[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13456-13468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2444]



[[Page 13456]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[Docket No. FTA-2006-24037]


Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access 
and Reverse Commute, New Freedom Programs and Coordinated Public 
Transit-Human Services Transportation Plans: Notice of Public Meeting, 
Interim Guidance for FY06 Implementation, and Proposed Strategies for 
FY07

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Guidance for FY06 Implementation; notice and request for 
comment for FY07 implementation; and announcement of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is developing 
guidance in the form of circulars to assist grantees in implementing 
the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program, the 
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, and the New Freedom Program 
beginning in FY07.
    FTA solicited public comment in 2005 through a Federal Register 
Notice (Transit Program Changes, Authorized Funding Levels and 
Implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 70 FR 71950, November 
30, 2005) and public listening sessions held in five locations around 
the country.
    Drawing on the public comment received, FTA developed proposed 
strategies, described in this Notice, for implementation of the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom 
programs, including the cross-cutting requirement to develop a 
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan for FY07. 
By this Notice, FTA seeks additional public comment to assist us in 
developing circulars for these programs. This notice also includes 
guidance for FY06 implementation for those requirements that go into 
effect immediately.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by April 21, 2006. Late-filed 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

Public Meeting Date

    FTA will host a public meeting on March 23, 2006 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 
at the Hilton Hotel (1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314). This 
meeting is intended to further define program strategies discussed in 
today's Notice. Anyone interested in attending the March meeting should 
RSVP to Easter Seals Project ACTION at 1-800-659-6428 or via e-mail at 
([email protected]). A summary of the meeting will be posted in 
the docket. Attendees, in order to have their comments fully considered 
by FTA, should post their comments to the public docket either before 
or immediately after the meeting.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
[FTA-2006-24037] by any of the following methods:
    1. Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    2. Fax: 202-493-2251.
    3. Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    4. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit 
Administration and Docket number (FTA-2006-24037) for this Notice at 
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your 
comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be 
posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal 
information provided and will be available to Internet users. You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henrika Buchanan-Smith or Bryna 
Helfer, Office of Program Management, Federal Transit Administration, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Room 9114, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 
366-4020, fax: (202) 366-7951, or e-mail, [email protected]; [email protected]; or Bonnie Graves, Office 
of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street 
SW., Room 9316, Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 366-4011, fax: (202) 
366-3809, or e-mail, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Public Meeting
III. Interim Guidance for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom Grants For FY 2006
IV. Aspects of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services 
Transportation Plan
    A. What are the elements of a coordinated public transit-human 
services transportation plan?
    B. How do we ensure participation in the coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation planning process?
    1. Adequate outreach to allow for participation
    2. Recognition of outreach efforts for inclusion
    3. Participation from partner agencies and organizations
V. The Relationship of the Coordinated Plan to the Metropolitan and 
Statewide Transportation Planning Processes
    A. What is the relationship of the coordinated plan to the 
metropolitan and statewide planning process regulations specified in 
23 CFR Part 450?
    B. What is the relationship between the coordinated planning 
process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning 
processes?
    C. What is the relationship between the requirement for public 
participation in the coordinated plan and the requirement for public 
participation in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning?
    D. What is the cycle and duration of the coordinated plan?
    E. What is the role of the Metropolitan Planning Organization 
(MPO) or State in certifying that projects are derived from a 
locally developed coordinated plan?
    F. What is the role of transportation providers that receive FTA 
funding under the Urbanized Formula and Other Than Urbanized Formula 
programs in the coordinated planning process?
VI. Competitive Selection Process
    A. What is the role of the designated recipient and the 
metropolitan planning organization in the competitive selection 
process?
    B. What is FTA's guidance on the competitive selection process 
in urbanized areas?
    C. What is fair and equitable distribution of funds?
VII. Technical Assistance and Training
VIII. Strategies for Evaluation and Oversight
    A. What is the relationship of the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs to the 
State Management Plan (SMP)?

[[Page 13457]]

    B. What program evaluation and performance measures will FTA use 
to implement and manage the programs?
    C. What will FTA's reporting requirements by grant recipients 
be?
    D. How will FTA monitor the implementation of the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom 
programs?
IX. The Application of Mobility Management Concepts
X. Management of the Administrative Aspects of the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom 
programs
    A. Can designated recipients transfer New Freedom funds to 
projects serving areas other than the area specified in the New 
Freedom program?
    B. Use of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs funds for 
administration, planning and technical assistance
XI. New Freedom Program
    A. Do projects have to be both ``new'' and ``beyond the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?'
    B. What types of enhancements to ADA complementary paratransit 
service will FTA consider eligible for New Freedom funding?
    C. How does FTA propose to define ``new'' service?
    D. What other activities may be eligible for New Freedom funds?
    E. Other comments.
XII. Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
    A. Will previously funded JARC projects be continued?
    B. What other projects may be eligible for JARC funding?
    C. Can designated recipients transfer JARC funds to the 
Urbanized Area Formula program?
    D. Are there funding limitations for reverse commute projects?
XIII. Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program
    A. Will FTA impose Sec.  5333(b) labor protection requirements?
    B. What are the sliding scale match requirements for grant 
recipients?

I. Overview

    FTA requested comments in several specific areas in the November 
30, 2005 Notice (70 FR 71950) related to the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  5310), Job Access and Reverse 
Commute (Sec.  5316), and New Freedom (Sec.  5317) FTA funded programs. 
Commenters raised several other key questions and concerns throughout 
the comment process, both in the docket and during listening sessions. 
These included: (1) Aspects of the coordinated planning processes; (2) 
the relationship between public transit-human service plans and other 
planning processes; (3) the competitive selection process; (4) 
technical assistance and training that would be helpful to grantees; 
(5) strategies and performance measures that could be employed to 
evaluate the successes of these programs; (6) management of the 
administrative aspects of these programs; (7) types of projects that 
should be considered for eligibility under New Freedom as they relate 
to new public transportation services and alternatives to public 
transportation beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and 
(8) types of projects that are eligible under the Job Access and 
Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. The public comment period and listening 
sessions assisted FTA with developing the strategies proposed in this 
Notice for addressing the above areas. Commenters included public and 
private transportation providers, trade associations, State departments 
of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, advocacy 
groups, human service providers, and individuals with disabilities.
    This document includes several items. First, this document provides 
details on the public meeting, designed to inform final guidance to 
implement programs beginning in FY07. Second, it establishes interim 
program guidance for FY06 funds for the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs. These 
requirements are based on provisions in the statute as well as issues 
raised and commented on during public comment and listening sessions 
held in December 2005. Finally, FTA solicits further comments on cross 
cutting and program specific elements of the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs.

II. Public Meeting

    FTA will host a public meeting on March 23, 2006 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 
at the Hilton Hotel (1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314). This 
meeting is intended to further define program strategies discussed in 
today's Notice. Anyone interested in attending the March meeting should 
RSVP to Easter Seals Project ACTION at 1-800-659-6428 or via e-mail at 
([email protected]). A summary of the meeting will be posted in 
the docket. Attendees, in order to have their comments fully considered 
by FTA, should post their comments to the public docket either before 
or immediately after the meeting.

III. Interim Guidance for the Elderly Individuals and Individuals With 
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom Grants for FY 2006

    FTA received questions asking how the coordinated planning 
provisions under the three programs should be addressed in FY 2006 and 
about grant awards in advance of the issuance of final program guidance 
for the JARC and New Freedom programs. Based on statutory provisions 
and in response to comments received to date, FTA is adopting the 
following guidelines for JARC and New Freedom grants for FY 2006.

Coordinated Plan

    For the New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities programs, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects selected be 
derived from a coordinated plan beginning in FY 2007. This requirement 
allows time for the development of a coordinated plan and permits 
projects to be funded in FY 2006 even if a coordinated plan is not yet 
in place. FTA encourages designated recipients to conduct coordinated 
planning activities and consultation with planning partners before the 
selection of FY 2006 projects, but it is not required in FY 2006 that 
the projects selected be derived from a completed coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan.
    For JARC programs, however, there is no delay in the requirement 
that projects be derived from a coordinated plan, since a similar 
requirement was in place for JARC under TEA-21. For areas that 
previously received JARC discretionary funding, the previously required 
JARC plan may satisfy the coordinated planning requirement for FY 2006. 
In areas with no current JARC plan, for FY 2006, the planning partners 
should at a minimum be consulted about projects and where possible 
expressions of support should be obtained and documented. Each grant 
application must describe activities undertaken to reach out to 
stakeholders, including providers and users of service, to identify 
community-wide needs and to begin to catalog available resources.
    Beginning in FY 2007, the requirement for a coordinated plan will 
apply fully to all three programs.

Designated Recipient

    As discussed later in this document in Section VI(A), the Governor 
must designate recipients for JARC and New Freedom funds. In the 
Federal Register Notice of November 30, 2005, FTA indicated that the 
Governor must

[[Page 13458]]

designate the recipient for JARC and New Freedom funds allocated to the 
State before the first grant application is submitted. For funds 
allocated to large urbanized areas, FTA will accept FY 2006 grant 
applications for JARC and New Freedom from the designated recipient for 
urbanized areas (Sec.  5307), pending formal designation by the 
Governor. However, if the designated recipient for JARC and New Freedom 
will not be the same agency as the designated recipient for Sec.  5307, 
the new recipient must be officially designated before applying for FY 
2006 funds.

Competitive Selection

    The requirement that the designated recipient competitively select 
the projects for funding under JARC and New Freedom is effective in FY 
2006. An applicant for funds before the issuance of final guidance for 
the programs must at a minimum include in the application a description 
explaining the steps taken to assure that the projects were selected 
consistent with a competitive process established at the statewide 
level (for funds apportioned to the State) or for the large urbanized 
area.

Final Guidelines

    If FTA subsequently establishes more specific criteria for the 
coordinated planning or competitive selection process, or for project 
eligibility, that were not met by early applicants for FY 2006 funds, 
the requirements will not be applied retroactively to grants awarded 
prior to the issuance of the guidance.

Administrative Costs

    Designated recipients may apply for the administrative funds 
allowed under the program in advance of selecting projects in order to 
support the planning and selection process.

Project and Subrecipient Eligibility

    Projects selected prior to the issuance of guidance should conform 
to the basic statutory eligibility requirements; specifically, in the 
case of JARC, access to jobs and reverse commute projects, and in the 
case of New Freedom, new public transportation services and public 
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA that 
assist individuals with disabilities with transportation. Subrecipient 
eligibility is defined in statute. Guidance exists for the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  5310) program in 
FTA Circular 9070.1E.

Certifications and Assurances

    FTA's FY 2006 Certifications and Assurances include basic program 
requirements for the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities (category 17); JARC (category 19); and New Freedom 
(category 20) programs. These certifications and assurances must be 
signed prior to submission of an application.

IV. Aspects of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services 
Transportation Plan

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), (Pub.L. No. 109-59, August 10, 
2005) requires that projects selected for funding under the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom 
programs be ``derived from a locally developed, coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation plan'' and that the plan be 
``developed through a process that includes representatives of public, 
private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and 
participation by the public.''
    Commenters requested clarification of the coordinated public 
transit-human services transportation planning process with regard to: 
(1) Elements of a coordinated public transit-human services 
transportation plan (``coordinated plan''); (2) participation in the 
coordinated planning process; and (3) the relationship of the 
coordinated planning process to the metropolitan and statewide 
transportation planning processes. In addition to requesting 
clarification, comments submitted included specific questions on and 
proposed strategies for the coordinated public transit-human services 
transportation planning process. Commenters' questions, strategies, and 
requests for clarification are addressed below.

A. What are the elements of a coordinated public transit-human services 
transportation plan?

    SAFETEA-LU requires that formula programs for the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse 
Commute (JARC), and New Freedom, be derived from a coordinated plan. 
However, SAFETEA-LU does not define coordinated plan. From comments 
received and FTA's experience, we propose to define the coordinated 
plan as a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation 
service delivery that identifies the transportation needs of 
individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with 
limited incomes, lays out strategies for meeting these needs, and 
prioritizes services. FTA suggests that a coordinated plan should 
maximize the programs' collective coverage by minimizing duplication of 
services. Further, a coordinated plan should be developed through a 
process that includes representatives of public, private and nonprofit 
transportation and human services providers, and participation by the 
public. In addition, FTA proposes that a coordinated plan should 
incorporate activities offered under other programs sponsored by 
Federal, State, and local agencies to greatly strengthen its impact.
    SAFETEA-LU also does not specify the required elements for a 
coordinated plan. Again, drawing on feedback from stakeholder meetings 
as well as FTA experience through the United We Ride initiative and the 
JARC program, FTA proposes that the key elements of a coordinated plan 
include the following:
     An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with 
disabilities, older adults, and persons with limited incomes;
     An inventory of available services that identifies areas 
of redundant service and gaps in service;
     Strategies to address the identified gaps in service;
     Identification of coordination actions to eliminate or 
reduce duplication in services and strategies for more efficient 
utilization of resources; and,
     Prioritization of implementation strategies.
    FTA suggests that States and communities utilize the United We Ride 
Framework for Action when developing a coordinated plan. The Framework 
for Action (available at http://www.unitedweride.gov) is a self 
assessment tool for communities and States. It addresses each of the 
core elements of a fully coordinated transportation system.
    FTA further suggests that States and communities utilize the 
Facilitator's Guide that accompanies the Framework for Action. The 
Facilitator's Guide enables leaders at the Federal, State and community 
levels to guide a coordinating council, interagency working group, 
local group of human service agencies, public and private transit 
providers and stakeholders through a transportation coordination 
assessment and a plan for action by offering detailed advice on how to 
choose an existing group or construct an ad hoc group. In addition, it 
describes how to develop key elements of a plan, such as identifying 
the needs of targeted populations, assessing gaps and duplications in 
services, and developing strategies to meet needs and coordinate 
services. While the Framework for

[[Page 13459]]

Action and the Facilitator's Guide will not produce the coordinated 
plan, they will serve as useful tools in the development of a 
coordinated plan. The components and related overview of the sections 
included in the Framework for Action are outlined below:
    Making Things Happen by Working Together: This section addresses 
the process for establishing leadership and partnerships. It recommends 
that coordinators view individuals and organizations as catalysts for 
envisioning, organizing, and sustaining a coordinated system that 
provides mobility and access to transportation for all.
    Taking Stock of Community Needs and Moving Forward: This section 
assesses the capacity of human service agencies to coordinate 
transportation services. The assessment, used for planning and action, 
is a completed and regularly updated community transportation 
evaluation process that identifies assets, expenditures, services 
provided, duplication of services, specific mobility needs of the 
various target populations, and opportunities for improvement.
    Putting Customers First: This section provides elements to consider 
for implementation that addresses consumer needs. For example, one 
element to consider is that customers, including people with 
disabilities, older adults, and low-income riders, have a convenient 
and accessible means of accessing information about transportation 
services. Another element to consider is that customers are regularly 
engaged in the evaluation of services and identification of needs.
    Adapting Funding for Greater Mobility: This section provides that 
coordinators should and often do employ innovative accounting 
procedures to support transportation services by combining various 
Federal, State, and local funds. This strategy creates customer 
friendly payment systems while maintaining consistent reporting and 
accounting procedures across programs.
    Technology: This section recognizes that technology is a tool that 
is being used to design and manage coordinated transportation systems 
in real time with greater efficiency and effectiveness. Technology is 
also an integrated component of many of the other sections included in 
the Framework for Action.
    Moving People Efficiently: This section discusses creating 
multimodal and multi-provider transportation networks that are seamless 
for the customer and operationally and organizationally sound for the 
providers. This involves setting up a ``family of services'' that 
includes but is not limited to fixed route, flex route, demand 
response, and volunteer services.
    In addition to clarification of the elements of a coordinated plan, 
some commenters asked which agency should be the lead agency in 
developing the coordinated plan. FTA proposes that choosing a lead 
agency is a local decision. Further, some commenters questioned how FTA 
would define ``local'' in ``locally developed, coordinated public 
transit-human services plan.'' FTA proposes that this decision be made 
at the State, regional, and local levels.
    FTA received comments from stakeholders that already have a local 
planning process in place for human services transportation 
coordination. FTA recognizes the importance of local flexibility in 
developing plans for human service transportation and strongly supports 
current planning processes in human service transportation conducted 
with stakeholders and partners. FTA notes, however, that all new 
Federal requirements must be met. Therefore, FTA proposes that 
communities modify their plans or processes as necessary to meet these 
requirements. FTA also encourages communities to consider inclusion of 
new partners, new outreach strategies, and new activities related to 
the targeted programs and populations.

B. How do we ensure participation in the coordinated public transit-
human services transportation planning process?

    Many commenters expressed concern about participation in the 
planning process. These concerns were particularly focused on issues 
regarding: (1) Ensuring adequate outreach; (2) recognition of outreach 
efforts; and (3) participation from non-DOT funded partner agencies and 
organizations. Drawing on suggestions from the public docket and 
listening sessions, FTA proposes the following possible strategies:
1. Adequate Outreach to Allow for Participation
    SAFETEA-LU requires recipients to certify that the coordinated plan 
was developed through a process that included representatives of 
public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services 
providers, and participation by the public. Many commenters asked FTA 
to ensure that they and others would be given sufficient notice and an 
opportunity to participate in the development of coordinated plans. 
Some requested that FTA establish specific outreach requirements, while 
others asked FTA to refrain from establishing such requirements.
    FTA recognizes that outreach strategies and potential participants 
will vary from area to area. Potential outreach strategies could 
include notices or flyers in centers of community activity, newspaper 
or radio announcements, e-mail lists, Web postings, and invitation 
letters to other government agencies, transportation providers, and 
advocacy groups. Conveners should note that not all potential 
participants have access to the Internet and they should not rely 
exclusively on electronic communications. FTA recommends allowing many 
ways to participate, including in-person testimony, mail, e-mail, and 
teleconference. Additionally, accessible formats such as interpreters 
and large print should be provided upon request and as required by law.
    Some commenters suggested that specific types of groups and 
organizations be included in the coordinated planning process. FTA 
proposes to provide illustrative examples in the guidance of who should 
be involved in the planning process. FTA recommends that the lead 
agency developing the coordinated plan would invite the participants, 
and proposes that the lead agency include the following groups and 
organizations in the coordinated planning process:
     Area transportation planning agencies;
     Transit riders and potential riders, including both 
general and targeted populations--those individuals with lower incomes, 
a representational cross-section of individuals with disabilities, and 
older Americans;
     Public transportation providers;
     Private transportation providers, including private 
transportation brokers, ADA paratransit providers, taxi services, 
intercity bus operators, etc.;
     Non-profit transportation providers;
     Human service agencies funding and/or supporting access 
for transportation services;
     Other government agencies that administer health, 
employment, or other support programs for targeted populations. 
Examples of such programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Vocational 
Rehabilitation, Medicaid, Community Action (CAP), Independent Living 
Centers, and Agency on Aging (AoA) programs;

[[Page 13460]]

     Non-profit organizations that serve the targeted 
populations intended for transportation services;
     Advocacy organizations working on behalf of targeted 
populations;
     Security and emergency management agencies;
     Any other appropriate local or State officials;
     Tribes and tribal representatives;
     Representatives of the business community (e.g., 
employers);
     Community-based organizations;
     Economic development agencies;
     Job training and placement agencies; and
     Elected officials.
    FTA recognizes that this proposed list would not limit 
participation by other groups, or require participation by every group 
listed. FTA expects that planning participants will have an active role 
in the development and implementation of the plan.
    2. Recognition of Outreach Efforts for Inclusion
    Several comments received through both the listening sessions and 
the public docket noted the lack of participation from some targeted 
groups. Specifically, commenters indicated that recipients did not want 
to be penalized in an FTA oversight review for lack of participation 
from targeted stakeholders when they made an effort to include these 
groups at the table.
    FTA recognizes that participation may remain low even though a good 
faith effort is made by the lead agency to involve the public, 
representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and 
human services providers, and others. FTA proposes that the lead agency 
convening the coordinated planning meeting(s) document the efforts they 
utilized, such as those suggested above, to solicit involvement.
    3. Participation From Partner Agencies and Organizations
    Commenters from all regions of the country expressed concern about 
the lack of participation from targeted partner agencies and 
organizations. These comments specifically expressed concern about the 
lack of participation by government funded partners. For example, some 
commenters noted they have had difficulty engaging other agencies that 
support and/or provide human services transportation, especially when 
these agencies have no requirements or incentive to participate. Some 
commented that it is incumbent upon FTA, as the leader of the United We 
Ride initiative, to coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure 
that government and non-profit agencies that receive Federal assistance 
from sources other than the U.S. Department of Transportation to 
participate in the coordinated planning process.
    FTA will continue to work with its Federal partners through the 
United We Ride initiative to encourage agencies that receive Federal 
funding to participate in the coordinated planning process. In 
addition, FTA proposes that State DOT offices work closely with their 
partner agencies to educate policy makers about the importance of 
partnering with human services transportation programs and the 
opportunities that are available when building a coordinated system. 
FTA also proposes that States work with their partner agencies to 
provide information to their local constituents regarding the 
importance of a coordinated public transit and human services 
transportation system.
    In addition, Federal, State, regional, and local policy makers, 
providers, and advocates need to consistently engage in outreach 
efforts that enhance the coordinated process, because it is important 
that all stakeholders identify the opportunities that are available in 
building a coordinated system. Therefore, FTA encourages States, 
regional and local communities to utilize the Framework for Action and 
other tools to build relationships and dialogue with partner agencies. 
FTA further proposes that recipients demonstrate a good faith effort to 
reach out to specific targeted partners by maintaining copies of 
notices, newspaper ads, letters, etc., to document their outreach 
efforts. FTA recipients should also continue to work with those 
partners who are interested in coordinating efforts in the interim.

V. The Relationship of the Coordinated Plan to the Metropolitan and 
Statewide Transportation Planning Processes

    FTA received a number of questions and proposed strategies from 
commenters concerning the relationship of the coordinated human 
services planning process to the broader transportation planning 
process. These comments addressed: (1) The relationship of the 
coordinated plan to the metropolitan and statewide planning process 
regulations specified in 23 CFR part 450 and 49 CFR part 613; (2) the 
incorporation of the public transit-human services coordinated plan 
into the metropolitan and statewide plan; (3) the ability to build on 
current planning processes in human services transportation at the 
local and State level; (4) the process for including projects from the 
coordinated plan in the Transportation Improvement Program/State 
Transportation Improvement Program; (5) the relationship between the 
requirements for consultation and public participation included in the 
development of the public transit-human services coordinated plan and 
the public participation requirements in metropolitan and statewide 
transportation planning; (6) the cycle and life of a public transit-
human services coordinated transportation plan; (7) the ability to 
incorporate activities and projects that are supported by funding 
sources other than the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities (Sec.  5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (Sec.  
5316), and New Freedom (Sec.  5317) into the public transit-human 
services transportation plan, and (8) the role of the metropolitan 
planning organization (MPO) or State in certifying that projects are 
derived from a locally developed coordinated plan. FTA proposes and 
seeks comments on the following strategies to address the issues 
outlined above.

A. What is the relationship of the coordinated plan to the metropolitan 
and statewide planning process regulations specified in 23 CFR Part 
450?

    FTA's Office of Program Management and Office of Planning and 
Environment are working closely together to develop guidance on the 
coordinated plan that would ensure that it is consistent with the new 
metropolitan and statewide planning regulations now under development.

B. What is the relationship between the coordinated planning process 
and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes?

    FTA proposes flexibility in this area. The coordinated plan can 
either be developed separately from the metropolitan and statewide 
transportation planning processes and then incorporated into the 
broader plans, or be developed as a part of the metropolitan and 
statewide transportation planning processes.
    In either case, FTA proposes that the MPO or State be responsible 
for determining that the projects selected within a coordinated plan 
are incorporated in the metropolitan and statewide transportation 
plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). All projects developed for 
funding by the coordinated planning process must be incorporated in the 
TIP and STIP by the MPO in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 
or more, or

[[Page 13461]]

incorporated into the STIP by the State for areas under 50,000 in 
population. Like all federally funded transportation programs, projects 
must be incorporated into the STIP before receiving a grant. FTA 
strongly urges the partners developing the coordinated plan to 
communicate with the relevant MPOs or State planning agencies at an 
early stage in plan development.
    Depending upon the structure established by local decision-makers, 
the coordinated planning process may or may not become an integral part 
of the metropolitan or statewide transportation planning processes. FTA 
understands the fundamental differences in scope, time horizon, and 
level of detail between the coordinated planning process and the 
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. FTA also 
recognizes that there are areas of overlap between the coordinated 
planning process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation 
planning processes. Areas of overlap may include: (1) Needs assessments 
based on the distribution of targeted populations and locations of 
employment centers, employment-related activities, community services 
and activities, medical centers, housing and other destinations; (2) 
inventories of transportation providers/resources, levels of 
utilization, duplication of service and unused capacity; (3) gap 
analysis; (4) any eligibility restrictions; and (5) opportunities for 
increased coordination of transportation services. As such, FTA 
encourages local communities to choose the method for developing plans 
that best fits their needs and circumstances.

C. What is the relationship between the requirement for public 
participation in the coordinated plan and the requirement for public 
participation in metropolitan and statewide transportation planning?

    SAFETEA-LU strengthened the public participation requirements for 
metropolitan and statewide transportation planning. Title 49 U.S.C. 
5303(i)(5) and 5304(f)(3), as amended by SAFETEA-LU requires MPOs and 
States provide ``interested parties'' with a reasonable opportunity to 
comment on the transportation improvement plan. ``Interested parties'' 
include, among others, affected public agencies, private providers of 
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, and 
representatives of individuals with disabilities.
    FTA proposes that MPOs and States coordinate schedules, agendas, 
and strategies of the coordinated planning process with metropolitan 
and statewide planning in order to minimize additional costs and avoid 
duplication of efforts. MPOs and States must still provide 
opportunities for participation when planning for transportation 
related activities beyond human service specific activities.

D. What is the cycle and duration of the coordinated plan?

    FTA proposes that the coordinated plan follow the update cycles for 
metropolitan transportation plans (i.e., four years in air quality 
nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in air quality 
attainment areas). However, FTA recommends that there be opportunities 
to update the coordinated plan to harmonize with the competitive 
selection process.

E. What is the role of the MPO or State in certifying that projects are 
derived from a locally developed coordinated plan?

    It is the designated recipient's responsibility to competitively 
select projects and certify that they are derived from a coordinated 
plan. The designated recipient may be the MPO in an urbanized area with 
a population over 200,000, and will be the State in rural areas and 
urban areas under 200,000 in population.

F. What is the role of transportation providers that receive FTA 
funding under the Urbanized and Other Than Urbanized Formula programs 
in the coordinated planning process?

    FTA received questions about the role of transportation providers 
that receive FTA funding under the Urbanized Formula (Sec.  5307) and 
the Other Than Urbanized Formula (Sec.  5311) programs in the 
coordinated planning process. Recipients of Sec.  5307 and Sec.  5311 
assistance are the ``public transit'' in the public transit-human 
service transportation plan and their participation is assumed and 
expected. Further, Sec.  5307(c)(5) requires that, ``Each recipient of 
a grant shall ensure that the proposed program of projects provides for 
the coordination of public transportation services * * * with 
transportation services assisted from other United States Government 
sources.'' In addition, the Sec.  5311(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine that a 
State's Sec.  5311 projects ``provide the maximum feasible coordination 
of public transportation service * * * with transportation service 
assisted by other Federal sources.'' Further, since States are required 
to expend 15 percent of the amount available under the Other Than 
Urbanized area program (Sec.  5311) to support intercity bus service, 
FTA expects the coordinated planning process to take into account human 
service needs that require intercity transportation.

VI. Competitive Selection Process

    JARC and New Freedom require a recipient of funds to conduct a 
competitive selection process that is separate from the planning 
process. Sections 5316 and 5317 of 49 U.S.C., as amended by SAFETEA-LU, 
provide the following:

    ``(d) Competitive Process for Grants to Subrecipients.--
    (1) Areawide solicitations.--A recipient of funds apportioned 
under subsection (c)(1)(A) [urbanized areas with a population over 
200,000] shall conduct, in cooperation with the appropriate 
metropolitan planning organization, an area wide solicitation for 
applications for grants to the recipient and sub recipients under 
this section.
    (2) Statewide solicitation.--A recipient of funds apportioned 
under subsection (c)(1)(B) [urbanized areas with a population of 
less than 200,000] or (c)(1)(C) [Other Than Urbanized areas] shall 
conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for grants to the 
recipient and sub recipients under this section.
    (3) Application.--Recipients and sub recipients seeking to 
receive a grant from funds apportioned under subsection (c) shall 
submit to the recipient an application in the form and in accordance 
with such requirements as the recipient shall establish.
    (4) Grant awards.--The recipient shall award grants under 
paragraphs (1) and (2) on a competitive basis.''

    FTA received a significant number of comments regarding the 
competitive selection process required for New Freedom and JARC. 
Specifically, commenters had questions regarding: (1) The role of the 
designated recipient and the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) 
in the competitive selection process, particularly when the designated 
recipient also has an interest in applying for funds under a specific 
program; (2) the importance of establishing clear guidance on the 
competitive selection process; and (3) the importance of establishing a 
fair and equitable distribution as outlined in SAFETEA-LU.

A. What is the role of the designated recipient and the metropolitan 
planning organization in the competitive selection process?

    In urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 and in Other 
Than Urbanized areas, the State is the designated recipient. For these 
areas, the governor designates a State agency that will be responsible 
for administering the JARC and New

[[Page 13462]]

Freedom programs, and officially notifies the appropriate FTA regional 
office in writing of that designation. The governor may designate the 
State agency that receives Other Than Urbanized area (Sec.  5311) and/
or the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  
5310) funds to be the JARC or New Freedom recipient, or the governor 
may designate a different agency.
    In urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, the recipient is 
designated as prescribed in Sec.  5307(a)(2). FTA interprets the 
provision regarding the designated recipient for JARC and New Freedom 
to mean that a recipient charged with administering the JARC and New 
Freedom programs must be officially designated through a process 
consistent with the provision in Sec.  5307(a)(2)(A) which provides:

an entity designated in accordance with the planning process under 
sections 5303, 5304, and 5306, by the chief executive officer of a 
State, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of 
public transportation, to receive and apportion amounts under 
section 5336 that are attributable to transportation management 
areas identified under section 5303.

    Many commenters expressed concern that a ``conflict of interest'' 
could exist in large urbanized areas when the designated recipient both 
conducts the competitive selection process and is itself eligible for 
funds through that same process. Some commenters suggested that the MPO 
should hold the competitive selection process instead. However, JARC 
and New Freedom require that in urbanized areas, ``a recipient of 
funds. * * * shall conduct, in cooperation with the appropriate 
metropolitan planning organization, an area wide solicitation * * *'' 
49 U.S.C. 5316()(1), 49 U.S.C. 5317(d)(1).
    To address this concern, FTA proposes that the designated recipient 
for JARC and New Freedom does not have to be the same as the designated 
recipient for Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.  5307) funds. The potential 
``conflict of interest'' is resolved when a designation of recipient is 
made for the JARC and New Freedom programs separate from the 
designation made for the Urbanized Area program (Sec.  5307). FTA 
recommends the designated recipient for these funds not be a provider 
of transportation services. When the MPO is the designated recipient of 
these funds, FTA proposes that the MPO would be responsible for 
conducting the competitive selection. FTA seeks comment on this 
proposed strategy. When the recipient of Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.  
5307) funds is the same as the designated recipient for JARC and New 
Freedom funds, FTA proposes a competitive selection process that is 
transparent, as described below. Further, FTA believes that the 
requirement for recipients to certify that the selection of projects is 
``fair and equitable'' as required by 49 U.S.C. 5316(f)(2) and 49 
U.S.C. 5317(e)(2) also provides an opportunity to ensure that the 
process is conducted fairly (see below).

B. What is FTA's guidance on the competitive selection process in 
urbanized areas?

    SAFETEA-LU requires that selected projects be derived from the 
locally developed coordinated plan and meet the intent of the program. 
In addition to this requirement, FTA encourages recipients for large 
urbanized areas in which the designated recipient for JARC and New 
Freedom is the same as the Urbanized Area Formula program (Sec.  5307) 
recipient or another transit provider, to follow a simple and 
straightforward selection process. Below is a list of potential 
strategies, drawn from public comment, that FTA believes are useful for 
recipients to consider when implementing a competitive selection 
process. FTA proposes that a recipient can:
     Assure greater inclusion at the onset of the coordinated 
planning process to allow private sector participation or participation 
by others who have not been involved in the MPO planning process to 
alleviate concerns about a level playing field;
     Provide for transparency and documentation in both the 
coordinated planning process and the competitive selection process to 
minimize conflict of interest concerns;
     Publish an announcement that lays out program requirements 
and the process for receiving funds, which may help communities 
initiate planning activities as well as lay out the recipient's 
timeline for the competitive selection process;
     Conduct the competitive selection process in cooperation 
with the MPO to capitalize on the MPO's experience in project 
evaluation and selection processes for Transportation Improvement 
Programs (TIPs);
     Rank projects using any of the following approaches: peer 
review; third party review; best practices advice; or a panel of 
planning partners; and then publish a list of selected projects for 
each State/locale; and
     Evaluate who should provide services and ensure fair and 
equitable competition, by allowing communities to build on transit 
agencies' experience with third party contracting for specialized 
services.
    FTA may also suggest additional criteria for recipients to use when 
establishing priorities for selecting projects. Such additional 
criteria may include selecting projects that: (1) Address gaps in 
current service provisions for targeted communities; (2) make use of 
available resources and leverage resources to the extent possible; (3) 
are considered for geographic distribution to encourage some level of 
diverse geographic disbursement; (4) coordinate with other Federal 
programs (e.g., coordinated services, financial partnership); (5) can 
be achieved with the given technical capacity of project sponsor; and 
(6) show evidence of broad solicitation for input (coordinated planning 
process).

C. What is fair and equitable distribution of funds?

    Several comments also addressed the importance of oversight and 
accountability to ensure a fair and equitable competitive selection 
process. Sections 5316(f)(2) and 5317(e)(2) provide that ``a recipient 
of a grant under this section shall certify to the Secretary that 
allocations of the grant to subrecipients are distributed on a fair and 
equitable basis.'' A transparent and inclusive competitive selection 
and planning process should serve as the basis for the certifications.
    Regardless of the process utilized, FTA embraces the importance of 
demonstrating evidence of a fair and equitable process, especially in 
the context of potential conflict of interest. FTA proposes that fair 
and equitable distribution would be addressed in the State Management 
Review for State administered programs and in the Planning 
Certification Review and Triennial Review Processes in urbanized areas 
over 200,000 in population. FTA further proposes that States document 
the competitive selection process as part of a State Management Plan 
and that designated recipients in urban areas document the competitive 
selection process in the annual solicitation notice or some other 
format available to the public. FTA believes that building on existing 
reviews would not slow down project implementation and would allow 
implementation and lessons learned to be examined. FTA seeks public 
comment on this proposal.

VII. Technical Assistance and Training

    FTA solicited comments on the technical assistance needs and 
activities that should be undertaken to assist States and transit 
agencies with implementation of the requirements for the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals

[[Page 13463]]

with Disabilities (Sec.  5310), JARC (Sec.  5316), and New 
Freedom(Sec.  5317). Commenters identified the need for technical 
assistance and training in: (1) The development of coordinated plans; 
(2) technical assistance for transportation providers in rural and 
urban settings; (3) training for non-profit and private transportation 
providers; (4) technical assistance for human service agencies 
regarding their role in transportation planning; and (5) training for 
consumers on skills required for using various transportation 
resources.
    In addition to the two national technical assistance centers 
related to senior transportation and coordinated human service 
transportation established by SAFETEA-LU, FTA will continue to engage 
an existing network of technical assistance resources charged with 
addressing needs related to human service transportation. These 
resources include: Easter Seals Project ACTION (a national technical 
assistance center specializing in accessible transportation); JobLINKS 
(a national technical assistance program specializing in employment 
transportation); and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and 
Planning Peer to Peer projects (both of which offer on-site, phone, and 
e-mail consultation on targeted issues). Additionally, FTA will engage 
the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, which launched the United 
We Ride Ambassador program, to provide technical assistance directly to 
State agencies on implementing the coordinated planning process. FTA 
will also use the United We Ride Web site (http://www.unitedweride.gov) 
to communicate useful practices from around the country. The National 
Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) is also available to 
assist States in implementing their RTAPs, in building capacity in 
coordinated human service transportation, and implementing the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  5310), JARC (Sec.  
5316) and New Freedom (Sec.  5317) programs in rural areas.
    In addition, recipients may use up to 10% of their Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  5310), JARC (Sec.  
5316) and New Freedom (Sec.  5317) funds to provide technical 
assistance, as well as administrative and planning functions, to 
localities and consumer groups on human service coordination. 
Designated recipients and States may use the funds directly for these 
purposes or to provide funding to subrecipients for technical 
assistance purposes. Regardless of structure, FTA encourages recipients 
to develop a strategy for offering technical assistance to local 
communities.

VIII. Strategies for Evaluation and Oversight

    FTA received comments on issues concerning evaluation and 
oversight. These comments addressed the following issues: (1) The 
relationship of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom to the State Management Plan, (2) 
performance measures, (3) reporting requirements, and (4) oversight of 
these programs.

A. What is the relationship of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals 
with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom to the State Management Plan 
(SMP)?

    FTA recognizes that portions of the JARC and New Freedom programs 
will be managed by States. Therefore, FTA proposes that States be 
required to create an SMP for JARC and New Freedom. Like the current 
requirement for other FTA programs (e.g., Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, Other Than Urbanized Formula, etc), the 
SMP may be a stand-alone plan for each program, or it may be a 
consolidated plan that addresses all State-managed programs (Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New Freedom).

B. What program evaluation and performance measures will FTA use to 
implement and manage the programs?

    Commenters were interested in evaluation measures that focus on 
specified performance outcomes and impacts, having the same data 
collection and reporting requirements for the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New Freedom programs and that data 
collection that is simple and straightforward.
    FTA recognizes the importance of evaluation in the implementation 
and management of programs. FTA is working with the Federal Interagency 
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to develop performance 
measures for coordination of human services transportation. Once 
finalized, FTA proposes to adopt these measures for application to the 
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, New 
Freedom programs. FTA seeks comments on the following proposed 
measures:
    Performance Measure One: Efficiency of Operations. Increase the 
number of rides for persons who are older, persons with disabilities 
and persons with limited incomes for the same or lower cost.
    Definition (Performance Measure One): To increase by x% from 
baseline the number of communities and States reporting the use of 
shared resources (e.g., staff, equipment, funding, etc) between 
different agencies and organizations so they can provide more rides for 
more people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower 
incomes at a lower cost.
    Performance Measure Two: Program Effectiveness. Increase the number 
of communities with easier access to transportation services for 
persons who are older, persons with disabilities and persons with 
limited incomes.
    Definition (Performance Measure Two): To increase by x% from 
baseline the number of communities (e.g., urban, rural, other) which 
have a simple point of entry-coordinated human service transportation 
system for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with 
lower incomes so they have easier access to transportation services.
    Performance Measure Three: Customer Satisfaction. Increase the 
quality of transportation services for persons who are older, persons 
with disabilities and persons with limited incomes.
    Definition (Performance Measure Three): To increase by x% from 
baseline the level of customer satisfaction reported in areas related 
to the availability, the affordability, the acceptability and the 
accessibility of transportation services for people with disabilities, 
older adults, and individuals with lower incomes.
    The percentage of increase is stated in terms of an annual target, 
which will be established after a baseline has been determined and 
validated during the first year. In addition to the cross-cutting 
performance measures proposed above, FTA will be proposing new 
evaluation measures for each of the human services related programs 
(e.g., Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC and 
New Freedom). At the time of this Federal Register Notice, specific 
performance measures for the New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities programs are not developed. FTA seeks 
comments on outcome measures for consideration in these areas.
    The JARC program has been collecting data for a number of years, 
and this year JARC will test a new measurement to evaluate outcome and 
impact. The following measure will be tested and baseline measurements 
will be obtained during FY06: cumulative number of jobs reached through 
the provision of JARC-related services for low-income

[[Page 13464]]

individuals and welfare recipients. FTA plans to set an annual goal of 
two million jobs reached and/or job-related services accessed. As a 
result of this new measure, only data necessary for understanding this 
impact of JARC will be included in future data collection efforts.
    FTA recognizes that past data collection efforts associated with 
the JARC program have been difficult and cumbersome at times and the 
information collected has not been useful to the measure program 
effectiveness. Therefore, FTA is researching options to streamline data 
collection efforts using existing data collection mechanisms including 
the National Transit Database (NTD). NTD is a reporting mechanism 
required for the Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.  5307) designated 
recipients and will be implemented as a new requirement under SAFETEA-
LU for Other Than Urbanized Formula program (Sec.  5311) recipients at 
the State level.

C. What will FTA's reporting requirements be?

    Comments received addressed the need to ensure that reporting 
elements are identified and defined early in the implementation of 
programs. Commenters suggested using existing processes and products in 
the reporting process. Commenters also expressed concern about 
difficult and burdensome requirements, such as the past reporting 
requirements in the previous JARC program.
    FTA proposes that reporting requirements focus on the minimum data 
needed to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and 
Results Act, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program 
Assessment Rating Tool, and other performance initiatives set forth by 
Congress and OMB. FTA proposes to build on existing infrastructure and 
data collection mechanisms including the use of the National Transit 
Database beginning in FY 2007. FTA seeks further comments on this 
approach.

D. How will FTA monitor the implementation of the Elderly Individuals 
and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New Freedom programs?

    FTA will monitor implementation of these programs through our 
preaward review of grant applications and post-award grant management. 
FTA will also conduct oversight of these programs through its State 
Management Review for State managed areas and the Planning 
Certification Review and Triennial Review Process in urbanized areas 
over 200,000 in population.

IX. Mobility Management

    Some commenters requested clarification regarding the use of 
capital funds for ``mobility management.'' Mobility management 
activities are eligible capital expenses, defined as ``consisting of 
short-range planning and management activities and projects for 
improving coordination among public transportation and other 
transportation services providers carried out by a recipient or sub-
recipient through an agreement entered into with a person, including a 
government entity, under this chapter (other than sections 5309 and 
5320); but excluding operating public transportation services.'' 49 
U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)(L). Mobility management activities can be funded 
under all FTA programs that provide capital assistance, excluding Sec.  
5309 (Bus and Capital Investment) and Sec.  5320 (Public Land) 
activities. This includes the Sec.  5307 Urbanized Area and the Sec.  
5311 Other Than Urbanized Area programs. It also includes the Sec.  
5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, the Sec.  5316 Job Access 
and Reverse Commute and the Sec.  5317 New Freedom programs. While 
mobility management funds may not be used for the direct provision and 
operation of coordinated transportation services, including the 
scheduling, dispatching and monitoring of vehicles, FTA proposes the 
following as eligible mobility management activities:
     The development of coordinated plans;
     The support of State and local coordination policy bodies 
and councils;
     The maintenance and operation of transportation brokerages 
to coordinate providers, funding agencies and customers;
     The development and maintenance of other transportation 
coordination bodies and their activities, including employer-oriented 
Transportation Management Organizations, human service organization 
customer-oriented travel navigator systems and neighborhood travel 
coordination activities;
     The development and support of one-stop transportation 
traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all 
travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements 
for customers among supporting programs; and
     The acquisition and operation of intelligent 
transportation technologies to help plan and operate coordinated 
systems inclusive of Global Information Systems (GIS) mapping, 
coordinated vehicle scheduling, dispatching and monitoring technologies 
as well as technologies to track costs and billing in a coordinated 
system and single smart customer payment systems.

X. Management of the Administrative Aspects of the Elderly Individuals 
and Individuals With Disabilities, Job Access Reverse Commute, and New 
Freedom Programs

    Comments received on various management and administrative cases 
addressed transfers of funds and the use of 10% of funds for 
administration, planning, and technical assistance.

A. Can designated recipients transfer New Freedom funds to projects 
serving areas other than the area specified in the New Freedom program?

    FTA received several comments related to transfer of funds. 
Specifically, commenters suggested that in order to maximize 
flexibility, particularly where area allocations are very small, the 
New Freedom Program should follow JARC language which provides that, 
``[a] State may use funds * * * for projects serving areas other than 
the area specified * * * if the Governor of the State certifies that 
all of the objectives of this section are being met in the specified 
area; or for projects anywhere in the State if the State has 
established a statewide program for meeting the objectives of this 
section.'' 49 U.S.C. 5316(c)(3).
    In response, FTA notes that the exception identified above in the 
JARC program was not included in New Freedom. Therefore, FTA cannot 
extend this exception to the New Freedom program.

B. Use of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities, 
JARC, and New Freedom Funds for Administration, Planning and Technical 
Assistance

    FTA received comments concerning the use of the ten percent of 
funds available for administration, planning, and technical assistance. 
Funds for these purposes (up to ten percent) do not require a local 
match.
    Commenters suggested that funds for administration should be 
available up front to facilitate development of the coordinated plan in 
order to provide an incentive for an agency to step forward as lead. 
This will mitigate the risk that funds will lapse because no one was 
willing to take on the task of leading the coordinated planning 
process.
    FTA will allow recipients to apply for the ten percent of the 
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, JARC, and New 
Freedom

[[Page 13465]]

program funding that can be used for planning, technical assistance, or 
project administration to cover costs associated with the development 
and implementation of the coordinated plan and the competitive 
selection process prior to applying for the project implementation. 
Preaward authority may be used for these activities. Preaward 
authority, however, cannot be used for project implementation prior to 
meeting the Federal requirements associated with the program.
    Other commenters wanted to know if the salary cost for an employee 
administering the New Freedom and other programs would be eligible 
expenses. The ten percent of funding available does include costs, such 
as staff time, associated with administering the program.

XI. New Freedom Program

    FTA requested comments on the following topics: (1) The projects 
and activities stated in SAFETEA-LU that might be funded under the New 
Freedom program and how they relate to what is ``beyond the ADA;'' (2) 
activities related to ADA complementary paratransit services beyond the 
minimum requirements outlined in 49 CFR part 37; and (3) the types of 
projects and services that should be considered for eligibility under 
the New Freedom program. FTA also requested comments regarding 
technical assistance strategies and measures for evaluating the success 
of the program. Those comments were addressed in Sections VII and VIII 
above, respectively.

A. Do projects have to be both ``new'' and ``beyond the ADA?'

    The New Freedom Program specifies that ``the Secretary may make 
grants under this section to a recipient for new public transportation 
services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required 
by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that assist individuals 
with disabilities with transportation * * *'' 49 U.S.C. 5317(b)(1). 
Many commenters requested clarification regarding what would be 
considered ``new'' transportation service and what constitutes ``beyond 
the ADA.'' Commenters suggested FTA take an expansive view of the types 
of projects that could be funded through the New Freedom program.
    FTA proposes that ``new public transportation services'' and 
``public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA'' 
be considered separate categories of service. That is, to be eligible, 
a project must either be a ``new public transportation service'' OR ``a 
public transportation alternative beyond those required by the ADA.'' 
In either case, the project must ``assist individuals with disabilities 
with transportation.'' Therefore, new service is not required to go 
beyond the ADA. Rather, it must simply be new service that (1) is 
targeted toward people with disabilities; and (2) meets the intent of 
the program by removing barriers to transportation and assisting 
persons with disabilities with transportation, including transportation 
to and from jobs and employment services. One example would be 
extension of a fixed bus route to serve a particular location 
identified as in need of service by the disability community.
    FTA believes this interpretation allows the New Freedom program to 
fund projects identified by the conference report (H.R. Rpt. 109-203 at 
Sec.  3019, July 28, 2005) accompanying SAFETEA-LU and disability 
advocates that would not have been eligible if services had to be both 
new and beyond the ADA. Examples include new routes targeted to serve 
people with disabilities, station accessibility improvements, and 
existing paratransit services beyond the required \3/4\ mile on either 
side of a fixed route--all of which may not have been eligible if 
funded services or improvements had to be both new and beyond the ADA. 
FTA proposes that local communities may prioritize for funding those 
projects that are both new and beyond the ADA. FTA seeks public comment 
on these proposals.
    FTA reminds transit providers and other interested parties that all 
eligible activities must be derived from the locally developed public 
transit-human services coordinated plan, and determined based on a 
competitive selection process.

B. What types of enhancements to ADA complementary paratransit service 
will FTA consider eligible for New Freedom funding?

    The ``ADA'' means the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(ADA), Pub.L. No. 101-336, as codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and 
the Department of Transportation's implementing regulations, at 49 CFR 
parts 37 and 38. Commenters requested clarification on the types of 
projects and activities that would be considered beyond the ADA, 
particularly in the area of enhancements to paratransit service 
operated under 49 CFR part 37, subpart F.
    One area of particular interest to a number of commenters involved 
the nature of complementary paratransit service under the ADA, and 
whether or not door-to-door service should be considered beyond the 
ADA. Under 49 CFR 37.129, ADA complementary paratransit service is 
defined as ``origin-to-destination'' service, which may be defined by 
local communities as either curb-to-curb or door-to-door. A number of 
commenters requested that door-to-door service, in a community in which 
curb-to-curb service is provided, be considered beyond the ADA and 
therefore eligible for New Freedom funds.
    When the regulation was first promulgated, the preamble language 
stated, ``it is reasonable to think that service for some individuals 
or locations might be better if it is door-to-door, while curb-to-curb 
might be better in other instances. This is exactly the sort of 
detailed operational decision best left to the development of 
paratransit plans at the local level.'' (56 FR 45604; September 6, 
1991). In guidance issued on September 1, 2005, the Department of 
Transportation provided further clarification of the nature of origin-
to-destination service, stating, ``where the local planning process 
establishes curb-to-curb service as the basic paratransit service mode, 
however, provision should still be made to ensure that the service 
available to each passenger actually gets the passenger from his or her 
point of origin to his or her destination point. To meet this origin-
to-destination requirement, service may need to be provided to some 
individuals, or at some locations, in a way that goes beyond curb-to-
curb service.'' It would appear, then, that door-to-door service, 
whether provided across a community or only in circumstances in which a 
particular passenger needs additional assistance, is not beyond the 
ADA. FTA proposes that door-through-door service, however, may be 
eligible for New Freedom funding.
    ADA complementary paratransit service may include feeder service to 
permit individuals who use wheelchairs or who have a specific 
impairment-related condition which prevents the person from traveling 
to a boarding location or from a disembarking location to access the 
fixed route. 49 CFR 37.129. Requirements for ADA complementary 
paratransit service do not apply to commuter bus, commuter rail, or 
intercity rail systems. 49 CFR 37.121(c). FTA proposes that feeder 
service to outlying transit stations for which complementary 
paratransit is not required, such as commuter rail stations, express or 
commuter bus service, or an intercity bus stop or rail station, may be 
eligible for New Freedom funding.

[[Page 13466]]

    ADA complementary paratransit service is provided to origins and 
destinations within corridors with a width of \3/4\ mile on each side 
of each fixed route, including, within the core service area, those 
small areas not inside any corridors but surrounded by corridors. 49 
CFR 37.131. Outside of the core service area, a transit provider may 
designate corridors from \3/4\ mile up to one and one half miles on 
each side of a fixed route. While ADA complementary paratransit 
services provided in such locations might be argued to be within the 
scope of the ADA, the conference report accompanying SAFETEA-LU clearly 
indicates an intent by Congress to consider paratransit service beyond 
\3/4\ mile of the fixed route to be eligible for New Freedom funding by 
listing it as an example of the type of activity Congress would like 
the program to fund. H.R. Rpt. 109-203, at Sec.  3019 (July 28, 2005).
    The paratransit service area for rail is a circle with a radius of 
\3/4\ mile around each station. Again, while the ADA permits local 
entities to consider paratransit service within a radius of up to one 
and one half miles around each station as part of their ADA 
complementary paratransit system, following the same logic as above, 
FTA proposes to regard any service beyond the minimum \3/4\ mile as 
eligible for New Freedom funding.
    Commenters stated that some paratransit operators already provide 
service outside of the \3/4\ mile corridor, and they expressed a desire 
to use New Freedom funds to continue that service. FTA proposes to 
permit New Freedom funds be used for this purpose as long as it is part 
of the coordinated plan, and the project is competitively selected 
pursuant to statute.
    Next day service is required pursuant to 49 CFR 37.131(b). While 
the Department's ADA regulations permit same-day service, they do not 
require it. For this reason, FTA proposes to regard same-day service as 
eligible for funding under the New Freedom program.
    ADA complementary paratransit service shall be available during the 
same hours and days of service as fixed route service. 49 CFR 
37.131(e). Paratransit service provided in addition to these hours is 
beyond the ADA. For example, if the fixed-route system does not operate 
between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., but complementary paratransit 
service is available 24 hours a day, FTA proposes that New Freedom 
funding may be sought to support paratransit service between the hours 
of midnight and 5 a.m.
    The regulation contemplates that an entity may provide ADA 
complementary paratransit service exceeding that provided for in 49 CFR 
Sec.  37.131. Any service that exceeds the regulatory requirement is 
beyond the ADA and therefore may be eligible for New Freedom funding.

C. How does FTA propose to define ``new'' service?

    Commenters requested clarification of what would be considered 
``new'' service and requested that FTA take an expansive view of the 
types of projects eligible for New Freedom funds. As suggested 
previously, FTA proposes that enhancing fixed-route service by adding 
routes or providing additional hours of service in order to target 
groups of individuals with disabilities would be considered new service 
that assists individuals with disabilities with transportation, and 
therefore, eligible for New Freedom funds. Similarly, in rural areas 
where no service exists, if new service--whether demand response or 
fixed route--is added that meets the needs of persons with 
disabilities, that service would be new public transportation service 
and thus eligible for New Freedom funds. New service may in fact serve 
a greater population than just individuals with disabilities. FTA 
proposes that new service that meets the needs of older adults, 
individuals with low incomes, and/or the general public, if it 
primarily meets the needs of individuals with disabilities, may be 
eligible for New Freedom funds or may be supported with New Freedom 
funds in combination with other funding sources such as the Other Than 
Urbanized Formula Programs (Sec.  5311).
    The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG), as well as the Department of Transportation's ADA regulations, 
require new transportation facilities, including stations, bus stops, 
bus stop pads, terminals, buildings or other transportation facilities 
to be accessible. Further, when a transportation facility is altered, 
then each altered element, space, feature or area must be accessible, 
unless compliance is technically infeasible, in which case the 
alteration shall provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. 
Finally, when an area of primary function is altered, the ADA 
regulations require alterations to the path of travel and other 
elements serving the area of primary function, unless the cost of doing 
so would be disproportionate. Specific requirements for transportation 
facility alterations, including definitions of ``maximum extent 
feasible,'' ``primary function,'' ``path of travel'' and 
``disproportionate,'' can be found in subpart C to 49 CFR part 37.
    FTA proposes that New Freedom funds may be used to improve 
accessibility at existing transportation facilities, so long as the 
projects are clearly intended to remove barriers to existing stations 
that would otherwise have remained, and are not projects that are part 
of an already planned station renovation or alteration. In other words, 
FTA is drawing a distinction between funding a new accessibility 
enhancement to a station that is not otherwise being altered and the 
required accessibility portion of a planned alteration. Only the first 
would be eligible for New Freedom funds. The second would not be 
similarly eligible.
    FTA believes that permitting New Freedom funds to be used for new 
accessibility enhancements meets the intent of the program as it 
removes barriers to people with disabilities so they may access greater 
portions of public transportation systems, such as fixed-route bus 
service, commuter rail, light rail and rapid rail. This may include 
building an accessible path to a bus stop that is currently 
inaccessible, including curbcuts, sidewalks, pedestrian signals or 
other accessible features. It may include adding an elevator or ramps, 
detectable warnings, improving signage, or other accessibility 
improvements to a non-key station. It may also include the 
implementation of technology improvements that enhance accessibility 
for persons with disabilities. FTA seeks comment on the types of 
technology improvements that may be funded, as well as additional types 
of accessibility improvements or barrier removals that may be funded 
with New Freedom funds.
    Commenters suggested that a ``new'' project for purposes of 
eligibility in the New Freedom program would be any otherwise eligible 
project that did not already exist on the day SAFETEA-LU was signed 
into law, that is, August 10, 2005. FTA proposes that projects not 
included in a TIP and/or STIP as of August 10, 2005, would be eligible 
for New Freedom funds.

D. What other activities may be eligible for New Freedom funds?

    In keeping with the language of the SAFETEA-LU conference report, 
(H.R.Rpt. 109-203 at Sec.  3019, July 28, 2005), as well as comments 
received, FTA proposes that the following projects also be eligible for 
New Freedom funding:
     Purchasing vehicles and supporting accessible taxi, ride 
sharing, and vanpooling programs; including staff

[[Page 13467]]

training, administration, and maintenance. FTA proposes to define an 
accessible taxi as a vehicle having the capacity to accommodate a 
passenger who uses a ``common wheelchair'' as defined under 49 CFR 
37.3, at a minimum, while remaining in his/her personal mobility device 
inside the vehicle, and meeting the same requirements for lifts, ramps 
and securement systems specified in 49 CFR part 38, subpart B;
     Administering voucher and transit pass programs for 
transportation services offered by transit and human services 
providers. This activity supports the management of these activities, 
and does not support the direct expense for the cost of vouchers or 
passes;
     Administering volunteer driver and aide programs to 
support the management of driver recruitment, safety, background 
checks, scheduling, coordination with consumers, and other related 
support functions;
     Supporting mobility management among public transportation 
providers and other human service agencies providing coordinated 
transportation services;
     Training for individual users on awareness, knowledge, and 
skills of public and alternative transportation options available in 
their communities. This includes travel instruction and travel training 
services; and,
     Corridor services providing transportation access for 
populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a 
community. For example, a non-profit agency receiving funding through 
New Freedom could not limit the services it provides to its own 
clientele; it would coordinate usage of vehicles with other non-
profits. These services are intended to build coordination with other 
existing providers and service options.

E. Other Comments

    The source of local match was a concern for several commenters. FTA 
received comments which suggested that ``in-kind'' services, or the 
increased cost of expanded paratransit service be considered a source 
of local match. The New Freedom statute provides that grants for 
capital projects may not exceed 80 percent of the net capital costs of 
the project, and grants for operating assistance may not exceed 50 
percent of the net operating costs of the project. In-kind match may be 
allowed pursuant to 49 CFR 18.24 or 49 CFR 19.23 as appropriate. Other 
commenters suggested charging a premium fare for expanded paratransit 
service, and questioned whether the premium fare could be used for 
local match. Fare box revenue generally must be subtracted from gross 
project costs to derive net project costs and is not eligible to be 
used as local match. Revenue from service contracts can be used as 
local match along with local funds and other non-DOT Federal funds.
    Commenters expressed concern that the ``stringent Federal 
requirements'' for the New Freedom program might discourage agencies 
from applying for these funds, and suggested a threshold amount, such 
as $10,000, could be established before the Federal requirements take 
effect. The statute does not contemplate such a threshold. Any 
recipient applying for New Freedom funds must meet the requirements as 
outlined in the statute.
    One commenter quoted a statement from the November 30, 2005, 
Notice, which provided that ``funding is available for transportation 
services provided by public, non-profit, or private-for-profit 
operators' and noted that this seems to preclude awards to individuals. 
This is correct. A recipient is defined as, ``a designated recipient 
(as defined in Section 5307(a)(2)) and a State that receives a grant 
under this section directly.'' 49 U.S.C. 5317(a)(1). A subrecipient is 
defined as, ``a State or local governmental authority, nonprofit 
organization, or operator of public transportation services that 
receives a grant under this section indirectly through a recipient.'' 
49 U.S.C. 5317(a)(2).
    Commenters asked whether New Freedom monies could be used for 
operating expenses in urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. 
Operating expenses are eligible under the New Freedom program subject 
to a 50% local matching share.

XII. Job Access and Reverse Commute Program

    Comments relating to the JARC program focused on issues such as: 
continuation of prior year funding; eligible projects and expenses; the 
designated recipient's ability to transfer funds to Urbanized Area 
Formula program (Sec.  5307); and funding limitations.

A. Will previously funded JARC projects be continued?

    As discussed previously, FTA proposes that previously funded JARC 
projects may continue to receive funding under the JARC program. 
Projects must be derived from the coordinated planning process, which 
means that local areas will decide if previously funded JARC projects 
should be continued. In addition, starting in FY 2006, the projects 
must be competitively selected by the State (for urbanized areas under 
200,000 and rural areas) or the designated recipient (for large 
urbanized areas). FTA seeks comments addressing this proposal.

B. What other projects may be eligible for JARC funding?

    In general, projects and expenses eligible for JARC funding must 
relate to ``the development and maintenance of transportation services 
designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income 
individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their 
employment.'' 49 U.S.C. 5316(a)(1).
    During implementation of the TEA-21 JARC provisions, FTA's policy 
limited JARC funds to ``new and expanded'' services. The ``maintenance 
of transportation services'' language in SAFETEA-LU (above) suggests 
that not only continuing JARC projects could be funded, but also 
existing projects that meet the intent of the program but were 
previously funded by other programs such as the Urbanized Area Formula 
program (Sec.  5307). FTA is interested in comments that address the 
eligibility of existing services that meet the objectives of the JARC 
program, but may have been funded previously under a different program.
    In the conference report (109-203) accompanying SAFETEA-LU, the 
conferees stated an expectation that FTA would ``continue its practice 
of providing maximum flexibility to job access projects that are 
designed to meet the needs of individuals who are not effectively 
served by public transportation, consistent with the use of funds 
described in the Federal Register, Volume 67 (April 8, 2002).'' 
H.R.Rpt. 109-203, at Sec.  3018 (July 28, 2005). That Federal Register 
Notice, (67 FR 16790) provides that eligible projects may include, but 
are not limited to:
     Late-night and weekend service;
     Guaranteed ride home service;
     Shuttle service;
     Expanding fixed-route mass transit routes;
     Demand-responsive van service;
     Ridesharing and carpooling activities;
     Bicycling;
     Local car loan programs that assist individuals in 
purchasing and maintaining vehicles for shared rides; and
     Promotion, through marketing efforts, of the:
    [cir] Use of transit by workers with non-traditional work 
schedules;
    [cir] use of transit voucher programs by appropriate agencies for 
welfare

[[Page 13468]]

recipients and other low-income individuals;
    [cir] development of employer-provided transportation such as 
shuttles, ridesharing, carpooling; or
    [cir] use of transit pass programs and benefits under Section 132 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
     Further, the Federal Register Notice encouraged 
communities to:
    [cir] Establish regional mobility managers or transportation 
brokerage activities;
    [cir] Apply Geographic Information System (GIS) tools;
    [cir] Implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), including 
customer trip information technology;
    [cir] Integrate automated regional public transit and human service 
transportation information, scheduling and dispatch functions; and
    [cir] Deploy vehicle position-monitoring systems.
    FTA seeks comments addressing this list of projects and requests 
input regarding additional projects that might be funded under JARC. In 
addition, FTA has required that JARC projects comply with the 
definition of public transportation by ensuring shared use of vehicles 
and availability to the public. Projects supporting bicycling and 
individual car use or ownership have at times had difficulty meeting 
this criterion. FTA is interested in comments on how nontraditional 
public transportation options (e.g., car loan or ownership programs, 
shared-use station cars, etc.) should be treated under the JARC 
program.
    Previously, promotion of the use of transit vouchers was an 
eligible expense, but purchase of the vouchers themselves was not an 
eligible expense under JARC on existing services. For new services, 
such as guaranteed-ride home taxi programs, where contracts were based 
on individual rides, purchase of vouchers was an eligible expense. This 
policy was adopted by FTA because JARC focused on expanding 
transportation connections to jobs and support services, especially to 
suburban jobs, late night and weekend jobs and to support services like 
child care, and not on purchasing transit passes for existing services. 
FTA seeks comment on whether we should now allow JARC funds to support 
user-side subsidies for eligible individuals on all services of an 
existing system (e.g., transit passes to low-income workers entering 
the workforce for a specified startup period). If so, how should the 
program goal of removing transportation service gaps be addressed?

C. Can designated recipients transfer JARC funds to the urbanized area 
formula program?

    Some commenters recommended that the designated recipient in a 
large urbanized area be allowed to transfer JARC funds to the Urbanized 
Area Formula (Sec.  5307) program. The law specifically allows States 
to transfer JARC funds to the Other Than Urbanized (Sec.  5311) or the 
Urbanized (Sec.  5307) formula programs. (49 U.S.C. 5316(e)). However, 
there is no comparable provision regarding transfer by designated 
recipients. FTA does not have the discretion to allow such transfers. 
The designated recipient, however, can communicate in writing to FTA 
the allocation of JARC funds to other eligible Urbanized Area Formula 
(Sec.  5307) recipients in the urbanized area and FTA will make JARC 
grants directly to those recipients.

D. Are there funding limitations for reverse commute projects?

    The law no longer limits the amounts that can be used for Reverse 
Commute projects. The decision to use funds for either Job Access or 
Reverse Commute projects is made at the local level through the 
coordinated planning process.

XIII. Section 5310 (Elderly Individuals and Individuals With 
Disabilities Programs)

    The following specific questions were raised about implementation 
of the Sec.  5310 program: (1) Whether, if funds from these three 
programs are mixed in a local application, the Sec.  5333(b) [aka Sec.  
13(c) labor] requirements convey to the New Freedom and Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities programs, and, (2) with 
regard to ``sliding scale'' matching requirements for the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities programs, whether it is 
possible to obtain matches greater than 80 percent.

A. Will FTA impose Sec.  5333(b) labor protection requirements?

    FTA is working with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as DOL 
develops revised procedures for labor certifications for all FTA 
programs where labor certifications are required. Labor protective 
arrangements are not required for New Freedom projects or, except for a 
few case-by-case exceptions, for the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities (Sec.  5310) projects, even when funds 
are transferred to Urbanized Area Formula (Sec.  5307) or Other Than 
Urbanized Formula (Sec.  5311) programs. Previously, States were able 
to transfer Sec.  5310 funds to Sec.  5307 or Sec.  5311 to supplement 
those program objectives. However, as stated in the November 30, 2005 
Notice, SAFETEA-LU provides that the Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities, funds that are transferred must be used 
for eligible projects under the Elderly Individuals and Individuals 
with Disabilities program. This is consistent with transfer provisions 
included in Sec.  5316 and Sec.  5317. The Sec.  5333(b) requirements 
of the original program remain attached to the funds even when they are 
transferred.

B. What are the sliding scale match requirements?

    SAFETEA-LU allows a higher Federal share for the Elderly 
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program for States 
described in Sec.  120(b) of title 23 in accordance with the formula 
under that section for States with a large amount of Federal lands. 
Section 120(b)(1) provides a limited list of 14 states with specific 
``enhanced'' match ratios for projects that would otherwise have an 80% 
Federal share under FTA funded projects. In addition, Sec.  120(b)(2) 
provides a higher Federal share to all States. For those States on the 
(b)(1) list, the (b)(2) shares are higher than the (b)(1) shares, but 
in order to obtain the (b)(2) rates the State has to have a specific 
agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreeing to 
spend the difference in local share on highway projects. FTA will honor 
the match ratio for Sec.  120(b)(1) based on the list included in FHWA 
Notice N 4540.12, but in order to obtain the higher match for Sec.  
120(b)(2) the State will have to provide evidence that it has a current 
agreement with FHWA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 8th day of March, 2006.
Sandra K. Bushue,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-2444 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P