Transit Grants: Need for Improved Predictability, Data, and Monitoring in
Application Processing (Letter Report, 08/30/2000, GAO/RCED-00-260).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) administration of transit grants, focusing on:
(1) the timeliness and consistency of FTA's processing of grant
applications; (2) the number of applications for labor protection
certifications for which the Department of Labor's (DOL) processing time
extended beyond 60 days and the factors contributing to any processing
delays; and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in connection
with DOL's certification process.

GAO noted that: (1) FTA's data demonstrate that it processed less than
half of the transit grant applications within its informal 90-day goal
during the 21-month period from October 1998 through June 2000; (2) on
average, the time that FTA spent in processing the approximately 1,800
applications during this period was 136 days; (3) furthermore, only 1 of
FTA's 10 regional offices had an average processing time of less than 90
days; (4) FTA's headquarters officials told GAO that they have not
analyzed why the agency's informal goal is often not met or why there
are differences in regional processing times; (5) from January 1996
through April 2000, DOL provided a labor protection certification for 93
percent of the transit grant applications within 60 days of receipt from
FTA; (6) for the 7 percent that took longer than 60 days, the most
common factor contributing to processing delays was the submittal of an
incomplete application; (7) of the 273 applications that took more than
60 days to process, 117 were suspended for this reason; (8) delays in
processing grant applications also occur when an applicant or labor
union objects to the labor protection terms and conditions proposed by
DOL--105 of the 273 applications were delayed for this reason; (9)
representatives of the transit community have suggested that APA should
apply to the DOL certification process in order to improve the
accessibility and consistency of DOL's decisions; (10) however, the
transit community is concerned that some APA procedures could lengthen
the grant approval process and further delay the release of grant funds;
(11) to further the objectives of disclosure and consistency in its
labor certification process, DOL could take actions without applying
specific APA procedures that could lengthen the grant approval process;
(12) when transit applications are not processed in a timely manner,
transit benefits are delayed, and transportation needs are not met; (13)
in addition, the lack of predictability and consistency in processing
times can make planning and project execution difficult for applicants;
(14) a periodic assessment of its grant application process, including
DOL's certification of labor protection arrangements, would provide a
basis for FTA to identify and address processing delays and problems;
and (15) in addition, it would enable FTA to provide the transit
community and others with information on the status of grant
applications.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-260
     TITLE:  Transit Grants: Need for Improved Predictability, Data,
	     and Monitoring in Application Processing
      DATE:  08/30/2000
   SUBJECT:  Mass transit operations
	     Mass transit funding
	     Federal aid for transportation
	     Transportation costs
	     Grant administration
	     Grant award procedures
	     Labor law
	     Transportation workers
	     Federal grants
IDENTIFIER:  FTA Transportation Electronic Award and Management
	     Database
	     DOL Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
	     DOT Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-260

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

B-285911

August 30, 2000

The Honorable Phil Gramm
Chairman, Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Wayne Allard
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Housing and Transportation
Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Crapo
United States Senate

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized about
$42 billion for transit programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2003. The
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
provides these funds through grants to states and local and regional
transportation providers for the construction, acquisition, improvement, and
operation of transit systems. However, a number of requirements must be met
before FTA can release funds to grant applicants. For example, the
Department of Labor (DOL) must certify that adequate labor protection
arrangements (commonly called labor protection certifications or section 13
(c) arrangements ) are in place to protect the interests of employees
affected by federal transit assistance.1

You asked us to (1) review the timeliness and consistency of FTA's
processing of grant applications, (2) identify the number of applications
for labor protection certifications for which DOL's processing time extended
beyond 60 days and the factors contributing to any processing delays, and
(3) provide information on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in
connection with DOL's certification process. Also, because transportation
services are delayed when federal transit funds are not received in a timely
manner, you requested any suggestions to help ensure the timely release of
these funds.

FTA's data demonstrate that it processed less than half of the transit grant
applications within its informal 90-day goal during the 21-month period from
October 1998 through June 2000. On average, the time that FTA spent in
processing the approximately 1,800 applications during this period was 136
days. Furthermore, only 1 of FTA's 10 regional offices had an average
processing time of less than 90 days. FTA's headquarters officials told us
that they have not analyzed why the agency's informal goal is often not met
or why there are differences in regional processing times.

From January 1996 through April 2000, DOL provided a labor protection
certification for 93 percent of the transit grant applications within 60
days of receipt from FTA. For the 7 percent that took longer than 60 days,
the most common factor contributing to processing delays was the submittal
of an incomplete application. Of the 273 applications that took more than 60
days to process, 117 were suspended for this reason. Delays in processing
grant applications also occur when an applicant and/or labor union objects
to the labor protection terms and conditions proposed by DOL; 105 of the 273
applications were delayed for this reason.

Representatives of the transit community have suggested that APA should
apply to the DOL certification process in order to improve the accessibility
and consistency of DOL's decisions. However, the transit community is
concerned that some APA procedures could lengthen the grant approval process
and further delay the release of grant funds. To further the objectives of
disclosure and consistency in its labor certification process, DOL could
take actions without applying specific APA procedures that could lengthen
the grant approval process. For example, while information on certification
decisions is available on request from DOL, the agency could broadly
disseminate significant certification decisions. DOL is working on making
such information available through a Website that is under development.

When transit applications are not processed in a timely manner, transit
benefits are delayed, and transportation needs are not met. In addition, the
lack of predictability and consistency in processing times can make planning
and project execution difficult for applicants. For example, a delay of
several weeks in application processing in regions with a particularly short
construction season could have a substantial impact on the completion of a
transit project. A periodic assessment of its grant application process,
including DOL's certification of labor protection arrangements, would
provide a basis for FTA to identify and address processing delays and
problems. In addition, it would enable FTA to provide the transit community
and others with information on the status of grant applications.

Therefore, to increase the predictability and timeliness of FTA's
application processing, we are recommending that FTA, in cooperation with
DOL, periodically assess its application processing efforts and report the
results of the assessment to the Congress.

FTA provides states, local and regional transportation providers, and others
with grants for the construction, acquisition, improvement, and operation of
transit systems and projects through a variety of programs. TEA-21
authorized about $42 billion for transit programs for fiscal years 1998
through 2003. Currently, FTA oversees about 4,400 active grants to 860 state
and local transit providers. From October 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000,
FTA processed approximately 1,800 transit grant applications representing
over $10.5 billion in federal funds.

FTA is responsible for reviewing grant applications to determine the merits
of proposed projects and their eligibility for federal assistance. FTA
carries out its mission through 10 regional offices, and its regional staff
are the main point of contact for almost all grants. Applications for grants
are submitted through FTA's Transportation Electronic Award and Management
(TEAM) database to applicable regional offices. FTA's regional offices are
generally responsible for ensuring that each grant applicant has responded
to a variety of required certifications and assurances before FTA can
provide funds. One of these certifications is DOL's labor protection
certification. DOL is responsible for certifying that fair and equitable
labor arrangements exist to protect employees who might be adversely
affected by federal assistance before FTA awards funds to transportation
providers.2

In carrying out its responsibilities, DOL recommends protective terms and
conditions to grant applicants and unions to allow parties the opportunity
to review the proposed terms and conditions and submit objections, if any,
before it provides a final labor protection certification. If an objection
is submitted, DOL considers its validity. If DOL determines that the
objection is not valid, it issues a certification that is based on the terms
and conditions that it recommended to the parties. If it determines that the
objection is valid and the parties are unable to resolve disputed matters
through negotiations, the parties can submit legal arguments (briefs) to DOL
and respond to the arguments presented. Thereafter, DOL makes a
determination and explains its reasons for requiring specific arrangements
in certification decisions. If these terms and conditions are not acceptable
to the grant applicant, DOL officials said that the grant applicant has the
option to forgo federal transit assistance.

Although FTA tracks overall transit grant obligation rates and projects that
are congressionally designated, FTA's headquarters officials stated that
they do not monitor application processing because this is basically a role
that is carried out by FTA's regional offices. However, following a Senate
Committee on Banking hearing on transit funding delays on April 25, 2000,
FTA officials told us that they recognized a need to develop basic
nationwide data on the agency's processing of transit grant applications. We
recognized this need almost 20 years ago; in 1981 we reported that the then
federal transit agency had not established time limits for processing grant
applications and was not collecting the data it needed to monitor regions'
grant-processing activities.3 As a result, we noted uncertainty over the
availability of federal funds and the lack of assurance that grant
applications were being processed on a timely basis. Furthermore, the lack
of predictability and consistency in processing times can make planning and
project execution difficult for applicants. For example, a delay of several
weeks in application processing in regions with a particularly short
construction season could have a substantial impact on the completion of a
transit project. FTA's headquarters officials noted that such an adverse
affect could be mitigated if a grant applicant were permitted to incur
project costs without first receiving formal project approval from FTA. By
means of such a mechanism, a grant applicant may spend local funds for
project activities and be reimbursed by FTA if and when a project is
approved. However, FTA officials told us that no analysis has been done on
the use of such preaward authority.

In the spring of 2000, FTA's headquarters officials began using FTA's TEAM
database to gather nationwide application information, such as the number of
transit applications processed, the types of applications processed, and
regional data on processing times. The resulting FTA analysis is based on
approximately 1,800 transit applications for $10.5 billion in federal funds
awarded from October 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000. The analysis shows that
the average FTA processing time was 136 days from the submission of an
application until the award (obligation) of funds. FTA has an unofficial
goal of processing applications within 90 days, which takes into account the
multiple certifications and assurances that must be completed prior to the
award of federal funds. FTA's headquarters officials stated that the
informal goal of 90 days was selected 15 to 20 years ago for the urban
formula grant program and that since no goals had been established for other
FTA programs, the 90-day informal formula grant goal was used for all FTA
programs in their July 2000 analysis. FTA's analysis showed that the goal
was met for less than half--42 percent--of the applications that FTA
processed.

In addition, as shown in figure 1, FTA's analysis indicates that only 1 of
its 10 regional offices had an average processing time of less than 90 days.
The processing times for FTA's regional offices ranged from a low of 71 days
to a high of 208 days from the receipt of an application to the award of
transit funds.

Note: Regional locations are Region 1--Massachusetts, Region 2--New York,
Region 3--Pennsylvania, Region 4--Georgia, Region 5--Illinois, Region
6--Texas, Region 7--Missouri, Region 8--Colorado, Region 9--California,
Region 10--Washington State.

Source: GAO's presentation of data from FTA.

FTA's headquarters officials told us that they are aware of several reasons
for application processing delays, such as environmental difficulties
associated with an application or difficulties encountered by grantees in
fulfilling planning requirements. However, FTA has not performed a
systematic assessment to determine why its informal goal is often not met or
why the processing times for its regional offices vary widely. In addition,
the agency recognizes that any attempt to analyze the data would be
difficult because the reasons for delays are not systematically tracked and
recorded in the TEAM's database. If there is an inquiry regarding a specific
application, however, FTA officials stated that they check with the
appropriate regional office to obtain information on that application.

Furthermore, differences exist in the processing times for transit grants by
the type of grant. As shown in figure 2, the Elderly and Persons with
Disabilities Program grants took the least amount of time to
process--averaging 55 days--compared with Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility
Program grants, which averaged 204 days.4 In addition, this figure compares
FTA's application processing time with federal program dollars. As FTA
officials noted, their largest funded program, Urbanized Area Formula,5 is
taking considerably longer than expected, with an average processing time of
128 days from receipt of an application to the award of grant funds. In
contrast, a relatively new and small program, Job Access and Reverse
Commute,6 is taking less time than expected, with an average processing time
of 107 days. However, FTA officials told us that although they were aware of
basic factors, such as a new program with inexperienced new grantees, that
can contribute to application processing time differences, they have not
performed any assessment of what accounts for the differences in application
processing time by type of grant.

Note: See appendix I for official program titles and a summary of major
program areas.

Source: GAO's presentation of data from FTA.

but Several Factors Can Cause Delays

In December 1995, DOL responded to congressional concerns about its
timeliness in issuing labor protection certifications by issuing guidelines
that established time frames for processing labor protection certifications
in a more expeditious and predictable manner. The guidelines became
effective in January 1996 and were intended to ensure that labor protection
certifications were provided within 60 days of DOL's referral of protective
terms and conditions to applicants and labor unions.

As outlined in our April 25, 2000 testimony, 98 percent of DOL's
applications processed from January 1996 until January 31, 2000, met DOL's
internal 60-day processing goal.7 But DOL's 60-day processing goal does not
count the time it takes to refer the terms and conditions to the applicant
and labor unions and the time that an application is suspended because, for
example, it is incomplete.8 To determine DOL's total certification
processing time, we analyzed DOL's data from the time that DOL received an
application from FTA through the certification of labor protection
arrangements, including the time that DOL takes to refer terms and
conditions to applicants and unions and any time that DOL suspended an
application as incomplete or inactive.

From January 1996 through April 2000, DOL processed 4,073 applications for
$32 billion in federal transit assistance; DOL issued certifications for 93
percent of these applications within 60 days. For the remaining 7
percent--273 applications, seeking approximately $2.5 billion in federal
transit assistance--DOL took more than 60 days to certify labor protection
terms and conditions. Figure 3 shows that for the 273 applications DOL took
from 61 to 80 days to process 118 applications, 81 to 100 days to process 50
applications, and 101 to over 365 days for the remaining 105 applications.

Source: GAO's presentation of data from DOL.

The primary reason why DOL took longer than 60 days to issue certifications
is that applications were suspended. DOL suspended 152 (56 percent) of the
273 applications where its processing time exceeded 60 days.9 Most
suspensions occurred because the application that DOL received from FTA
contained invalid or incomplete information. DOL suspended 117 of the 152
applications because they were incomplete. For 35 of the 152 applications,
DOL suspended processing and placed the application in an inactive status
because of a particular problem, such as a conflict between the labor
protection terms and conditions recommended by DOL and state law.
Furthermore, for 22 applications, processing was suspended twice--once
because DOL determined that the application was incomplete and later because
DOL determined that the application should have been transferred to an
inactive status. Neither DOL nor FTA compile information on the reasons why
applications are classified as incomplete or inactive.

Another reason why DOL takes longer than 60 days is that the grant applicant
and/or union objects to the labor protection terms and conditions that DOL
referred to them. For 105 (38 percent) of the 273 applications where DOL's
processing extended beyond 60 days, a party, generally a labor union,
objected to the terms and conditions referred by DOL. DOL determines which
objections are valid from criteria included in its published guidelines. DOL
provides information related to specific objections to grantees, unions, and
others upon request. However, comprehensive information on the types of
objections that have historically been found to be valid is not widely
available to the public because DOL does not compile and distribute such
data. While DOL maintains copies of objections, it does not have electronic
information that captures the particulars related to the objections filed.
Rather, its electronic information related to objections is limited to DOL's
response to the objections received. DOL officials advised us that the
responses often do not make much sense apart from the objections filed but
that DOL is examining different approaches to make objections and responses
available to the public.

Furthermore, when DOL determines that the objections are valid and the
parties are unable to resolve disputed matters through negotiations, the
parties can submit legal arguments (briefs) to DOL and respond to the
arguments presented. Thereafter, DOL makes a determination and explains its
reasons for requiring specific arrangements in certification decisions. DOL
makes information on its determinations available to the parties, and
information on DOL's certification decisions is also available to others on
request. In addition, DOL officials advised us that they plan to post
significant certification decisions on a Website that is under development.

Neither FTA nor DOL has determined whether DOL's labor certification
requirement delays the release of federal funds. In order to determine the
extent to which delays in DOL's processing were delaying FTA's release of
funds, we attempted to compare DOL's and FTA's processing times for the 273
applications for which DOL took longer than 60 days to issue a labor
protection certification. However, we were unable to complete this analysis
because we frequently encountered problems in reconciling application
information between the DOL's and FTA's databases. We found the following
problems with 43 percent--118--of the 273 applications analyzed:

ï¿½ No corresponding application numbers. For 66 of the 273 applications
reviewed in the DOL information system, there were no corresponding FTA
application numbers to permit a comparison of processing time frames.

ï¿½ Recorded dates do not make sense. FTA forwards grant applications to DOL
after an initial review, and DOL's certification of labor protection
arrangements is a condition of federal transit assistance. However, for 52
of the 273 applications reviewed, a comparison between DOL's and FTA's
records indicated that the records are not synchronized, which could lead to
the inference that DOL received an application before it was submitted to
FTA or that the FTA award was made prior to the DOL certification date.

FTA officials suggested that database discrepancies could be associated with
the fact that multiyear grants under one DOL certification are applicable to
all phases of a project. While we recognize that this may be the case, we
also note that our analysis focused on those instances in which a DOL
certification took longer than 60 days to issue, according to DOL records.
Furthermore, FTA officials noted that the agency's data do not indicate
situations in which FTA approved grants before receiving a DOL certification
and believe that data entry mistakes gave rise to our questions. DOL
officials told us that various reasons might account for the discrepancies
we identified between the two agencies' databases, such as changes in the
project number by FTA, which occur after certification. Furthermore, while
both DOL and FTA officials expressed confidence in the reliability of their
agencies' data, these officials told us that they would work together to
resolve data discrepancies.

Because problems were encountered for 43 percent of the 273 applications
reviewed, we did not proceed further with the planned comparison of
processing time by FTA and DOL. Furthermore, any attempt to assess FTA's
processing of applications in relation to DOL's issuing of transit labor
protection certifications will be compromised unless steps are taken to
resolve often irreconcilable data between the two agencies' databases.

Representatives of the American Public Transportation Association have
proposed that the Administrative Procedure Act be applied to the DOL
certification process because of concerns about the accessibility of DOL's
decisions and underlying rationale, as well as concerns about the
consistency of DOL's determinations.10 However, they told us that their goal
is to obtain improvements in the accessibility and consistency of DOL's
decisions, rather than the application of any particular APA provisions. In
addition, they have expressed concerns about the use of any procedures that
could lengthen the grant approval process and further delay the release of
grant funds.

The APA contains uniform procedural requirements for certain types of agency
decisionmaking. It establishes a relatively simple process for informal
rulemaking, and a more elaborate process for formal rulemaking and
adjudication required by statute to be made on the record after an
opportunity for an agency hearing. With regard to formal proceedings, the
APA provides for trial-type hearings typically conducted by administrative
law judges. It also sets forth the principles of judicial review and
requirements for the public disclosure of agency information.11

DOL is subject to the provisions of the APA concerning judicial review and
the public disclosure of information in carrying out its certification
activities; however, the trial-type procedures required for formal
proceedings do not apply to the certification process. Notably, neither the
representatives of the transit industry nor a union we spoke to advocate
applying the trial-type requirements of formal adjudication under the APA to
the certification process. Similarly, DOL officials have pointed out that
the application of these procedural requirements would result in significant
delays in certification and impede DOL's ability to issue certifications
within the time frames contained in its guidelines.

There are actions that DOL could take, and is considering, to further the
objectives of disclosure and consistency in the labor certification process
without applying additional procedures contained in the APA that could
lengthen DOL's process. For example, DOL could maintain electronic
information capturing the substance of the objections filed by unions or
grant applicants to proposed terms and conditions, as well as DOL's
response. Maintaining and disclosing such data would allow grant applicants
and unions to determine the types of objections that DOL has historically
found to be valid. Similarly, DOL could disseminate significant
certification decisions, along with a subject matter index. Providing such
information would heighten awareness of DOL's positions on labor protection
issues in the transit and labor communities, help the parties to refine
their positions on disputed matters; and, by publicizing DOL's positions,
help to ensure consistency in its decisionmaking. DOL is currently working
on making such information available through an Internet Website that is
under development.

FTA has not established any formal goals for processing transit grant
applications. Furthermore, its informal 90-day goal was met a little less
than half the time. In addition, only 1 of FTA's 10 regional offices had an
average processing time of less than 90 days. FTA has not analyzed why its
informal goal is often not met or why there are differences in processing
times among its regions. This lack of predictability and consistency in
processing time can make project planning and execution extremely difficult
for transit agencies.

In order to determine the reasons for delays in processing and variations
among the regions, it is important that FTA periodically assess the status
of its grant applications including DOL's labor protection certifications.
This type of assessment would provide a basis for FTA to identify and
address delays and would enable it to provide the transit community and
congressional oversight committees with information on the status and
expected processing time of grant applications. In order to conduct this
assessment, FTA and DOL will have to resolve discrepancies and
inconsistencies between the two agencies' databases.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation establish formal goals for
processing transit grant applications and monitor the status of grant
applications. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, (1) take action
to ensure that both Departments' transit application databases are
comparable and reliable and (2) periodically assess the status and
timeliness of federal transit application processing by both Departments,
provide data on the exceptions where the goals have not been met, and report
the results of this assessment along with measures to implement any needed
improvements to the Congress.

We provided DOT and DOL with copies of a draft of this report for their
review and comment. To obtain DOT's comments on the draft of this report, we
met with agency officials, including the Director of FTA's Office of
Resource Management and State Programs. FTA generally concurred with our
conclusions and recommendations and agreed to establish a goal for formula
grant programs that will be announced in the annual Federal Register notice.
In addition, FTA noted that it will monitor the processing time of all its
grant applications and provide reports, which will be made available to the
Congress, as to its overall accomplishment of timeliness goals. However, FTA
stated that it would not be appropriate to identify specific grants to the
Congress because this could create additional delay. To address DOT's
concern, in part, we clarified our recommendation to say that we would
expect FTA to limit its reporting on individual grants to those exceptions
for which FTA's processing goals have not been met. This reporting should be
facilitated by FTA's plans to ask its regional offices to electronically
record the reasons for delays when an application takes more than 90 days
for FTA to process.

DOL commented that our draft report does not take into account certain
factors it used to establish a certification goal of 60 days. Our draft
report noted that DOL's 60-day goal begins with the referral of employee
terms and conditions to the applicant and labor union. We recognize that DOL
cannot process applications until they are complete. However, in order to
provide a full picture of the time required for certification, we counted
the time from DOL's receipt of an application until a certification was
issued. DOL's comments, along with our response, are included in appendix
II.

In reviewing the timeliness and consistency of FTA's processing of grant
applications, we obtained and analyzed data from FTA's TEAM database. This
analysis included a review of individual grants in order to compare FTA's
and DOL's data on the 273 applications for which DOL took more than 60 days
to issue either an interim or final labor protection certification. We also
attended a Region 9 seminar on the TEAM database. In addition, we obtained a
July 2000 analysis from FTA that we used to determine average processing
times by regional offices and program areas. Furthermore, we discussed
processing issues with senior FTA program officials and representatives of
their Office of Chief Counsel.

To identify the number of applications for which DOL's processing time
extended beyond 60 days and the factors contributing to processing delays,
we accessed and analyzed data from DOL's information system from January
1996 through April 2000. While DOL's guidelines provide that its 60-day goal
begins with the referral of protective terms and conditions, our analysis
was based on the time from DOL's receipt of an application until a
certification was issued. Thus, we considered the time when DOL received an
application from FTA through the labor protection certification, the time
that DOL takes to refer terms and conditions to applicants and unions, and
the time that applications were suspended as incomplete or inactive. In
addition, we analyzed DOL's data to determine the major reasons for delays.
We discussed issues regarding transit application processing with program
officials and officials in DOL's Office of the Solicitor.

To provide information on the applicability of the APA to the transit labor
certification process, we reviewed the statute to determine which provisions
do or do not apply at present. We discussed the broader application of APA
to the labor certification process with DOL and FTA officials,
representatives of the American Public Transportation Association, a
representative of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and an attorney who
authored a legal research guide to section 13(c).12

We performed our review from June 2000 through July 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 30 days after
the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Honorable Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Rodney E.
Slater, Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director,
Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-2834. Major contributors to this report were Helen Desaulniers, Yvonne
Pufahl, Ron Stouffer and Wendy Wierzbicki.

Phyllis F. Scheinberg
Associate Director
Transportation Issues

Federal Transit Administration's Major Grant Programs

Urbanized Area Formula. The objectives of urbanized area formula grants are
to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, cost-effective
leasing, maintenance, planning, and improvement of facilities and equipment
for use by operation, lease, contract, or other means in mass transportation
services. Additionally, for urbanized areas with populations of under
200,000 the payment of operating expenses to improve or to continue such
service by operation, lease, contract, or other means are also eligible.

Bus--Capital Investment. The Bus Category Program refers to that part of the
Capital Investment Program that provides assistance for buying or leasing,
replacing, and rehabilitating buses and related equipment and for
constructing bus-related facilities.

New Starts--Capital Investment. The New Starts Program refers to that part
of the Capital Investment Program that provides assistance for new
fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing systems. The project can be
a light-rail line, subway line, commuter rail line, automated fixed-guideway
system (such as a "people mover"), busway/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
facility, or an extension of any of these. Also, projects can involve the
development of transit corridors and markets to support the eventual
construction of fixed-guideway systems, including the purchase of land to
protect rights-of-way or construction of park-and-ride lots.

Fixed Guideway Modernization--Capital Investment . Under this part of the
Capital Investment Program, financial assistance is available for, but not
limited to, the purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock (including
railcars, locomotives, work trains, and ferryboats), track, line equipment,
and structures; signals and communications; power equipment and substations;
passenger stations and terminals; security equipment and systems;
maintenance facilities and equipment; and operational support equipment for
existing fixed guideway systems, which have been in service for at least 7
years.

Elderly and Persons With Disabilities. The objective of the Elderly and
Persons With Disabilities Program is to provide financial assistance in
meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with
disabilities where public transportation services are unavailable,
insufficient, or inappropriate. The program is designed to supplement the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) other capital assistance programs by
funding transportation projects for elderly persons and persons with
disabilities in all areas--urbanized, small urban, and rural.

Nonurbanized Area Formula. The objectives of Nonurbanized Area Formula
grants are to improve, initiate, or continue public transportation service
in nonurbanized areas by providing financial assistance for operating and
administrative expenses and for the acquisition, construction, and
improvement of facilities and equipment.

Job Access and Reverse Commute . This program is designed (1) to develop
transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and
low-income individuals to and from jobs and (2) to develop transportation
services for residents of urban centers and rural and suburban areas to
suburban employment opportunities.

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility (Rural Transportation Accessibility
Incentive Program ). This program is designed to assist operators of
over-the-road buses to finance the incremental costs of complying with the
Department of Transportation's final rule regarding the accessibility of
over-the-road buses required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Comments from the Department of Labor

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Labor's (DOL) letter
dated August 14, 2000.

1. Our report recognizes that DOL's 60-day goal begins from the referral of
employee protection terms and conditions. However, as stated in our report,
to determine DOL's total certification processing time, we counted from the
time that DOL received an application from FTA through the final
certification of labor protection arrangements. This time period includes
the time it takes DOL to refer terms and conditions to applicants and unions
and any time that the application is suspended because it is incomplete or
inactive.

2. Our report recognizes that DOL makes information on its certification
determinations available to the parties and others on request. Furthermore,
our report recognizes that DOL plans to post significant certification
decisions on an Internet Website that is under development.

3. Our report notes that while both DOL and FTA expressed confidence in the
reliability of their data, officials from both agencies said that they would
work together to resolve data discrepancies.

(348242)

  

1. DOT has determined that certain grants and loans to state and local
government authorities for special needs of elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities do not require a labor protection
certification.

2. FTA tries to submit applications to DOL within 3 days of their submission
to FTA, thus enabling FTA and DOL to essentially carry out their
responsibilities concurrently.

3. See Soaring Transit Subsidies Must Be Controlled (CED-81-28, Feb. 26,
1981).

4. The Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program is designed to provide
financial assistance in meeting the transportation needs of elderly persons
and persons with disabilities where public transportation services are
unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. The Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility Program is designed to assist operators of buses in financing
the incremental costs of complying with DOT's final rule regarding bus
accessibility required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

5. The Urbanized Area Formula Program is designed to assist in financing the
acquisition, construction, leasing, maintenance, planning, and improvement
of facilities and equipment for use in mass transportation services.

6. The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program is designed to develop
transportation services for welfare recipients and other low-income
individuals to get them to and from jobs and to bring those in rural and
suburban areas to suburban employment centers.

7. See Transit Grants: Department of Labor's Certification Process
(GAO/T-RCED-00-157, Apr. 25, 2000).

8. DOL officials stated that DOL's 60-day goal begins with the referral of
employee protection terms and conditions, since DOL can only begin
processing those grant applications that contain enough information to
properly determine the affected employees and their representatives.

9. DOL's data on application suspensions may understate the number of
suspensions during the period from January 1996 through September 1997, but
a new application-tracking system that DOL has used since October 1997 is
designed to systematically capture these data.

10. The American Public Transportation Association is a nonprofit
organization representing over 1,000 transit and related entities.

11. Requirements for public disclosure are contained in section 552 of title
5, United States Code, which is commonly referred to as the Freedom of
Information Act.

12. Transit Labor Protection--A Guide to Section 13(c) Federal Transit Act.
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Legal Research Digest (June 1995).
*** End of document. ***