20564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the requirement in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s 

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must have a copy 

of the certification when driving, for 

presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

V. Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received two comments in 

this proceeding. The comments are 

discussed below. 

Danielle Snyder is in favor of granting 

all drivers listed on the notice an 

exemption from the vision standard. 

Alycia Chase’s AP Government class 

at West Bloomfield High School in West 

Bloomfield, MI is not in favor of 

granting the exemptions due to their 

perceived risks to the public. As stated 

in this notice, FMCSA has determined 

that granting these drivers an exemption 

from the vision standard ‘‘would likely 

achieve a level of safety that is 

equivalent to or greater than the level 

that would be achieved absent such 

exemption.’’ 

VI. Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 23 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts the following drivers from the 

vision requirement in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10), subject to the 

requirements cited above (49 CFR 

391.64(b)): 

Jason P. Atwater (UT), Barry W. Borger 

(PA), William W. Dugger (KY), Steven 

D. Ellsworth (IL), Travis B. Giest (ID), 

Arlan T. Hrubes (WY), Abdalla M. 

Jalili (IL), David M. Krause (WI), 

Stephen C. Martin (PA), Troy L. 

McCord (TX), Ronald M. Metzger 

(NY), Gerald D. Milner, Jr. (IL), Ali 

Nimer (IL), Richard A. Pierce (MO), 

Richard D. Pontious (OH), Richard P. 

Rebel (ND), Kevin L. Riddle (FL), 

Mustafa Shahadeh (OH), Charles P. 

Smith (MO), Timothy R. Tedford (IL), 

Sean E. Twohig (NY), Melvin L. 

Vaughn (WI), Rick L. Wood (PA). 

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

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. 

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Issued on: April 10, 2015. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08729 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket No. FTA–2014–0018] 

Bus and Bus Facilities Formula 

Program: Guidance and Application 

Instructions 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

circular. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) has placed in the 

docket and on its Web site, guidance in 

the form of a circular, to assist 

recipients in their implementation of 

the Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities 

Formula Program (Bus Program). The 

purpose of this circular is to provide 

recipients of FTA financial assistance 

with instructions and guidance on 

program administration and the grant 

application process. This circular is a 

result of the new Bus Program enacted 

through the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). 

DATES: The final circular becomes 

effective May 18, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program matters, Sam Snead, Office of 

Transit Programs, (202) 366–1089 or 

samuel.snead@dot.gov. For legal 

matters, Michelle Hershman, Office of 

Chief Counsel, (202–493–0197) or 

michelle.hershman@dot.gov. Office 

hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis 

A. General Comments 

B. Chapter I—Introduction and Background 

C. Chapter II—Program Overview 

D. Chapter III—General Program Information 

E. Chapter IV—Planning and Program 

Development 

F. Chapter V—Program Management and 

Administrative Requirements 

G. Chapter VI—State and Program 

Management Plans 

H. Chapter VII—Other Provisions 

I. Appendices 

II. Overview 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP–21, Pub. L. 112– 

141), signed into law on July 6, 2012, 

establishes the Section 5339 Bus and 

Bus Facilities Formula program (Section 

5339 or Bus Program), replacing some of 

the elements of the Bus and Bus 

Facilities discretionary program 

(formerly 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(3) under the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users Act of 2005 (SAFETEA–LU)). The 

Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities 

Program under SAFETEA–LU provided 

discretionary funds for capital bus and 

bus facility grants, which from 2010– 

2012, were primarily used in support of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

(U.S. DOT) State of Good Repair, Bus 

Livability, Veterans Transportation and 

Community Living, and Clean Fuels 

initiatives. In addition, SAFETEA–LU 

allocated funds under this program for 

Ferry Boat Systems, Fuel Cell Bus, and 

the Bus Testing program. The new 

Section 5339 Bus Program provides 

funding to replace, rehabilitate, and 

purchase buses and related equipment 

as well as to construct bus-related 

facilities. 

The FTA is implementing new 

circular 5100.1, ‘‘Bus and Bus Facilities 

Program: Guidance and Application 

Instructions,’’ in order to provide 

grantees with guidance for applying for 

funding under the Bus Program. In 

addition, the circular addresses the 

requirements that must be met in the 

application for Section 5339 program 

assistance. 

On July 30, 2014, FTA issued a notice 

of availability of the proposed circular 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 44241) 

and requested public comment on the 

proposed circular. The comment period 

closed on September 29, 2014. The FTA 

received comments from 76 entities, 

including trade associations, State 

DOTs, metropolitan planning 

organizations, public transportation 

providers, and individuals. This notice 

addresses comments received and 

explains changes FTA made to the 

proposed circular in response to 

comments. 

This document does not include the 

revised circular; however, an electronic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 20565 

version is available on FTA’s Web site, 

at www.fta.dot.gov. Paper copies may be 

obtained by contacting FTA’s 

Administrative Services Help Desk, at 

(202) 366–4865. 

III. Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis 

A. General Comments 

This section addresses comments that 

were not directed at specific chapters, 

but to the circular as a whole. 

Two commenters recommended that 

FTA provide flexibility to recipients of 

FTA funds whenever the statute can 

accommodate such flexibility. With 

regards to this circular, one of the 

commenters asserted that flexibility was 

necessary so that small transit systems 

are not burdened with requirements 

applicable to large systems. In response, 

most of the FTA programs authorized by 

Congress do not provide for varying 

program requirements based on the size 

of the public transportation provider. 

Certainly where such flexibility exists, 

FTA grants that flexibility. The same 

commenter noted the length of the 

proposed circular in relation to the 

length of the statutory provision and 

suggested that FTA streamline the 

guidance document to focus on issues 

specific to Section 5339 and make 

greater use of cross references to other 

FTA guidance documents. In response, 

FTA notes the purpose of the document 

is to provide detailed guidance in order 

to address all of the legal provisions 

required in delivering an FTA program. 

The content contained within the 

circular ensures grantees fully 

understand the requirements of Section 

5339. 

Another commenter urged FTA to use 

consistent language and definitions 

throughout its regulatory documents. 

The FTA has updated this circular to be 

as consistent and uniform as possible 

with other circulars. 

A few commenters recommended 

FTA add language to the ‘‘Purpose’’ 

section to clarify its understanding of 

the intended purpose of the Section 

5339 program. In response, FTA notes 

that the purpose of the circular and the 

Bus and Bus Facilities formula program 

is clearly stated on the cover page of the 

circular. 

B. Chapter I—Introduction and 

Background 

Chapter I of the circular is an 

introductory chapter that covers general 

information about FTA and its 

authorizing legislation, provides a brief 

history of the Bus Program, includes 

definitions applicable to the Bus 

Program and defines terms applicable 

across all FTA programs. Where 

appropriate, we have used the same 

definitions found in rulemakings or 

other circulars to ensure consistency. 

The FTA received six comments on 

this chapter, five of which related to 

definitions and one which related to 

fleet management plans. One 

commenter indicated that the term 

‘‘original useful life’’ is not defined in 

the circular or any other FTA 

documents and could be interpreted as 

a minimum useful life, an economic 

useful life or a service life. The 

commenter stated that the distinction 

between a minimum useful life and a 

service life is critical in determining if 

an activity can be eligible as an 

overhaul. The FTA has amended the 

circular to reflect the terminology, 

‘‘minimum useful life,’’ and notes the 

definition of overhaul is identical to the 

definition of overhaul in Circular 

9030.1E, Urbanized Area Formula 

Program: Program Guidance and 

Application Instructions. One 

commenter recommended incorporating 

the definition of ‘‘rehabilitation’’ from 

the proposed Section 5337 State of Good 

Repair Grants Program Circular (5300.1) 

into the final version of this circular. In 

response, FTA has defined 

‘‘rehabilitate’’ in section 4 of Chapter 1 

to mean rebuild of a revenue vehicle to 

the original specifications of the 

manufacturer. Further, given FTA’s 

response to comments regarding the 

eligibility of mid-life overhaul activities, 

which is explained in more detail in the 

Chapter 3 analysis in this notice, FTA 

has expanded the definition of 

rehabilitate to include mid-life overhaul 

activities. This definition specifically 

relates to the Bus and Bus Facilities 

Program as the definition in FTA 

Circular 5300.1 ‘‘State of Good Repair 

Grants Program: Guidance and 

Application Instructions,’’ pertains 

mostly to fixed guideway transit 

projects. 

Two commenters suggested revising 

the definition of ‘‘Clean Fuel Bus’’ to 

incorporate hydraulic hybrid technology 

and other eligible vehicle technologies. 

In response, FTA notes that the 

definition included in the proposed 

circular mirrors the statutory language 

used by Congress in creating the 

program (see, 49 U.S.C. 5308 

[Repealed]) and includes ‘‘other low or 

zero emissions technology’’ which is 

expansive enough to cover hydraulic 

hybrid and other technologies. The FTA 

also notes that as most transit vehicles 

are already eligible for a Federal match 

greater than 80 percent because of their 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

and Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance, 

the specific inclusion of the other 

technologies is not going to qualify 

recipients for a greater FTA match 

beyond the existing ceiling. 

One commenter questioned the 

efficiency of requiring both the Fleet 

Management Plan and Reporting and 

the Transit Asset Management (TAM) 

Plans and Reporting. The commenter 

suggested FTA consider consolidating 

the Fleet Management Plan and 

Reporting under the Transit Asset 

Management Plans and Reporting to 

avoid redundancy. In response, FTA 

recognizes that some of the information 

gathered for the Fleet Management Plan 

may be useful when reporting to the 

National Transit Database for Transit 

Asset Management and recognizes that 

the requirements for the TAM plans and 

reporting are being promulgated through 

a rule-making. Therefore, FTA is unable 

to consolidate them at this time, nor 

does it see these requirements as 

redundant, but rather as 

complementary. We will continue to 

review these processes for the 

possibility of streamlining. 

C. Chapter II—Program Overview 

Chapter II covers general information 

about the Bus Program, including 

program administration, eligibility and 

oversight. Chapter II clarifies that FTA 

will only apportion Bus Program funds 

for urbanized areas (UZA) to the State 

and to designated recipients that operate 

or allocate funding to fixed-route bus 

operators. There are no other eligible 

direct recipients for the Bus Program 

under MAP–21. This section also 

describes the process for allocating 

funds to subrecipients and discusses 

pass-through arrangements whereby a 

State or designated recipient may pass 

its Bus Program grant funds through to 

a subrecipient to carry out the project 

agreed to in the grant. Unlike 

supplemental agreements between a 

designated recipient, direct recipient, 

and FTA, a pass-through arrangement to 

a subrecipient does not relieve the 

designated recipient of its 

responsibilities to carry out the terms 

and conditions of the grant agreement. 

The FTA received 18 comments on 

this chapter, 10 of which related to 

recipient eligibility and the designated 

recipient’s role in program 

administration for this program. 

Several of the commenters expressed 

concerns that only States and 

designated recipients can apply for 

funds under the Section 5339 program 

and suggested FTA broaden eligibility to 

include fixed route bus operators that 

are not designated recipients. A few 

commenters suggested that the existing 

procedure for Section 5307 which 

involves designated recipients for a 

metropolitan area and public transit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

agencies executing supplemental 

agreements to permit public transit 

agencies to apply directly to FTA and 

assume all responsibilities under a grant 

agreement with FTA be followed under 

Section 5339 to relieve the 

administration burden on designated 

recipients. Another commenter 

suggested that FTA exercise its 

administrative authority to interpret 

eligible recipients similar to the former 

Section 5308 Clean Fuels program. In 

response, FTA notes that the statutory 

language in Section 5339(c) clearly 

states that ‘‘eligible recipients in this 

section are designated recipients that 

operate fixed route bus service or that 

allocate funding to fixed route bus 

operators’’ and thus, FTA has no 

flexibility in its interpretation of eligible 

recipients for Section 5339. 

A few of the commenters indicated 

that FTA should revise Chapter II to 

clarify that Section 5339 funds may be 

used for bus facilities and vehicles that 

do not run in fixed-route service. In 

response, FTA has revised Chapter II to 

clarify that recipient eligibility does not 

limit Section 5339 funds to fixed route 

projects. Thus, capital projects in 

support of demand response services are 

eligible under the Bus Program. 

Two commenters asked FTA to revise 

Chapter II to allow a Governor to 

transfer the funds allocated to the State 

for use in the UZAs of less than 200,000 

in population to the Section 5307 

program. The transfer provision found 

at Section 5339(e)(1) allows the 

Governor to transfer the ‘‘National 

Distribution’’ funds to supplement the 

State’s Section 5311 rural 

apportionment or to any urbanized 

area’s Section 5307 apportionment, but 

does not permit the transfer requested 

by commenters. The law is explicit 

regarding the transfer requirements of 

this program, and FTA has no discretion 

in adding additional transfer provisions. 

One commenter asked FTA to clarify 

that cooperative planning agreements 

between the Section 5339 designated 

recipient and subrecipients developed 

in compliance with Federal planning 

regulations (23 CFR 450, Subpart C) and 

that specify the role of each agency in 

allocating Section 5339 funds will 

satisfy FTA’s requirement for a written 

agreement. The FTA agrees that the 

suggested cooperative planning 

agreement is an example of a written 

agreement. 

One commenter asked for clarification 

regarding whether the State may 

delegate Section 5339 project selection 

for small urbanized area funds to 

regional or local agencies as long as the 

State retains final approval of the 

program of projects. In response, FTA 

notes that States are responsible for 

administration of this program for small 

urban and rural areas. If they choose to 

delegate the responsibility to make 

recommendations for funding, that is 

allowable. However, the State must 

ensure that the funds are used in small 

UZAs and the State must monitor the 

use of the funds. 

In response to the section on FTA 

oversight, one commenter asserted that 

triennial reviews should not apply to 

Section 5339 designated recipients that 

allocate funds to fixed route bus 

operators but do not operate bus service 

themselves. The FTA notes that 

recipients may be subject to a Triennial, 

State Management, or other regularly 

scheduled comprehensive review to 

evaluate their performance. Oversight 

reviews of recipient performance allow 

FTA to determine if the recipient is 

complying with the certifications it has 

made. To further this effort, FTA’s 

oversight reviews programs have been 

augmented to incorporate questions 

pertaining to how designated recipients 

administer this program. In addition, 

FTA is working within its existing 

oversight programs to recognize where 

direct recipients of Section 5307 

funding, who may be receiving direct 

oversight from FTA, may be 

subrecipients under the Section 5339 

program. As a result, FTA will look to 

designated recipients for the overall 

administration of the program pursuant 

to its management plan, but will not 

require duplicative oversight. As 

appropriate, it is recommended that 

designated recipients review the results 

of subrecipients’ past oversight reviews. 

The FTA received six comments on 

section 7 of this chapter related to the 

Bus Program’s relationship to other 

programs. A few commenters expressed 

concern that language in this section of 

the proposed circular regarding Section 

5339 eligibility guidelines could thwart 

the ability of a State to effectively 

transfer the funds for use in the Section 

5311(c) rural program. In response, FTA 

notes that funds available under the 

National Distribution allocation may be 

transferred from Section 5339 to Section 

5311 for administrative purposes, but if 

the funds are transferred, they must be 

used for eligible bus and bus facilities 

capital projects. 

One commenter supported FTA’s 

clarification in this section regarding 

identifying ways in which the Section 

5339 funds relate to other FTA 

programs, specifically as outlined under 

49 U.S.C. 5309. Specifically, the 

commenter stated that this clarification 

offers public transit agencies some 

flexibility in developing financing 

packages for large capital projects. 

Though most comments related to bus 

overhauls were submitted in relation to 

Chapter III of the proposed circular, one 

commenter noted in response to this 

section that bus overhauls are listed as 

eligible capital expenses in FTA 

Circular 9030.1E (page IV–2), which 

determines projects eligible for funding 

through Section 5307, and FTA Circular 

9040.1G (page III–8), which lists eligible 

capital expenses under Section 5311. 

The commenter asked FTA to clarify 

whether its intent is to encourage 

applicants to use Sections 5307 and 

5311 to obtain funding for engine 

overhauls instead of Section 5339. In 

response, recipients are eligible to 

utilize these other programs to support 

engine overhauls. However, as noted in 

the next section in response to 

comments, FTA has also expanded 

eligibility under the Section 5339 

program to include engine overhaul 

activities, which is described in Chapter 

III. 

D. Chapter III—General Program 

Information 

In this Chapter information is 

provided regarding the availability of 

funding and addresses general project 

and program eligibility. The FTA 

received a number of comments on this 

chapter, many of which related to FTA’s 

proposed exclusion of midlife overhauls 

from the list of eligible capital projects 

in section 5 of this chapter. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that not enough Section 5339 

funds would be available to rural transit 

agencies based on the apportionment 

calculations for the Bus Program 

detailed in Chapter III of the proposed 

circular. Specifically, commenters 

asserted that the Section 5339 funds 

should be allocated based on need 

rather than population. One commenter 

asked that FTA revise section 1 to state 

that the National Distribution set aside 

funds should be the only Section 5339 

funds available to rural transit 

operators. Any change to the National 

Distribution set aside would require 

legislative action. The FTA notes that 

Section 5336 lists how the 

apportionment of all FTA formula 

programs must be allocated. Therefore, 

FTA does not have the discretion to 

change the formula allocations for 

Section 5339. The same commenter 

asked FTA to revise section 3 to make 

Section 5339 funding available for the 

same amount of time as Sections 5307 

and 5311 funds. In response, to ensure 

timely obligation of funds and for 

consistency with the Section 5309 and 

5337 programs as well as the former Bus 

and Bus Facilities program, FTA has 

established the period of availability to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 20567 

be 4 years—the year of apportionment 

plus 3 additional years. 

A few commenters recommended 

revising section 4 to expand the 

Governor’s ability to transfer funds to 

Section 5311 projects. One commenter 

suggested the transfer should be 

mandated based on vehicle replacement 

needs rather than Governor’s discretion. 

FTA notes that the law does not 

stipulate that Governors must prioritize 

vehicle replacements before expansions 

and facilities. Therefore, FTA has no 

authority to mandate funding priority as 

it relates to types of projects or intended 

recipients (e.g. rural). 

Two commenters asked FTA to allow 

designated recipients other than States 

to transfer apportionments to Section 

5307 to be used for eligible Bus Program 

activities and to allow Section 5307 

direct recipients to apply directly to 

FTA for their allocation in order to 

eliminate unreimbursed costs of full 

grant administration. As noted 

previously, the only transfer provision 

allowed under this section is for the 

National Distribution allocation, which 

is provided to the States. Therefore, 

FTA notes that only States can transfer 

5339 funds, and even then it is limited 

to the amounts available under the 

National Distribution allocation. 

Therefore, FTA does not have the 

discretion to allow other recipients to 

transfer funds. Furthermore, a set aside 

was not provided for administrative 

funds for this program. 

In regards to midlife overhauls, the 

circular proposed that rebuilds are 

eligible but overhauls and preventive 

maintenance are not. The majority of the 

commenters recommended that 

overhauls be expressly included in the 

list of eligible capital projects. 

A few commenters recommended that 

FTA allow bus overhauls to be 

considered as an eligible capital 

expense under Section 5339 by 

specifically listing it as one of the 

capital projects eligible in section 5 with 

the caveat that it is the sole preventive 

maintenance activity allowed under 

Section 5339. One commenter asserted 

that FTA has no statutory authority to 

make preventive maintenance ineligible 

under Section 5339. A few commenters 

stated that the definitions for overhaul 

and rebuild in the proposed circular 

mischaracterize overhauls as a 

preventive maintenance activity and 

asserted that midlife overhauls extend 

far beyond those areas covered by 

manufacturers’ recommended 

maintenance procedures. Several 

commenters asserted that MAP–21 

defines Section 5339 project eligibility 

to include both bus rehabilitation and 

bus replacement/purchases, without 

distinguishing between mid-life 

overhauls and rebuilds in further 

defining rehabilitation. 

A few commenters expressed concern 

that FTA’s position on mid-life overhaul 

eligibility could reverse the positive 

trend of clean fuel technologies. 

Without Federal dollars available for 

mid-life energy storage replacement and 

upgrades, financially-strapped transit 

agencies may not choose to buy hybrid 

and electric drive buses. 

In response to the myriad of 

comments related to bus overhauls, FTA 

has revised the circular to include bus 

overhauls as an eligible capital project, 

specifically as an eligible rehabilitation 

activity. For rolling stock to be 

overhauled, it must have accumulated at 

least 40 percent of its useful life. It is 

important to note that overhauls are the 

only preventive maintenance capital 

expenses allowed in the Section 5339 

program. The FTA has also notes that 

the overhaul eligibility is in addition to 

eligibility of rehabilitation which is 

defined as ‘‘rehabilitate’’ in section 4 of 

Chapter I. 

One commenter encouraged FTA to 

continue to allow the use of Federal 

funds for public artwork that enhances 

a transit facility or has historical 

meaning to the local region. In response, 

MAP–21 specifically repealed the 

eligibility of public artwork in public 

transportation projects. However, art 

can be integrated into facility design, 

landscaping, and historic preservation, 

and funded as a capital expense. Art 

also can be integrated through the use 

of floor or wall tiles that contain artistdesigned and fabricated elements, use of 

color, use of materials, lighting, and in 

the overall design of a facility. In 

addition, eligible capital projects 

include incidental expenses related to 

acquisition or construction, including 

design costs. Therefore, the incidental 

costs of incorporating art into facilities 

and including an artist on a design team 

continue to be eligible expenses. 

Procuring sculptures or other items not 

integral to the facility is no longer an 

eligible expense. 

The FTA received several comments 

on the proposed elimination of 

‘‘intercity bus stations and terminals’’ 

from the list of eligible projects 

contained in the proposed circular. Two 

commenters indicated that ‘‘intercity 

bus stations and terminals’’ is the only 

category of eligible projects which 

appears in Circular 9300.1B, but does 

not appear in draft Circular 5100.1A few 

commenters suggested that FTA revise 

section 5 to specify that intercity bus 

stations and terminals are eligible for 

funding as joint development 

improvements. Other commenters 

suggested FTA revise section 6 to ensure 

that joint development improvements 

may include intercity bus stations and 

terminals, including the outfitting of 

those stations and terminals. In 

response, FTA notes that intercity 

facilities are an eligible activity under 

the Section 5339 program as part of a 

joint development project. The FTA has 

revised section 6 to ensure joint 

development improvements expressly 

include intercity facilities. For more 

information on the eligibility of intercity 

facility joint development projects see 

FTA Circular 7050.1 ‘‘Federal Transit 

Administration Guidance on Joint 

Development,’’ pages I–3 section f., 

III–5 section 2, and III–7 section 4. 

A few of the commenters indicated 

that the new ‘‘fair share of revenue’’ 

threshold detailed in FTA Circular 

7050.1 makes use of Section 5339 funds 

difficult, if not impossible, because 

there would be no way for intercity bus 

operators to make the required 

payments. Specifically, the commenters 

asked FTA to ensure that the ‘‘fair share 

of revenue’’ threshold (page VI–4, 

section 5 of FTA Circular 7050.1) does 

not apply to intercity bus stations or 

terminals; and request FTA to use the 

‘‘publicly operated projects exception’’ 

for such facilities so that the amount of 

revenue generated is less than the 

amount of the FTA investment. Chapter 

III of FTA Circular 7050.1 states that 

community service or publicly operated 

facilities can have a fair share of 

revenue less than the required federal 

threshold, but it must be based on actual 

revenue. In response, FTA concurs that 

in accordance with FTA Circular 

7050.1, any intercity bus project that is 

within, or physically part of, a ‘‘publicly 

operated’’ facility (as in most cases), can 

have a fair share of revenue less than the 

federal threshold requirements (see FTA 

Circular 7050.1 ‘‘Federal Transit 

Administration Guidance on Joint 

Development,’’ page III–6 for additional 

information on FTA’s fair share of 

revenue requirements). 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed guidance appears to exclude 

as an eligible expense the procurement 

of replacement or expansion vans used 

in revenue service and related 

maintenance and administrative 

facilities, including specialized vans 

and related facilities used to provide 

ADA complementary paratransit 

service. The proposed circular specified 

the eligibility of Section 5339 Program 

funds for the acquisition of ‘‘buses’’ for 

fleet and service expansion and for bus 

maintenance and administrative 

facilities, consistent with the statutory 

language. The list of eligible projects in 

both the proposed and final circular are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

intended to be illustrative. Although the 

proposed guidance also included a more 

general statement that allowed the use 

of Section 5339 Program funds for the 

‘‘acquisition of replacement vehicles,’’ 

the eligibility to fund the procurement 

of vans to replace those that have 

reached or exceeded their useful life 

was not clearly defined. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

procurement of expansion or 

replacement vans and related 

maintenance and administrative 

facilities used by vans in revenue 

service (including those used in ADA 

required complementary service) be 

considered eligible expenses. In 

response, FTA notes that the 

procurement of expansion or 

replacement vans and related 

maintenance and administrative 

facilities used by vans in revenue 

service is an eligible activity under 

Section 5339. Therefore the eligible 

capital project language of the circular 

has been adjusted to include these 

activities. 

Two commenters asked FTA to revise 

the definition of eligible capital projects 

in section 5 to expressly state that use 

of Section 5339 funds is not limited to 

projects undertaken on fixed routes. The 

FTA notes that the list of eligible capital 

projects did not expressly limit Section 

5339 funds to fixed route bus purchases. 

However, FTA is amending the circular 

to clarify that eligible projects as 

authorized in Section 5339(a)(1) and (2) 

are not limited to fixed route only. The 

reference to fixed route only applies to 

determining recipient eligibility of 

Section 5339 program funds. 

One commenter sought clarification 

regarding whether general 

administrative expenses that a 

designated recipient incurs are eligible 

as an indirect cost. The FTA notes that 

only project administrative costs are 

allowable, not program administrative 

costs. The same commenter suggested 

that FTA include the federal share for 

project administration costs. The 

Federal share of project administrative 

costs is 80 percent since it is considered 

a capital expense. 

One commenter sought clarification 

regarding whether eligible capital 

projects includes only expansion of 

existing services or whether Section 

5339 funds can be used to fund new 

vehicles for new transportation services. 

The FTA notes that Section 5339 funds 

can be used for both the expansion of 

existing services and to fund vehicles 

for implementation of new 

transportation services. 

One commenter indicated that section 

5 is missing information on the percent 

of eligible costs based on the different 

possible types of bus operating 

contracts. Specifically, the commenter 

asserted that the circular should contain 

a schedule similar to Exhibit IV–1 in 

Circular 9030.1E, showing for various 

contract types the percentage presumed 

to be eligible without requiring further 

documentation. In response, FTA notes 

that only some categories of capital cost 

of contracting are eligible for Section 

5339 funding; specifically contract types 

that include preventative maintenance 

are not eligible. Therefore, FTA has 

updated information on capital cost of 

contracting in section 5 and included 

Exhibit III–1: ‘‘Percent of Contract 

Allowed for Capital Assistance Without 

Further Justification.’’ 

Section 10 proposed additional 

sources of local share that recipients 

may use as part of local match for a 

capital project. Two commenters 

expressed appreciation for FTA’s 

provision of clear instructions regarding 

how the use of Transportation 

Development Credits (toll credits) 

should be indicated in a grant 

application. 

Regarding local match, one 

commenter suggested that FTA allow 

the guaranteed annual savings of an 

energy savings performance contract 

(ESPC) to be used to offset the local 

match. Grantees interested in ESPC as 

match should contact their FTA regional 

office for additional information. 

One commenter suggested that the 

circular should state that for ADA or 

CAA activities the federal share may not 

exceed those applicable shares. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

the circular should not remove a 

recipient’s flexibility to not go above 80 

percent Federal share for a project. The 

FTA notes that there is no loss in 

flexibility. While recipients must meet 

certain percentages of local match as a 

statutory requirement, it is a local 

decision as to whether to provide 

overmatch. Another commenter sought 

clarification regarding whether grantees 

will need to itemize those components 

of the vehicles (i.e. the lift at 90 percent 

and the bus itself at 80 percent) or use 

the 85 percent Federal share for ADA 

and CAA compliant vehicles. In 

response, the purpose of the 85 percent 

was to codify the previously used 

application of 83 percent, which was set 

by FTA for administrative purposes. 

Recipients may use the 85 percent 

Federal share for ADA/CAA compliant 

vehicles. In cases where the grantee is 

replacing just a piece of equipment for 

purposes of complying with one or both 

of these acts, the grantee can itemize 

that individual piece of equipment for 

90 percent. 

One commenter asserted that the 

match requirement should be 

eliminated on all formula grants and 

only required on competitive grants. 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53 requires a local match 

for all FTA formula funded projects. 

The FTA does not have any discretion 

to relax this requirement. 

One commenter sought clarification 

regarding Section 5323(i)(2), which 

permits recipients to count as local 

match amounts that are expended by a 

private provider of the public 

transportation by vanpool for the 

acquisition of rolling stock to be used by 

the provider in the recipient’s service 

area. The proposed circular elaborates 

further by observing that the effect of 

this provision is to allow revenues 

received in the operation of public 

transportation service by vanpool that 

exceed operating expenses to be reinvested in capital equipment and to be 

counted towards a recipient’s local 

match requirement under a capital cost 

of contracting grant agreement. The 

FTA’s policy on vanpool provisions was 

addressed in the FY 2015 Annual 

Apportionment notice. However, FTA 

has responded to the specific questions 

raised by the commenter in previous 

correspondence as the comments were 

specific to the commenter rather than 

FTA’s vanpool policy. 

E. Chapter IV—Planning and Program 

Development 

In this chapter, FTA proposed 

guidance on metropolitan and statewide 

planning requirements. The chapter also 

addresses programming guidelines, 

environmental considerations, transfer 

provisions, and capital project 

requirements. One commenter 

expressed appreciation for the language 

FTA included in the proposed circular 

regarding the Governor’s ability to 

allocate formula fund apportionments to 

small UZAs located within or 

designated as Transportation 

Management Areas (TMAs) that are 

different from the allocations FTA 

publishes. However, the commenter 

would like FTA to return to pre-MAP– 

21 practices to make it clear that 

apportionments for these TMA small 

urbanized areas must be allocated to 

these areas. In response, FTA notes that 

MAP–21 mandated that States and the 

designated recipients have the 

discretion as to how these funds are 

distributed. A change to have 

apportionments to go directly to small 

urbanized areas would require a change 

in the law. Therefore, such a change 

cannot be included in this circular. 

Pursuant to section 5336(e), the 

Governor exercises the authority to 

allocate section 5339 formula 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 20569 

apportionments to all small UZAs 

within the State—including those that 

lie within the planning areas of MPOs 

serving TMAs. Federal law clearly states 

that it is up to the State to determine the 

distribution method for section 5339 

funds among small UZAs, and inclusion 

of small UZAs within the planning area 

of an MPO that serves a transportation 

management area (TMA) does not 

change the status of those small UZAs. 

They are still small UZAs and subject to 

the Governor’s allocation. As for the 

funding apportioned by formula, for 

small UZAs, the Governor has flexibility 

to allocate the funds among the small 

UZAs to meet the capital bus needs in 

those areas. 

Regarding FTA’s proposal that 

Section 5339 recipients develop a 

program of projects (POP), two 

commenters asserted that MAP–21 does 

not specifically require a ‘‘program of 

projects’’ to be submitted to the 

Secretary for the 5339 program and 

would like FTA to relax the 

requirements for the POP. The same 

commenters also recommended that 

FTA consider adding language to the 

circular that allows FTA to approve 

whole categories of projects 

immediately upon filing of the POP by 

a grantee. The FTA notes that Section 

5339(b) requires that recipients comply 

with Section 5307 grant requirements, 

and the program of projects is a 

requirement at 49 U.S.C. 5307(b). 

Further, given the statutory provision 

relates to recipients, FTA expects 

recipients to be applying on behalf 

subrecipients, and therefore the grant 

should be accompanied by a POP. 

Another commenter sought clarification 

on how the designated recipient is to 

notify FTA prior to making revisions to 

the POP. The circular instructs 

designated recipients to work with their 

FTA regional office when developing 

the POP. This is consistent with other 

FTA program circulars, particularly for 

programs that require POPs. 

In the proposed circular, FTA 

provided guidance on FTA’s useful life 

policy. One commenter recommended 

that FTA increase the asset limit for 

useful life determinations to 50 percent 

of the asset’s original value. Revisiting 

the standards would require extensive 

research and is beyond the scope of this 

program circular; thus, FTA cannot 

address this cross-cutting issue in this 

circular. 

Another commenter urged FTA to 

continue the exemption of Section 5311 

operators from the rolling stock spare 

ratio of 20 percent. Furthermore, the 

commenter asked FTA to adopt an 

exemption for contingency fleets from 

the spare ratio calculation and allow 

vehicles that still have a federal interest 

or useful life be an eligible vehicle for 

contingency fleets. These comments are 

outside the scope of this particular 

circular as they are cross-cutting issues 

that apply to other FTA programs. 

However, recipients are reminded that 

the rolling stock spare ratio policy only 

applies to fleets of 50 or more vehicles. 

One commenter asserted that FTA’s 

proposed guidance to competitively 

procure rebuilding work from the 

private sector would restrict a transit 

agency’s ability to use its staff and 

would also create conflicts with labor 

unions. The commenter recommended 

that FTA allow subrecipients that have 

a qualified labor force to use that labor 

force for vehicle rebuilds instead of 

procuring the service from the private 

sector. The commenter also sought 

clarification regarding what may 

constitute a ‘‘mitigating circumstance’’ 

and what FTA would consider an 

interference with ‘‘normal maintenance 

activities’’ if rebuild work is done inhouse. In addition, the commenter 

recommended that FTA specify in its 

final guidance that overhaul and rebuild 

work conducted by in-house labor are 

eligible expenses. Overhaul and rebuild 

work conducted by in-house labor are 

eligible expenses. The circular does not 

restrict the use of a qualified labor force 

for vehicle rebuilds and overhauls. The 

use of a grantee’s own labor force to 

accomplish a capital project is force 

account labor and is eligible under the 

program. See the current version of 

circular 5010 for more information and 

force account requirements for capital 

projects. Please note that force account 

requirements do not apply to overhaul 

activities as those projects are 

considered to be preventive 

maintenance. 

Finally, one commenter requested 

clarification in response to FTA’s 

proposal in section 7 of this chapter 

indicating that Section 5339 funds are 

not available to be transferred between 

FHWA and FTA for transit or highway 

projects. Section 5334(i) of title 49, 

U.S.C. provides that FHWA funds used 

for transit projects may be transferred to 

FTA, and FTA funds used for highway 

projects shall be transferred to FHWA 

for program administration. Since funds 

available under Section 5339 are not 

available for highway projects, they may 

not be transferred to FHWA. 

F. Chapter V—Program Management 

and Administrative Requirements 

This chapter outlines the 

requirements to which Section 5339 

recipients must certify compliance, 

including legal, technical, and financial 

capacity. Recipients (including 

subrecipients and contractors) of 

Section 5339 program funds are 

required by statute to submit data to the 

National Transit Database (NTD). 

One commenter asserted that NTD 

reporting requirements should not apply 

to Section 5339 recipients that are not 

providers of public transportation or are 

not also recipients of Section 5307 or 

Section 5311 funds. Two commenters 

recommended that the section on NTD 

reporting include language that 

confirms that if Section 5339 funds are 

awarded by the State to a Section 5307 

recipient (i.e., the Section 5307 

recipient becomes a subrecipient of the 

State under the Section 5339 program), 

the Section 5307 recipient retains all 

NTD reporting obligations, including 

reporting for the Section 5339 funds. 

The commenters also recommended that 

FTA consider revising the reporting 

requirements for the Section 5311 

program such that NTD reporting is 

rolled up at the State level and 

individual subrecipient reporting ends. 

The same commenters also expressed 

concerned that the proposed circular 

includes language that requires 

recipients or beneficiaries of Section 

5339 funding to file monthly safety and 

security reports in the NTD system that 

contain increased reporting obligations. 

Although NTD reporting requirements 

dictate that certain grantees report, 

monthly safety and security reports are 

not required under the 5339 Program. 

One commenter asked FTA to 

increase the limit for small purchases to 

$150,000 as is currently proposed in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Super Circular in order to allow 

agencies the opportunity to purchase 

one or two vehicles without having to 

complete an onerous competitive 

procurement for small purchases. On 

December 26, 2013, OMB issued final 

guidance 2 CFR part 200 ‘‘Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards’’ also known as the 

‘‘Super Circular.’’ 78 FR 78590. The 

guidance, which will take effect with 

new grants obligated on or after 

December 26, 2014, will supersede and 

apply in lieu of the common grant rule 

(49 CFR parts 18 and 19), and will 

change the simplified acquisition 

threshold from $100,000 to $150,000 to 

match the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation. See 2 CFR 200.88. We have 

amended the circular to reflect this 

change. 

G. Chapter VI—State and Program 

Management Plans 

This chapter begins by providing a 

general overview of State and Program 

Management Plans (SMP and PMP) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices 

which are intended to facilitate both 

recipient management and FTA 

oversight by documenting the State’s 

and designated recipient’s procedures 

and policies for administering the 

Section 5339 program. One commenter 

expressed concern that FTA is 

proposing a PMP for a program that 

does not warrant this high level of 

management. The commenter strongly 

suggested the FTA reconsider the 

requirement for a PMP. In response, 

FTA notes that a PMP or SMP, for the 

case of a State recipient, is required for 

any program in which the recipient will 

be managing subrecipients, as it 

facilitates both recipient management 

and FTA oversight by documenting the 

designated recipient’s procedures and 

policies for administering the Section 

5339 program. The primary purpose of 

the PMP/SMP is to serve as the basis for 

FTA to perform recipient-level 

management reviews of the program, 

and to provide public information on 

the recipient’s administration of the 

Section 5339 program. It may also be 

used internally by the recipient as a 

program guide for local project 

applicants. 

One commenter sought clarification 

regarding whether a PMP is required 

from a single designated recipient 

within a large Urbanized Area. If there 

is only one designated recipient, then a 

PMP is not required. However, if the 

designated recipient is managing and 

overseeing multiple subrecipients, then 

a PMP is required. 

H. Chapter VII—Other Provisions 

This chapter describes cross-cutting 

Federal requirements that apply to the 

Section 5339 Program. The FTA did not 

receive any substantive comments on 

this chapter and did not make any 

substantive edits. 

I. Appendices 

The appendices include instructions 

for preparing a grant application and a 

budget, an application checklist, and 

several forms and representative 

documents that recipients will need 

when applying for Section 5339 funds. 

One commenter recommended 

including a sample sub-agreement 

between designated recipients and 

potential subrecipients. The FTA notes 

that the designated recipient must still 

manage the grant in TEAM. The FTA 

has no role in the relationship between 

subrecipients and designated recipients 

other than determining if the 

subrecipient is eligible for FTA funding. 

Therefore, there is not a ‘‘one-size fits 

all’’ sample agreement between 

subrecipients and designated recipients. 

Therese M. McMillan, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08773 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0015; Notice 1] 

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the 

Americas, LLC, (CTA), has determined 

that certain Continental replacement 

passenger car tires do not fully comply 

with paragraph S5.5(f) of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. CTA has filed an 

appropriate report dated January 7, 

2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is May 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited at the beginning of 

this notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by 

hand to: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by: Logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be faxed to (202) 

493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that your comments were 

received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. 

Note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Documents submitted to a docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000, (65 FR 19477–78). 

The petition, supporting materials, 

and all comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated below will be filed and will be 

considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the extent possible. 

When the petition is granted or denied, 

notice of the decision will be published 

in the Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. CTA’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 

implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), 

CTA submitted a petition for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of CTA’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Tires Involved: Affected are 

approximately 116,500 Continental 

ExtremeContact DWS size 225/45R17 

91W, Continental ExtremeContact DW 

size 225/45R17 91W and General G-Max 

AS–03 size 225/45R17 91W passenger 

car tires. 

III. Noncompliance: CTA explains 

that the noncompliance is that due to 

mold labeling errors, the sidewall 

markings on the subject tires do not 

correctly describe the actual number of 

plies in the tread area of the tires as 

required by paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS 

No. 139. Specifically, the Continental 

ExtremeContact DWS size 225/45R17 

91W tires were manufactured with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES