Program under 49 U.S.C. 

5337 (FTA Circular C 5300.1), and the 

urbanized area formula component of 

the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities 

Program under 49 U.S.C. 5339(a) (FTA 

Circular C 5100.1). The C 9050.1A 

circular replaces these three circulars. 

Additionally, this circular incorporates 

provisions of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 

114–94) and the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117– 

58) and includes program-specific 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79351 

guidance for these formula programs. 

Additional requirements for all grant 

programs are identified in FTA’s Award 

Management Requirements Circular C 

5010.1. The applicable date of C 

9050.1A is November 1, 2024. 

The C 9050.1A circular consolidates 

and summarizes programmatic 

information, streamlines pre-existing 

guidance from the three previous 

program circulars, and reduces 

duplication of information provided 

between the Urbanized Area Formula 

Programs circular and FTA’s other 

topic-specific circulars, including by 

moving certain text applicable to most 

or all of FTA’s grant programs to FTA’s 

Award Management Requirements 

Circular C 5010.1. 

Additionally, C 9050.1A clarifies a 

number of policy issues as interpreted 

and applied by FTA. These 

clarifications address topics in the 

previous program circulars (C 9030.1, C 

5300.1, and C 5100.1), including: how 

funds are apportioned; reallocations or 

transfers of apportionments; 

consolidation of grants to insular areas; 

intermodal use of formula funds; 

eligible projects and activities for each 

formula program; operating assistance 

limitations and exceptions; capital cost 

of contracting; the role of transportation 

network companies in providing public 

transportation services; period of 

availability to obligate funds flexed to 

the FTA formula programs from the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA); planning requirements; preaward authority; revisions to required 

planning documents as a result of postaward modifications; and requirements 

pertaining to fares charged to seniors 

and persons with disabilities. 

II. Response to Public Comments 

FTA published a notice in the Federal 

Register on July 12, 2023 (88 FR 44440), 

seeking public comment on a proposed 

version of Circular C 9050.1. FTA 

received 115 comments from 30 unique 

commenters. FTA reviewed the 

comments and discusses below the 

changes that FTA made in the final 

circular based on the public comments. 

FTA also addresses below the categories 

of comments for which no changes were 

made in the final circular. FTA 

appreciates the commenters who 

expressed support for updates in the 

circular, as well as those who provided 

feedback on administrative nonsubstantive changes, such as 

recommending corrections for 

typographical errors and alternative 

pagination methods. FTA has reviewed 

and made those changes to the final 

circular, as needed. 

A. Comments for Which No Changes 

Were Made 

Comments Outside the Scope of FTA C 

9050.1A 

FTA received comments for which no 

changes were made because FTA has 

determined that the topics were outside 

of the scope of this circular. Topics that 

were outside the scope of the circular 

included: a request that FTA increase 

the size or scope of grants; inquiring 

whether FTA will require a subrecipient 

to ensure its contractors pay a livable 

wage; a request for information about 

financing programs administered by the 

U.S. DOT Build America Bureau; and 

updating guidance outside of FTA C 

9050.1A. FTA also determines the 

following topics were outside the scope 

of the circular, although it discusses 

them in further detail because they were 

raised by more than one commenter: 

Comment: Three commenters asked 

which version of the C 5010.1 ‘‘Award 

Management Requirements’’ circular 

should be referenced in C 9050.1A. 

FTA Response: In the proposed C 

9050.1A, FTA referenced that FTA 

planned to propose updates to C 

5010.1E, which FTA published for 

public notice and comment in the 

Federal Register on February 14, 2024 

(89 FR 11334). The final C 9050.1A 

references C 5010.1F, which also is 

being published on this date. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

extension of the public comment period 

for C 9050.1A to accommodate the 

public comment period for proposed C 

5010.1F. One commenter asked that 

FTA publish responses to comments on 

proposed C 5010.1F before taking 

comments on proposed C 9050.1A. The 

other commenter asked that FTA extend 

the comment period for proposed C 

9050.1A to close simultaneously with 

comment period for C 5010.1F. 

FTA Response: The public comment 

period for proposed C 9050.1A closed 

on September 11, 2023, and proposed C 

5010.1F was not published until 

February 14, 2024. Thus, it was not 

possible for FTA to extend the public 

comment period for proposed C 

9050.1A to coincide with the comment 

period for proposed C 5010.1F. FTA, 

however, made proposed C 9050.1A 

available for reference during the 

subsequent C 5010.1F public comment 

review period in response to these 

requests. FTA has revised the circulars 

concurrently and withheld publishing 

the final C 9050.1A until after its review 

of the comments received in response to 

the C 5010.1F Federal Register notice 

requesting public comment. To the 

extent that a topic is related to both 

circulars, commenters were able to 

comment during either comment period, 

and FTA considered any comment that 

applied to both circulars while both 

circulars were under revision. 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested more information about 

Transit Asset Management (TAM) 

requirements, including adding overall 

policies, principles, strategies, 

organizational structure, and objectives 

that inform the creation and 

implementation of TAM plans. 

Furthermore, commenters sought more 

specificity regarding TAM review 

schedules, monitoring asset 

performance, overlap with the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) planning process, and providing 

guidance on useful life and asset life 

cycles. 

FTA Response: All recipients and 

subrecipients of Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 

that own, operate, or manage capital 

assets used for providing public 

transportation must develop a TAM 

plan. Clarity and guidance concerning 

TAM requirements are important; 

however, the requested policy, 

guidance, and clarification regarding 

these TAM requirements is outside the 

scope of the urbanized area formula 

grant programs discussed in C 9050.1A. 

Because TAM requirements apply to 

most FTA recipients across many FTA 

grant programs, FTA ensures 

consistency and reduces duplicative 

information by providing TAM 

information and resources 

independently of the circulars on a 

publicly available website, https://

www.transit.dot.gov/TAM. FTA will 

consider these comments during future 

updates to its TAM guidance. 

Comment: One commenter provided 

comments focused on safety technology, 

which requested that FTA update the 

model bus safety program to account for 

advances in technology since the 

program was last amended, including an 

update to include a mandate for 

advanced driver assistance systems 

(ADAS) on transit vehicles. 

FTA Response: FTA acknowledges the 

importance of safety technology. The 

substance of these comments, however, 

is outside the scope of the urbanized 

area formula grant programs discussed 

in C 9050.1A. FTA provides and 

maintains safety information and 

resources independently of the circulars 

on a publicly available website, https:// 

www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-andguidance/safety/transit-system-safety. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

additional guidance or training focused 

on responsibilities of MPOs during the 

metropolitan transportation planning 

process. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
79352 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

FTA Response: MPOs play an integral 

role in the planning and approval of 

transportation projects, including those 

financed with formula funding offered 

through 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5337, and 

5339(a). However, the commenter’s 

proposals are outside of the scope of the 

formula funding programs discussed in 

the circular. FTA acknowledges that 

additional technical assistance may be 

beneficial and will consider the 

substance of the comments in any future 

training and guidance provided to 

recipients regarding MPO programs. 

Please also see FTA’s resources about 

MPOs at https://www.transit.dot.gov/ 

regulations-and-guidance/ 

transportation-planning/metropolitanplanning-organization-mpo. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to include intercity bus 

considerations as a part of planning 

justifications in Chapter IV of the 

circular. The commenter also noted that 

FTA’s circular, FTA C 8100.1D 

‘‘Program Guidance for Metropolitan 

Planning and State Planning and 

Research Program Grants,’’ refers to the 

need for States and MPOs to provide 

intercity bus operators and other 

stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to 

comment on transportation plans. The 

commenter requested the C 9050.1A 

section on planning justifications 

require improved timely intercity bus 

consultation processes by States and 

MPOs. The commenter also provided 

recommendations on the preferred 

method for the States and MPOs to 

engage with intercity bus carriers and 

the timing for when they can provide 

input on plans. Similarly, the 

commenter requested FTA highlight the 

intercity bus consultation component of 

planning under Chapter V where 

additional planning requirements are 

discussed. The commenter also noted 

that the language in Chapter V stating 

that the local coordinated planning 

process ‘‘may also include consideration 

of the intercity bus transportation needs 

of the targeted population of seniors and 

individuals with disabilities’’ is too 

permissive. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comments. 

FTA declines to incorporate the 

recommendations under the planning 

justifications section in Chapter IV or in 

Chapter V in this circular because the 

more appropriate venue for planningspecific guidance is FTA C 8100.1D, 

which addresses the planning 

requirements carried out by States and 

MPOs. The scope of C 9050.1A, on the 

other hand, is to address the 

administration of urbanized area 

formula grant program funding under 

Sections 5307, 5337, and 5339(a), in 

which there are no provisions regarding 

intercity bus. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

continued engagement with MPOs and 

other stakeholders and requested FTA 

provide a cross-reference guide to assist 

MPOs in understanding the updates in 

terminology in C 9050.1A. 

Response: FTA will continue to 

engage with recipients, applicants, and 

the public to communicate changes 

resulting from the consolidation of the 

previous circulars into C 9050.1A. 

FTA’s engagement will include outreach 

that provides explanations of updates to 

terminology and other content in the 

circular. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

more emphasis throughout the circular 

on the role private providers of 

transportation play in the provision of 

public transportation services. The 

commenter requested that the circular 

reference coordination with the private 

sector in the definition of ‘‘Mobility 

Management.’’ The commenter also 

requested that FTA change the reference 

to ‘‘private nonprofit organizations’’ in 

Chapter II discussing subrecipient 

arrangements to ‘‘private providers.’’ 

Further, the commenter requested that 

FTA add a reference to ‘‘operational 

service planning including 

consideration of contracted operations’’ 

as one example of a technical study that 

could be funded as a planning activity 

with Section 5307 funds. Additionally, 

the commenter requested that FTA add 

‘‘local ride providers’’ to the entities 

involved in public transportation/ 

human services planning or an 

alternative planning process from which 

Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(JARC) projects may be derived. 

Response: FTA declines to make 

changes in response to these comments. 

FTA acknowledges the significant role 

of private transportation providers in 

the provision of public transportation 

services and the benefit of their 

consideration in transportation 

coordination and public transportation 

planning processes. However, for the 

purposes of this circular, FTA limits the 

circular’s discussion of private 

providers’ roles in transit to their 

relevance to Sections 5307, 5337, and 

5339(a). FTA further addresses the 

resources and benefits of private 

providers within its guidance on 

transportation coordination and 

planning. 

Comments Within the Scope of the 

Circular That Resulted in No Changes 

The following comments regarding 

the circular resulted in no changes 

because either the requests sought 

changes to statutory requirements, the 

topics they raised already are addressed 

adequately in the circular, or because 

the comment is better addressed 

through direct guidance from FTA to the 

commenter. 

Comments Requesting Changes to 

Statutory Requirements 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that FTA change the maximum Federal 

share for Section 5307 operating 

assistance from 50 percent to 80 

percent. 

FTA Response: The 50 percent 

maximum Federal share for operating 

assistance is set in statute, 49 U.S.C. 

5307(d), and FTA has no authority to 

change it. 

Comment: Similarly, two commenters 

requested a change to allow proceeds 

from transit fares to be used as local 

match to FTA financial assistance. 

FTA Response: Generally, financial 

assistance from FTA may only fund the 

permissible Federal share of the ‘‘net 

project cost’’ of eligible projects for the 

formula programs covered by C 9050.1A 

(49 U.S.C. 5307(d), 49 U.S.C. 5337(e), 

and 49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(7)). The term ‘‘net 

project cost’’ means the part of a project 

that reasonably cannot be financed from 

revenues (49 U.S.C. 5302(13)). 

Furthermore, 49 U.S.C. 5307(d)(3) and 

49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(7)(B) specify the 

sources of funds that may be used as 

match and explicitly exclude ‘‘revenues 

from providing public transportation 

services.’’ 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

a change to the period of availability to 

obligate Section 5307, 5337, and 5339(a) 

funds to awards, so that all three 

sources of formula funds have the same 

period of availability. Another 

commenter requested FTA remove 

language addressing Governors’ 

discretion to use Section 5307 program 

funds remaining from the State’s 

apportionment for small urbanized areas 

(UZAs) 90 days before the expiration of 

their period of availability, or 

alternatively, change the time period 

from 90 days to one year. 

FTA Response: FTA lacks discretion 

to modify the periods of availability to 

obligate formula funds for Section 5307 

and 5339(a) programs because the 

periods of availability are set forth in 49 

U.S.C. 5336(g) and 49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(8), 

respectively. FTA has already 

administratively matched the period of 

availability for Section 5337 funds with 

the statutory period governing Section 

5339(a) funds. Similarly, FTA lacks 

discretion to remove or modify the 90- 

day time frame during which Governors 

may reallocate lapsing Section 5307 

program funds because the time frame is 

established in 49 U.S.C. 5336(f)(3). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79353 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the circular require the Governor or 

the Governor’s designee to consult with 

the MPO when redesignating a UZA’s 

designated recipient. The commenter 

further requested that FTA require that 

an MPO’s letter of concurrence 

accompany the Governor’s written 

notice of redesignation to FTA. The 

commenter opined that past 

redesignation procedures requiring 

transit providers’ unanimous consensus 

caused notable challenges in achieving 

a timely agreement. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA has not changed the recipient 

redesignation process requiring 

concurrence by the applicable MPO(s). 

Further, FTA does not have the 

discretion to exclude publicly owned 

operators of public transportation from 

a designation decision because 49 

U.S.C. 5302 defines a ‘‘designated 

recipient’’ as ‘‘an entity designated, in 

accordance with the planning process 

under Sections 5303 and 5304, by the 

Governor of a State, responsible local 

officials, and publicly owned operators 

of public transportation to receive and 

apportion amounts made available 

under Section 5336 to UZAs of 200,000 

or more in population.’’ 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA allow recipients who receive funds 

for contiguous but separately defined 

UZAs to use funds apportioned to one 

UZA for capital improvements in 

another UZA, as long as the recipient 

can demonstrate that the funds are being 

expended equitably across all areas. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to this comment. 

FTA does not have the discretion to 

allow funds apportioned to one UZA to 

be used in another UZA when those 

funds provide no direct benefit to the 

apportioned UZA. Such use of funds 

would circumvent the apportionment 

transfer provisions codified in 49 U.S.C. 

5336. However, as detailed at the end of 

Chapter IV, FTA notes limited flexibility 

for the use of UZA-specific funds for 

capital projects outside of the UZA. A 

recipient may use funds apportioned to 

a UZA outside the UZA for capital 

activities that involve mobile capital 

assets (e.g., rolling stock acquisition or 

maintenance) if the capital assets 

support a geographically continuous 

public transportation service that has at 

least one passenger access point within 

the apportioned UZA. Further, the 

updated circular clarifies that recipients 

may use funds apportioned to a UZA for 

immobile capital assets (e.g., rail 

stations, bus stops and terminals, etc.) 

located outside the UZA in proportion 

to the extent the asset supports transit 

service provided in the apportioned 

UZA based on a reasonable cost 

allocation methodology. 

Topics Already Adequately Addressed 

or Better Addressed Directly With 

Recipients 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged FTA to exercise discretion 

to determine that not all vehicles 

providing demand-response service be 

included in a vehicle count for purposes 

of complying with 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2), 

colloquially referred to as the ‘100-bus 

rule’. 

FTA Response: 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2) 

limits a recipient’s use of Section 5307 

funds for operating assistance based on 

the number of buses operated in peak 

service. In compliance with the statute, 

FTA counts buses operated in peak 

demand-response service, excluding 

ADA complimentary paratransit service. 

Because common practice of transit 

providers operating both fixed-route and 

demand-response services is to employ 

their demand-response fleets for ADA 

complementary paratransit service, FTA 

excludes these operators’ demandresponse fleets for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 

5307(a)(2). However, for operators that 

only provide demand-response service, 

FTA cannot distinguish that portion of 

the fleet used for ADA complementary 

paratransit service. Therefore, the bus 

count for demand-response-only fleets, 

for purposes of the thresholds in 49 

U.S.C. 5307(a)(2), is determined by 

counting the number of demandresponse vehicles used in peak service. 

Comment: Four commenters 

requested that FTA provide additional 

clarification of eligible expenses under 

FTA grants. One commenter requested 

clarification regarding eligibility of 

certain activities as a capital expense; 

one commenter requested clarification 

on the eligibility of fixed guideway 

under Section 5337; one commenter 

requested clarification about the 

eligibility of art and landscaping used 

for flood protection and resiliency; and 

one commenter asked that FTA list 

preventive maintenance in Table IV–1 

‘‘Summary of Eligible Activities by 

Formula Grant Program’’ as an eligible 

activity. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to these comments. 

FTA issues circulars to provide general 

guidance and clarification while 

summarizing applicable Federal law. It 

would be impractical to provide this 

level of specificity for eligible expenses. 

Recipients should contact their FTA 

regional office with specific eligibility 

questions. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

the circular include an example 

illustrating how to split contract 

expenses to avoid counting the same 

expenses as both operating and capital 

costs under FTA’s capital cost of 

contracting policy. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. The 

requested examples would either be 

unduly specific or not expansive 

enough. FTA issues circulars to provide 

general guidance and clarification while 

summarizing applicable Federal law. 

The recipient should contact its FTA 

regional office with these eligibility 

questions. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA add language stating whether a 

subrecipient of Section 5310 funds 

would also be considered an eligible 

subrecipient for the grant programs 

covered in this circular. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA considers its guidance sufficient 

regarding subrecipient eligibility in the 

circular, including the potential 

participation of non-profit organizations 

in certain grant programs. FTA issues 

circulars to provide general guidance 

and clarification while summarizing 

applicable Federal law. For this 

purpose, it is generally impractical to 

specify the eligibility of entities’ grant 

participation in other FTA grant 

programs. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA include language stating when 

a recipient may charge administrative 

fees to an award for administration and 

management of Section 5307, 5337, and 

5339(a) grant awards. Similarly, another 

commenter noted that FTA should 

address de minimis administrative 

costs, alleging that they are or should be 

separate from direct and indirect costs. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

Under the government-wide Uniform 

Cost Principles for Federal Awards, 

every eligible cost must be either a 

direct cost or an indirect cost. (See 2 

CFR 200.412 through 200.415 for 

information about determining whether 

a cost is direct or indirect.) This 

includes costs the commenter considers 

administrative in nature. The circular 

describes which administrative 

expenses are eligible. These expenses 

may potentially be indirect costs or 

directly allocable to the award. If the 

recipient is referring to administrative 

expenses associated specifically with 

designated recipient responsibilities, 

Table IV–2, Urban Formula Programs 

Capital Eligibility Table, states that 

those are not an eligible expense of 

formula funds. 

Comment: In reference to FTA’s 

definition of ‘‘Rehabilitate’’ in Chapter I, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
79354 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

one commenter opined that the phrase 

‘‘including a rebuild and overhaul as 

defined in this circular’’ may be 

confusing because these terms are a 

reference to the process to cause a 

capital asset to meet or extend its 

planned useful life. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA disagrees that the use of these 

terms is confusing. ‘‘Rehabilitate’’ is the 

term used in Section 5339(a) to describe 

projects eligible under that section. 

FTA’s definition clarifies that both 

rebuilds and overhauls are examples of 

activities that qualify as rehabilitation 

and only pertain to rolling stock. The 

definition uses rebuilds and overhauls 

to further distinguish from standard 

preventive maintenance, which is not a 

form of rehabilitation. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the list of Associated Transit 

Improvements in Chapter IV include 

additional examples of projects that 

address resiliency issues. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. The 

circular only lists projects eligible as 

Associated Transit Improvements (ATI) 

that are in statute. FTA declines to add 

examples to the list. It is impractical to 

include additional specificity because of 

the various considerations in 

determining whether a project meets the 

statutory criteria as an ATI. Recipients 

should contact their FTA regional office 

with these eligibility questions. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA add language in Chapter IV 

discussing JARC projects to clarify that 

private for-profit companies are eligible 

for third-party contracts to provide 

JARC services. 

Response: FTA declines to add 

additional language regarding programspecific eligibility of third-party private 

for-profit companies because Chapter II 

of the circular articulates generally the 

eligibility of contracted service 

arrangements with such operators. 

These arrangements may include, but 

are not limited to, contracts to provide 

JARC services. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

‘‘Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(JARC) Project’’ as a defined term 

should be deleted because the JARC 

formula grant program under 49 U.S.C. 

5316 was repealed. 

Response: While 49 U.S.C. 5316 was 

repealed by MAP–21, FTA declines to 

remove the definition of JARC in the 

circular because JARC projects are still 

eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(1)(C). 

Comment: A commenter requested 

FTA consider removing all specific 

dollar amounts under the 

apportionment section of the circular in 

Chapter III. The commenter noted future 

legislative changes could modify certain 

fixed apportionment amounts, creating 

confusion and causing the circular to 

become outdated. The commenter 

opined, for example, that if Congress 

were to amend the $4 million State 

apportionment of 5339(a) National 

Distribution funding, such legislation 

would cause this circular to have 

incorrect information and cause 

confusion. 

Response: FTA did not remove the 

dollar amounts for certain fixed 

apportionments because the circular 

cites to the transportation 

reauthorization legislation from which 

the amounts are derived. FTA asserts 

that, in some cases when the risk of 

imminent change in the apportionment 

is low, the public and recipients are 

better served by references to the 

specific apportionment amounts in this 

circular. The commenter’s example is a 

good example of an appropriate use of 

citation to a specific dollar amount 

because the State set-aside requirement 

in 49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(5)(A) is a statutory 

set-aside set forth in a program-specific 

section of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. The 

statutory provision is less likely to be 

amended before reauthorization, so 

citation to a specific dollar amount is 

appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the definition of ‘‘Facilities’’ in the 

circular be revised to reference the 

intercity bus portion of intermodal 

facilities. The commenter noted that 

FTA’s circular on joint development 

projects, FTA C 7050.1C, includes 

references to intercity bus when 

referring to joint development. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA declines to revise the definition of 

‘‘Facilities’’ in C 9050.1A because the 

definition is sufficiently broad to 

include different types of facilities. FTA 

C 7050.1C is specific to joint 

development projects and provides 

more targeted information on 

intermodal facilities. The definition of 

‘‘Facilities’’ in C 9050.1A does not 

preclude intermodal facilities, which 

may include intercity bus, from being 

included in a joint development. FTA’s 

joint development circular provides 

sufficient applicable guidance regarding 

this definition from which the formula 

grant programs do not deviate. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the definition of ‘‘Public 

Transportation’’ be revised in the 

circular to clarify that Section 5307 and 

5339 funding can be used to improve 

intercity bus services. 

Response: FTA declines to revise the 

definition of ‘‘Public Transportation’’ as 

requested. The circular’s definition of 

‘‘Public Transportation’’ is consistent 

with the definition at 49 U.S.C. 

5302(15). Intercity bus is not public 

transportation according to this 

statutory definition applicable to the 

entirety of Chapter 53. The circular 

references intercity bus services where 

applicable to Section 5307, 5337, and 

5339(a) programs, which specify the 

narrow instances for which Section 

5307 and 5339 funding can be used for 

intercity bus purposes. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to elaborate on information in 

Table IV–3 under ‘‘Crime Prevention 

and Security Projects’’ to clarify that 

capital projects that enhance safety and 

security at intercity bus facilities and 

intermodal transportation centers are 

eligible activities. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA declines to revise the list of 

examples in response to this comment 

because the list of examples is to 

reference specific technology or items 

that may enhance safety and security, 

not the type of facility. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA add ‘‘intermodal facilities 

including the intercity bus portions of 

such facilities’’ as an example of eligible 

capital projects in Chapter IV where 

capital projects are generally discussed. 

Response: FTA declines to add this 

reference as specified; however, FTA 

added language regarding reasonable 

access for private intercity or charter 

transportation operators to federally 

funded public transportation facilities 

under 49 U.S.C. 5323(r) in the same 

section where capital projects are 

generally discussed based on other 

comments. FTA has also included a 

reference to joint development 

improvements, which include 

improvements of intercity bus facilities, 

in Table IV–2, based on other 

comments. To the extent that the 

comment seeks to state the inclusion of 

intercity bus in eligible transit 

programs, these additional references 

sufficiently address this comment. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA include additional language under 

the ‘‘Joint Development Projects’’ 

section in Chapter IV to specify that 

eligible activities also include the 

improvement of transportation-related 

furniture, fixtures, and equipment in 

intercity bus terminals, as it is specified 

in the ‘‘Transit-Oriented Development’’ 

section. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA declines to add language to the 

‘‘Joint Development Projects’’ section in 

the circular because the section already 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79355 

references FTA C 7050.1C, FTA’s Joint 

Development circular, which provides 

guidance regarding joint development 

projects. FTA also notes that the joint 

development projects and transitoriented development projects are 

categorically distinct, and any addition 

of relevant information would be 

duplicative of other sections in the 

circular. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA revise the definition of ‘‘Incidental 

Use’’ in the circular by adding a 

sentence clarifying that privately or 

publicly operated intercity bus service 

in an FTA-funded facility is not an 

incidental use of that facility. The 

commenter expressed concern that, 

without that clarifying sentence, the 

circular may create confusion on 

whether intercity bus services are an 

incidental use. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA declines to revise the definition of 

‘‘Incidental Use’’ by adding the 

suggested sentence. The nature of 

property incidental use is discussed in 

full in FTA’s Award Management 

Requirements circular (C 5010.1), which 

explains that incidental use is ‘‘the 

limited non-transit use of project 

property that does not conflict with the 

original authorized purpose of the 

project property or the recipient’s ability 

to maintain satisfactory continuing 

control.’’ By statute, 49 U.S.C. 5302(15), 

intercity bus service is not public 

transportation. Circular 9050.1A 

addresses intercity bus opportunities 

where appropriate while FTA’s 

guidance regarding incidental use and 

intercity bus is discussed in other FTA 

circulars. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA add language referencing the 

Surface Transportation Block Grant 

Program (STBG) under ‘‘Availability of 

FHWA ‘Flexible Funds’ for Transit 

Projects’’ and ‘‘Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement 

Program’’ that specifies flex funds can 

be used for intercity bus projects. 

Response: FTA declines to make a 

change in response to the comment. 

FTA declines to add this language 

because the flexible funding section in 

the circular sufficiently conveys that 

expenses must be eligible under both 

the originating Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) program and 

the FTA receiving program. 

B. Changes Based on Public Comments 

Comments Requesting Clarifications or 

Specificity 

FTA revised language in the circular 

to address the following comments, as 

explained below. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to add a statement that 

acknowledges that circulars may 

become outdated, and in that event, the 

law would apply. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, FTA added the sentence, ‘‘to 

the extent this circular is inconsistent 

with changes in any statute or 

regulation, statute or regulation will 

supersede this circular,’’ in the 

introductory paragraph of the circular. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to include language stating that 

third-party contracted service 

agreements may include businesses 

other than taxi companies and 

transportation network companies 

(TNCs) that are referred to in Chapter II, 

under ‘‘Private Operators of Public 

Transportation as Contractors.’’ 

Response: FTA agrees that taxi 

companies and TNCs are not 

exclusively the businesses that may 

participate in these contracted service 

agreements. In response to this 

comment, FTA added ‘‘or other similar 

service deployment models’’ to the 

section to account for the various 

business models and contracting 

arrangements recipients may engage. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to how State recipients 

must administer transferred funds. More 

specifically, the commenter asked 

whether apportionments transferred 

from a large UZA to a rural area would 

be administered as Section 5311 funds 

and therefore would follow the 

corresponding guidance for those funds. 

Response: Funds apportioned under 

one formula program to another separate 

formula program, or to a different tier of 

the same formula program, as 

determined by Census designations, are 

managed as if they are part of the 

receiving funding program (e.g., Section 

5307 transferred to Section 5311). While 

the circular already addresses how 

transferred apportionments would 

retain certain requirements/limitations 

associated with the original apportioned 

program in Chapter III, additional 

language was included to specify that 

transfers of apportionments retain the 

same period of availability to obligate 

funds to grants as the program of the 

original apportionment. 

Comment: In reference to FTA’s 

definitions of ‘‘Equipment’’ and 

‘‘Supplies,’’ three commenters requested 

an increase of the $5,000 per-unit value 

threshold to $10,000 in order to match 

the threshold for micro-purchases for 

federalized procurement purchases. 

Response: Since FTA published the 

proposed circular, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

updated the ‘‘Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal 

Awards’’ under 2 CFR part 200, which 

will be effective October 1, 2024 (89 FR 

30046). Among those updates, OMB 

increased the threshold in the 

definitions of ‘‘Equipment’’ and 

‘‘Supplies’’ from $5,000 to $10,000. FTA 

has incorporated these new thresholds 

in the circular. Note that FTA made this 

change based on definitional changes in 

part 200, not based on the micropurchase threshold as suggested by the 

commenters. Also note that the 

threshold change is not effective until 

OMB’s update to part 200 is effective on 

October 1, 2024. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA expand the criteria that a 

recipient should consider when 

undertaking fleet expansion in Chapter 

IV under ‘‘Requirements Related to 

Vehicles and Equipment Eligibility.’’ 

The commenter noted that the language 

should additionally account for 

recipients’ evaluation of locally 

available resources to identify feasible 

opportunities for new and expanded 

routes and services, as such an 

evaluation is needed to require 

consideration of private mobility 

providers and to consider provision of 

demand-response services in lieu of 

fixed-route transit. 

Response: In response to the 

comment, FTA added ‘‘and evaluate 

available resources’’ to refer to other 

available resources, including those 

contemplated by the commenter, 

because recipients can consider a wide 

variety of resources. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

further clarification on recipients’ 

eligibility to use funds apportioned to 

UZAs in rural areas, as well as their 

eligibility to use funds apportioned to 

rural areas in UZAs. More specifically, 

the commenter communicated support 

for the circumstances under which 

either rural or UZA funds may be used 

for services that intersect both a UZA 

and rural area but noted a contradiction 

in the circular’s language regarding the 

inflexibility to use rural funds for the 

portion of such a service that is internal 

to a UZA when both UZA and rural 

funds are combined to support the 

respective service. 

Response: FTA updated the 

applicable circular language to reflect 

and clarify that, when both UZA and 

rural funds are combined to subsidize 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
79356 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 

such a service (or mobile capital assets 

used for the service), rural funds may 

support the portion of a service that is 

internal to a UZA. However, the 

language re-emphasizes that if a 

recipient only uses rural funds for such 

a service, the service must be designed 

primarily to bring rural passengers to 

and from the UZA with a limited 

number of route stops within the UZA. 

Additionally, FTA modified language to 

reflect and clarify that funds 

apportioned to a UZA that will be used 

for immobile capital assets located 

outside the UZA may support such an 

asset in proportion to the extent the 

asset supports transit service provided 

in the respective UZA based on a 

reasonable cost allocation methodology. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on whether transit 

agencies’ bike share programs are 

eligible for Section 5307 funding, which 

would include activities such as 

purchasing bicycles and operating and 

managing bike share services. 

Response: In response to the 

comment, in Chapter IV, FTA clarified 

that eligible projects funded with 

Section 5307 funds may include 

infrastructure expenses to accommodate 

the presence of bicycle or other mobility 

device sharing programs in the vicinity 

of transit stops or stations, but the 

acquisition of bicycles, scooters, 

segways, or other similar mobility 

devices are ineligible expenses. Further, 

in the section addressing JARC projects 

in Chapter IV, FTA removed language 

that suggested operating expenses for 

bicycle sharing programs in the vicinity 

of transit stations are eligible. Such 

expenses are ineligible because 

operations associated with those 

individualized modes of travel do not 

qualify as public transportation. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to consider a different terminology 

other than ‘‘Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Paths’’ in Chapter IV. The commenter 

recommended FTA use the term 

‘‘bicycle and pedestrian facilities’’ in 

order to highlight the physical nature of 

the space rather than give the 

impression that it refers to an off-road 

type of recreation amenity. 

Response: FTA updated the section in 

Chapter IV to which the comment 

referred by revising the terminology to 

‘‘Bicycle and Pedestrian Access 

Improvements.’’ Changing the term to 

‘‘access improvements’’ rather than 

‘‘paths’’ or ‘‘facilities’’ provides better 

alignment to Associated Transit 

Improvements (ATI), which is defined 

in 49 U.S.C. 5302(2) and is the focus of 

the section in the circular. FTA 

presumptively interprets bicycle and 

pedestrian access improvements as 

being ‘‘physically or functionally related 

to transit facilities’’ if they meet the 

distance requirements specified in the 

circular. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

C 9050.1A clarify that minimum useful 

life, which is addressed in FTA’s 

circular ‘‘Award Management 

Requirements’’ (C 5010.1), is different 

from useful life benchmark (ULB), 

which is governed by the Transit Asset 

Management (TAM) requirements. One 

of the commenters requested that C 

9050.1A note that C 5010.1 is the 

governing circular on minimum useful 

life. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, FTA references C 5010.1F in 

the definition for the term ‘‘minimum 

useful life’’ for more information on that 

specific topic. FTA also deleted ‘‘useful 

life benchmark’’ from the list of defined 

terms in C 9050.1A to further reduce 

confusion since the term is no longer 

used in the circular. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the circular define or clarify the 

types of communications that fulfill the 

‘‘in writing’’ requirement for purposes 

of requesting and issuing pre-award 

authority. 

Response: These types of 

communications are already addressed 

in Chapter V of the circular, but FTA 

additionally updated the definition of 

‘‘Pre-award Authority’’ to state that it is 

announced in the annual 

Apportionment Notice, Notice of 

Funding Opportunity, a Letter of No 

Prejudice, or other written notification. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA emphasize the statutory 

provision 49 U.S.C. 5323(r), which 

states that a recipient may not deny 

reasonable access for a private intercity 

or charter transportation operator to 

federally funded public transportation 

facilities. The commenter said that the 

cost of maintaining bus terminals in 

dense urban areas is becoming too 

expensive for intercity bus companies, 

and the intercity bus companies are 

facing difficulty finding suitable and 

affordable facilities for passenger 

terminals in dense urban areas. The 

commenter further said that allowing 

the intercity bus companies access to 

public transportation facilities would be 

a convenience to passengers connecting 

to public transportation. 

Response: In response, FTA included 

the reference to the statute in the 

‘‘Activities Applicable to Section 5307, 

5337, and 5339(a)’’ section under 

Chapter IV. There, FTA states that a 

recipient’s capacity requirements and 

the impact on existing public 

transportation services must be 

considered by a recipient in its 

determination of whether a proposed 

access is reasonable. FTA included 

examples of considerations in this 

determination. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that ‘‘intercity bus service’’ be a defined 

term in C 9050.1A to ensure clarity on 

the meaning of intercity bus service. 

The commenter further requested that 

information about the Intercity Bus 

program under Section 5311(f) be added 

to C 9050.1A under ‘‘Relationship to 

Other Programs’’ in Chapter II. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, FTA added information on 

the Intercity Bus Program under Section 

5311(f) in Chapter II and a definition of 

‘‘intercity bus service’’ that is based on 

the definition in FTA’s Rural Areas 

Formula Grant Programs Guidance 

circular, C 9040.1H, for consistency. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification regarding how the capital 

cost of contracting table in Chapter IV 

applies to Section 5339(a) funds. 

Response: In response, FTA amended 

the circular to now include additional 

information within the capital cost of 

contracting table summarizing the 

extent to which Section 5337 and 

5339(a) funds may support capital cost 

of contracting activities. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA to clarify that, in Chapter III, the 

‘‘Lapsing Funds’’ section under 

‘‘Reallocation or Transfer of 

Apportionments’’ is referring to Section 

5307 funds. 

Response: FTA made this revision so 

that the section is titled ‘‘Lapsing 

Section 5307 Funds.’’ 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA emphasize that intercity bus 

projects are eligible as a capital project 

if they are part of a joint development 

improvement project under 49 U.S.C. 

5302(4)(G). 

Response: FTA added a new row in 

Table IV–2 to specify joint development 

improvement projects as eligible capital 

activities in response to this public 

comment. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

FTA implement the requirement for 

recipients in UZAs with a population of 

200,000 or more to expend a minimum 

of 0.75 percent of their Section 5307 

apportionment on safety-related 

projects, referred to as the safety setaside, only at the individual recipient 

level and not for each recipient’s grant 

application to allow recipients greater 

grant-making flexibility. 

Response: FTA removed the 

applicability of the requirement to each 

grant application to allow recipient 

flexibility for determining how to best 

structure grants to satisfy the minimum 

0.75 percent expenditure on safetyVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices 79357 

related projects. The implementation of 

the requirement at the individual 

recipient level was retained to ensure 

compliance with the statute. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA clarify in Chapter II, under the 

section that briefly explains Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Flexible Programs, that flex funds can 

be used for intercity bus projects. The 

commenter noted that the language in 

the circular refers to flex funds being 

eligible for ‘‘public transportation 

projects,’’ which does not include 

intercity bus. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, FTA removed the reference to 

‘‘public transportation projects’’ and 

added language from the statute 

governing the transfer of highway funds 

for transit projects, 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(1), 

to specify that recipients can transfer 

funds that were available for transit 

projects or transportation planning. The 

inclusion of the statutory language 

provides better alignment with the 

scope of eligible projects covered by the 

statute. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that FTA revise the language in Chapter 

V stating that subarea allocations of 

formula funds are determined by ‘‘a 

process based on local needs.’’ The 

commenter asked that ‘‘local needs’’ be 

replaced with ‘‘regional priorities’’ to 

better align subarea allocation of 

formula funds with the performance and 

outcome-based planning processes 

carried out by MPOs. 

Response: FTA agrees. 49 U.S.C. 5303 

generally establishes regional priorities 

as the appropriate geographic scale and 

standard governing metropolitan 

transportation planning decisions while 

incorporating local considerations 

through MPO local official 

participation. FTA revised the language 

to more closely match the statutory 

language emphasizing regional priorities 

as the controlling standard. In the same 

sentence, FTA removed language 

emphasizing the agreement by 

designated recipients to subarea 

allocations, as designated recipients’ 

participation in the subarea allocation 

process is already represented through 

the metropolitan planning process. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on whether the flexibility 

to include substitute or contingency 

projects in a grant application is now 

being extended to all recipients rather 

than to just States and MPOs with 

multiple subrecipients. The commenter 

also requested clarification on this 

flexibility because the circular 

references ‘‘below the line’’ in a section 

of a grant application which may have 

referred to a scope code that no longer 

exists. 

Response: In the proposed circular, 

FTA changed the reference from ‘‘State’’ 

to ‘‘recipient.’’ In response to the 

comment, FTA clarified that recipients 

with more than one subrecipient may 

substitute contingency subrecipient 

projects within a grant application. FTA 

declines to extend the flexibility to 

recipients without more than one 

subrecipient because they do not 

manage a program of projects within a 

single grant application for more than 

one other entity. FTA agrees that the 

reference to ‘‘below the line’’ section of 

a grant budget is unnecessary and has 

removed the reference to the term. 

III. Other Changes 

In addition to the changes noted 

above, FTA has made revisions in this 

final circular for consistency with 

changes in statute, regulation, and other 

FTA circulars, as well as minor, nonsubstantive revisions for clarity. For 

consistency with statute, FTA has added 

language in Chapter II, under 

‘‘Designated Recipient and State Roles 

in Program Administration,’’ to match 

the language for the criteria for eligible 

recipients in 49 U.S.C. 5339(a)(4). FTA 

also deleted information about the 

‘‘Over the Road Bus Accessibility 

Program’’ in Chapter IV, which was 

mentioned under the section discussing 

the capital cost of contracting in the 

proposed circular. FTA removed that 

reference from the circular because the 

funding program expired after Federal 

fiscal year 2012. 

FTA also updated Public 

Transportation Safety Program (PTASP) 

information in Chapter V for 

consistency with revisions to the PTASP 

regulation (49 CFR part 673) that 

occurred after publication of the 

proposed circular. 

In Chapter IV, under ‘‘Workforce 

Development Activities,’’ the reference 

to cost principles for Federal awards 

under 2 CFR 200.403(d) was updated 

with a clarifying change from ‘‘may not’’ 

to ‘‘must not’’ for consistency with OMB 

updates to 2 CFR part 200 that become 

effective October 1, 2024. 

FTA made revisions in this final 

circular for consistency with language 

that was included in proposed FTA C 

5010.1F ‘‘Award Management 

Requirements’’ and C 9040.1H ‘‘Rural 

Areas Formula Grant Programs 

Guidance’’ that were published for 

notice and comment. The name of this 

circular, C 9050.1A, has been updated to 

‘‘Urbanized Areas Formula Grant 

Programs Guidance’’ for consistency 

with the naming structure of C 9040.1H. 

FTA also removed the statement that the 

circular contains guidance for the 

preparation of grant applications 

because that information is in C 

5010.1F. FTA updated or added the 

following definitions for consistency 

with proposed C 5010.1F: the definition 

of ‘‘Capital Asset,’’ which was modified 

for consistency with 2 CFR 200.1; the 

definition of ‘‘Federal Interest,’’ which 

was updated to better align with FTA 

and Federal regulations, including in 

cases for which fair market value 

determinations are not readily 

discernable; the definition of 

‘‘Incidental Use’’ to align with C 

5010.1F; the definition of ‘‘National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),’’ 

which was updated to clarify the role in 

FTA-funded projects; the definition of 

‘‘Preventive Maintenance,’’ which was 

updated to provide more specificity; 

added the definition of ‘‘Project 

Property’’ for consistency with C 

5010.1F; removed the definition of 

‘‘Spare Parts’’ as it is not a term used in 

the circular; and the definition of ‘‘State 

of Good Repair’’ was clarified with nonsubstantive changes. For consistency 

with C 9040.1H, the definition of 

‘‘State’’ was updated to include the 49 

U.S.C. 5339 reference to the distinction 

between ‘‘State’’ and ‘‘territory,’’ and a 

similar revision was made to note 

territories under the section explaining 

the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities 

Formula Program under 49 U.S.C. 

5339(a) in Chapter III. 

Along with other non-substantive 

administrative changes that were 

recommended by several commenters, 

FTA made additional corrections in the 

circular for typographical errors, 

grammatical errors, and formatting. 

Finally, FTA removed outdated 

language establishing a threshold level 

of more than one mile of fixed guideway 

in order for UZAs to receive State of 

Good Repair funds in Chapter III under 

the ‘‘State of Good Repair Grants 

program (Section 5337).’’ The outdated 

requirement was not based in statute 

and has not been FTA policy for a 

significant amount of time. Removing 

this threshold requirement from the 

circular does not impact any 

prospective applicants of State of Good 

Repair funds and is not a change in 

existing policy. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22161 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1