Answer:

Match can be calculated by using the Federal Share (award) divided by the percentage of Total Project Cost minus Federal Share. A sample is as follows:
With a match of 20%, and Federal share of 80%, a $250,000 Federal grant:
$250,000 divided by 80% = $312,500
$312,500 minus $250,000 = $62,500
The 20% local share is $62,500.

Answer:

States were required to submit information for FTA’s certification process completed in October 2013. If a State was not certified based upon the information submitted, the CWP is the next step States must take to identify the necessary action(s) to fill these gaps and build a MAP-21-compliant SSO program. The recommendations provided in the October 2013 gap assessment should be incorporated into the CWP.

Answer:

A temporary repair of a facility is unlikely to affect the useful life of a facility. A permanent repair may extend the useful life, depending on the type of repair. Determinations on if and how a repair affects the useful life of a facility will be made on a case-by-case basis and will be indicated in the grant agreement. Considerations will include the remaining useful life of the facility before the storms, the extent of the repairs, and whether the repairs include any resilience features or other improvements.

Answer:

Disability alone does not determine paratransit eligibility; the decision is based on the applicant’s functional ability to use the fixed route bus and is not a medical decision. The Department of Transportation (DOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations in Appendix D to 49 C.F.R. Section 37.125 explain: “The substantive eligibility process is not aimed at making a medical or diagnostic determination. While evaluation by a physician (or professionals in rehabilitation or other relevant fields) may be used as part of the process, a diagnosis of a disability is not dispositive. What is needed is a determination of whether, as a practical matter, the individual can use fixed route transit in his or her own circumstances.” Transit agencies, with input from the communities they serve, devise the specifics of their individual eligibility processes. The DOT ADA regulations in Section 37.125 set only broad requirements that all agencies must incorporate, such as written notification of eligibility decisions and an opportunity for an appeal. This regulation may be accessed here.

Answer:

FTA appreciates that CWP approval is on the critical path to receiving grant funding. We will work with each State to turn around their submittals as quickly as possible. To expedite this process, it is important that States carefully review the CWP template to ensure that all relevant information is provided. Time spent following up with a State for additional information will extend the review and approval time for that State.

Answer:

SSO Formula Grant Program funds are available for the year of apportionment plus two additional years.
Any FY 2013 funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2015 will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the SSO Formula Grant Program. Any FY 2014 funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2016 will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the SSO Formula Grant Program.

Answer:

Applicants should submit one HMCE analysis for each proposed funding amount, including the total funding request and any reduced alternatives.

Answer:

A full breakdown of the Allocations by Transit Operator – such as a State DOT, county, city, or local/regional transit agency.

Note: Only allocations exceeding $25,000 are being published today, though agencies whose costs are lower than that amount remain eligible for reimbursement as well.

Answer:

For fiscal year (FY) 2013, more than $21 million is available for States to develop or carry out their SSO Programs consistent with MAP-21 requirements. For fiscal year (FY) 2014, $22,293,250 is available for States to develop or carry out their SSO Programs consistent with MAP-21 requirements. Please see Table 13 on the list of Current Apportionments on the FTA Current Apportionments for the amount apportioned to each State.

Answer:

Under Department of Transportation (DOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations at 49 C.F.R. Section 38.23(b)(1), wheelchair lifts must accommodate a design load of at least 600 lbs., with a safety factor of at least six (3,600 lbs.) for working parts, such as belts, pulleys, and shafts that can be expected to wear, and a safety factor of at least three (1,800 lbs.) for nonworking parts, based on the ultimate strength of the material. For vehicles equipped with ramps, the design load must be at least 600 lbs. for ramps in excess of 30 inches in length, with a safety factor of at least three (1,800 lbs.); ramps less than 30 inches in length are required to have a design load of at least 300 lbs. Transit agencies are not prevented from acquiring vehicles and equipment with a higher design load but are not required to accommodate mobility devices that exceed the capacities of their lifts or ramps.

Answer:

Documentation for increased emergency operations costs should be consistent with the requirements described in 83 FR 25104 section II.A and 49 CFR 602.17. Such documentation should include:

• Type and description of emergency operations service, including the storm name and number of people transported (if applicable)
• Dates and hours of emergency service
• Number and type of vehicles utilized
• Total fare revenues collected (if any) during emergency operations
• Payroll summaries for staff during emergency operations period
• Applicable contracts for purchased transportation or other services and materials

Documentation for increased costs for capital projects should include a detailed description of the increased costs, specifying what has changed since the last cost estimate. The description of the increased cost should include the information required by the Emergency Relief Rule at 49 CFR 602.17 and the FTA Emergency Relief Manual section 4.1.2 (Preliminary Field Survey and Damage Assessment Report sub-sections). Any engineering costs required to provide a cost estimate are an eligible ER expense if the costs are allocable to a project that is determined to be eligible under the ER program.

If the increase in cost will not result in a request for funding greater than the amounts allocated, the documentation described above may be included in the grant application.

If the total amount of funding to be requested will exceed the amounts published in Federal Register notice 83 FR 25104, the documentation noted above must be sent to FTA in writing prior to including those costs in a grant application.

Approval of additional allocations may be dependent on availability of funding and other factors to be determined. FTA does not currently have a timeline for the allocation of the remaining emergency relief funding currently held in reserve. FTA will continue to monitor the pace of obligations and disbursements of ER funding allocated to date, as well as any changes to the estimated cost of recovery projects.

Answer:

Under Department of Transportation (DOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations at 49 C.F.R. Section 37.163(f), if a lift fails in service and the headway to the next accessible vehicle on the route is more than 30 minutes, the transit provider is required to provide alternative accessible service by a paratransit or other special vehicle within a short response time (i.e., less than 30 minutes). Transit entities may provide this accommodation by having a “shadow” accessible service available along the route (i.e., by having an accessible vehicle “follow” the vehicle with the inoperative lift) or by having the bus driver immediately call in upon encountering a passenger he or she is unable to transport.

Answer:

The HMCE analysis for this type of proposal would show its benefits entirely in the value of passenger time. The analysis should describe the number of passengers who would have shortened trips, or who would be able to get to work when their other travel mode is out of service. Note that this type of project could have a positive cost effectiveness ratio even if it does not reduce any direct damages, provided that the social benefits of the project are large relative to the project cost. FTA will carefully evaluate the methodology used to estimate social benefits in cases where the affected infrastructure is owned or operated by a separate entity. As in other parts of the HMCE analysis, information from previous disasters would be valuable in documenting the impact on passengers.

Answer:

If an applicant is proposing to use their own funds as local match, the documentation of the availability of such funds in a capital or financial plan is recommended. If local match will be provided by a separate entity, a letter that promises the availability of funds should be submitted. Finally, if an applicant will need to raise funds for a project, such as through the issuance of bonds, a description and timeline for that process should be provided.

Answer:

Contractors determine the monetary threshold by counting the amount of federal funding received or requested through applicable contracts (including, but not limited to, for capital projects, operations, and planning, but excluding construction contracts) from the direct recipient in the previous fiscal year.

Subrecipients determine the monetary threshold by counting the amount of federal funding received or requested from the direct recipient in the previous fiscal year.

Answer:

Work that has been budgeted (but for which an RFP has not been advertised) is eligible for funding under the prorated allocation, not under Categories 1-3. The RFP, when issued, will need to comply with all federal requirements unless FTA issues a waiver to the applicant pursuant to the waiver process detailed in the Notice of Availability of Emergency Relief Funding. Force account work associated with that contract should not be requested under Category 3, unless it has independent utility and is not contingent upon a future contract action.

Answer:

FTA suggests a variety of options for integrating EJ considerations into existing programs, planning and project development processes, including:
Ensuring that the level and quality of public transportation service is provided in a non-discriminatory manner: for example, when considering transit routes and service options, grantees should take into account the challenges faced by low-income and minority households who are dependent on transit for accessing employment and other services.
Promoting full and fair participation in transportation decision-making without regard to race, color, national origin or income: for example, grantees should (and MPOs must) be able to demonstrate how they seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems and should periodically review the effectiveness of the procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes contained in their public participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process, which considers the needs of low-income and minority households.
Ensuring meaningful access to public transportation-related programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency: for example, grantees can prepare additional literature in the languages which are predominant in their regions.

Answer:

There is no single way to define or quantify the benefits and burdens of a long range plan or TIP. Each community should look to visioning, long range planning, TIP development, and the public participation plan as opportunities to collaboratively define and then implement community priorities regarding environmental justice. For this reason, extensive public involvement is the center piece of the planning process. Benefits and burdens should be locally determined in collaboration with the low-income and minority population in any given community. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. FTA’s and FHWA’s shared planning regulation specifically requires grantees to develop explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for public involvement, make special efforts to engage members of low-income and minority communities, and periodically evaluate the effectiveness of that engagement from visioning to project development and operations. The fundamental objective of public engagement programs is to ensure that the concerns and issues of everyone with a stake in transportation decisions are identified and addressed in the development of the policies, programs, and projects being proposed in their communities. For many of grantees, engaging EJ populations in the transportation decision-making process is a standard part of their overall public engagement plan that is integrated throughout the process, from the earliest stages (long-range planning, visioning, and scenario planning) through project implementation (construction, operation, and on-going evaluation).

Answer:

Individuals drafting applications in TrAMS will be asked to identify the Projects that will receive FTA financial assistance. An application created in TrAMS must identify at least one Project, or have more than one Project, if necessary. Each Project is a record; therefore in TrAMS you can run reports and search on the Project record. (Revised 1/2015)

Answer:

If the amounts expended for acquisition of a van is undertaken through a third party leased van, the third party should follow FTA’s Capital Cost of Contracting guidance found in chapter IV, pages 11-13 of FTA circular 9030.1E to determine the amount that can be treated as local match.