4622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

or school bus as a collision with a Motor 

Vehicle; collision with another agency’s 

transit vehicle as a collision with a 

Motor Vehicle; and collision with 

another of your transit agency’s vehicles 

as a collision with a transit vehicle. 

FTA Response. FTA did not receive 

any comments to this proposed revision 

and the revision will be adopted as 

proposed. 

10. Revision to Non-Rail ‘‘Type of Fire’’ 

Categories on Fire Event Detail Screens 

FTA proposed to add selections for 

‘‘type of fire’’ to the non-rail fire event 

detail screens to provide better nationallevel information for vehicle fire 

prevention and mitigation. 

Comment. FTA received two 

comments to the proposed revision. 

Commenters indicated that ‘‘type of 

fire’’ was often difficult to ascertain and 

could only be identified after a lengthy 

investigation. 

FTA Response. The NTD allows for 

event reports to be edited months after 

being reported, thus FTA does not 

consider this problematic for reporters 

and will adopt the proposed revision as 

stated. 

11. Collect New Data on Geographic 

Location of Events 

FTA proposed to add fields for 

latitude and longitude of events. This 

change is necessary for FTA to 

participate in the U.S. DOT’s Open Data 

initiative that will provide for the 

creation and maintenance of highquality, nationwide transportation data 

in the public domain. 

Comments. FTA received nine 

comments to the proposed revision. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

they are not equipped to provide the 

proposed information. 

FTA Response. FTA will make this 

new requirement optional for the first 

year to allow time for reporters to 

develop procedures for determining the 

latitude and longitude for incidents. 

FTA also will provide functionality in 

the online forms for converting street 

addresses to latitude and longitude 

automatically. 

Although there is a potential increase 

in the reporting burden for some data 

elements affected by these revisions, 

there also are some potential reductions 

in the reporting burden. FTA will 

monitor these and generate a revised 

reporting burden estimate for our 

upcoming Paperwork Reduction Act 

application. This application will be 

completed in 2015. At this time the 

reporting burden is expected to be 

neutral and to remain within the 

currently approved Paperwork 

Reduction Act collection. 

Therese W. McMillan, 

Acting Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01479 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No. FTA–2014–0008] 

State of Good Repair Grants Program: 

Final Circular 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

circular. 

SUMMARY: FTA has placed guidance in 

the docket and on its Web site, in the 

form of a circular, to assist recipients of 

financial aid under the 49 U.S.C. 5337 

State of Good Repair (‘‘SGR’’) Grants 

Program. The circular provides 

instructions and guidance on program 

administration and the grant application 

process. 

DATES: The effective date of the circular 

is February 27, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program questions, contact Eric Hu, 

FTA Office of Program Management, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room E44– 

419, (202) 366–0870, Eric.Hu@dot.gov. 

For legal questions, contact Christopher 

Hall, FTA Office of Chief Counsel, same 

address, Room E54–413, (202) 366– 

5218, Christopher.Hall@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Final Circular 

This notice provides a summary of the 

circular and responses to comments 

received on the proposed version of the 

circular. The circular itself is not 

included in this notice. Instead, an 

electronic version of the circular can be 

found on FTA’s Web site at 

www.fta.dot.gov, or in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Paper copies of 

the circular can be obtained by 

contacting FTA’s Administrative 

Services Help Desk at (202) 366–4865. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Discussion of Comments 

III. Chapter-by-Chapter Summary 

I. Overview 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (‘‘MAP–21’’), Public 

Law 112–141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012), 

made significant changes to the Federal 

transit laws that are applicable across all 

of FTA’s financial assistance programs. 

These changes further several important 

goals of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Most notably, MAP–21 

grants FTA new authority to oversee 

and regulate the safety of public 

transportation systems in the United 

States and authorizes a new Public 

Transportation Safety Program at 49 

U.S.C. 5329. MAP–21 also establishes a 

new National Transit Asset Management 

system at 49 U.S.C. 5326, including a 

new requirement for transit asset 

management plans, performance 

measures and annual target setting 

based on a definition of ‘‘state of good 

repair,’’ and additional technical 

assistance from FTA. 

MAP–21 also establishes the new SGR 

Grants Program at 49 U.S.C. 5337. In 

contrast to the repealed Fixed Guideway 

Modernization Program, the purpose of 

the SGR Grants Program is the 

maintenance, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of capital assets, along 

with the development and 

implementation of transit asset 

management plans. 

These three new sections—the transit 

asset management provisions at section 

5326, the Public Transportation Safety 

Program at section 5329, and the SGR 

Grants Program at section 5337— 

enhance the process by which a transit 

provider evaluates the SGR needs of 

capital assets. Section 5337 provides 

financial assistance for repairs, 

replacement or rehabilitation, as 

informed by conditions of capital assets 

and safety risk priorities. A transit 

provider’s safety and asset assessment 

informs its asset management process, 

which informs budgeting and project 

selection. On October 3, 2013, FTA 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’), 78 

FR 61251, to request public comments 

on a wide range of topics related to the 

new Public Transportation Safety 

Program and the transit asset 

management provisions. FTA is 

currently reviewing the public input 

received in response to the ANPRM. 

On March 3, 2014, FTA published a 

notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 

11865) announcing the availability of a 

proposed version of this circular and 

requesting public comment. FTA 

received 12 individual responses that 

contained more than 60 comments. 

Commenters included eight transit 

providers, two metropolitan planning 

organizations (‘‘MPO’’), one advocacy 

association, and one architectural and 

engineering public contractor. This 

circular incorporates FTA’s responses to 

the comments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 4623 

II. Summary Discussion of Comments 

Received in Response to the Proposed 

Circular 

Definitions 

In the notice of availability for the 

proposed circular, FTA specifically 

sought public comment on several new 

or clarified definitions that would 

appear in the circular, including ‘‘bus 

rapid transit,’’ ‘‘commuter rail,’’ and 

‘‘high intensity motorbus.’’ The largest 

number of comments FTA received 

related to definitions in the proposed 

circular. 

Three commenters responded to 

FTA’s proposed elaboration of the 

definition of bus rapid transit (‘‘BRT’’). 

One commenter suggested that FTA 

should require shorter headways than 

FTA proposed, specifically that a bus 

rapid transit system should run 

maximum 15-minute headways for at 

least 14 hours on weekdays and for at 

least 10 hours on weekends. The same 

commenter proposed that, in addition to 

active signal priority and queue-jump 

lanes, BRTs be permitted to make use of 

any other ‘‘physical or signal 

improvements that reduce delay for 

buses at intersections.’’ Another 

commenter suggested that FTA 

eliminate the requirement for maximum 

headways altogether because it may lead 

to service levels that exceed demand. A 

third commenter suggested that FTA’s 

proposed definition of BRT was 

unnecessary, or that, in any case, the 

definition change should be proposed 

somewhere other than the circular 

because the definition change will have 

effects beyond the SGR Grants Program. 

The requirement for maximum 

headways is necessary to give effect to 

the statutory definition of BRT at 49 

U.S.C. 5302(2), and FTA cannot 

eliminate the requirement. BRT is 

statutorily defined as a system that 

‘‘includes features that emulate the 

services provided by rail fixed 

guideway’’ and that has ‘‘short headway 

bidirectional services for a substantial 

part of weekdays and weekend days.’’ 

The definition of BRT in the final 

circular clarifies these statutory 

requirements and adopts the proposed 

definition’s requirements for maximum 

headways. The final circular preserves 

the proposed circular’s flexibility for 

grantees to choose between 15-minute 

maximum headways throughout 

weekday service, or 10-minute 

maximum headways during weekday 

peak service hours and 20-minute 

maximum headways during off-peak 

weekday service. This option is 

designed to give project sponsors 

flexibility in designing BRT service. The 

final circular also requires 30-minute 

maximum headways on weekend 

service, instead of the 15-minute 

maximum headways suggested by the 

commenter, because 30-minute 

weekend headways will be more 

appropriate for the variety of providers 

that may seek FTA financial assistance 

to create BRT services. The maximum 

headways described in the final circular 

are, of course, maximums, and nothing 

in the final circular prevents a BRT 

operator from providing service with 

shorter headways. 

The final circular does not 

incorporate the suggestion to allow 

BRTs to use other ‘‘physical or signal 

improvements that reduce delay for 

buses at intersections’’ as an alternative 

to active signal priority and queue-jump 

lanes. The statutory definition of BRT 

requires BRTs to include ‘‘traffic signal 

priority for public transportation 

vehicles,’’ 49 U.S.C. 5302(2)(B)(ii), and 

the suggested language would have 

avoided this requirement. FTA intends 

to apply a similar definition of BRT to 

its Capital Investment Grant (CIG) 

Program to be consistent between 

programs and because the BRT 

definition in 49 U.S.C. 5302(2) closely 

matches that for the CIG program in 49 

U.S.C. 5309(a). The only difference 

would be that the fixed-guideway 

element would not be required for Small 

Starts BRT projects that qualify as 

‘‘corridor-based’’ projects, for which no 

dedicated right-of-way is required. 

Projects that qualify as corridor-based 

Small Starts BRT projects would not be 

eligible for Section 5337 funding given 

that they do not meet the fixedguideway element of the BRT definition 

in this circular. 

One commenter suggested that the 

proposed definition of ‘‘rehabilitation’’ 

be amended to describe in detail how 

rehabilitation affects a vehicle’s useful 

life. Another commenter suggested that 

the definitions of both ‘‘rehabilitation’’ 

and ‘‘rebuild’’ be amended to refer to 

assets other than vehicles. The final 

circular does not incorporate these 

suggestions because rebuilding and 

rehabilitation and their effects on the 

useful lives of vehicles and other capital 

assets are already discussed elsewhere 

in the final circular and in FTA’s 

circular 5010.1D (Grant Management 

Requirements). 

One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether a State’s 

governor must designate a regional 

transportation planning organization 

(‘‘RTPO’’) or regional transportation 

planning authority (‘‘RTPA’’) before the 

RTPO or RTPA can be the designated 

recipient of SGR Grant funds 

apportioned to a large urbanized area. 

Under the statutory definition of 

‘‘designated recipient,’’ a regional 

authority need not be designated by the 

Governor of a State to become a 

designated recipient ‘‘if the authority is 

responsible under the laws of a State for 

a capital project and for financing and 

directly providing public 

transportation.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5302(4)(B). 

FTA’s project management oversight 

requirements apply to projects with 

costs in excess of $100 million or other 

projects that FTA determines to be 

‘‘major capital projects.’’ One 

commenter asked FTA to provide a 

definition of ‘‘major capital project’’ in 

the circular, and another commenter 

suggested that SGR Grants Program 

projects be exempted from the $100- 

million trigger for project management 

oversight. FTA’s project management 

oversight program is required by statute, 

49 U.S.C. 5327, and is effected by 

regulation at 49 CFR part 633. The kinds 

of projects subject to project 

management oversight, including major 

capital projects designated as such by 

FTA’s discretion, are already discussed 

in the regulation. The regulatory 

requirement for project management 

oversight of projects that involve ‘‘the 

rehabilitation or modernization of an 

existing fixed guideway with a total 

project cost in excess of $100 million,’’ 

is based upon the size and complexity 

of such projects, and not the grant 

program through which Federal funding 

is awarded. 

As part of MAP–21’s requirements for 

a national transit asset management 

system, FTA will, in a separate 

rulemaking, define the term ‘‘state of 

good repair.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1). 

Multiple comments suggested that, until 

FTA has finalized such a definition, it 

is premature to say that SGR Grants are 

available for projects that maintain 

systems in a state of good repair. FTA 

disagrees. Foremost, SGR Grants are 

available statutorily for certain eligible 

activities to ‘‘maintain public 

transportation systems in a state of good 

repair.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5337(b)(1). Also, it is 

possible to determine the eligibility of 

SGR Grants activities described in the 

statute and final circular—e.g., projects 

for rehabilitation, rebuilding, or 

replacement—independently of a 

definition of state of good repair. FTA 

expects that a final definition of state of 

good repair will enhance and clarify the 

SGR Grants Program. 

High-Occupancy Toll Lanes 

Under the SGR Grants Program, an 

urbanized area’s high-intensity 

motorbus apportionment is calculated 

based on vehicle revenue miles and 

directional route miles. FTA’s current 

policy excludes high-occupancy toll 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

(‘‘HOT’’) lane miles from this 

calculation, except for certain 

‘‘grandfathered’’ lanes that were 

recently converted from high-occupancy 

vehicle (‘‘HOV’’) lanes to HOT lanes. In 

the notice of availability that 

accompanied the proposed circular, 

FTA proposed to exclude all HOT lanes 

from SGR Grants Program eligibility, 

including the grandfathered systems. 

Several commenters responded to 

FTA’s proposed policy regarding the 

eligibility of HOT lanes as a form of 

high intensity motorbus. Some 

commenters asked FTA to clarify 

language in the proposed circular 

distinguishing between HOT lanes and 

other kinds of lanes. Some other 

commenters suggested that FTA should 

discard the proposed policy and 

consider HOT lanes to be an eligible 

form of high intensity motorbus. 

The proposed circular included the 

following statement: ‘‘The State of Good 

Repair Grants Program provides capital 

assistance for replacement and 

rehabilitation projects for . . . high 

intensity motorbus (buses operating in 

high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes) or 

toll lanes with free access to HOVs) to 

maintain public transportation systems 

in a state of good repair. Projects in 

high-occupancy toll lanes are not 

eligible for State of Good Repair 

funding.’’ Several commenters asked 

FTA to distinguish between ‘‘toll lanes 

with free access to HOVs’’ and HOT 

lanes. The final circular clarifies the 

eligibility of HOT lanes by removing the 

words ‘‘or toll lanes with free access to 

HOVs.’’ 

Some commenters suggested that FTA 

should amend its current policy and 

begin recognizing HOT lanes as eligible 

forms of high intensity motorbus transit. 

This would be inconsistent with the 

definition of high intensity motorbus, 

which is limited to transit that is 

provided ‘‘on a facility with access for 

other high-occupancy vehicles.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 5337(d)(1). If this definition were 

broadened to include HOT lanes, which 

provide access to fee-paying singleoccupancy vehicles as well as highoccupancy vehicles, the definition 

could fairly include any lane that is 

used by both single-occupancy and 

high-occupancy vehicles. 

Previously, FTA excluded HOT lanes 

from the SGR Grants Program except for 

certain ‘‘grandfathered’’ HOT lanes that 

had been recently converted from HOV 

to HOT lanes. The final circular ends 

this grandfathering provision. In 

considering the effect of this policy 

decision on recipients of SGR formula 

funding, FTA determined that as few as 

three urbanized areas may be negatively 

affected by the policy expressed in the 

final circular, and that other urbanized 

areas will benefit from the additional 

SGR funding available in the high 

intensity motorbus tier. 

Eligible Activities 

Some commenters requested 

clarification regarding FTA’s statement 

that SGR funds are not available to 

modernize assets. These commenters 

observed that when an asset is replaced, 

it is normal to replace the asset with its 

modern equivalent. The SGR Grants 

Program stands in contrast to the 

repealed Fixed Guideway 

Modernization program. The purpose of 

the SGR Grants Program is to maintain 

transit systems in a state of good repair, 

not to alter or modernize them. 

However, modernization that occurs as 

part of bringing assets into a state of 

good repair may be permissible. For 

example, rebuilding and rehabilitation 

projects, which are eligible activities 

under the SGR Grants Program, include 

the replacement of older features with 

new ones and the incorporation of 

current design standards. 

The proposed circular stated that 

‘‘[r]ebuilding work must be procured 

competitively from private sector 

sources, unless there are mitigating 

circumstances. In-house rebuilding 

must not interfere with normal 

maintenance activities.’’ One 

commenter asked FTA to clarify 

whether the proposed requirement for 

rebuilding services to be procured 

competitively precluded or otherwise 

affected performing in-house rebuilding. 

FTA has provided clarity by deleting 

these sentences from the final circular 

and referring the reader to FTA’s 

discussion of rebuilding in circular 

5010.1, which does not exclude inhouse rebuilding efforts. 

Some commenters objected to the 

proposed circular’s requirement that 

equipment, vehicles, or facilities to be 

replaced must have reached or exceeded 

their minimum useful lives to be 

eligible for SGR funds. The commenters 

observed that age alone should not be 

determinative of whether an asset 

requires replacement, especially with 

regard to technical assets that may be 

obsolete before the end of their useful 

lives. FTA agrees that asset age is not 

the sole determinant of whether an asset 

must be replaced, and useful life is not 

determinative of whether an asset is 

eligible for repair, rebuilding, or 

rehabilitation using SGR funds. 

Furthermore, a recipient may replace an 

asset using funds from other sources. 

However, FTA expects that an asset will 

have at least served its original useful 

life before it is replaced entirely using 

SGR funds, and the final circular retains 

this policy. 

Some commenters suggested that FTA 

concurrence should not be required to 

create pre-award authority for projects 

that are covered by categorical 

exclusions (‘‘CE’’) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’), 

and that the circular expand the 

examples of SGR Grants projects that 

fall with CEs to include certain 

construction projects as well as vehicle 

and equipment purchases. One 

commenter also suggested that the 

circular restate and clarify the eligibility 

of property acquisitions prior to the 

completion of the NEPA review process. 

The same commenter also suggested 

that a Letter of No Prejudice should not 

be required for projects using SGR funds 

awarded through multiple grants that 

span authorizations. The final circular 

clarifies the kinds of projects that may 

qualify for a CE to include ‘‘construction 

of transit facilities primarily within the 

transportation right-of-way,’’ or, for a 

documented CE, ‘‘real property 

acquisition and construction of transit 

facilities with features located outside of 

the transportation right-of-way’’ when 

such projects are only ‘‘slightly greater 

in scope than those qualifying as a CE.’’ 

A project that makes use of SGR funds 

without pre-award authority (e.g., 

through a fiscal year appropriation 

notice) requires a Letter of No Prejudice 

to incur costs for future reimbursement. 

Miscellaneous Program Questions 

Only miles of fixed guideway and 

high intensity motorbus transit that 

have been in revenue service for at least 

seven years are considered when 

calculating apportionments of SGR 

funding. One commenter asked FTA to 

clarify whether vehicle revenue miles 

must have been operated at attributable 

service levels continuously during the 

seven years. Yes, FTA’s intention is that 

the attributable revenue miles will have 

been operated continuously during the 

preceding seven-year period. Another 

commenter asked how the seven-year 

requirement affects new systems’ 

reporting to the National Transit 

Database (‘‘NTD’’). The seven-year 

requirement applies only to the SGR 

Grants Program and does not affect how 

bus transit is reported to the NTD. 

One commenter asked FTA to clarify 

whether a supplemental agreement 

executed among FTA, a direct recipient, 

and a designated recipient, can be 

executed electronically in the electronic 

award management system. All 

applications for FTA grant funds must 

be submitted electronically through 

FTA’s electronic award management 

system. Any supplemental agreement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 4625 

should be attached electronically to the 

grant application. 

One commenter asked FTA to clarify 

that designated recipients of SGR 

funding have discretion to distribute the 

funding among eligible recipients, and 

are not required to adhere to the 

formulas used by FTA to apportion SGR 

funds. The role of the designated 

recipient and the apportionment and 

allocation processes are already 

discussed in detail in chapters III and IV 

of the circular. 

One commenter requested the FTA 

make SGR Grant funds available for the 

year of obligation, plus an additional 

five years, instead of the current year of 

obligation plus three years. FTA’s policy 

in this area is consistent with other 

periods of availability that have been set 

by statute. For example, FTA’s Bus and 

Bus Facilities Formula Grants also have 

a period of availability for the year of 

obligation plus three years. 49 U.S.C. 

5339(g). 

Some commenters had questions 

regarding the eligibility of transit 

projects for Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality (‘‘CMAQ’’) funding. The 

CMAQ program is administered by the 

Federal Highway Administration and is 

obligated separately from FTA 

assistance. Certain transit projects may 

be eligible to receive CMAQ funding, in 

which case, the CMAQ funds obligated 

to the transit project are administered by 

FTA. 

One commenter suggested that grant 

applicants be permitted to obtain FTA’s 

concurrence on vehicle and equipment 

useful life assumptions at any time, and 

not just through the grant application 

process. For vehicles and equipment 

that do not already have established 

useful lives, a grant applicant can 

consult with FTA regarding useful life 

at any time prior to making a grant 

application. However, specific useful 

life is established in the grant 

application. 

One commenter requested 

clarification regarding grant budget 

revisions, particularly whether (a) 

adjustments to a grant’s scope must be 

coordinated with the applicable STIP 

and (b) when FTA’s approval is required 

to make a budget revision to a grant. The 

circular states that budget revisions 

must be consistent with the activities 

contained in an approved STIP. If 

changes to a grant’s scope would make 

it inconsistent with its associated STIP, 

a STIP amendment will be required. 

FTA’s approval is required when the 

Federal share of a grant exceeds 

$100,000 and the change in the 

cumulative amount of funds allocated to 

each scope from the originally approved 

scope exceeds 20 percent. The 20- 

percent threshold refers to ‘‘each 

scope,’’ not, as suggested by the 

commenter, to the sum of all budget 

revisions to all scopes under the grant. 

One commenter requested 

clarification of when a grant recipient 

would be required to use the form 

entitled Sample Opinion of Counsel, 

which is included in the circular at 

Appendix C. Use of the form is required 

when a designated recipient agrees to 

permit another recipient to receive and 

dispense FTA financial assistance. 

One commenter suggested that the 

circular should clarify that direct 

recipients are able to apply directly to 

FTA for an SGR grant. The final circular 

retains the definition of direct recipient 

as ‘‘[a]n eligible entity authorized by a 

Designated Recipient or State to receive 

State of Good Repair Grants Program 

funds directly from FTA,’’ and no 

change is required. 

Planning and Transit Asset 

Management (TAM) 

Eventually, projects funded by the 

SGR Grants Program must be included 

in a recipient’s transit asset management 

(‘‘TAM’’) plan. One commenter asked 

FTA to clarify whether TAM 

requirements, specifically the 

requirements to create TAM plans and 

to set TAM targets apply only to direct 

recipients of SGR Grant funds or also to 

designated recipients of SGR Grant 

funds. The same commenter also asked 

if TAM plans must include all of a 

recipient’s assets, or only assets 

acquired with Federal assistance. 

Statutorily, all ‘‘recipients and 

subrecipients’’ of assistance from FTA 

must develop TAM plans, and all 

‘‘recipients’’ must establish TAM 

targets. 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(2) and (c)(2). 

TAM plans must include ‘‘capital asset 

inventories’’. 49 U.S.C. 5326(a)(2). FTA 

expects to determine the specifics of 

these requirements through a separate 

rulemaking implementing the TAM 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5326. 

Two commenters objected to the 

proposed circular’s statement that, upon 

completion of FTA’s TAM rulemaking, 

projects receiving SGR funds must be 

included in a recipient’s TAM plan. The 

commenters suggested that this 

statement presupposed that, after the 

TAM rulemaking process, FTA would 

require TAM plans to be projectspecific, rather than broadly categorical. 

The requirement for SGR Grants 

Program projects to be included in TAM 

plans is contained in statute at 49 U.S.C. 

5337(b)(2) and is not an FTA proposal. 

One commenter discussed the 

proposed circular’s reference to the 

metropolitan and statewide-andnonmetropolitan planning processes. 

Particularly, the commenter was 

concerned with the proposed circular’s 

statement that a transportation 

improvement program (‘‘TIP’’) or 

statewide transportation improvement 

program (‘‘STIP’’) must contain a 

description of the anticipated effect of 

the TIP or STIP towards achieving 

performance targets that have been 

incorporated into the planning process 

by metropolitan planning organizations 

(‘‘MPO’’) or States. The commenter 

asked FTA to clarify that FTA will not 

require transit providers to quantify the 

performance impacts of individual 

projects contained in TIPs or STIPs. 

FTA’s final circular retains the 

discussion of MPO and State planning 

because it is important to provide 

context for the SGR Grants Program 

within MAP–21’s broader emphasis on 

performance-based transportation 

planning. The proposed circular’s 

statement that TIPs and STIPs must 

discuss the effect of the TIP or STIP on 

achieving MPO or State performance 

targets closely paraphrases statutory 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(D) 

and 5304(g)(4), and for this reason has 

been left unchanged in the final 

circular. It is important to note that the 

TIP and STIP requirements apply to 

MPOs and States, not to transit 

providers, and this circular does not 

create new planning requirements for 

MPOs or States. FTA expects to 

establish TAM target setting for transit 

providers through a separate 

rulemaking, and the commenter is 

encouraged to provide comments in 

response to that expected proposed rule. 

Other 

FTA received several comments that 

were beyond the scope of the circular. 

Some of these comments referred to 

matters that will be the subject of future 

rulemakings or other circulars (e.g., 

TAM, safety regulations, a definition of 

‘‘state of good repair’’). Others discussed 

subjects that are of such general 

applicability to FTA’s programs that 

they are fully discussed in other 

guidance (e.g., application of Buy 

America requirements, how to use 

TEAM/TRAMS). FTA encourages 

commenters with questions about these 

matters to contact FTA directly. 

III. Chapter-by-Chapter Summary 

A. Chapter I: Introduction and 

Background 

Chapter I of the proposed circular is 

an introductory chapter that contains 

general information about FTA, a 

distinction between the new SGR Grants 

Program and previous programs that 

existed under previous authorization 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 

statutes, and a set of definitions 

applicable throughout the proposed 

circular. The final circular confirms the 

proposed definitions of bus rapid transit 

and commuter rail. For the reasons 

discussed above, the final circular limits 

the definition of high intensity 

motorbus to service that is provided on 

HOV lanes and excludes HOT lanes 

from the definition. 

B. Chapter II: Program Overview 

Chapter II provides general 

information about the SGR Grants 

program. 

1. Statutory Authority 

This section states the statutory 

authorization of the SGR Grants 

Program, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 

5337. 

2. Program Goals 

This section describes the program 

goals for the SGR Grants Program: the 

maintenance, repair or replacement of 

capital assets to bring fixed-guideway 

and high-intensity motorbus systems 

into a state of good repair. The SGR 

Grants Program is part of MAP–21’s 

emphasis on improved safety, asset 

management, and restoring aging transit 

infrastructure. 

3. FTA Role in Program Administration 

This section describes the respective 

roles of FTA’s headquarters and regional 

offices in program administration. The 

headquarters office is generally 

responsible for policy guidance and 

national program reviews, while the 

regional offices are generally 

responsible for day-to-day program 

administration, obligating funds, 

providing technical assistance, and 

reviewing recipients’ compliance with 

Federal requirements. 

4. Designated Recipient Role in Program 

Administration 

This section explains that SGR Grants 

are apportioned to designated 

recipients. The term designated 

recipient is defined at 49 U.S.C. 5302(4), 

and designated recipients for purposes 

of the SGR Grants Program are the same 

as for the Urbanized Area Formula 

Grants Program. 

5. Direct Recipient and Sub-Recipient 

Eligibility 

This section describes how to 

establish a direct recipient and the 

process for allocating funds to direct 

recipients and for sub-awarding funds to 

subrecipients. A direct recipient is a 

public entity that may apply for some or 

all of an urbanized area’s funding if 

certain requirements are met. 

6. FTA Oversight 

This section describes the oversight 

conducted by FTA to ensure a 

recipient’s compliance with grant 

program conditions. FTA performs 

comprehensive triennial reviews and 

may perform reviews focused 

specifically on a recipient’s technical 

capability, procurement practices, civil 

rights compliance, safety and security, 

or other subject areas. Also, FTA may 

apply the Project Management Oversight 

Requirements to SGR grants for the 

rehabilitation of fixed guideway systems 

having total project costs in excess of 

$100 million. 

7. Relationship to Other Programs 

This section discusses other FTA 

grant programs that have been repealed 

but for which funds may still be 

available, and programs created or 

amended by MAP–21. Funds previously 

authorized for programs that were 

repealed by MAP–21 remain available 

for their authorized purposes until the 

statutory period of availability expires 

or until the funds are fully expended, 

rescinded by the Congress, or 

reallocated. 

C. Chapter III: General Program 

Information 

This chapter discusses in more detail 

the apportionments for the SGR Grants 

Program. 

1. Apportionment of Program Funds 

This section states that FTA will 

apportion SGR Grants Program funds to 

designated recipients in urbanized areas 

with high intensity fixed guideway and 

high intensity motorbus systems. The 

section describes the statutory formula 

used to apportion funds under the SGR 

Grants Program. Of the funds 

appropriated to the SGR Grants Program 

by Congress, 97.15 percent is 

apportioned among urbanized areas 

with fixed guideway systems that have 

been in operation for at least 7 years, 

and 2.85 percent is apportioned among 

urbanized areas with high-intensity 

motorbus systems that have been in 

operation for at least 7 years. 

An urbanized area’s fixed guideway 

apportionment is determined by two 

calculations. Half of the apportionment 

is based on what the urbanized area 

would have received under the preMAP–21 fixed guideway modernization 

program, but using calculations 

contained in the current version of 49 

U.S.C. 5336(b)(1). The other half of the 

apportionment is calculated based on 

fixed guideway service attributable to 

the urbanized area, weighted 60–40 

between vehicle revenue miles and 

directional route miles. Only segments 

of fixed guideway systems that have 

been in operation for at least 7 years 

prior to the start of a fiscal year are 

included in the calculation for any 

given fiscal year. 

An urbanized area’s high-intensity 

motorbus apportionment is calculated 

based on vehicle revenue miles and 

directional route miles. As with the 

fixed guideway calculation, the 

motorbus calculation is weighted 60–40 

between vehicle revenue miles and 

directional route miles. Only segments 

of motorbus systems in operation for 

seven years prior to the start of a fiscal 

year are included in the calculation for 

any given fiscal year. The final circular 

clarifies that HOT lanes are not 

considered a form of high intensity 

motorbus and therefore are not included 

in the calculation of formula 

apportionments. As such, the FY 2016 

SGR formula apportionments will 

reflect this final guidance. 

2. Availability of Funds 

SGR Grants Program funds are 

available for obligation during the fiscal 

year of appropriation plus three 

additional years. This period of 

availability is unchanged from the 

proposed circular. 

3. Eligible Recipients 

State and local government 

authorities in urbanized areas with 

qualifying fixed guideway or motorbus 

systems are eligible recipients. 

4. Eligible Projects 

This section describes projects 

eligible for SGR Grants Program funds. 

The SGR Grants Program is available for 

the maintenance, rehabilitation, or 

replacement of existing capital assets. 

SGR grants are not available for projects 

that expand system capacity or service 

or modernize assets. However, FTA will 

permit expansion of capacity within 

replacement projects to meet current or 

projected short-term service needs (e.g., 

replacing a maintenance facility with a 

larger facility, or replacing a bus with a 

larger bus). Replacement and 

rehabilitation includes (1) replacement 

of older features with new ones; (2) 

incorporation of current design 

standards; and (3) additional features 

required by Federal requirements. For 

any expansion elements included in a 

replacement project, a grant recipient 

will need to address how the project 

meets current or short-term service 

levels. FTA will review the 

reasonableness of such expansion 

elements when reviewing the grant. 

This section also notes the eligibility of 

incorporating resilience features into 

SGR projects. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Notices 4627 

Funds apportioned under high 

intensity fixed guideway shall be 

available exclusively for fixed guideway 

projects. High intensity motorbus funds 

can be used interchangeably on any 

eligible high intensity motorbus or high 

intensity fixed guideway project. High 

intensity motorbus funds must be used 

for capital expenses of public 

transportation systems that provide 

regular, continuing shared-ride surface 

transportation service to the general 

public. The final circular clarifies the 

eligibility of certain projects for high 

intensity motorbus funding. 

5. Federal Share of Project Costs 

This section describes the 

requirement for local funding of projects 

assisted under the SGR Grants Program. 

The Federal share of a project generally 

shall not exceed 80 percent of the net 

project cost. This section also discusses 

exceptions to the 80-percent limitation. 

6. Capital Cost of Contracting 

This section describes the eligibility 

of recipients who contract with a third 

party for the provision of transit services 

and therefore do not have direct capital 

costs. In such situations, FTA can apply 

a concept called the ‘‘capital cost of 

contracting.’’ 

7. Local Share of Project Costs 

This section describes qualifying 

sources of the local share of a project. 

8. Additional Sources of Local Share 

This section describes qualifying 

sources of the local share of a project 

that have special requirements 

associated with their use. 

9. Alternative Financing 

This section describes alternative or 

innovative sources of project financing 

and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act (TIFIA) loans. Recipients are 

encouraged to investigate and pursue 

innovative financing methods for transit 

projects. 

10. Deferred Local Share 

This section describes a possible 

arrangement whereby a project sponsor 

may defer contributing the local share of 

project costs until the Federal share has 

been fully drawn down. 

D. Chapter IV: Planning and Program 

Development 

Chapter IV describes planning 

requirements that apply to most 

recipients of FTA funding and are 

common to most of FTA’s programs. 

The chapter contains a new section, 

Transit Asset Management (TAM), that 

describes the new national asset 

management system and the 

requirements for planning, targetsetting, and reporting placed on 

recipients of FTA funding that will be 

effective upon completion of 

rulemaking. Asset management and the 

management of safety risks should 

inform recipients’ selection of SGR 

Grants Program projects. Other sections 

in chapter IV are: (2) Metropolitan and 

Statewide Planning Requirements; (3) 

Metropolitan Planning Areas; (4) 

Transportation Management Areas; (5) 

Performance-Based Planning; (6) Roles 

of Designated Recipient and 

Metropolitan Planning Organization in 

Allocating Program Funds; (7) Subarea 

Allocation; (8) Availability of FHWA 

‘‘Flexible Funds’’ for Transit Projects; 

(9) Requirements Related to Vehicles 

and Equipment; (10) Requirements 

Related to Facilities; (11) Environmental 

Considerations; (12) Major Capital 

Projects; (13) Authority to Undertake 

Projects in Advance; and (14) Public 

Transportation Safety Requirements. 

In response to comments received in 

response to the proposed circular, the 

final circular makes edits to three 

sections within Chapter IV. Section (7), 

Subarea Allocation, has been edited to 

clarify that although the MPO is not 

required to participate in the 

suballocation of program funds, FTA 

recommends that the designated 

recipient and MPO work together 

cooperatively in determining the 

suballocation of funds. Section (9), 

Requirements Related to Vehicles and 

Equipment, has been edited to improve 

clarity. Instead of containing a new 

discussion of FTA’s rebuilding and 

overhaul policies, the section now refers 

the reader to FTA’s primary discussion 

of the topic in circular 5010.1. Section 

(11), Environmental Considerations, has 

been edited to provide a more accurate 

description of the application of CEs 

under NEPA to SGR Grants Program 

projects, including construction-related 

projects. Section (13), Authority to 

Undertake Projects in Advance, has 

been rewritten for consistency with 

recent changes to FTA’s list of CEs at 23 

CFR 771.118. 

E. Chapter V: Program Management and 

Administrative Requirements 

Chapter V describes management and 

administrative requirements that apply 

to FTA grants and are common to FTA’s 

various programs. Sections included in 

chapter V are: (1) FTA Electronic Award 

Management System; (2) System for 

Award Management Requirements; (3) 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) Registration Requirements; (4) 

DUNS Requirement for Subrecipients; 

(5) Electronic Clearing House Operation 

(ECHO) Requirements; (6) Federal 

Funding Accountability and 

Transparency Act (FFATA) 

Requirements; and (7) National Transit 

Database (NTD) Reporting. 

F. Chapter VI: Other Provisions 

Chapter VI describes some of the 

requirements and conditions that apply 

to FTA grants and are common to FTA’s 

programs. Sections included in chapter 

VI are: (1) Introduction; (2) Charter Bus 

Services; (3) Civil Rights; (4) Clean Air 

Act (CAA); (5) Commercial Driver’s 

License (CDL); (6) Debarment and 

Suspension; (7) Drug and Alcohol 

Testing; (8) Drug-Free Workplace; (9) 

Employee Political Activity; (10) Energy 

Conservation; (11) Environmental 

Reviews; (12) Intergovernmental 

Review; (13) Labor Protections; (14) 

Presidential Coin Act; (15) Private 

Sector Participation; (16) Use of 

Competitive Procurements; (17) Real 

Property Acquisition and Relocation 

Assistance; (18) Restrictions on 

Lobbying; (19) Safety and Security; (20) 

School Bus Transportation; (21) Seismic 

Design and Construction Standards; (22) 

Sensitive Security Information; and (22) 

State Safety Oversight. 

G. Appendices 

The final circular contains five 

appendices. Appendix A contains 

instructions for recipients preparing a 

grant application. Appendix B contains 

instructions for how to prepare a project 

budget. Appendix C contains example 

documents to assist recipients in 

applying for and managing an SGR 

grant. Appendix D contains FTA 

regional and metropolitan contact 

information. Appendix E contains a list 

of references for the circular. 

Therese McMillan, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01530 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD–2015 0008] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel 

KANOA; Invitation for Public 

Comments 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 

12121, the Secretary of Transportation, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES