Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Notices 18699 

Kelly Gene Eller 

Mr. Eller, 50, holds an operator’s 

license in North Carolina. 

Elliot David Fellows 

Mr. Fellows, 22, holds an operator’s 

license in New York. 

David H. Grady 

Mr. Grady, 46, holds a Class B 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Colorado. 

Alissa Haselhorst 

Ms. Haselhorst, 27, holds an 

operator’s license in Nebraska. 

Nathan John Hill 

Mr. Hill, 31, holds an operator’s 

license in Georgia. 

Jason R. Gensler 

Mr. Gensler, 36, holds an operator’s 

license in Ohio. 

Thomas P. Lipyanic, Jr. 

Mr. Lipyanic, 49, holds a Class A 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Pennsylvania. 

Brian L. Lloyd 

Mr. Lloyd, 41, holds an operator’s 

license in Ohio. 

Kelsey Rae Maginity 

Ms. Maginity, 23, holds an operator’s 

license in Iowa. 

Donald B. Malley 

Mr. Malley, 60, holds a Class A 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Missouri. 

Courtney Maloney 

Ms. Maloney, 26, holds an operator’s 

license in New York. 

Amy Elizabeth Marcus 

Ms. Marcus, 42, holds an operator’s 

license in Michigan. 

Jonython A. Mason 

Mr. Mason, 33, holds an operator’s 

license in California. 

Kathy Ann Meadows 

Ms. Meadows, 57, holds a Class A 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Georgia. 

Devin Jamal Moffett 

Mr. Moffett, 23, holds an operator’s 

license in Georgia. 

Anthony Joseph Saive 

Mr. Saive, 29, holds a Class B 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Ohio. 

David W. Shores 

Mr. Shores, 47, holds a Class A 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

North Carolina. 

Jonathan P. Veach 

Mr. Veach, 32, holds an operator’s 

license in Illinois. 

Michael Whitman 

Mr. Whitman, 39, holds an operator’s 

license in New Jersey. 

Richard E. Whittaker 

Mr. Whittaker, 44, holds a Chauffeur’s 

license in Indiana. 

Brian David Whittington 

Mr. Whittington, 48, holds a Class A 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) in 

Michigan. 

Scott Matchett 

Mr. Matchett, 32, holds an operator’s 

license in New York. 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public 

comment from all interested persons on 

the exemption petitions described in 

this notice. The Agency will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

business May 7, 2015. Comments will 

be available for examination in the 

docket at the location listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. The 

Agency will file comments received 

after the comment closing date in the 

public docket, and will consider them to 

the extent practicable. In addition to late 

comments, FMCSA will also continue to 

file, in the public docket, relevant 

information that becomes available after 

the comment closing date. Interested 

persons should monitor the public 

docket for new material. 

Issued on: April 1, 2015. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07909 Filed 4–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[FTA Docket No. FTA–2014–0009] 

Response to Comments on Updates to 

National Transit Database Annual 

Information Collection 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Revised NTD 

Reporting Manual and Response to 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides the 

Federal Transit Administration’s 

response to comments on proposed 

changes to the National Transit Database 

(NTD) Reporting Manual, and provides 

notice that the final Reporting Manual 

for the 2014 Report Year is now 

available. The guidance changes in this 

notice primarily relate to urbanized area 

transit providers. 

DATES: Upon publication of this notice 

the rules and guidance it describes will 

become final. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith R. Gates, National Transit 

Database Program Manager, FTA Office 

of Budget and Policy, (202) 366–1794, or 

email: keith.gates@dot.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: 49 U.S.C. 5335(a) and (b) 

National Transit Database. (OMB 

Number: 2132–0008). 

Background: Sections 5335(a) and (b) 

of title 49, United States Code, require 

the Secretary of Transportation to 

maintain a reporting system, using a 

uniform system of accounts, to collect 

financial and operating information 

from the Nation’s public transportation 

systems. Congress established the 

National Transit Database (NTD) to be 

the repository of national transit data to 

support public transportation service 

planning. The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) administers the 

NTD to meet these requirements and has 

collected data for over 30 years. The 

NTD is comprised of the Annual, Rural, 

Monthly, and Safety modules. Each 

module has a Reporting Manual, which 

FTA updates from time to time to 

provide new guidance to reporters. This 

notice provides final updates to the 

Annual Reporting Manual for the 2014 

Report Year. 

Approximately 850 urban transit 

systems currently report to the NTD 

Annual Module. Each system provides a 

report on their sources and uses of 

funds, their capital assets, the amount of 

service they provide and a Chief 

Executive Officer (CEO) certification of 

the data. The reporting requirements for 

the NTD are within the level that 

received Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) approval as part of the entire NTD 

PRA notice published in the Federal 

Register on November 7, 2011 (76 FR 

6881) and approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on 

April 29, 2012. 

On August 19, 2014, FTA published 

a Federal Register notice for comment 

on revisions to the NTD Reporting 

Manual (79 FR 49146). That notice 

described various changes to the NTD 

Annual Module that are taking effect 

with the FY 2014 NTD Report Year. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Notices 

FTA responds herein to comments on 

whether, and how, agencies reporting 

this data might experience difficulties 

meeting the revised requirements. 

The updated guidance in the Annual 

Reporting Manual will provide better 

data to the NTD which is used in the 

grant apportionment formulas and for 

analysis of industry trends. These 

changes also implement many of the 

policy changes enacted in the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21). This notice is 

independent of the larger rulemaking 

process that is underway to implement 

a National Transit Asset Management 

system and other FTA rulemaking 

activities. 

FTA previously proposed 11 changes 

to NTD reporting: 

A. Clarification for reporting subset data 

on Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) paratransit services 

B. Clarification on the reporting of 

contractual relationships 

C. Update the definition of the bus rapid 

transit mode (per FTA C 5300.1 

SGR Grants Program) 

D. Policy change so that certain High 

Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are no 

longer fixed guideway for purposes 

of the State of Good Repair Formula 

E. Updates to the definition of 

commuter service (related to 

Amtrak services) and allocation of 

data to urbanized areas 

F. Elimination of consolidated reporting 

in favor of Small System Waiver 

reporting. 

G. Clarification on consistent use of 

transit system names and 

organization types 

H. Policy clarification allowing 

delegation of CEO certification 

responsibility 

I. Elimination of unnecessary reporting 

requirements (dropping unneeded 

forms) 

J. Elimination of outdated Circulars 

related to sampling procedures. 

K. Expansion of capital asset reporting 

required by MAP–21 

FTA received 119 comments from 75 

sources. This notice will respond to 

comments on items A through J. The 

FTA received a substantial number of 

comments on item K, the expansion of 

capital asset reporting. As FTA 

originally proposed that the expanded 

asset reporting would not take effect 

until at least the FY 2015 Report Year, 

FTA is taking additional time to 

consider these comments, and will 

respond to them in a future notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Response to Comments 

A. Clarification for Reporting Subset 

Data on ADA Paratransit Services—(27 

comments) 

FTA proposed the following guidance 

to improve the consistency and 

specificity of urban transit systems’ 

ADA data reporting. This proposed 

guidance would have only applied to 

full reports from urbanized areas; not to 

rural reporting, nor to reporting under a 

small systems waiver. 

(1) Transit systems that operate 

demand response services that are not 

intended to fulfill the ADA paratransit 

requirements of any fixed route service 

should report that zero (0) of their 

service and operating expenses are 

attributable to ADA requirements. 

(2) Transit systems that operate 

demand response services to fulfill the 

ADA paratransit requirements of fixedroute service must report their unlinked 

trips provided to all eligible paratransit 

passengers (eligibility determined by 

local policy), excluding only the 

following: 

(i) Trips that are sponsored by a third 

party (e.g. Medicare-sponsored trips); 

(ii) Trips whose origin or destination 

(or both) are outside the minimum 

service (within 3⁄4 of a mile of fixed 

route service) area required by the ADA; 

and, 

(iii) Trips taken during times when 

the fixed-route system is not operating. 

(3) Transit systems that operate 

demand response services to fulfill the 

ADA paratransit requirements of a 

fixed-route service would then report 

their operating expenses for such 

services as attributable to the ADA on 

the same basis. In general, if a transit 

system does not have an accounting 

system to track this, then it may report 

on the basis of the percentage of total 

demand response trips that were 

identified as ADA trips, per the above 

criteria. That is, if ADA trips were 76 

percent of all demand-response mode 

trips, then ADA operating expenses 

would be reported as 76 percent of total 

demand-response mode operating 

expenses. 

FTA received 27 comments on the 

clarification of the ADA Paratransit 

Services reporting standards. Comments 

indicated that agencies have integrated 

ADA requirements into their demandresponse systems to such an extent that 

it is technically difficult for them to 

separate this service from their normal 

operations. Their responses noted that it 

would constitute a considerable burden 

for them to report this data separately. 

As FTA does not wish to impose 

additional reporting burden to collect 

this data, we withdraw this proposal. 

B. Clarification on the Reporting of 

Contractual Relationships—(9 

comments) 

FTA proposed to clarify that in order 

for service to be classified as Purchased 

Transportation (PT), the service must 

meet three criteria: 

(1) The contract or agreement must 

provide for the buyer to be responsible 

for the fully-allocated cost of providing 

the service; 

(2) The service must be operated in 

the name of the buyer (i.e. the presence 

of the seller must be generally 

transparent to the riding public); and, 

(3) The seller must operate and 

manage the service. 

Public transportation services that do 

not meet the above criteria may still be 

reported to the NTD. However, these 

services would instead be reported to 

the NTD as directly operated and would 

be reported by the organization that is 

actually operating the service. 

FTA received nine (9) comments in 

response to the clarifications on the 

reporting of contractual relationships. 

Three (3) transit providers indicated 

that they support this clarification or 

that their business practices are already 

in compliance with these reporting 

standards. One (1) additional 

commenter believes this clarification 

may be unnecessary because any buyer/ 

seller relationship anomalies would be 

apparent from the type of NTD forms 

submitted by the reporter. The 

remaining five (5) comments are 

summarized below: 

One commenter suggests that the language 

be changed from the fully allocated cost to 

the market rate for providing the service; 

with the market rate being defined as the rate 

achieved either through a competitive 

procurement process or a negotiated 

procurement. Requiring the seller to provide 

complete accounting records to support the 

fully allocated rate would be cumbersome 

and could lead to unintended consequences 

for transit agencies seeking to provide 

purchased transportation services at the 

lowest cost. 

The issue presented here is that 

records must be kept to demonstrate 

that the amount paid for the purchased 

service is the actual cost of providing 

that service. The FTA reserves the right 

to audit that claim. In general, it can be 

presumed that if the seller is not 

receiving funds from any source other 

than the buyer, then the buyer is paying 

the fully-allocated cost. 

A commenter from an industry association 

suggested that final guidance should not 

prohibit the identity of the seller from being 

displayed on vehicles or uniforms. They also 

requested clarity on how to identify ’fully 

allocated costs’ of contracted service when 

some services are provided by the buyer. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Notices 18701 

A commenter from a transit agency also 

requested clarification on whether the name 

of the seller can be included on the vehicle 

or advertisements. 

FTA replies that, although the vehicle 

used for purchased transportation must 

prominently display the name of the 

buyer, this does not preclude the name 

of the seller, manufacturer or advertisers 

from also being on the vehicle. 

A commenter from a transit agency 

expressed concern that the proposed change 

would eliminate the ability to report 

ridership for its program of ‘last mile’ 

shuttles from its rail stations. 

FTA will address the specifics of this 

situation directly with the reporter, but 

nothing in this proposal would prevent 

any transit service from being reported 

to the NTD and included in the formula 

apportionment. Any transit service that 

cannot be reported as purchased 

transportation could be reported to the 

NTD as a directly operated service 

instead. 

One commenter from a transit agency 

suggested that certain demand response 

services provided by a third party should be 

exempt from the requirement to be operated 

in the name of the buyer. For example, some 

transit systems use car services with nondedicated fleets to provide some ADA 

paratransit services. 

FTA agrees and will clarify in the 

Reporting Manual that demandresponse taxi services need not be 

operated in the name of the buyer. 

Comments received in response to 

this item did not identify any significant 

issues preventing its implementation 

and FTA will proceed with publishing 

these clarifications. 

C. Updates to Definition of the Bus 

Rapid Transit Mode—(5 comments) 

On January 28, 2015, FTA published 

a notice in the Federal Register 

finalizing Circular FTA C 5300.1 State 

of Good Repair Grants Programs: 

Circular and Application Instructions. 

In that circular FTA defines the bus 

rapid transit (BRT) mode as a service 

that meets five criteria. These criteria 

were re-published with the August 19, 

2014 Federal Register notice to provide 

additional notice to impacted parties, in 

particular with regards to changing the 

definition of the BRT Mode in the NTD. 

However, comments on whether the 

below criteria should be used for 

funding eligibility in the State of Good 

Repair Formula Program have been 

addressed through notice and comment 

on the circular and FTA has accepted 

these criteria. The five criteria are as 

follows: 

(1) Over 50 percent of the route 

operates in a separated right-of-way 

(ROW) dedicated for transit use during 

peak periods (though other traffic may 

make turning movements through the 

separated right-of-way); 

(2) the route has defined stations that 

are accessible for persons with 

disabilities, offer shelter from the 

weather, and provide information on 

schedules and routes; 

(3) the route offers faster passenger 

travel times through congested 

intersections by using active signal 

priority in separated guideway, and 

either queue-jump lanes or active signal 

priority in non-separated guideway; 

(4) the route offers short headway, bidirectional, service that is provided for 

at least a 14 hour span on weekdays and 

a 10 hour span on weekends; (Short 

headway service on weekdays, consists 

of maximum headways that are either: 

15 minutes or less throughout the day; 

or, 10 minutes or less during peak 

periods and 20 minutes or less at all 

other times. Short headway service on 

weekends consists of maximum 

headways that are 30 minutes or less for 

at least 10 hours for the day) and, 

(5) a separate and consistent brand 

identity applied to stations and 

vehicles. 

Bus services that implement features 

of bus rapid transit systems, but which 

do not meet all of the above criteria, 

particularly corridor-based bus rapid 

transit projects, would still be reported 

to the NTD under the fixed-route bus 

(MB) mode. 

FTA received five (5) comments in 

response to the proposed definition of 

the bus rapid transit mode. 

Two (2) commenters suggested that this 

change was premature given that Circular 

C5300.1 is still under development and could 

have an impact on this definition. Both 

commenters suggested that these changes 

should be deferred and reconsidered after the 

circular has been completed. 

The final circular was posted in the 

Federal Register on Wednesday, 

January 28, 2015. NTD reporters need to 

use the published definition in order to 

comply with MAP–21. 

One transit system recommended the 

following changes to the proposed definition: 

‘‘1) Over 50 percent of the route operating in 

a separated ROW dedicated for transit use 

and HOV/HOT use during peak periods; and, 

2) the route offers short headway, bidirectional, service during peak periods.’’ 

They believe that the current definition 

discourages partnerships that provide a 

combination of BRT and high-occupancy toll 

or HOV services, including the U.S. 36 BRT 

in Colorado. The weekend requirement 

would also disqualify some BRT projects or 

force unproductive weekend service. 

Another transit agency commenter 

expressed concern that the change in 

definition will disqualify some existing BRT 

routes from being formally classified as BRT. 

They request that the calculation to 

determine separated ROW exclude segments 

where a separated ROW is not necessary due 

to insignificant traffic congestion. They 

further recommend that the ’treatment of 

congested intersections’ criterion be 

simplified to be more consistent with the 

MAP–21 definition that references ‘traffic 

signal priority for public transportation 

vehicles’. This change in definition would 

allow routes that utilize traffic signal priority 

at some but not all intersections to still be 

designated BRT. 

While FTA has considered alternate 

interpretations of MAP–21, including 

these proposed by the commenters, FTA 

notes that the statute has clear and 

specific requirements for separated 

guideway and high-frequency service on 

weekends. The FTA must follow the 

statutory requirements in these areas. 

D. Guidance for Service on HOT 

Lanes—(8 comments) 

The FTA proposed, beginning with 

the Fiscal Year 2016 apportionment, to 

no longer consider transit service 

operated on any HOT lane to be the 

same as transit service operated on an 

HOV lane, for purposes of the formula 

apportionment for the High-Intensity 

Motorbus Tier. Comments on this were 

solicited in the previously mentioned 

March 3, 2014, FTA Federal Register 

Notice, C 5300.1 State of Good Repair 

Grants Programs: Proposed Circular and 

Application Instructions. Thus, while 

FTA did not seek additional comments 

on the impact of this policy change on 

the State of Good Repair Formula 

Program, FTA did propose to continue 

to collect data on the amount of transit 

service operated on HOT Lanes in the 

NTD for future use. 

The FTA received eight (8) comments 

in response to the guidance for service 

in HOT lanes. Five (5) commenters 

provided feedback that was not specific 

to FTA’s request for comment on 

continuing to collect HOT lane data for 

future use. These comments were in 

response to the March 3, 2014 Federal 

Register Notice on C 5300.1 and, 

therefore, will not be addressed in this 

response. 

Three (3) commenters provided 

feedback specific to this request for 

comment. One (1) commenter suggested 

that any decisions on continuing to 

collect HOT lane data should be 

postponed until after final publication 

of the C 5300.1 State of Good Repair 

Grants Programs: Circular and 

Application Instructions (which has 

now occurred). Two (2) commenters 

stated that continuing to collect HOT 

lane data would be unnecessary and 

burdensome if that data is no longer part 

of the State of Good Repair formula. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Notices 

Both requested that FTA discontinue 

collecting this data. 

FTA has considered the feedback 

regarding the burden of collecting HOT 

lane data and agrees that this reporting 

burden should be minimized. FTA thus 

amends its proposal to only collect data 

on HOT lane directional route miles. 

Data on HOT lane directional route 

miles used in transit service will 

continue to provide important baseline 

data for policy makers, and these data 

can be collected with a minimum of 

reporting burden. However, FTA will 

discontinue collecting data on vehicle 

revenue miles driven on those HOT 

lanes. 

E. Updates to the Definition of 

Commuter Service and Allocation of 

Data Attributable to an Urbanized Area 

(UZA)—(5 comments) 

The definition of Public 

Transportation at 49 U.S.C. 5302 

specifically excludes intercity passenger 

rail operated by Amtrak, and also 

intercity bus service. The FTA proposed 

to amend the definition of public 

transportation in the NTD Reporting 

Manual to implement this definition, 

and to clarify the distinction between 

commuter and intercity services. 

The FTA also proposed to clarify the 

instructions in the Reporting Manual 

regarding the allocation of transit 

service between multiple areas. Transit 

service classified as commuter service 

that connects one or more urbanized 

areas or that connects rural areas with 

one or more urbanized areas must be 

allocated to the urbanized area that is 

primarily being served. Each transit 

agency may determine what proportion 

of service to allocate to each urbanized 

area according to a reasonable 

methodology. 

The FTA received five (5) comments 

in response to the proposed update to 

the definition of commuter service and 

allocation of data attributable to an 

urbanized area. One (1) commenter 

stated that these updates would not 

impact their current reporting practices. 

The remaining four (4) comments all 

requested that FTA continue its current 

practice of allowing agencies to 

determine how service is allocated 

amongst the UZAs they serve. 

The comments on these proposed 

updates were solely concerned with the 

allocation of service data amongst the 

UZAs being served by commuter 

service. FTA wishes to clarify that the 

proposed updates will not impact the 

ability for transit agencies to continue 

with their current methodology for 

determining how service data is 

allocated amongst the UZAs they serve. 

A transit agency may continue to 

allocate service data amongst the UZAs 

they serve according to a reasonable 

methodology based on the service 

provided. 

F. Proposed Elimination of Consolidated 

Reporting and Update of Small Systems 

Waiver Reporting—(25 comments) 

The FTA proposes to eliminate 

consolidated reports and have all 

urbanized area transit providers report 

directly to the NTD. Currently there are 

fewer than 10 consolidated reporters in 

the NTD. Consolidated reporting makes 

it difficult to validate and assure the 

accuracy of NTD data. It complicates 

NTD data presentation and makes it 

harder to use the NTD to answer basic 

questions about the transit industry. 

The FTA received 25 comments on 

the proposal to eliminate consolidated 

reporting and update the small systems 

waiver reporting. All commenters were 

opposed to the elimination of 

consolidated reporting. Fifteen (15) 

stated that eliminating consolidated 

reporting would be administratively 

burdensome for the small agencies that 

are currently part of consolidated 

reports. Eleven (11) stated that the cost 

of an individual audit to verify their 

individual NTD submission would be 

cost prohibitive. Eight (8) commenters 

expressed concerns that small agencies 

that would no longer be eligible for a 

consolidated reporting would also no 

longer be required to report passenger 

miles. This reduction in passenger miles 

reporting would impact the overall 

formula funding for the UZA. Eight (8) 

commenters expressed concerns over 

the timeline to implement this change 

and requested extensions between 6 

months and 1 year. Finally, eight (8) 

commenters requested that, should 

consolidated reporting be eliminated, 

the threshold for a small systems waiver 

should be increased from 30 vehicles to 

50 vehicles. 

The FTA has taken into consideration 

comments provided by the industry, but 

does not agree that eliminating 

consolidated reporting will be more 

burdensome. Virtually all consolidated 

reporters are small systems (30 or fewer 

vehicles) and will qualify for reduced 

reporting (formerly called small systems 

waiver reporting). As part of a 

consolidated report these systems are 

currently providing data for a full NTD 

report which requires significantly more 

effort. For example, reduced reporting 

does not require sampling for average 

trip length, an expensive and timeconsuming process. In addition, small 

systems filing reduced reports are only 

required to do an audit of their 

accounting capabilities once within 

their first year of reporting. They are not 

required to do the annual audits that are 

required of full reporters. Thus, FTA 

concludes that concerns about excess 

reporting burden and auditing 

requirements are based on an 

incomplete understanding of the 

requirements. 

In response to the concerns regarding 

reporting of passenger miles, small 

systems still have the option of 

submitting full NTD reports, with 

passenger miles, if they believe this will 

have a significant impact on formula 

funding for their urbanized areas. FTA 

has evaluated this impact for 

consolidated reporters, all of which are 

in urbanized areas with populations of 

greater than 200,000. Only 5.6 percent 

of Urbanized Area Formula funds (5307) 

and 8 percent of Bus and Bus Facilities 

funds (5339) are apportioned based on 

passenger miles. Consolidated reporters 

are all relatively small operators and so 

generate only a small portion of the 

passenger miles in their urbanized 

areas. The FTA finds that the impact of 

their not reporting those miles on total 

funding for those areas is quite small. 

The FTA recognizes that the proposed 

timeline may cause a hardship to some 

reporters and will work with 

consolidated reporter agencies to 

transition them to individual reporters 

over a 2 year period using data waivers 

and extensions as necessary. FTA also 

will provide training as the comments 

we received show that many of these 

agencies do not understand the reduced 

reporting requirements and process. 

Additionally, FTA wants to emphasize 

that any large transit system that 

currently sponsors a consolidated report 

may continue to fill out NTD Report 

Forms on behalf of reporters filing with 

reduced reporting requirements. The 

FTA also will consider adjusting the 

limit for small systems, currently at 30 

or fewer vehicles in maximum operating 

service, at some point in the future. 

G. Clarification on Consistent Use of 

Transit System Names and Organization 

Types—(3 comments) 

The FTA proposed that the name and 

organization type on the B–10 form 

must now match the total revenues and 

total expenses reported on the F forms. 

The FTA received three (3) comments 

in response to this clarification. One (1) 

commenter stated that this will not 

impact their current reporting. One (1) 

commenter reiterated a concern over 

administrative burden for small 

agencies if the consolidated reporting is 

eliminated. This concern has been 

addressed in section F of this notice and 

will not be further addressed here. 

The final comment expressed a 

concern that reporters to the NTD would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 66 / Tuesday, April 7, 2015 / Notices 18703 

have to report non-transit costs to the 

NTD. 

The FTA does not intend to collect 

data on non-transit services. However, it 

may be necessary to appropriately 

indicate the size of non-transit costs in 

order to ensure that the NTD report can 

be reconciled with a reporter’s 

published financial statements. 

H. Policy Clarification Allowing 

Delegation of Chief Executive Officer 

(CEO) Certification Responsibility—(6 

comments) 

The FTA proposed to formally allow 

the CEO (or equivalent officer) to 

delegate those duties to another 

individual within the organization. This 

delegation would be indicated by 

submission of a delegation letter, signed 

by the CEO on organization letterhead, 

naming the individual who will act in 

the CEO’s name for this purpose. 

The FTA received six (6) responses to 

this clarification. Three (3) commenters 

supported or expressed that this 

clarification would not impact their 

current reporting. One (1) individual 

expressed concern that his transit 

system, which has no direct employees, 

and is run by a Board of Commissioners, 

would have difficulty complying with 

this requirement. The remaining two (2) 

commenters were seeking additional 

clarification on this policy. The first 

requested FTA guidance on the extent to 

which certification would be considered 

a ’public record’ under FOIA. The 

second was seeking clarification on the 

impact this would have on the 

individual provided with the delegation 

of the CEO submission. Specifically, is 

the delegate also responsible for data 

issues or concerns? 

First, this is an option for reporters, 

not a requirement. It does not require 

any change in current certification 

procedures. Our intent is to expedite 

submission of reports at agencies where 

it is difficult for the CEO to schedule 

time to submit the report by allowing 

delegation of this task. Although the 

CEO can have subordinates certify the 

report, the CEO remains, ultimately, 

responsible for the accuracy of the data 

submitted. All NTD documents will 

continue to be public records subject to 

Federal and State Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) laws. 

The comments received on this item 

did not identify any significant issues 

with its implementation and FTA will 

proceed with allowing delegation of 

CEO certification responsibility as 

proposed. 

I. Elimination of Unnecessary Reporting 

Requirements—(6 comments) 

In its ongoing efforts to streamline 

NTD reporting requirements and to 

eliminate unnecessary data collection 

FTA proposed to eliminate the 

requirement for rail systems to report 

vehicle revenue miles, vehicle revenue 

hours, unlinked passenger trips, and 

passenger miles traveled for morning 

peak and evening peak periods. The 

FTA is no longer using these data and 

has determined that this data collection 

is unnecessary. This will align the 

service data reporting requirements for 

rail modes with other modes. 

The FTA also proposed to eliminate 

the B–60 and B–70 forms for identifying 

funds passed from one public entity to 

another public entity. The clarifications 

to the reporting of purchased 

transportation proposed above will 

render these forms unnecessary, and 

FTA will no longer require these data. 

There were six (6) responses to the 

proposed elimination of unnecessary 

reporting requirements. Four (4) 

commenters expressed support for these 

changes. Two (2) commenters suggested 

that FTA should consider eliminating 

the fleet management plan reporting 

requirements if the proposed expansion 

of capital asset reporting (see section G) 

is implemented. The FTA will proceed 

with eliminating the proposed reporting 

requirements and take the 

recommendation to eliminate the fleet 

management plan reporting requirement 

under consideration while making a 

final determination on the capital asset 

reporting recommendation (see section 

K). 

J. Updated Guidance for Sampling of 

Passenger Miles—(6 comments) 

The FTA proposed to withdraw 

several outdated Urban Mass 

Transportation Administration (UMTA) 

Circulars that have remained in effect. 

In particular, FTA proposed to 

withdraw UMTA C2710.1A, UMTA 

C2710.2A, and UMTA C2710.4A, which 

relate to procedures for conducting 

statistical samples to collect passenger 

mile data. The FTA proposed to replace 

these Circulars with the NTD Sampling 

Manual, which has been in use as 

optional guidance for several years now. 

Withdrawing these outdated circulars 

will make the NTD Sampling Manual 

permanent guidance for procedures on 

sampling for passenger miles. 

In addition, FTA proposed to 

withdraw UMTA C2710.6 and UMTA 

C2710.7. Both are outdated circulars 

that have been superseded by the NTD 

Reporting Manual. The texts of these 

circulars, as well as the NTD Sampling 

Manual may be reviewed at 

www.ntdprogram.gov. 

The FTA received Six (6) comments 

on the updated guidance for the 

sampling of passenger miles. Three (3) 

comments expressed support for this 

change. Two (2) commenters asked FTA 

to clarify in the final publication of this 

guidance that alternative methodologies 

for sampling passenger miles would be 

acceptable. Specifically, one industry 

association commented ‘‘to the extent 

sampling methodologies other than 

described in the NTD Sampling Manual 

provide comparable or better levels of 

statistical accuracy, FTA should make 

clear that such are acceptable.’’ Two (2) 

commenters requested postponing the 

implementation of this guidance until 

fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 2018 for 

reporters that are already collecting data 

under an alternative methodology in 

their current fiscal year. 

The FTA intends to continue with the 

implementation of this updated 

guidance. In response to the concerns 

raised by commenters wishing to 

continue using an alternative sampling 

methodology the updated guidance 

presented in this Federal Register 

Notice does not preclude agencies from 

continuing to use alternative sampling 

methods that meet NTD accuracy 

requirements. In addition, an agency 

wishing to transition to a new sampling 

method provided in this guidance may 

request a waiver to extend the 

implementation timeline. 

K. Expansion of Capital Asset 

Reporting—(18 comments) 

The FTA received 18 comments on 

the proposed expansion of Capital Asset 

Reporting. Many comments raised 

concerns over implementing this change 

prior to the publication of a final Transit 

Asset Management rule. FTA wants to 

be thoughtful and consider all 

comments before making this change 

and will respond to these comments in 

a future notice in the Federal Register. 

This proposal will not, in any case, be 

implemented for the FY 2014 NTD 

reporting cycle. 

Therese W. McMillan, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07879 Filed 4–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE CODE 4910–57–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES