This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-512 
entitled 'Emergency Transportation Relief: Agencies Could Improve 
Collaboration Begun during Hurricane Sandy Response' which was 
released on May 28, 2014.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 
House of Representatives: 

May 2014: 

Emergency Transportation Relief: 

Agencies Could Improve Collaboration Begun during Hurricane Sandy 
Response: 

GAO-14-512: 

GAO Highlights: 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 
House of Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy devastated portions of the Mid-
Atlantic coast causing severe damage to transit facilities and 
infrastructure and disrupting mobility in the New York metropolitan 
region. In January 2013, the President signed the DRAA, which provided 
approximately $50.5 billion in federal aid for expenses related to 
Hurricane Sandy. GAO was asked to examine DRAA emergency relief 
assistance for transportation. 

This report addresses (1) the progress DOT has made allocating, 
obligating, and disbursing DRAA surface transportation funds, (2) how 
FTA’s new Public Transportation Emergency Relief program compares to 
FEMA’s and FHWA’s emergency relief programs, and (3) the extent to 
which FTA and FEMA have implemented their memorandum of agreement to 
coordinate their roles and responsibilities when providing assistance 
to transit agencies. GAO analyzed relevant laws, regulations, and 
agency documentation, and interviewed DOT, FEMA, and New Jersey and 
New York area transit officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is in the process of 
allocating, obligating, and disbursing the $13 billion appropriated by 
the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (DRAA) for surface 
transportation relief. Most of the DRAA surface transportation funds—-
over $10 billion—-were appropriated to the Federal Transit 
Administration’s (FTA) new Public Transportation Emergency Relief 
Program. An FTA damage assessment in January 2013 estimated the costs 
of repairing facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New 
Jersey to be about $5.7 billion. To date, FTA has obligated about $1.5 
billion for 15 grants and disbursed about $499 million to reimburse 
transit agencies for emergency response, recovery, and repair costs. 
These disbursements are consistent with Congressional Budget Office 
estimates, and transit projects can take years to complete. 

Furthermore, FTA plans to use nearly half of its DRAA appropriation 
for resiliency projects (or projects to protect facilities from future 
damage), most of which will be carried out through a competitive grant 
process. FTA was evaluating applications when GAO completed its 
review. FTA’s new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program has 
more flexibility and fewer restrictions in funding projects compared 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance 
and Hazard Mitigation programs and the Federal Highway Administration’
s (FHWA) Emergency Relief Program. For example, FEMA’s Hazard 
Mitigation program places limits on the amount of emergency relief 
funds that can be used for resiliency projects, while FTA’s program 
does not. FTA’s program also has more flexibility in how funds can be 
used for repairs, allowing transit agencies to improve facilities 
beyond pre-disaster conditions. The use of emergency relief funds for 
projects that go beyond recovery efforts is not new—activities funded 
by FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program have also expanded beyond repair 
and reconstruction. The expanding scope of emergency relief assistance 
illustrates the fiscal exposure the federal government faces and the 
challenges of establishing long-term sustainable funding for disaster 
relief and recovery. 

Although FTA and FEMA have a memorandum of agreement for assisting 
transit providers during emergencies, they are limited in their 
ability to delineate specific roles and responsibilities for future 
disasters. This limit is because while FEMA receives funding on an 
ongoing basis, FTA, to date, has only received a supplemental 
appropriation for Hurricane Sandy and does not know what resources it 
will have for future disasters. Because FTA and FEMA have the 
authority to fund many of the same activities by law, transit agencies 
may experience confusion when seeking assistance under some 
circumstances. FTA and FEMA have not determined how collaborative 
efforts, including their communications program and protocol 
contemplated in the memorandum of agreement, will be monitored, 
evaluated, and reported, but instead rely on informal communication. 
As GAO has previously concluded, creating a means to evaluate the 
results of collaborative efforts can enhance and sustain them, and 
informal communications between federal agencies do not ensure that 
collaboration is effective. Establishing more formal monitoring and 
evaluation of combined efforts could help FTA and FEMA ensure 
effective collaboration. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOT and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
direct FTA and FEMA to establish specific guidelines to monitor, 
evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts-—including 
their communications program and protocol as contemplated in their 
memorandum of agreement. DHS agreed with our recommendation, and DOT 
took no position. DHS and DOT also provided technical comments, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-512]. For more 
information, contact Dave Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

FTA Has Allocated over Half of DOT's DRAA Funds While Setting Up the 
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: 

FTA's Relief Program Is More Flexible Than FEMA's and FHWA's but Has 
Not Received Ongoing Funding: 

FTA and FEMA Have Limited Ability to Assign Responsibilities in Their 
Memorandum of Agreement but Could Do More to Ensure Effective 
Collaboration: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Estimated Damage to New York and New Jersey Transit Agencies, 
As Assessed by FTA, FEMA, and Transit Agencies (January 31, 2013): 

Table 2: DOT DRAA Funding Status ($ millions) as of April 30, 2014: 

Table 3: Federal and Non-Federal Cost-Sharing Arrangements for FTA's, 
FEMA's, and FHWA's Emergency Relief Programs: 

Table 4: Agency Guidance Reviewed: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: $50.5 Million in DRAA Funding by Agency (As Enacted on 
January 29, 2013): 

Figure 2: Examples of Damage from Hurricane Sandy: 

Figure 3: DRAA Appropriations for Surface Transportation (As Enacted 
on January 29, 2013): 

Figure 4: Depiction of the Amtrak Gateway Tunnel Project between New 
York and New Jersey: 

Abbreviations: 

CBO: Congressional Budget Office: 

CRS: Congressional Research Service: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DRAA: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013: 

DRF: Disaster Relief Fund: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: 

NORTA: New Orleans Regional Transit Authority: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 28, 2014: 

The Honorable Tom Latham: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Public transportation agencies are vulnerable to natural and man-made 
disasters that can disrupt transit operations and destroy vehicles and 
facilities. This presents a range of challenges, as transportation 
infrastructure is a key resource before, during, and after a major 
disaster or emergency. Before a disaster, public transportation 
infrastructure and resources can be used to assist with evacuating 
residents. During a disaster, the loss of transit can worsen the 
disaster's impact by impeding a community's access to emergency relief 
services and medical care. After a disaster, public transportation can 
be used to return people to their homes by restarting normal 
operations and allowing people to return to their jobs and daily 
activities.

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit the Mid-Atlantic coast during 
high tide, bringing with it a storm surge and flooding. The President 
issued disaster declarations under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)[Footnote 1] for the 
following areas: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia. Parts of New 
York and New Jersey were the hardest hit, and mobility in the greater 
New York City metropolitan area was temporarily crippled, including 
its transit systems, which normally carry more customers than all 
other systems in the United States combined. In January 2013, the 
President signed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (DRAA), 
which provided approximately $50.5 billion in supplemental 
appropriations to 61 programs at 19 federal agencies for expenses 
related to Hurricane Sandy.[Footnote 2] DRAA provided over $13 billion 
to the Department of Transportation (DOT), most of it to the Federal 
Transit Administration's (FTA) new Public Transportation Emergency 
Relief Program, which had gone into effect 28 days before Hurricane 
Sandy struck the United States. However, not all of the funds 
appropriated to FTA under DRAA were available until DOT signed a 
memorandum of agreement on March 4, 2013, with the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate the roles and responsibilities 
of the two departments in providing assistance for public 
transportation.[Footnote 3] The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), within DHS, is the lead agency responsible for preparing the 
federal response plans and programs for future disasters, coordinating 
the federal response when a disaster is declared, and providing grants 
to assist state and local governments during the response and recovery 
phases of a disaster. Within DOT, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) also has an Emergency Relief Program that provides funds for 
the repair and reconstruction of roads on the federal-aid highway 
system that have suffered serious damage as a result of either a 
natural disaster or a catastrophic failure from any external cause.

Given the amount of funds distributed and the number of agencies 
involved, you requested that we study emergency relief for 
transportation facilities and the services being carried out under the 
DRAA. We reviewed DOT's progress in disbursing DRAA funds to address 
Hurricane Sandy--with a focus on FTA's new Public Transportation 
Emergency Relief Program, how it compares to other federal agencies 
that provide emergency relief funding to surface transportation, and 
implications for responding to future disasters. Specifically, this 
report addresses (1) the progress DOT has made allocating, obligating, 
and disbursing DRAA surface transportation funds; (2) how FTA's new 
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program compares to FEMA's and 
FHWA's emergency relief programs; and (3) the extent to which FTA and 
FEMA have implemented their memorandum of agreement to coordinate 
their roles and responsibilities when providing assistance to transit 
agencies affected by Hurricane Sandy or future disasters.

To address all objectives, we reviewed and analyzed relevant laws and 
regulations; our previous reports; FTA, FWHA, and FEMA guidance; and 
interviewed officials from DOT and FEMA. We interviewed officials from 
seven of the 13 transit agencies that received grants from FTA. We 
selected the transit agencies that received FTA's four largest funding 
allocations (all located within New York and New Jersey) and selected 
three agencies that received smaller funding allocations but were 
located outside of New York and New Jersey. Our findings from 
interviews with these selected agencies provide insights and 
illustrate FTA's emergency transit-relief grant process; however, the 
results of our review should not be used to make generalizations about 
all FTA emergency transit relief grants. We also interviewed officials 
from Amtrak,[Footnote 4] which received funds from the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) within DOT.

To determine the progress DOT has made with DRAA surface 
transportation funds, we obtained information from the DOT surface-
transportation agencies--FTA, FHWA, and FRA--on the amount of DRAA 
funds that have been allocated, obligated, and disbursed from March 
2013 to April 2014. We obtained FTA's damage assessment of public 
transit agencies in New York and New Jersey affected by Hurricane 
Sandy. We reviewed the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) 2012 
analysis of the DRAA. To assess the reliability of the allocation, 
obligation, and disbursement data we received from DOT, we reviewed 
relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and 
reviewed internal controls related to the handling of the data. We 
found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To 
determine how FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 
compares to FEMA's and FHWA's emergency relief programs, we reviewed 
and analyzed relevant statutes and regulations, as well as documents 
pertaining to FTA, FHWA, and FEMA emergency relief programs to 
determine similarities and differences between the programs' 
eligibility rules, requirements, and funding.[Footnote 5] To determine 
the extent to which FTA and FEMA have coordinated their roles and 
responsibilities when providing disaster assistance to transit 
agencies, we reviewed and analyzed their memorandum of agreement and 
compared the agencies' efforts to practices that we have found can 
enhance collaboration among federal agencies.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 
provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Background: 

When a disaster overwhelms the ability of state, local, and voluntary 
agencies to adequately provide essential services on their own, the 
federal government generally plays a central role in disaster 
response, providing selected resources where they are needed. The 
federal government has provided significant funds for transit services 
following past catastrophic disasters. For example, about $4.7 billion 
was provided in emergency supplemental appropriations for emergency 
transit services in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks and 
$232 million in response to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.

After Hurricane Sandy, Congress enacted and the President signed into 
law the DRAA, which provided supplemental appropriations to federal 
agencies to assist, improve, and streamline Hurricane Sandy recovery 
efforts, including efforts to address damage to public transportation 
systems. Figure 1 shows the funding provided by the DRAA by agency, 
including over $13 billion to DOT.[Footnote 6]

Figure 1: $50.5 Million in DRAA Funding by Agency (As Enacted on 
January 29, 2013): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ($16.0 billion): 32%; 
Department of Transportation ($13.1 billion): 26%; 
Department of Homeland Security ($12.1 billion): 24%; 
Department of the Army – Corps of Engineers-Civil ($5.4 billion): 11%; 
Other departments ($3.9 billion): 8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Most of DOT's DRAA funding was made available to assist transit 
agencies, especially in New York and New Jersey, which experienced 
substantial damage to their infrastructure and incurred significant 
costs to restore operational service after the storm. All of these 
transit systems experienced the temporary suspension of service and 
most sustained serious, widespread damage, which affected the region's 
entire transportation network. As alternative modes of travel were 
sought, the use of the region's roadway network far exceeded capacity. 
The ripple effects were felt by many residents of the region who were 
not able to travel. Figure 2 below illustrates some of the damage to 
regional transportation systems as a result of Hurricane Sandy.

Figure 2: Examples of Damage from Hurricane Sandy: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs] 

Sandbags at the entrances of Port Authority Trans-Hudson rail transit
station in Hoboken, N.J. 
Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

Damage to the Metropolitan Transit Authority Rockaway Line. 
Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). 

Flood waters pouring into the Hoboken Station on the Port Authority
Trans-Hudson (PATH) System; 
Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

Damage to the Morgan Drawbridge on the New Jersey Transit System; 
Source: New Jersey Transit.

[End of figure] 

FEMA is the federal government's primary agency for disaster response 
and has primary responsibility for administering the provisions of the 
Stafford Act and for carrying out activities for national 
preparedness. Specifically, FEMA (1) funds and coordinates eligible 
prevention, protection, and mitigation activities; (2) provides and 
coordinates the immediate federal response to save lives and property; 
(3) funds the reconstruction of disaster-damaged public 
infrastructure; and (4) provides individual assistance to stricken 
families. In addition to coordinating disaster response and recovery 
operations, FEMA's Public Assistance Program provides funding to state 
and local governments and some nonprofit organizations for recovery 
efforts after a disaster, including removing debris, implementing 
emergency protective measures, and repairing or replacing damaged 
public equipment or facilities. FEMA also provides grants to states 
and local governments to implement mitigation measures that reduce or 
permanently eliminate future risk to lives and property from natural 
hazards under its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This program funds 
projects in accordance with priorities identified in state, tribal, or 
local hazard mitigation plans and enables mitigation measures to be 
implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster.

DOT also has two emergency relief programs to assist with damage to 
surface transportation infrastructure and facilities after a disaster, 
both of which received a share of DOT's DRAA funding for Hurricane 
Sandy.

* FHWA's Emergency Relief Program provides funding for emergency and 
permanent repairs or reconstruction of roadways on the federal-aid 
highway system and on federal lands that have suffered serious damage 
as a result of a natural disaster or catastrophic failure from an 
external cause. Emergency repairs are completed during and immediately 
following a disaster to quickly restore essential highway traffic 
service and protect remaining facilities, for example, establishing 
emergency detours and providing temporary bridges or ferry service. 
Permanent repairs are undertaken after emergency repairs have been 
completed to restore damaged facilities to pre-disaster conditions, 
for example, restoring pavement surfaces or reconstructing damaged 
bridges. FHWA only provides funding under its Emergency Relief Program 
for highways that are either federal-aid highways or on federal lands. 
FEMA's Public Assistance Program provides funding to repair disaster 
damage to other roads.

* FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program was authorized 
by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). 
[Footnote 7] MAP-21 provides FTA with the primary responsibility for 
reimbursing emergency response and recovery costs after an emergency 
or major disaster affects a public transportation system. The FTA 
program is a reimbursable grant program and allows FTA to make grants 
for capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or replace 
equipment and facilities of a public transportation system as well as 
for eligible operating costs. Such costs include reestablishing, 
expanding, or relocating public transportation route service in the 
event of a natural disaster that affects a wide area or a catastrophic 
failure from any external cause.

Most of the $13 billion that DRAA made available to DOT for surface 
transportation relief was appropriated to FTA for the Public 
Transportation Emergency Relief Program.[Footnote 8] The DRAA provides 
this funding for eligible transit operating expenses, capital projects 
to repair or reconstruct damaged facilities, and projects to protect 
facilities from future damage (resiliency projects). According to 
FTA's interim program regulations, resiliency projects are designed 
and built to address a transit system's future vulnerabilities due to 
emergencies or major disasters that have occurred and are likely to 
reoccur in the geographic area in which the public transportation 
system is located, or projected changes in development patterns, 
demographics, or extreme weather or other climate patterns.[Footnote 
9] For example, MTA is planning a resiliency project to increase New 
York City's pumping capacity by converting existing rolling stock into 
pump trains. The project is intended to shorten the period of time it 
takes to pump water out of the subway system to prevent major damage 
from saltwater infiltration into the subway system. The DRAA also 
provided the DOT Secretary authority to transfer up to $5.4 billion 
for resiliency efforts to other DOT agencies, such as FHWA and FRA. 
[Footnote 10]

In January 2013, FTA, FEMA, and affected transit agencies worked 
together after Hurricane Sandy to assess the damage in the New York 
and New Jersey region. The damage assessment estimated that the damage 
to public transit was about $5.7 billion. About 99 percent of the 
estimated damage was sustained by four transit agencies, as shown in 
table 1.

Table 1: Estimated Damage to New York and New Jersey Transit Agencies, 
As Assessed by FTA, FEMA, and Transit Agencies (January 31, 2013): 

Agencies: New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); 
Restoration/Recovery: $3.904 billion. 

Agencies: Port Authority of New York/New Jersey; 
Restoration/Recovery: $1.286 billion. 

Agencies: New Jersey Transit; 
Restoration/Recovery: $459 million. 

Agencies: New York City DOT; 
Restoration/Recovery: $36 million. 

Agencies: Other New York/New Jersey Agencies; 
Restoration/Recovery: $4 million. 

Agencies: Total; 
Restoration/Recovery: $5.689 billion. 

Source: FTA. 

[End of table] 

FTA officials said that the damage assessment only covered damage in 
New York and New Jersey because this was the area with the most 
extensive damage. Rather than identify total damage in other areas, 
FTA established a process for potential recipients to identify their 
damage and to apply for funds. FTA made initial grants to recipients 
outside of New York and New Jersey, but those grants account for less 
than 1 percent of all allocations made as of April 30, 2014. For 
example, FTA awarded a $5,352 grant to the Milford Transit District 
(MTD) in Connecticut for evacuation services performed during 
Hurricane Sandy, transportation after the storm, and debris cleanup. 
Beyond that, FTA has not estimated an amount of repair and recovery 
outside of New York and New Jersey but has set aside funds for future 
allocations (approximately $28 million) as needed if there are 
eligible response and recovery expenses from agencies that may not 
have received pro-rated allocations.

FTA Has Allocated over Half of DOT's DRAA Funds While Setting Up the 
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: 

Overall DOT Progress: 

As figure 3 shows, the approximately $13 billion that DRAA 
appropriated to DOT for surface transportation relief was divided 
among several DOT agencies including FTA, FHWA, and FRA--but the vast 
majority of it was appropriated to FTA.

Figure 3: DRAA Appropriations for Surface Transportation (As Enacted 
on January 29, 2013): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ($10.9 billion): 84%; 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ($2.0 billion): 16%; 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ($0.1 billion): 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Two events have affected the amount of funds available to the DOT 
agencies. First, all DRAA funds were reduced by 5 percent--from 
approximately $13 billion to almost $12.4 billion--on March 1, 2013, 
as a result of sequestration.[Footnote 11] Second, the DOT Secretary 
exercised his transfer authority under DRAA and approved a transfer in 
May 2013 of $185 million from FTA to FRA. This transfer was used to 
award a grant for Amtrak to install a concrete casing that preserves 
the right of way in the New York City Hudson Yards for the potential 
alignment of a future trans-Hudson tunnel. This concrete casing would 
allow access for a future project to install an additional railway 
tunnel under the Hudson River and increase train capacity for 
commuter, regional, and long distance intercity services going in and 
out of New York City (see figure 4). The Gateway Tunnel project has 
been planned since 2010, and with this funding, Amtrak is able to 
preserve a possible right-of-way for the project. DOT officials told 
us that there are no plans at this time to make any other transfers 
using this authority.

Figure 4: Depiction of the Amtrak Gateway Tunnel Project between New 
York and New Jersey: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Depicted: 

Gateway Right-of-way; 
Tunnel to the Empire Corridor; 
Concrete Casing. 

Source: Amtrak. 

[End of figure]

DOT surface transportation agencies have allocated about $6.3 billion 
(51 percent), obligated about $2.2 billion (17 percent), and disbursed 
about $721 million (6 percent) of the roughly $12.4 billion available 
DRAA funds for transportation relief as of April 30, 2014.[Footnote 
12] The available funds for each agency shown in table 2 reflect the 
impact of sequestration, and the DOT Secretary's transfer from FTA to 
FRA.

Table 2: DOT DRAA Funding Status ($ millions) as of April 30, 2014: 

DOT Surface Transportation Administrations: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Available funds: $1,921; 
Allocated: $616; 
Obligated: $473; 
Disbursed: $120.

DOT Surface Transportation Administrations: Federal Railroad 
Administration; 
Available funds: $297; 
Allocated: [A]; 
Obligated: $215; 
Disbursed: $102.

DOT Surface Transportation Administrations: Federal Transit 
Administration; 
Available funds: $10,170; 
Allocated: $5,679; 
Obligated: $1,463; 
Disbursed: $499.

DOT Surface Transportation Administrations: TOTAL; 
Available funds: $12,388; 
Allocated: $6,295; 
Obligated: $2,151; 
Disbursed: $721. 

Source: DOT.

[A] FRA funds are not allocated to grantees as they are for FHWA and 
FTA programs; FRA grants are awarded from available funds. 

[End of table] 

FTA Progress: 

FTA is in the process of allocating and distributing DRAA funds while 
facing unique challenges setting up its Public Transportation 
Emergency Relief Program. The program was new when Hurricane Sandy 
struck, and FTA received its first funds for the program through the 
DRAA just 3 months after the storm. As a result, as of April 2014, FTA 
was finalizing its program rules at the same time it was distributing 
billions of dollars of DRAA funds to affected transit agencies. 
Furthermore, the amount of funds that FTA is distributing through the 
emergency relief program (over $10 billion) is almost as much as FTA's 
total budgetary resources were in fiscal year 2012 (approximately 
$12.1 billion).

FTA's over $10 billion in DRAA funding is more than enough to address 
the costs of repairing transit facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy 
in New York and New Jersey (see table 1). The January 2013 damage 
assessment estimated Hurricane Sandy damage in New York and New Jersey 
to public transit to be about $5.7 billion, but also identified about 
$10 billion in potential resiliency projects to guard against future 
disasters. As of April 30, 2014, FTA has allocated almost $5.7 billion 
of its DRAA funding to transit agencies affected by Hurricane Sandy 
and obligated a total of about $1.5 billion for 15 grants for 
emergency response, recovery, repair and reconstruction activities. 
[Footnote 13] When we completed our review, transit agency officials 
we spoke with were generally positive about the FTA Public 
Transportation Emergency Relief Program and told us that, in their 
experience, FTA has not caused them any delays in receiving funding. 
Of the amount allocated, FTA made $1.3 billion available for what it 
called "locally prioritized" resiliency funding. This funding is 
primarily intended for resiliency improvements completed in tandem 
with recovery and rebuilding projects that will improve cost 
effectiveness and can be implemented quickly.

As of April 30, 2014, FTA has only disbursed $499 million of its DRAA 
funds, but this does not indicate a lack of progress for several 
reasons. FTA's progress is in line with expenditure estimates. In 
December 2012, CBO estimated that only 3 percent of FTA's DRAA funds 
would be expended in the first year and forecasted that it would take 
over a decade for FTA to disburse all the funds based on historical 
patterns.[Footnote 14] As of January 29, 2014--one year after DRAA was 
enacted--FTA had disbursed almost 3 percent of its DRAA funds, 
approaching CBO estimates. In addition, transit projects are long-term 
investments that typically take years to complete. For example, the 
MTA Long Island Rail Road's West Side Storage Yard--which undertakes 
inspections, repairs, maintenance, and cleaning for the railroad's 
fleet--suffered severe damage due to the tidal surge and resulting 
intrusion of salt water during Hurricane Sandy. The project to repair 
it will replace numerous assets in the yard, including switch 
machines, signal components, third-rail components, switch heaters, 
and fire alarm systems. According to officials, MTA plans to complete 
this work in phases and estimates a February 2018 completion. Finally, 
FTA plans to use about 42 percent of its DRAA appropriation for 
resiliency projects, most of which will be carried out through a 
competitive grant selection process, and FTA was evaluating 
applications when we completed our review.

Specifically, in December 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Funding 
Availability for approximately $3 billion in funding to be awarded for 
resiliency projects on a competitive basis.[Footnote 15] This funding 
differs from the $1.3 billion that has been obligated for locally 
prioritized resiliency funding. Any transportation agency[Footnote 16] 
within the declared Hurricane Sandy disaster area can apply for these 
funds,[Footnote 17] and they can be used to protect either a facility 
or system that has been repaired or replaced after Hurricane Sandy, or 
that is at risk of being damaged or destroyed by a future emergency or 
natural disaster.[Footnote 18] Among the other criteria, FTA will 
evaluate and award competitive resiliency funding based on the cost-
effectiveness of the project, implementation strategy, extent to which 
improvements will protect vulnerable existing infrastructure, 
availability of local financial commitments, and the technical 
capacity of grantees. According to FTA's notice, in developing FTA 
guidelines for resiliency projects, it considered recommendations made 
by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force.[Footnote 19] The Task 
Force specifically recommended that infrastructure rebuilt with DRAA 
funds be designed to increase the resilience of the region.[Footnote 20]

The DRAA appropriation to FTA provided funding for the DOT Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) to conduct oversight of FTA's DRAA funds. In 
the initial report, the OIG stated that FTA's initial response to 
Hurricane Sandy was noteworthy, but that FTA has yet to fully address 
challenges in its oversight plans and procedures.[Footnote 21] The OIG 
made several recommendations to FTA, including specifying the required 
time frames for completing risk assessments for all grantees and 
finalizing program guidance that incorporates lessons learned from 
emergencies and best practices from emergency relief guidance. 
According to the OIG's report, FTA has provided appropriate planned 
actions and timeframes for completion for most of the OIG 
recommendations.

FTA's Relief Program Is More Flexible Than FEMA's and FHWA's but Has 
Not Received Ongoing Funding: 

Compared to FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Programs and FHWA's Emergency Relief Program, FTA's new Public 
Transportation Emergency Relief Program has more flexibility and fewer 
restrictions in funding emergency relief projects. For example, FEMA's 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program places limits on the amount of 
emergency relief funding that can be allocated toward resiliency 
projects, whereas FTA's program does not. However, unlike FEMA's and 
FHWA's programs, FTA's program has not received funding on an ongoing 
basis, which could limit some transit providers' ability to respond 
immediately after a disaster.

FTA's Program Has More Flexibility and Fewer Restrictions: 

FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program provides funding 
for similar types of activities as FEMA's and FHWA's emergency relief 
programs, such as emergency protective measures, permanent repairs, 
and resiliency projects, but the legislation authorizing FTA's program 
placed no limits on the amount that can be awarded for resiliency 
projects. Based on this flexibility, FTA is awarding about 42 percent 
of the funding it received for Hurricane Sandy, $4.3 billion, for 
resiliency projects.

In contrast, FEMA has limits on the percentage of emergency funding 
that may be used for resiliency projects. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program provides funding for resiliency projects (referred to as 
hazard mitigation projects) but the amount of funding available for 
this program for a particular disaster declaration is limited. For 
example, under this program a state may be eligible to receive up to 
15 percent of the estimated total of federal assistance for hazard 
mitigation grant assistance. States that meet higher mitigation 
planning criteria may qualify for up to 20 percent of assistance. 
[Footnote 22] Of the $119.7 billion that FEMA has obligated for 
disaster assistance over a 10-year period--from 2004 through 2013--
FEMA has obligated $4.9 billion (about 4 percent) for its Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program activities to prevent or ease the impact of 
natural disasters.

Besides having greater flexibility in funding resiliency projects, 
FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program has fewer 
restrictions and greater flexibility to fund emergency relief projects 
compared to FHWA's and FEMA's programs, as discussed below: 

FTA's program funds have more flexibility in how they can be used for 
repairs. FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program allows 
transit agencies to use response and recovery awards to improve 
facilities beyond pre-existing conditions by 1) replacing damaged 
assets with new assets that incorporate current design standards, 2) 
replacing obsolete equipment, or 3) bringing assets to a state of good 
repair as part of its recovery effort. By comparison, FEMA's Public 
Assistance Program will generally provide funding for permanent 
repairs to restore a facility based on the adopted codes and standards 
to its pre-disaster design, function, and capacity.[Footnote 23] 
FEMA's Public Assistance Program may provide funding to replace the 
facility to current applicable codes and standards, if the grantee can 
demonstrate that the estimated repair cost exceeds 50 percent of the 
estimated replacement cost. FEMA's Public Assistance Program also 
provides some funding to be used for hazard mitigation measures. This 
funding, along with FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Program funding, can be 
used to improve facilities beyond pre-disaster conditions if 
applicants can demonstrate that the project is cost-effective. Like 
FTA's program, FHWA's Emergency Relief Program will also provide 
emergency relief funding to restore or replace a facility or bridge to 
current geometric and construction standards. However, FHWA limits 
this funding only to portions of the facility that are damaged and 
requires applicants to show that the improvement is cost-effective, 
prevents future recurring damage, or is technically feasible. In 
addition, FTA has more flexibility in how it can support emergency 
transit operations. For example, FTA's emergency relief program 
provides funding for emergency operations such as evacuations; rescue 
operations; ferry service to replace inoperable rail service or to 
detour around damaged areas; returning evacuees to their home after 
Hurricane Sandy; and for the net project costs related to 
reestablishing, expanding, or relocating public transportation service 
before, during or after Hurricane Sandy. By comparison, under FEMA's 
Public Assistance Program, financial assistance for transit and 
transportation operations are limited to those operations that are 
necessary to save lives and protect public health, such as evacuation 
or transportation of evacuees to emergency shelter. According to FEMA 
officials, FEMA does not have the authority to reimburse state or 
local transit agencies for expenses associated with emergency transit 
operations.

FTA emergency relief funds have no restrictions on funding projects 
included in statewide transportation improvement programs. FTA 
emergency relief funds can be used to fund projects that are included 
in statewide transportation improvement programs. In comparison, under 
MAP-21, FHWA emergency relief funds may not be used to repair or 
reconstruct a bridge if the construction phase of a replacement 
structure is already included in the approved statewide transportation 
improvement program at the time of an eligible event. Similarly, 
according to FEMA's Pubic Assistance Program guidance, funding may not 
be used to replace a facility if the facility is already scheduled to 
be replaced using federal funds, and work is scheduled to begin within 
12 months of the time the disaster struck. According to FTA officials, 
funding for projects in statewide transportation improvement programs 
are not limited because FTA does not believe such plans constitute a 
firm commitment of funding. However, projects for which funds were 
obligated in an FTA grant prior to the declared emergency or disaster 
are not eligible to receive FTA emergency relief funds.[Footnote 24]

FTA's cost-sharing arrangements and rules for non-federal sharing 
commitments are less restrictive. As shown in table 3, cost-sharing 
arrangements vary among FTA's, FEMA's, and FHWA's emergency relief 
programs. Under FTA's program, for example, the federal share for 
capital and operating costs is generally up to 80 percent, and the non-
federal share is generally not less than 20 percent of the project 
cost. However, the DOT Secretary is authorized to waive in whole or in 
part FTA's non-federal share. Pursuant to the Stafford Act, the cost-
sharing arrangements for FEMA's Public Assistance Program can also be 
adjusted, but only by the President at a governor's request.

Table 3: Federal and Non-Federal Cost-Sharing Arrangements for FTA's, 
FEMA's, and FHWA's Emergency Relief Programs: 

Agency: FTA; 
Program: Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program; 
Federal share: Up to 80 percent of the project cost[A]; 
Non-federal share: Not less than 20 percent of the project cost. 

Agency: FEMA; 
Program: Public Assistance Program; 
Federal share: Not less than 75 percent of the eligible project 
cost[B]; 
Non-federal share: Not more than 25 percent of the project cost. 

Agency: FEMA; 
Program: Hazard Mitigation Program; 
Federal share: Up to 75 percent of the eligible activity costs; 
Non-federal share: Not less than 25 percent of eligible activity costs. 

Agency: FHWA; 
Program: Emergency Relief Program; 
Federal share: Up to 100 percent for emergency repairs completed 
within 180 days after a disaster[C]; 
For permanent repair costs and emergency repair costs incurred after 
the first 180 days, the federal share is based on the type of federal-
aid highway being repaired[D]; 
Non-federal share: Varies depending on the type of federal aid highway. 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA, FEMA, and FHWA information.

[A] The DOT Secretary is authorized to adjust cost shares for the 
program and to waive in whole or in part the non-federal share 
requirement.

[B] Sections 403, 406, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act provide that 
the Federal share of assistance shall be not less than 75 percent of 
the cost of the eligible work. FEMA regulations at section 206.47 of 
title 44, C.F.R., allow FEMA to recommend an increased cost-share. For 
example, in response to Hurricane Sandy, for the state of New York, 
the President authorized federal funds for all categories of the 
Public Assistance Program at 90 percent of total eligible costs, 
except assistance previously designated at 100 percent Federal share. 
In addition, FEMA recommends raising the usual 75 percent federal 
share for the Public Assistance Program to 90 percent when federal 
obligations, excluding FEMA administrative costs, meet a qualifying 
threshold.

[C] Emergency repairs completed within 180 days after a disaster to 
restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage, or protect 
the remaining facilities are eligible for a 100 percent federal share.

[D] For example, for interstate highways, the federal share is 90 
percent. For federal-aid facilities that meet the definition of a 
federal land access transportation facility, the federal share is 100 
percent and for all other highways, the federal share is 80 percent. 
In addition, MAP-21 provided authority for the Secretary of 
Transportation to extend the 180-day period for 100 percent federal 
share of emergency repair work if there is a delay in the state's 
ability to access the site. 

[End of table] 

In addition, FTA's program permits recipients to waive local matching 
requirements by applying toll credits toward the non-federal match. 
Recipients of FHWA's Emergency Relief Program funds are specifically 
prohibited from using toll credits to reduce or eliminate the non-
federal share.[Footnote 25] States and localities that receive federal 
formula funds for highway or transit projects may apply "toll credits" 
to reduce or eliminate the funding they are required to provide to 
match federal funds for projects. These toll credits are earned when 
the state, a toll authority, or a private entity funds a capital 
transportation investment with toll revenues earned from existing toll 
facilities. FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Programs 
also do not allow for applicants to apply toll credits toward the 
local match but have other ways of meeting the non-federal share 
amount, for example, through in-kind contributions.[Footnote 26]

FTA's program does not require a presidential declaration of disaster 
to release emergency relief funds. Under both FTA's and FHWA's 
programs, for a natural disaster or other event to be eligible for 
emergency relief funding, either the governor of a state has to 
declare an emergency and the Secretary of Transportation has to 
concur, or the President has to declare a major disaster under section 
401 of the Stafford Act. However, a Presidential Declaration of a 
Major Disaster or Emergency is required for funding to be available 
for FEMA's Public Assistance Program. Likewise, FEMA's Hazard 
Mitigation Program requires a presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for funding to be available for that program.

FTA's program has flexibility to provide funds directly to the 
grantee. Under FEMA's and FHWA's programs, funding is distributed to 
the states. FEMA provides funding under its Public Assistance Program 
to eligible applicants through state and tribal government grantees. 
In our prior work, we found instances where funding from state 
grantees to transit agencies was delayed.[Footnote 27] FHWA's 
Emergency Relief Program similarly provides funding to states, Puerto 
Rico, the District of Columbia, and territories. The program is 
administered through the state DOTs in close coordination with FHWA's 
division offices in each state. In contrast, FTA funding can be 
provided directly to transit agencies. Officials from the grantee 
agencies we spoke to told us that working with FTA is easier than 
working with FEMA, in part because of their ongoing grantee 
relationship with FTA and because FTA's personnel are transit 
specialists and its processes are better suited for complicated 
transit projects.

Recent Changes Have Expanded the Scope of Activities FHWA and FEMA May 
Fund: 

Even though FTA has more flexibility, particularly in the amount of 
funding it can allocate to resiliency projects, several recent changes 
to FHWA and FEMA program requirements have further expanded the scope 
of activities eligible for funding under these programs.

* MAP-21 expanded FHWA's scope of activities to allow its emergency 
relief funds to be used to expand the capacity of a structure--such as 
bridges, highways, or roads--being repaired or replaced to accommodate 
the volume of traffic that the structure will carry over its design 
life.[Footnote 28] Prior to MAP-21, FHWA's Emergency Relief Program 
could only be used to expand the capacity of bridges to accommodate 
future traffic.

* The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013[Footnote 29] revised the 
Stafford Act, establishing a new set of alternative procedures for 
FEMA's Public Assistance Program, allowing applicants to receive 
funding based on fixed estimates, rather than being reimbursed for 
actual costs. Under these new procedures, applicants can use grant 
funding that exceeds actual costs toward mitigation activities.

Use of emergency relief funds for projects that go beyond recovery 
efforts is not new. In our 2007 report on FHWA's Emergency Relief 
Program, we found that FHWA's use of Emergency Relief Program funds 
was not always limited to rebuilding facilities back to original 
conditions--the original intent of the program--and were used for 
projects that had grown in size and scope in response to public and 
community concerns.[Footnote 30] For example, emergency relief funds 
were used to fund the reconstruction of the U.S. Highway 90 Biloxi Bay 
Bridge in Mississippi, a four-lane drawbridge between the cities of 
Biloxi and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. According to the Mississippi 
DOT officials, DOT initially proposed replacing the drawbridge with 
one that would provide an 85-foot clearance above Biloxi Bay. During a 
public comment period on the proposed bridge design, a local 
shipbuilder expressed concern that the height was not sufficient to 
allow for future ships to pass under the bridge. Mississippi DOT 
revised its proposed bridge design to provide a 95-foot clearance, 
which increased the cost of the bridge from an estimated $275 million 
to $339 million. We have also found that Congress has, on occasion, 
expanded FHWA's and FEMA's emergency relief eligibility criteria, an 
expansion that has resulted in projects receiving funding beyond what 
FHWA's and FEMA's emergency relief programs would otherwise have 
funded.[Footnote 31] For example, in 2003, following the September 11, 
2001, terrorist attack, Congress appropriated supplemental funding 
expanding FEMA's authority to allow it to fund recovery efforts and 
rebuild infrastructure beyond pre-disaster conditions to substantially 
improve commuter mobility.

While we have previously raised concerns about the expanding scope of 
activities eligible for emergency relief funding, we have also noted 
that building resiliency into infrastructure planning is important. 
[Footnote 32] Enhancing the resilience of physical infrastructure, 
such as roads and bridges, vulnerable to extreme weather conditions 
can help reduce future economic losses and result in more efficient 
infrastructure planning. Federally funded road and bridge projects are 
typically expensive long-term investments. We have previously 
concluded that as the nation makes these investments, it faces the 
choice of paying more now, or potentially paying a much larger premium 
later to repair, modify, or replace infrastructure ill suited for 
future conditions.[Footnote 33]

FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program Does Not 
Currently Receive Funding on an Ongoing Basis: 

FEMA and FHWA have funds available to provide recovery assistance when 
a disaster or emergency occurs: 

* Funding for FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Programs 
is available from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) after the President 
declares a disaster under the Stafford Act.[Footnote 34] The DRF 
receives emergency-designated funding through both the regular 
appropriations process and through supplemental appropriations. The 
amount requested each year for the DRF in the President's Budget 
Request is based on the use of the fund (amount obligated from the 
fund) in prior years.[Footnote 35] Once funds are appropriated to the 
DRF, they are available until expended, which means they carry forward 
from one year to another.

* Budget authority for FHWA's Emergency Relief Program is provided 
through contract authority, which authorizes FHWA to make commitments 
in advance of an appropriation.[Footnote 36] FHWA is authorized to 
obligate up to $100 million each fiscal year for the program. Any 
unobligated balance remains available until expended.[Footnote 37] In 
recent years, annual demands on FHWA's Emergency Relief Program have 
exceeded the $100 million annual authorization. For example, on 
average, the program's needed allocations for ordinary events--
disaster events requiring under $100 million in federal funding--are 
2.7 times the annual authorization, or $271 million. As a result, from 
2005 to 2011, FHWA received about $7 billion in additional funding 
from general revenues through supplemental appropriations.

To date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for FTA's 
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, and FTA must rely on 
Congress to appropriate funds for a specific event. FTA's program has 
only received funds that Congress made available exclusively for 
Hurricane Sandy through the DRAA. Since it takes time for 
appropriations to be enacted, FTA is unable to release funding 
immediately after a disaster to transit providers which, in turn, 
could limit the ability of transit agencies that do not have resources 
to respond immediately after a disaster. However, annual budgeting for 
FTA's emergency relief program through regular appropriations would 
involve trade-offs with other funding priorities in a challenging 
budget environment. Events requiring the use of FEMA and FHWA 
emergency funds generally occur every year; however, transit disasters 
requiring FTA emergency relief funding may occur with less frequency. 
Ultimately, deciding how to allocate funding among competing demands 
is a policy decision for the Congress.

We discussed transit-funding challenges in our 2008 report, which 
highlighted the impact of challenges on the timeliness and 
effectiveness of FEMA's and FTA's assistance to transit agencies 
following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.[Footnote 38] We found that 
neither FEMA nor FTA had mechanisms in place to provide transit 
funding immediately after the disasters. Transit officials from the 
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (NORTA) told us that a lack of 
financial resources immediately after Hurricane Katrina delayed their 
disaster response efforts. Based on this work, we presented a range of 
possible options for Congress to consider for providing immediate 
financial assistance to transit agencies in response to a disaster, 
including that Congress create an emergency relief program in FTA for 
transit assistance modeled after FHWA's program with a "quick release 
mechanism"--a mechanism used to approve and release emergency funds 
within 1-2 days to begin the immediate flow of funds.[Footnote 39] 
FHWA's program provides for a quick release of funding for larger 
disasters, wherein extensive damage is readily evident and state and 
federal level agencies need funds to flow quickly to the state. 
However, as we previously stated, to date, FTA has not received 
funding. If FTA's emergency relief program continues to receive only 
supplemental appropriations, FTA will not be able to quickly release 
funding for transit operations during and immediately after a disaster 
occurs.[Footnote 40]

Long-standing Challenges of Identifying Long-term Sustainable Funding 
for Emergency Relief Efforts Remain: 

The expanding scope of emergency relief assistance and FTA's funding 
issues illustrate the long-standing challenges of establishing long-
term sustainable funding for disaster relief and recovery.

* In 2013, we concluded that the federal government does not fully 
budget for emergency response and recovery costs and runs the risk of 
facing a large fiscal exposure at any time.[Footnote 41] Over recent 
decades, the scope of emergency relief assistance has expanded, with 
disaster declarations increasing to a record of 98 in fiscal year 
2011, compared with 65 in 2004, resulting in increased federal 
disaster costs. Over that period, FEMA obligated over $80 billion in 
federal assistance for disasters.[Footnote 42] The federal 
government's fiscal exposure will only increase with the financial 
risks posed by extreme weather events. For this and other reasons, 
limiting the federal government's fiscal exposure by better managing 
climate change risks was added to GAO's High-Risk List.

* In our 2007 review of the FHWA Emergency Relief Program, we cited 
concerns about the use of emergency relief funds on an expanding scope 
of activities, noting that this gradual expansion of eligibility 
criteria was exacerbating the problem of longer-term 
sustainability.[Footnote 43] We found that monies authorized from the 
Highway Trust Fund were not sufficient to cover the costs of ordinary 
events states experienced and that since 1990, the program had relied 
on supplemental appropriations to make up for the funding shortfall. 
We recommended that to put the Emergency Relief Program on a sound 
financial footing, additional alternatives to address the fiscal 
imbalance needed to be considered and that Congress could consider 
tightening the eligibility criteria for Emergency Relief funding, 
either through amending the purpose of the Emergency Relief Program, 
or by directing FHWA to revise its program regulations. We also 
recommended that Congress consider the expected future demands of the 
program and reexamine the appropriate level and sources of funding to 
address disasters--including whether to increase the $100-million 
annual authorized funding and whether the Highway Trust Fund, general 
revenues, or some combination would allow the program to accomplish 
its purpose in a fiscally sustainable matter.

* In another 2008 report, we reviewed supplemental emergency 
appropriations from fiscal years 1997-2006 and stated that to the 
extent possible, funds should be provided through the regular 
appropriations process to ensure that trade-offs are made among 
competing priorities, especially in an environment of increasingly 
constrained resources.[Footnote 44]

Others have also commented on the process of funding emergency relief 
efforts in a fiscally sustainable manner. In its 2010 Report, the 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform[Footnote 45] 
recommended that Congress explicitly set aside funds for disaster 
relief to better prepare for disasters. In a 2003 report, the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited various challenges and 
benefits to having an emergency relief fund.[Footnote 46] For example, 
according to CRS, maintaining emergency funds at a level that more 
accurately reflects emergency needs instead of relying on supplemental 
funding would foster fiscal responsibility and help ensure disaster 
response funding is budgeted with existing funds. However, CRS noted 
that, because disasters cannot always be anticipated, emergency 
supplemental appropriations can facilitate funding recovery efforts 
for disasters, the timing and severity of which are unpredictable.

FTA and FEMA Have Limited Ability to Assign Responsibilities in Their 
Memorandum of Agreement but Could Do More to Ensure Effective 
Collaboration: 

FTA's and FEMA's Ability to Clarify Specific Responsibilities for 
Future Disasters Is Limited: 

On March 4, 2013, FTA and FEMA signed a memorandum of agreement, as 
required by MAP-21, to coordinate their roles and responsibilities 
when providing assistance for public transportation in areas in which 
the President has declared a major disaster or emergency. We have 
found that by working together to define roles and responsibilities in 
collaborative efforts, federal agencies can clarify understanding 
about who will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, 
and facilitate decision making.[Footnote 47] However, in this 
memorandum of agreement, FTA and FEMA have limited ability to clarify 
who will do what related to their respective responsibilities when 
providing emergency transportation relief in future disasters. This is 
because, as we stated previously, FTA lacks the funding to assume 
costs for future disasters unless and until Congress provides an 
appropriation, either on an ongoing basis or for a specific disaster. 
Lacking information on the resources it will have, FTA is limited in 
pre-determining what assistance it could provide during future 
disasters. Conversely, because FHWA receives funding on an ongoing 
basis, FHWA and FEMA can delineate specific roles and responsibilities 
during emergencies that affect highways. FHWA provides funds to repair 
and replace disaster-damaged roads that are on the federal-aid highway 
system, and FEMA provides funds for roads that are not part of the 
system. However, FTA and FEMA are limited to more general descriptions 
of how they will cooperate--such as the principles and general areas 
of cooperation described in the memorandum of agreement. FEMA 
officials told us that after FTA finalizes all of its program rules, 
they may be able to make some small clarifications to their roles and 
responsibilities, but because of the uncertainty of FTA funding, they 
will not be able to draw clear distinctions in responsibilities, as 
they have been able to do with FHWA.

As a result, FTA and FEMA will have to determine their specific roles 
and responsibilities on a per-incident basis. Funds provided for the 
FTA Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program do not affect the 
ability of any other agency to provide any other funds authorized by 
law. Thus, FEMA and FTA can fund many of the same activities.[Footnote 
48] The memorandum of agreement states that if FTA receives funds, it 
will be the "primary" payor of expenses incurred by public 
transportation agencies as a result of emergency or major disaster. 
For Hurricane Sandy, FTA and FEMA agreed that FTA would assume this 
responsibility for affected transit agencies, because it received an 
appropriation from the DRAA large enough to cover the damage without 
FEMA funding. However, outside of Hurricane Sandy, FTA has been unable 
to assist transit agencies at all. For example, a transit agency in 
Massachusetts that had received assistance after Hurricane Sandy from 
FTA also sustained damage related to Winter Storm Nemo but went to 
FEMA for assistance instead.[Footnote 49] Although FTA had the 
authority to respond, and the transit agency official said that he 
preferred to go to FTA, FTA had no funding for any event outside of 
Hurricane Sandy and could not assist. In the future, agencies may 
continue to receive transit funding from FTA in one disaster and from 
FEMA in another. However, if a significant transit disaster occurs in 
the future and FTA funds are not enough to address the damage, transit 
agencies could go to FTA to fund some of their repairs and to FEMA to 
fund others, which could increase confusion and the chance that 
similar activities could be funded by both agencies inadvertently.

Furthermore, if FTA ultimately does receive supplemental funding after 
a specific emergency or disaster, transit agencies that receive 
assistance may have to change their application for emergency funds 
mid-stream from FEMA to FTA. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane 
Sandy, FTA and FEMA officials were uncertain as to which agency would 
ultimately fund recovery efforts for transit. Transit agency officials 
affected by the storm said that at first, they were using FEMA 
worksheets to document their expenses. However, 3 months after the 
storm--after FTA received an appropriation under DRAA and became the 
primary payor of expenses--transit agencies had to re-do their 
paperwork. For example, one transit agency official told us that he 
put together a lot of documentation after Hurricane Sandy to receive 
funds from FEMA, documentation that was not necessary when the process 
changed to FTA. Another transit agency official told us that the 
requirements for FEMA's and FTA's programs are different and as a 
result, the agency had to make a change from ensuring FEMA's 
requirements were met in the application process to ensuring that 
FTA's requirements were met. Since FEMA's and FTA's programs have 
different statutory requirements, the agencies are limited in creating 
standardized procedures that would meet the requirements of both 
programs. Thus, transit agencies may be uncertain which program 
requirements they must meet until recovery efforts are well under way, 
as was the case with Hurricane Sandy.

FTA and FEMA Could Take Additional Steps to Help Ensure Effective 
Collaboration: 

Because FTA and FEMA face challenges assuming definitive and stable 
roles and responsibilities, it is especially important that they 
collaborate effectively. Among the practices that we have identified 
that can enhance and sustain the collaborative efforts of federal 
agencies is creating a means to monitor, evaluate, and report the 
results of collaborative efforts to better identify areas for 
improvement. Reporting on these activities can help key decision 
makers within the agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders, to 
obtain feedback for improving both policy and operation effectiveness. 
[Footnote 50] We have identified implementation approaches among 
agencies that successfully monitored progress including developing 
performance measures and tying them to shared outcomes, identifying 
and sharing relevant agency performance data, developing methods to 
report on the group's progress that are open and transparent, and 
incorporating interagency group activities into individual performance 
expectations.[Footnote 51]

FTA and FEMA have not implemented a method to monitor or evaluate 
their collaborative efforts or report on how well they are working. 
Instead, FTA and FEMA officials have noted that they meet regularly 
and notify each other of all grant awards to prevent duplication of 
DRAA funding. However, we have reported in the past that routine 
interagency meetings can be dutifully attended without communicating 
any substantive information. Thus, simply meeting does not guarantee 
that collaboration is effective.[Footnote 52] Further, while FTA and 
FEMA officials state that they are collaborating now on the 
distribution of DRAA funds, it is unclear how the agencies might work 
together during future disasters. For example, the memorandum of 
agreement that MAP-21 required stated that "FTA and FEMA will work 
together to develop a communications protocol and implement an 
effective communications program to ensure all interested parties are 
aware of their respective responsibilities for emergency preparedness, 
response, and recovery related to public transportation matters." FTA 
and FEMA officials stated that their informal meetings to discuss DRAA 
funding serve as the communications protocol identified in the 
memorandum of agreement. FTA officials told us that they do not have a 
communications protocol for anything beyond DRAA funding, because they 
do not have funding outside of DRAA. However, the requirement to 
develop the memorandum of agreement to improve coordination was 
intended to frame the relationship of FTA and FEMA going forward to 
address transportation emergency activities, not just one disaster. 
Further, without a means to monitor, evaluate, and report the results 
of collaborative efforts--including FTA's and FEMA's communication 
program and protocols--it is unclear how FTA and FEMA officials would 
know if their collaborative methods were effective. In a future 
disaster, informal meetings between FTA and FEMA may not be sufficient 
to ensure that effective collaboration is taking place, particularly 
if both agencies are funding public transportation activities.

Conclusions: 

The scope of activities eligible for transportation emergency relief 
has expanded over time to include funding resiliency efforts that 
repair and restore facilities beyond pre-disaster conditions. FTA's 
new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program was designed to be 
more flexible when funding resiliency compared to existing disaster-
relief programs within FHWA and FEMA, although the scope of activities 
eligible for funding under those programs have expanded as well. 
Furthermore, the DRAA provided, through FTA, a significant investment 
in resiliency and protection against future disasters and funding well 
beyond (almost twice as much as) the repair and recovery needs of New 
York and New Jersey, as well as significant flexibility on how to 
provide those funds to areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Going 
forward, as FTA begins awarding funding for resiliency projects 
through DRAA, the scope of these projects may exceed costs of projects 
that have previously been funded through historically established 
emergency relief programs in FHWA and FEMA. Resiliency funding can 
represent an efficient use of funds that avoids the need for repair 
and recovery from future disasters. We have reported on the need to 
build resiliency into infrastructure decision making and the 
challenges of doing so. However, expanding the scope of activities 
eligible for transportation emergency relief can pose challenges to 
providing long-term sustainable funding for disasters. As we have 
previously reported, the amount of emergency relief funding available 
is limited in an austere budget environment and may not be sustainable 
if federal disaster costs continue to increase. As the scope of 
eligible activities for emergency relief funding continues to expand, 
additional demands are placed on emergency relief funding further 
exacerbating the problem of longer-term sustainability. Determining 
the appropriate limits on emergency relief eligibility criteria will 
involve trade-offs and require weighing competing demands in the 
current budget environment. We have made recommendations in the past 
on this matter and are therefore not making new recommendations in 
this report.

Looking beyond Hurricane Sandy relief, FTA's Public Transportation 
Emergency Relief Program is inherently limited by its inability to 
fund any activities--recovery or resiliency--without specific 
congressional action. This limitation has two notable effects. First, 
FTA cannot immediately respond to disasters involving transit when 
they occur, such as providing a "quick release" of funds to transit 
agencies, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina. Second, FTA and FEMA 
are limited in their ability to clearly delineate the responsibilities 
and costs each agency will assume during future disasters. As a 
result, FTA's and FEMA's programs will continue to have the authority 
and potential to fund the same transit activities, fostering confusion 
and difficulties for applicants seeking federal assistance in the days 
after a disaster. This confusion could be exacerbated if a future 
transit disaster occurred and FTA funding was not sufficient to 
address recovery needs without FEMA funds and transit agencies had to 
go to both agencies for the same disaster. Over time, the decision to 
provide funding authority to any particular agency has proved 
difficult and the broader challenges of funding disasters involves 
trade-offs and requires weighing competing demands. In the meantime, 
FTA and FEMA can take steps to ensure that within the scope of 
activities they can control, their collaborative efforts are working. 
Although the agencies have a memorandum of agreement, FTA and FEMA 
have not developed any means to monitor, evaluate or report on their 
collaboration. Furthermore, should FTA receive regular, ongoing 
funding sometime in the future, then it and FEMA could take action to 
more clearly delineate roles and responsibilities and identify the 
costs each agency should assume.

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security direct the Administrators of FTA and FEMA to 
establish specific guidelines to monitor, evaluate, and report the 
results of collaborative efforts--including their communications 
program and protocol--for Hurricane Sandy as well as future disasters.

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and DHS for its review and 
comment. DHS agreed with our recommendation and DOT took no position. 
DHS and DOT each provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland 
Security. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

David Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines 1) the progress the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) has made allocating, obligating, and disbursing the Disaster 
Relief Appropriations Act , 2013 (DRAA) surface transportation funds; 
2) how the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) new emergency relief 
program compares to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 
and Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) emergency relief programs; 
and 3) the extent to which FTA and FEMA have implemented their 
memorandum of agreement to coordinate their roles and responsibilities 
when providing assistance to transit agencies affected by Hurricane 
Sandy or future disasters.

To address all three objectives, we reviewed and analyzed relevant 
laws and regulations and our previous reports. We interviewed 
headquarters officials responsible for emergency relief programs and 
budgeting at FEMA, FTA, FHWA, and the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA). We also interviewed FTA regional officials responsible for 
emergency transit relief in New York and New Jersey, spoke with New 
York state officials and obtained background on the effects of 
Hurricane Sandy, and observed residual damage to transit facilities in 
New York and New Jersey. We interviewed officials from seven of the 13 
local transit agencies that received grants from FTA.[Footnote 53] We 
selected the transit agencies that received FTA's four largest funding 
allocations (all located within New York and New Jersey), as well as 
three agencies that received smaller funding allocations outside of 
New York and New Jersey. While our observations of these agencies 
provide key insights and illustrate FTA's emergency transit relief 
grant process, the results of our review should not be used to make 
generalizations about all FTA emergency transit relief grants. We also 
interviewed Amtrak--the sole grantee that received emergency relief 
grants from FRA (funds that had been transferred from FTA).[Footnote 
54] We did not interview FHWA grantees, as they did not receive any 
transferred FTA funds.

To determine the progress DOT has made allocating, obligating, and 
disbursing DRAA surface transportation funds from March 2013 to April 
2014, we obtained and analyzed the financial information from DOT's 
surface transportation agencies (FTA, FHWA, and FRA) on Hurricane 
Sandy relief allocations, obligations, and disbursements. We also 
reviewed the FTA's Hurricane Sandy damage assessment of public transit 
agencies and the 2012 Congressional Budget Office analysis of the DRAA 
as well as FTA's announcements of Hurricane Sandy disaster relief 
availability of funds, interim rules, and allocations of funds 
published in the Federal Register. To access the reliability of the 
data we reviewed relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable 
officials, and reviewed internal controls. We found the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine how FTA's new emergency relief program compares to FEMA's 
and FHWA's emergency relief programs, we interviewed headquarters 
officials responsible for emergency relief programs at FTA, FHWA, and 
FEMA.[Footnote 55] In addition, we reviewed and analyzed applicable 
authorizing legislation for emergency relief programs for 
FEMA,[Footnote 56] FTA,[Footnote 57] and FHWA.[Footnote 58] We also 
reviewed and analyzed emergency relief program regulations, 
procedures, guidance, and other agency documents on emergency relief 
at FEMA, FTA, and FHWA to determine similarities and differences 
between the programs' eligibility rules and requirements (see table 
4). Finally, we reviewed independent reports on budgeting for 
emergency relief,[Footnote 59] and our past reports on emergency 
relief efforts.[Footnote 60]

Table 4: Agency Guidance Reviewed: 

Source: Department of Homeland Security, FEMA; 

Guidance reviewed: 
FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide, June 2007; 
FEMA 323 Applicant Handbook, March 2010; 
FEMA 321 Public Assistance Policy Digest, January 2008; 
FY 2013 508 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance Unified Guidance, 
(July 12, 2013); 
Final Addendum to the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance, 
(July 12, 2013).

Source: Department of Transportation, FTA; 

Guidance reviewed: 
Notice of Availability of FTA Emergency Relief Funds in Response to 
Hurricane Sandy, 78 Federal Register 8691 (Feb. 6, 2013); 
Notice of Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds 
in Response to Hurricane Sandy, 78 Fed. Reg. 19357 (March 29, 2013); 
Issuance of Interim Final Rule, FTA Emergency Relief Program, 78 
Federal Register 19136 (March 29, 2013); 
Notice of Second Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief 
Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy: Response, Recovery and 
Resiliency, 78 Federal Register 32296 (May 29, 2013); 
Transit Emergency Relief Program, Disaster Relief Appropriations Act 
of 2013, Grant Making and Grant Management Toolkit, (Apr. 12, 2013); 
Notice of Funding Availability for Resilience Projects in Response to 
Hurricane Sandy, 78 Fed. Reg. 78486 (Dec. 26, 2013). 

Source: Department of Transportation, FHWA; 

Guidance reviewed: 
Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), (May 31, 2013); 
A Guide to the Federal-Aid Highway Emergency Relief Program, (Nov. 5, 
2012). 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

To determine the extent to which FTA and FEMA have implemented their 
memorandum of agreement to coordinate their roles and responsibilities 
when providing assistance to transit agencies affected by Hurricane 
Sandy or future disasters, we reviewed and analyzed the mandated 
memorandum of agreement between FTA and FEMA dated March 4, 2013 and 
compared the agencies' efforts to practices that we have found can 
enhance collaboration among federal agencies.[Footnote 61] We 
evaluated the extent to which the memorandum of agreement defined 
roles and responsibilities, assigned costs, specified a system for 
monitoring and evaluating collaborative efforts, and established 
communication protocols. We developed a list of evaluation questions 
based upon the requirements of FTA's Public Transportation Emergency 
Relief Program authorization in MAP-21 and funding requirements in 
DRAA. Three GAO team members independently analyzed the memorandum of 
agreement. The analyses were then consolidated and agreed to by the 
team members and reviewed by the GAO team's Assistant Director. We 
also reviewed the DOT OIG report on FTA's oversight of emergency 
relief funds for coordination between FTA and FEMA for transit relief 
grants.[Footnote 62]

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

May 12, 2014: 

David Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-14-512,"Emergency Transportation Relief:
Agencies Could Improve Collaboration Begun During Hurricane Sandy 
Response" 

Dear Mr. Wise: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The draft report contained one recommendation, with which the 
Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary 
of Homeland Security direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) to: 

Recommendation: Establish specific guidelines to monitor, evaluate, 
and report the results of collaborative efforts—including their 
communications program and protocol—for Hurricane Sandy as well as 
future disasters. 

Response: Concur. Throughout the Hurricane Sandy response and recovery 
efforts, FEMA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have worked 
together continuously, including the exchange of applicant and grant 
information, monthly leadership meetings, and regular staff level 
interactions in order to ensure effective implementation of both 
agencies' grant programs and to avoid duplicative funding. FEMA will 
work with FTA to evaluate and develop an after action summary of the 
assistance provided to the Hurricane Sandy impacted states receiving 
both FTA and FEMA funding. Once FTA finalizes its program's 
regulations and policy guidance, FEMA will work with FTA to develop 
specific guidelines to monitor, evaluate and report on projects 
between the programs in future disasters. Estimated Completion Date: 
To Be Determined. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker, CIA, CFE: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant 
Director; Peter DelToro; George Depaoli; Kathy Gilhooly; Michael 
Hanson; Carol Henn; Amy Higgins; David Hooper; Chris Keisling; Hannah 
Laufe, Maria Mercado; Amy Rosewarne; and Kelly Rubin made key 
contributions to this report.

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act, as amended April 2013, establishes the authority under which 
states request a presidential disaster declaration. The act also 
established the programs and process through which the federal 
government provides disaster assistance to state and local 
governments, tribes, and certain nonprofit organizations and 
individuals. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207.

[2] Pub. L. No. 113-2 div. A, 127 Stat. 4 (Jan. 29, 2013). 

[3] The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 
requires that the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland Security 
and Transportation enter a memorandum of agreement to improve 
coordination between the two departments in providing assistance for 
public transportation and expedite the provision of federal assistance 
relating to a major disaster or emergency declared by the President 
under the Stafford Act. Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20017(b), 126 Stat. 
405, 705 (July 6, 2012). FTA and the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) entered into the memorandum of agreement on behalf of 
DOT and DHS respectively.

[4] The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

[5] During the review the team held coordination meetings with the DOT 
OIG. We learned they are conducting an extensive multi-phase review of 
how FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief program is being set 
up and FTA's efforts to ensure that DRAA funds are distributed 
appropriately. Thus, the team made a decision to focus our review on 
how the program is structured compared to previously established 
emergency relief programs in FEMA and FHWA instead of conducting an in-
depth evaluation of FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief 
Program at this time.

[6] According to CBO, this law increased nondefense discretionary 
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 by more than $50 billion and 
defense discretionary appropriations by over $100 million. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 20017(a), 126 Stat 405, 703, codified at 49 
U.S.C. § 5324.

[8] FTA's DRAA appropriation has "no-year authority." No-year 
authority or no-year funding refers to appropriations that do not 
restrict the time by which funds must be obligated. The DRAA requires 
that funds for surface transportation grants be expended by grantees 
within 24 months following the obligation of funds for the grant, 
unless the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
waives the requirement and notifies the congressional Committees on 
Appropriations. On July 9, 2013, OMB waived this requirement for FTA, 
FRA, and FHWA.

[9] 49 C.F.R. § 602.5.

[10] These projects must be authorized under titles 23 or 49 of the 
United States Code, which primarily pertain to highways and bridges, 
and rail and transit, respectively.

[11] The absence of legislation to reduce the federal budget deficit 
by at least $1.2 trillion by fiscal year 2021 triggered the 
sequestration process in section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended. On March 1, 2013, 
the President ordered a sequestration of $85.3 billion in 
discretionary appropriations and direct spending for fiscal year 2013. 
OMB calculated that this would amount to a 5 percent reduction in 
nonexempt nondefense discretionary funding for the fiscal year.

[12] For purposes of this report, "allocated" reflects the amount of 
available funds that have been assigned by DOT to a grantee from which 
grants may be awarded. "Obligated" reflects the amount of funds 
legally committed by DOT to a grantee for awarded grants. "Disbursed" 
reflects the amount of payments that have been made to a grantee. 

[13] In March 2013, FTA allocated $2 billion (less almost $21 million 
to fund expenses for FTA administration and oversight by the DOT OIG) 
to affected recipients for eligible emergency response and recovery 
costs including (1) $576.6 million to reimburse affected transit 
agencies for emergency response and recovery costs incurred or 
budgeted to date and (2) $1.4 billion primarily to the four agencies 
most severely impacted (see table 1) for repair and reconstruction 
projects. These reimbursements are proportional to each agency's 
estimated overall recovery costs. The $1.4 billion includes the FTA 
set-aside of approximately $28 million for other affected agencies 
that may have additional response and recovery expenses not reimbursed 
to date. In May 2013, FTA allocated an additional $3.7 billion to the 
four agencies most severely affected, based on a percentage of the 
anticipated full cost of recovery and rebuilding.

[14] Congressional Budget Office, Estimate of the Disaster Relief 
Appropriations Act, 2013, as Posted on the website of the Senate 
Committee on Appropriations on December 12, 2012 (Washington, D.C.: 
Dec. 12, 2012).

[15] 78 Fed. Reg. 78486 (Dec.26, 2013).

[16] These funds are available for states, local governmental 
authorities, tribal governments, and other FTA recipients within the 
declared Hurricane Sandy disaster area. Entities that provide public 
transportation service and are not current recipients of FTA funding 
are only eligible to receive emergency relief funding as a 
subrecipient of an FTA recipient.

[17] This is defined as areas for which the President declared a major 
disaster under the Stafford Act in response to Hurricane Sandy.

[18] The Notice of Funds Availability defines resiliency projects as 
those projects designed and built to address current and future 
vulnerabilities to a public transportation facility or system due to 
future occurrence or recurrence of emergencies or major disasters that 
are likely to occur in the geographic area in which the public 
transportation is located; or projected changes in development 
patterns, demographics, or climate change and extreme weather patterns. 

[19] In December 2012, the President signed an executive order 
creating the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to ensure that the 
federal government continues to provide appropriate resources to 
support affected State, local, and tribal communities to improve the 
region's resilience, health, and prosperity by building for the 
future. 77 Fed. Reg. 74341 (Dec. 14, 2012). The Task Force is chaired 
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and is comprised of 
representatives from other federal agencies. 

[20] Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding 
Strategy: Stronger Communities, A Resilient Region (Washington, D. C.: 
August 2013).

[21] Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, MH-
2014-008, Federal Transit Administration: Initial Assessment of FTA's 
Oversight of the Emergency Relief Program and Hurricane Sandy Relief 
Funds (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 3, 2013).

[22] The amount of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding available 
to an applicant is based upon the estimated total of Federal 
assistance, subject to the sliding scale formula outlined in section 
5170c(a) of title 42, that FEMA provides for disaster recovery under 
the Presidential major disaster declaration. The formula provides for 
up to 15 percent of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate 
amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10 percent for amounts between 
$2 billion and $10 billion, and up to 7.5 percent for amounts between 
$10 billion and $35.333 billion. For States with enhanced plans--FEMA 
approved state plans identifying policies and actions that can be 
implemented over the long term to reduce risks and future losses--the 
eligible assistance is up to 20 percent for estimated aggregate 
amounts of disaster assistance not to exceed $35.333 billion. 

[23] FEMA may provide discretionary hazard mitigation funding under 
Section 406 of the Stafford Act which refers to FEMA's Public 
Assistance Program. Section 406 is applied to the parts of the 
facility that were actually damaged by the disaster and the mitigation 
measure provides protection from subsequent events. The mitigation 
work must be cost effective and be reasonably performed as part of the 
work or measure that will reduce the potential for damage to a 
facility from a disaster event. In addition, Community Development 
Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds--including Community Development 
Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds may be used for the 
payment of the non-federal share required in connection with a federal 
grant-in-aid program (e.g., the FEMA Public Assistance Program) that 
provides funding for a CDBG-eligible activity.

[24] 49 C.F.R.§ 602.13(C)(5). 

[25] 23 U.S.C. § 120(i)(1)(A).

[26] For some disasters, non-cash contributions referred to as "in-
kind donations" may be credited toward the non-federal share of grant 
costs under FEMA's Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation programs. 
In order for an in-kind contribution to be eligible for the non-
federal share, several conditions must apply such as that the 
contribution be necessary to accomplish the project objectives. 
Examples of in-kind contributions include property, services, 
equipment, and donated materials.

[27] GAO, Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent 
Disasters, and Options for the Future, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243], (Washington D.C.: Feb. 15, 
2008) and GAO, Disaster Recovery: FEMA's Public Assistance Grant 
Program Experienced Challengers with Gulf Coast Rebuilding, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-129] (Washington, D. 
C.: Dec. 18, 2008).

[28] The total cost of a project funded through FHWA's Emergency 
Relief Program may not exceed the cost of repairing or constructing a 
facility that meets the current geometric and construction standards 
required for the types and volume of traffic that the facility will 
carry over its design life. Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 1107, codified at 
23 U.S.C. § 125(d)(2). 

[29] Pub. L. No. 113-2, div. B, 127 Stat. 4, 39-50.

[30] GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address 
Fiscal Imbalance and Long-term Sustainability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245] (Washington D.C.: Feb. 23, 
2007).

[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243]. 

[32] GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could 
Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 
2013).

[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-242].

[34] FEMA has several Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant Programs that 
provide funding for pre-and post-disaster mitigation. Some of FEMA's 
other hazard mitigation programs are not funded by the DRF. These 
programs include the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program and Flood 
Mitigation Assistance. 

[35] For example, the President's Budget Request for the DRF for 
fiscal year 2009 was based on the 5-year average obligational level 
for non-catastrophic disaster activity (less estimates of funds 
carried forward and the amount of funds deobligated in prior years 
that can be used for new obligations for authorized purposes).

[36] Contract authority is the statutory authority to incur 
obligations in advance of an appropriation. Contract authority is 
unfunded, and a subsequent appropriation is needed to liquidate the 
obligation. FHWA obligates funds for a state project once FHWA 
approves a project. Subsequently, FHWA reimburses states out of the 
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund ("Highway Account") or the 
General Fund, depending on the source of funding. Congress can and has 
provided FHWA with supplemental appropriations, such as the DRAA, 
which are not funded through the Highway Trust Fund. The FHWA 
Emergency Relief Program is a reimbursable program--meaning FHWA 
reimburses the state for the federal share of the cost of the 
completed work assuming all federal requirements are met. 

[37] 23 U.S.C. § 125.

[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243].

[39] We also presented other options for Congress to consider such as 
1) making permanent the temporary authorities that FTA was given to 
respond to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes and (2) incorporating 
transit assistance as an eligible activity within FHWA's Emergency 
Relief Program. We also found that at the local and state level, 
mutual aid agreements between states and others can direct needed 
resources to transit agencies following a disaster. 

[40] FEMA's Public Assistance Program does have an expedited payment 
process for debris removal and emergency protective measures. Under 
this process, FEMA will make payments for these activities within 60 
days of completion of the estimated preliminary damage assessment and 
no later than 90 days after the pre-application was submitted. 
However, this funding is only available on a project-by-project basis, 
and FEMA is only able to release less than $1 million. Funding beyond 
$1 million would require OMB and congressional approval. 

[41] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington. D.C.: February 
2013). 

[42] GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to 
Assess a Jurisdiction's Capability to Respond and Recover on its Own, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-838] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 12, 2012). 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245]. In order to 
help put the FHWA Emergency Relief Program on a sustainable and more 
sound financial footing, we recommended among other things, that FHWA 
should, within its authority, tighten eligibility standards, recapture 
unused funds, and seek rescission of unneeded funds. 

[44] GAO, Supplemental Appropriations: Opportunities Exist to Increase 
Transparency and Provide Additional Controls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-314], (Washington D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2008).

[45] Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson et al., The Moment of Truth, Report 
of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform 
(December 2010).

[46] CRS, Disaster Relief Funding and Supplemental Appropriations for 
Disaster Relief, CRS Report, R40708 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 5, 2013). 

[47] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: October 
2005). 

[48] 49 U.S.C.§ 5324(c)(2).

[49] The President made major disaster declarations in the states of 
New Hampshire on March 19, 2013; Connecticut on March 21, 2013; Rhode 
Island on March 22, 2013; Maine on March 25, 2013; Massachusetts on 
April 19, 2013; and New York on April 23, 2013. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15].

[51] GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to 
Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups , [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-220] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 
2014). 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15].

[53] New Jersey Transit Corporation, Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey, New York City Department of Transportation, New York 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 
Authority, and Milford Connecticut Transit District.

[54] The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

[55] During the review the team held coordination meetings with the 
DOT OIG. We learned they are conducting an extensive multi-phase 
review of how the FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 
is being set up and FTA's efforts to ensure that DRAA funds are 
distributed appropriately. Thus, the team made a decision to focus our 
review on how the program is structured compared to previously 
established emergency relief programs in FEMA and FHWA instead of 
conducting an in-depth evaluation of FTA's Public Transportation 
Emergency Relief Program at this time.

[56] 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170, 5170c, 5172; 44 C.F.R. Part 206.

[57] 49 U.S.C. § 5324; 49 C.F.R. Part 602. 

[58] 23 U.S.C. §125 ; 23 C.F.R. Part 668. 

[59] Congressional Research Service, Disaster Relief Funding and 
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief, August 5, 2013 and 
Erskine Bowles, Alan Simpson et al., The Moment of Truth, Report of 
the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (December 
2010).

[60] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243].

[61] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15].

[62] Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General Audit 
Report, Initial Assessment of FTA's Oversight of the Emergency Relief 
Program and Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds, Federal Transit 
Administration, Report Number: MH-2104-008, (Washington, DC, Dec. 3, 
2013).

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]