Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37763 

to the above address between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. If you wish to contact 

the above individual directly, you can 

use the above telephone number or email address provided. 

How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy 

of AC 33.87–2 may be obtained by 

writing to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Subsequent Distribution 

Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC 121.23, 

Ardmore East Business Center, 3341Q 

75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, 

telephone 301 322–5377, or by faxing 

your request to the warehouse at 301– 

386–5394. The AC will also be available 

on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regu1atjpjpplicies (then click on 

‘‘Advisory Circulars’’). 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44704. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

June 25, 2009. 

Peter White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17844 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2009–0009] 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Response to comments; final 

guidance. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to convey the 2009 final guidance on 

New Starts/Small Starts policies and 

procedures. On May 20, 2009, FTA 

announced in the Federal Register the 

availability of proposed guidance and 

requested public comment. FTA 

received a total of 29 comments, 

primarily from transit agencies and 

metropolitan planning organizations, as 

well as cities, advocacy groups, State 

departments of transportation, and other 

interested parties. After reviewing the 

public comments, FTA is issuing final 

guidance, which is included at the end 

of this notice. Please note that FTA is 

concurrently publishing a separate 

notice in today’s Federal Register that 

includes additional proposed guidance 

on the New Starts and Small Starts 

program for public comment. 

DATES: This final guidance is effective 

July 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Day, Office of Planning and 

Environment, telephone (202) 366–5159 

and Christopher Van Wyk, Office of 

Chief Counsel, telephone (202) 366– 

1733. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE., East Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:30 

a.m. to 5 p.m., EST, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Organization 

The proposed guidance issued on 

May 20, 2009 was developed to 

implement the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. 

L. 110–244), which amends 49 U.S.C. 

5309. The guidance covered three 

distinct topics: Proposed weighting of 

project justification criteria and 

evaluative methodology for the 

economic development effects, 

operating efficiencies, and transit 

supportive land use criteria for New 

Starts projects; Proposed weighting of 

project justification criteria and 

evaluative methodology for the 

economic development effects and 

transit supportive land use criteria for 

Small Starts projects; and Proposed 

procedures for considering the benefits 

of project alternatives that include a 

tunnel, as well as certain costs when a 

tunnel is considered but not selected for 

a project. Responses to comments on 

each of these topics are presented 

below. Following the responses, the 

final guidance is articulated in full. 

Response to Comments 

1. New Starts Project Justification Rating 

The SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act directed that the project 

justification criteria for New Starts 

projects be given comparable, but not 

necessarily equal, weights. In the 

proposed guidance, FTA suggested the 

use of the following weights: mobility 

improvements (20 percent); 

environmental benefits (10 percent); 

cost effectiveness (20 percent); operating 

efficiencies (10 percent); economic 

development effects (20 percent); and 

public transportation supportive land 

use (‘‘land use’’) (20 percent). FTA also 

proposed methods for evaluating the 

criteria for economic development 

effects, land use, and operating 

efficiencies. 

Of the 29 respondents, 19 expressed 

general support for FTA’s proposed 

weighting scheme. Of the remaining 

respondents, four did not directly 

address the proposal; three proposed 

minor changes to the weighting scheme 

and three others proposed significant 

changes—modifications to both the 

weighting scheme and the criteria 

measures (two of these three 

respondents proposed identical 

modifications). Each of the six proposals 

suggesting different weighting schemes 

is discussed in the comments and 

responses below. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

reducing the weight on operating 

efficiencies to zero, on the premise that 

the cost effectiveness measure captures 

this criterion, and suggested increasing 

the weight on mobility improvements to 

30 percent. 

Response: FTA formerly used the 

operating efficiencies criterion in 

evaluating projects, but found that the 

measure did not provide meaningful 

distinctions between projects. 

Consistent with the direction in the 

SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act, FTA will evaluate operating 

efficiencies as a stand-alone criterion, 

but, in recognition of the limitation of 

the current measure for this criterion, 

will give it less weight than some of the 

other criteria. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

modifying the distinction between land 

use and economic development by: (1) 

Removing the evaluation of existing 

land use; (2) considering the transit 

supportive plans and policies for 

present and future development as the 

core of the land use evaluation; (3) 

considering the transportation 

performance and impact of land use 

policies in the land use evaluation (e.g., 

parking requirement reductions); and, 

(4) considering the economic 

performance and impact of land use 

policies to economic development (e.g., 

increase in tax base). The respondent 

stated that existing land use is already 

captured by the estimates of ridership 

generated by the travel forecasting 

model. 

Response: For project evaluation and 

rating, FTA uses travel forecasts based 

upon forecast year population and 

employment projections compiled by 

regional metropolitan planning 

organizations, not opening year 

forecasts which would be more 

reflective of existing transit supportive 

land use. FTA considers the existence of 

existing transit supportive land use in 

the corridor to be relevant to the 

understanding of the proposed project 

and a criterion for which credit should 

be given in the evaluation of the project. 

FTA is working with the transit 

community to develop a more robust 

methodology for measuring economic 

development effects and will consider 

the alternative proposed by the 

respondent as it continues that work. 

The proposed measure for economic 

development effects in this guidance is 

intended to be an interim approach, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37764 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

which requires no new data from project 

sponsors, but which will be useful until 

a more robust measure can be 

developed. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

weights of at least 30 percent for cost 

effectiveness and land use and no more 

than 10 percent for each of the other 

criteria. The respondent stated that the 

cost effectiveness criterion clearly 

demonstrates the impact of a project on 

customer travel time and that existing 

land use is a very reliable indicator of 

ridership potential. 

Response: FTA agrees that cost 

effectiveness and existing land use are 

useful measures in assessing projects. 

FTA is, however, assigning less 

disparate weights to all of the project 

justification criteria than the respondent 

suggests, consistent with the direction 

in the SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Correction Act calling for the 

assignment of comparable, but not 

necessarily equal, weights. 

Comments: Two respondents 

proposed changing the criteria weights 

as well as modifying numerous criteria 

measures. Highlights of these responses 

included recommendations to: (1) 

Increase focus on land use, noting that 

the weights proposed by FTA reduce the 

weight of the previously-used land use 

criterion from 50 to 40 percent 

(combining land use and economic 

development effects); (2) gather more 

information and place greater emphasis 

on comprehensive land use and 

transportation strategies that enhance 

the effectiveness of transit projects, 

avoid urban sprawl, and reduce local 

infrastructure costs and produce other 

benefits of compact development 

including reductions in vehicle travel 

and greenhouse gas emissions; (3) 

simplify the mobility improvements (20 

percent weight) measure to consider 

only ridership and benefits to transit 

dependents; (4) consider quantifiable 

reductions in emissions and vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) in the 

environmental benefits criterion (15 

percent); (5) use cost per rider for cost 

effectiveness (10 percent) rather than 

incremental cost per incremental ‘‘user 

benefit;’’ and, (6) use incremental 

system cost per rider for operating 

efficiencies (5 percent). 

Another respondent also suggested 

changes to the criteria weights as well 

as to numerous criteria measures. 

Highlights of the response included 

recommendations to: (1) Reduce the 

mobility improvements weight (10 

percent weight); (2) consider reductions 

in VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions in the environmental benefits 

criterion (15 percent); (3) compute cost 

effectiveness by comparing the project 

to the ‘‘no build’’ alternative rather than 

the ‘‘baseline’’ alternative (25 percent); 

(4) include fare box and other revenue 

recovery considerations in the 

measurement of operating efficiencies 

(10 percent); (5) modify the land use 

evaluation to be more reflective of 

actual land use policies and decisions 

that support transit, including steps 

local governments could take to ensure 

planning and zoning matched the 

proposed transit investment (20 

percent); and, (6) modify the economic 

development effects criterion to 

consider a higher rating for projects that 

include government action to provide 

incentives to encourage economic 

development (20 percent). 

Response: It is not clear from the 

respondents’ comments if their 

proposals for changing the weights are 

independent of the proposals for 

changes in the criteria measures. As 

such, it is difficult to comment on the 

respondent’s proposed changes to the 

weights, other than to note the 

suggestions are relatively minor in 

comparison to those proposed by FTA. 

The respondents’ suggested 

modifications to the criteria measures, 

on the other hand, are not minor. FTA’s 

proposal focused primarily on criteria 

weights. FTA’s proposal also 

distinguished the measures formerly 

used for land use, separating them into 

measures for economic development 

effects and land use because of the 

statutory direction to treat these two 

criteria separately. FTA’s proposal also 

intended to meet the requirements of 

the Technical Corrections Act while 

limiting the amount of new data and 

information required from project 

sponsors at this point in time. FTA will 

continue to consider the suggestions 

provided as it develops future 

performance measures for the project 

justification criteria and future policy 

guidance documents. 

Comments: Eighteen respondents 

noted that the proposed guidance omits 

discussion of whether the funding 

recommendation practice generally 

requiring a ‘‘medium’’ cost-effectiveness 

rating announced in a 2005 ‘‘Dear 

Colleague’’ letter will continue. These 

respondents questioned what impact 

giving comparable weight to each 

project justification criterion will have if 

a single criterion continues to be used 

in general as a go/no-go decision rule in 

funding recommendations. Fourteen of 

these respondents explicitly requested 

that FTA rescind the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ 

letter. 

Response: This final guidance 

describes FTA’s process of evaluating 

and rating proposed projects. It does not 

address the practice generally requiring 

a ‘‘medium’’ cost-effectiveness rating for 

a project funding recommendation, 

announced in the 2005 ‘‘Dear 

Colleague’’ letter. The evaluation and 

rating of the statutory criteria determine 

the eligibility of a project for 

consideration for a funding 

recommendation. The Administration is 

continuing to review the 

appropriateness, efficacy, and impact of 

the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter practice. 

Comments: Seven respondents 

inquired as to whether FTA will 

continue to consider ‘‘other factors’’ in 

the project justification rating, 

specifically the ‘‘case for the project’’ 

document and whether the proposed 

New Starts project is a principle 

element of a congestion management 

strategy in general, and an auto pricing 

strategy, in particular. Four respondents 

recommended that FTA remove the 

provision of improving the rating of 

projects that are part of an auto pricing 

strategy. 

Response: Based on comments 

received and FTA’s own views on the 

use of ‘‘other factors’’, FTA has 

proposed in a concurrent notice 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register changes to its review of ‘‘other 

factors’’. After considering comments 

received on that notice, FTA will 

publish 2009 Supplemental Final Policy 

Guidance. 

2. Small Starts Project Justification 

Rating 

The SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act directed that the project 

justification criteria for Small Starts 

projects be given comparable, but not 

necessarily equal, weights. In the 

proposed guidance, FTA suggested 

using a weight of 33.3 percent to each 

of the Small Starts project justification 

criteria: cost effectiveness, public 

transportation supportive land use 

policies (‘‘land use’’), and economic 

development effects. FTA also proposed 

methods for evaluating the economic 

development effects and land use 

criteria. 

Comments: Of the 29 comments 

received, 16 expressed general support 

for the proposed weighting scheme. Of 

the remaining respondents, ten did not 

directly address the proposal; one 

proposed a minor change to the 

weighting scheme and two others 

proposed identical, significant changes. 

Each of the three proposals for different 

criteria weights is discussed in the 

comments and responses below. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

increasing the weight of the cost 

effectiveness criteria from 33.3 percent 

to 50 percent and reducing the weight 

of the land use and economic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37765 

development effects criteria to 25 

percent each. 

Response: FTA considers its proposed 

weighting of the criteria for Small Starts 

to be more consistent with the 

Technical Corrections Act’s direction 

than the respondent’s proposal. 

Comment: One respondent agreed 

with the weights proposed by FTA 

provided the criteria measures change 

as follows: (1) Land use should require 

more information and place greater 

emphasis on comprehensive land use 

and transportation strategies that 

enhance the effectiveness of transit 

projects, avoid urban sprawl, and 

reduce local infrastructure costs and 

produce other benefits of compact 

development including reductions in 

vehicle travel and greenhouse gas 

emissions; (2) cost per rider should be 

the measure for the cost effectiveness 

criteria; and, (3) meaningful measures of 

economic development effects should 

ultimately be developed. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

a variety of improvements to the New 

Starts measures and for Small Starts 

notes that the same changes should be 

applied, though with an emphasis on 

methods that are easier to report and a 

consideration of only those criteria 

required by statute. 

Response: FTA’s proposal intends to 

meet the requirements of the Technical 

Corrections Act while limiting the 

amount of new data and information 

required from project sponsors. FTA 

currently attempts to use measures for 

Small Starts that are easier to report 

compared to New Starts. FTA will 

continue to consider the suggestions 

provided as it develops future 

performance measures for the Small 

Starts project justification criteria and 

on future policy guidance documents. 

3. Alternatives With Tunnels 

The SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act calls for the analysis, 

evaluation, and consideration of the 

congestion relief, improved mobility, 

and other benefits of transit tunnels in 

projects that include a tunnel, and the 

ancillary and mitigation costs to relieve 

congestion, improve mobility, and 

decrease air and noise pollution in 

projects that do not include a tunnel, 

but where a tunnel was considered. In 

the proposed guidance, FTA suggested 

it would require that alternatives 

analysis studies address these impacts 

of transit tunnels when a tunnel is part 

of a project or was considered during 

the alternatives analysis. FTA proposed 

to ensure that such information was 

addressed during alternatives analysis 

as part of the FTA review of project 

applications for entry into preliminary 

engineering. 

Comments: One respondent requested 

that FTA define ‘‘tunnel’’ to clarify 

when additional analysis is needed, and 

others noted that a complimentary, 

realistic surface option is not always 

available (e.g., commuter rail under 

Manhattan or light rail beneath an 

airport runway). 

Response: Additional analyses are 

required when different vertical 

alignments (i.e., at-grade versus 

underground) of a proposed reasonable 

alternative result in disparate impacts to 

automobile congestion, mobility, air and 

noise pollution, and/or any other 

relevant consideration. 

Comments: Eight respondents noted 

that the Technical Corrections Act 

directs FTA to analyze, evaluate, and 

consider the benefits of tunnels, but the 

proposed guidance does not explain 

how FTA will consider the results of the 

analysis in their ratings. Three 

respondents suggested, in the absence of 

more detailed guidance, that FTA not 

change how tunnels are currently 

considered in the evaluation criteria and 

continue to invite sponsors to use the 

‘‘case for the project’’ document and 

‘‘other factors’’ section of the New Starts 

submissions to highlight the benefits of 

tunnels not captured by the other 

criteria. One respondent suggested 

modifying the cost effectiveness 

measure and project justification rating 

to better account for tunnel options 

compared to non-tunnel options, 

including local traffic and land use 

issues. 

Response: As reflected in the final 

guidance, FTA concurs with the 

suggestion of not changing the current 

evaluation methods. The mobility 

improvements, operating efficiencies, 

land use, economic development effects, 

and cost effectiveness project 

justification criteria capture much of the 

benefits provided by tunnels. 

Additionally, FTA’s consideration of 

‘‘other factors’’, offers project sponsors 

the opportunity to present evidence not 

considered by the aforementioned 

criteria, including mitigation costs 

necessary due to the selection of an 

above-ground alignment. 

Comments: Three respondents 

requested that FTA describe the specific 

analyses FTA expects project sponsors 

to perform to meet this requirement. 

One respondent suggested that the 

screening of alternatives should be a 

local process and that FTA should not 

mandate specific analytical methods. 

Response: FTA is not prescribing 

analysis and evaluation techniques for 

assessing tunnels. Project sponsors are 

free to use methods deemed most 

appropriate for local conditions when 

evaluating the impacts of a tunnel 

option to address the transportation 

problems described in the alternatives 

analysis. FTA’s role is to ensure 

consistency with the direction in the 

Technical Corrections Act and to 

facilitate informed decision making by 

the public and local officials by 

ensuring that the analysis is reasonable. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

extending the consideration of tunnels 

(or no tunnel) to both the preliminary 

engineering stage of project 

development and/or through the final 

environmental impact statement. 

Response: FTA does not wish to 

mandate that a vertical alignment (be it 

tunnel or no tunnel) other than the 

locally-preferred alternative always be 

considered beyond alternatives analysis. 

The purpose of the alternatives analysis 

is for local decision makers to select a 

mode and general alignment—including 

vertical alignment. This decision should 

remain a local one. 

4. Broader Comments on New and 

Small Starts Program 

FTA received numerous comments 

regarding aspects of the New and Small 

Starts programs not explicitly discussed 

in the proposed guidance, including 

some comments that require regulatory 

or legislative changes. For some time 

FTA has been considering many of these 

and other ideas. Consequently, as an 

initial step, FTA is issuing additional 

proposed guidance in this issue of the 

Federal Register aimed at streamlining 

and simplifying the New and Small 

Starts programs. FTA’s efforts to 

streamline will continue in the future 

and the comments summarized below 

will be given consideration moving 

forward. 

Comments: Eight respondents 

suggested that FTA issue a 

comprehensive set of guidance so that 

project sponsors can be fully and 

accurately informed regarding current 

FTA requirements. Such guidance could 

respond to recent actions taken by 

Congress and be open to public 

comment. 

Comments: Four respondents 

suggested changes to the Very Small 

Starts streamlined evaluation 

requirements, specifically: (1) Removing 

the total project cost and cost per mile 

requirements; (2) removing the 

requirements on daily operations and 

number of riders; (3) allowing low-floor 

buses to be purchased as part of an 

agency-wide purchase, rather than as 

part of the project; and, (4) defining 

‘‘substantial long-term corridor 

investment’’ (in a non-fixed guideway 

corridor) per the statute. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37766 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

Comments: Three respondents 

suggested that FTA implement the 

reliability rating change through notice 

and comment rulemaking. 

Comments: Three respondents urged 

FTA to streamline the planning and 

project development process. Another 

asked FTA to completely revamp the 

program. 

Comments: Two respondents 

suggested that FTA change how local 

financial commitment is recognized and 

how local funds can be used. One 

suggested recognizing all of the local 

contributions made in the fiscallyconstrained long-range plan towards a 

new fixed-guideway system when 

considering the financial rating of a 

New Starts project. Another suggested 

allowing for so-called ‘‘deferred local 

match,’’ as well as allowing project 

sponsors that invest more than 20 

percent of total project cost to follow 

local procedures for aspects of the 

project funded with local funds. 

Comments: Besides the previously 

discussed suggestion to change the 

existing practice requiring a ‘‘medium’’ 

cost-effectiveness rating for a project 

funding recommendation, suggestions 

on FTA’s cost effectiveness index 

included: (1) Basing cost effectiveness 

on the amount of the Federal investment 

rather than the total project cost; (2) 

replacing the current cost effectiveness 

measure of cost per hour of 

transportation system user benefit with 

cost per new rider; (3) tying the New 

Starts share to the cost effectiveness 

measure (i.e., the higher the measure, 

the higher the allowable New Starts 

share); and, (4) updating the measure to 

account for inflation. 

Comments: One commenter criticized 

the current measure of environmental 

benefits for being biased against areas 

that are currently less dense but 

growing. Another commenter suggested 

that any environmental benefits 

measure be presented as relative, rather 

than absolute, to avoid biases against 

large cities. 

Comments: Suggestions regarding 

land use issues not mentioned 

previously included: (1) Considering the 

land acquisition to build transitoriented developments differently when 

calculating project cost; and (2) 

modifying the rating to reward 

communities that demonstrate 

implementation of affordable, mixedincome housing preservation and 

expansion policies and community 

planning activities. Criticisms of the 

evaluation of land use included: (1) The 

practice of fixing land use in the 

analysis of the transportation benefits 

associated with the project ignores the 

effect of the project in promoting higher 

density; and, (2) the focus on existing 

land use ignores the inability of density 

to increase without the project in place. 

Comments: Comments on FTA’s 

emphasis on the state of good repair 

included: (1) One respondent requested 

that rebuilding and maintaining aging 

infrastructure be a high priority in the 

next transportation bill; and (2) two 

respondents questioned why FTA rates 

a financial plan for a New Starts project 

that relies on section 5307 formula 

funds or section 5309 fixed guideway 

modernization funds less favorably than 

financial plans that do not rely on these 

sources. 

Comments: Suggestions regarding 

broad program changes included: (1) 

Considering benefits to increasing 

corridor capacity in the project 

justification criteria; (2) splitting the 

program into two categories, new and 

expansion, to allow for a more level 

playing field and balanced funding 

allocation; (3) providing a bonus to 

metropolitan areas that exceed ridership 

expectations; (4) reducing the 

expectations of capital cost and 

ridership estimates at early stages of 

project development; (5) allowing 

flexibility in the timing of when the 

New Starts share is finalized; (6) 

keeping the New Starts process distinct 

from the process required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act; (7) 

working with the Federal Highway 

Administration to develop a uniform 

project development process for multimodal projects; and, (8) expanding 

‘‘warrants’’, such as those used for Very 

Small Starts, to larger projects. 

Final Guidance 

1. New Starts Project Justification Rating 

The project justification rating of a 

project seeking New Starts funding will 

be based on ratings for the following 

criteria with the weights shown in 

parentheses: mobility improvements 

(20%), environmental benefits (10%), 

cost effectiveness (20%), operating 

efficiencies (10%), economic 

development effects (20%), and public 

transportation supportive land use 

(20%). 

FTA’s approach to the measures and 

ratings is to base them on existing 

procedures and information produced 

by project sponsors to the extent 

possible. This allows for their 

immediate implementation because new 

information, along with the additional 

time required for project sponsors to 

develop it, is not required. More 

significant changes have been 

postponed until FTA completes 

development of more robust measures, 

particularly for environmental benefits 

and economic development effects. The 

measures for the mobility 

improvements, environmental benefits, 

and cost effectiveness criteria do not 

change at this time under this guidance. 

The operating efficiencies criterion will 

be evaluated and rated as it was in fiscal 

year 2008 and earlier using the 

incremental difference in system-wide 

operating cost per passenger mile 

between the build and the baseline 

alternatives. To avoid requiring new 

information from project sponsors until 

such time as FTA develops more robust 

measures, the economic development 

effects rating will be based on two of the 

three subfactors previously used to rate 

public transportation supportive land 

use—transit supportive plans and 

policies, and performance and impact of 

policies. The remaining land use 

subfactor previously used—existing 

land use—will be the basis for the 

public transportation supportive land 

use rating. Each of these three 

subfactors, although separated into two 

separate measures, will be evaluated 

and rated as they were previously. 

The rating for each criterion will be 

expressed descriptively as ‘‘low,’’ 

‘‘medium-low,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘mediumhigh,’’ or ‘‘high,’’ with a corresponding 

numerical rating of one to five used in 

aggregation calculations. 

A simple approach was used to 

determine the magnitude of the weights 

of all the project justification criteria, 

but not the simplest. The simplest 

would be to make all weights equal, 

meaning between 16 and 17 percent. 

The lower weights for the 

environmental benefits and operating 

efficiencies criteria acknowledge the 

transit community’s lack of consensus 

about useful, easily reported measures 

for these criteria that can be used to 

meaningfully distinguish between 

projects. 

FTA is conducting research to 

identify useful measures for the 

environmental benefits criterion. 

Likewise, in a Federal Register notice 

published on January 26, 2009, FTA 

issued and sought comments on a 

discussion paper on new, alternative 

ways of evaluating economic 

development effects. FTA is now 

reviewing comments on that paper. 

2. Small Starts Project Justification 

Rating 

The project justification rating of a 

project seeking Small Starts funding 

will be based on ratings for the 

following criteria with the proposed 

weights shown in parentheses: cost 

effectiveness (one third), economic 

development effects (one third), and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37767 

public transportation supportive land 

use policies (one third). 

FTA’s approach to the project 

justification measures for Small Starts is 

identical to that described above for 

New Starts, meaning that they are based 

on existing procedures and information 

produced by project sponsors to the 

extent possible. The measure and rating 

for the cost effectiveness criterion does 

not change under this guidance. The 

measures and ratings for the economic 

development effects and public 

transportation supportive land use 

criteria are identical to those proposed 

for New Starts. The economic 

development effects rating will be based 

on two of the three subfactors 

previously used to rate land use 

(following the data reporting 

simplifications already in place for 

Small Starts projects)—transit 

supportive plans and policies and 

performance and impact of policies. The 

remaining land use subfactor previously 

used—existing land use—will be the 

basis for the public transportation 

supportive land use rating. 

The simplest approach was used to 

determine the magnitude of the weights, 

with all of them weighted equally. 

Projects that qualify for the Very 

Small Starts streamlined evaluation will 

continue to receive an automatic 

‘‘medium’’ rating for project 

justification. 

3. Alternatives With Tunnels 

As a condition of advancement into 

preliminary engineering, FTA requires 

that alternatives analysis studies 

specifically analyze, evaluate, and 

consider the congestion relief, improved 

mobility, and other benefits of transit 

tunnels in those projects that include a 

transit tunnel and the associated 

ancillary and mitigation costs necessary 

to relieve congestion, improve mobility, 

and decrease air and noise pollution in 

those projects that do not include a 

tunnel, but where a transit tunnel was 

one of the alternatives analyzed. 

Additional analyses are required when 

different vertical alignments (i.e., atgrade versus underground) of a 

proposed reasonable alternative result 

in disparate impacts to automobile 

congestion, mobility, air and noise 

pollution, and/or any other relevant 

consideration. FTA will ensure that 

such information has been addressed 

during the alternative analysis of 

projects that considered a tunnel as part 

of the FTA review of project 

applications for entry into preliminary 

engineering. 

The mobility improvements, 

operating efficiencies, land use, 

economic development effects, and cost 

effectiveness project justification criteria 

capture much of the benefits provided 

by tunnels. Additionally, FTA’s 

consideration of ‘‘other factors,’’ 

including the ‘‘case for the project’’ 

document, offers project sponsors the 

opportunity to present evidence not 

considered by the aforementioned 

criteria, including mitigation costs 

necessary due to the selection of an 

above-ground alignment. In evaluating 

the consequences of a tunnel option 

compared to a surface option, project 

sponsors are encouraged to use the full 

range of FTA project justification 

criteria to support local decision making 

during project planning. 

Issued on: July 24, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18092 Filed 7–24–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No FMCSA–1998–4334; FMCSA– 

2000–7006; FMCSA–2000–7363; FMCSA– 

2000–8398; FMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA– 

2003–14223; FMCSA–2003–14504; FMCSA– 

2004–19477; FMCSA–2005–20027; FMCSA– 

2005–20560; FMCSA–2006–26066; FMCSA– 

2007–27333; FMCSA–2007–27515.] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Renewals; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously 

announced its decision to renew the 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations for 29 individuals. FMCSA 

has statutory authority to exempt 

individuals from the vision requirement 

if the exemptions granted will not 

compromise safety. The Agency has 

concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that will be equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety maintained 

without the exemptions for these 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64– 

224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

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

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2- 

year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption.’’ The statute also 

allows the Agency to renew exemptions 

at the end of the 2-year period. The 

comment period ended on July 2, 2009. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received no comments in this 

proceeding. 

Conclusion 

The Agency has not received any 

adverse evidence on any of these drivers 

that indicates that safety is being 

compromised. Based upon its 

evaluation of the 29 renewal 

applications, FMCSA renews the 

Federal vision exemptions for Gary A. 

Barrett, Ivan L. Beal, Johnny A. Beutler, 

Daniel R. Brewer, Darryl D. Cassatt, 

Larry Chinn, Brett L. Condon, Albion C. 

Doe, Sr., William K. Gullet, Daryl A. 

Jester, James P. Jones, Clyde H. Kitzan, 

Larry J. Lang, Spencer E. Leonard, 

Dennis D. Lesperance, John W. Locke, 

Herman G. Lovell, Ronald L. Maynard, 

Donald G. Meyer, William A. Moore, Jr., 

Earl R. Neugebauer, Danny R. 

Pickelsimer, Richard S. Rehbein, 

Bernard E. Roche, David E. Sanders, 

David B. Speller, Lynn D. Veach, Harry 

S. Warren, and Michael C. Wines. 

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

and 31315, each renewal exemption will 

be valid for 2 years unless revoked 

earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will 

be revoked if: (1) The person fails to 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of the exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

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

Issued on: July 21, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–17975 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES