37760 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

and expeditious receipt and 

consideration of comments, USTR has 

arranged to accept on-line submissions 

via http://www.regulations.gov. To 

submit comments via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter docket 

number USTR–2009–0021 on the home 

page and click ‘‘go’’. The site will 

provide a search-results page listing all 

documents associated with this docket. 

Find a reference to this notice by 

selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document 

Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link 

entitled ‘‘Send a Comment or 

Submission.’’ (For further information 

on using the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site, please consult the resources 

provided on the Web site by clicking on 

‘‘How to Use This Site’’ on the left side 

of the home page.) 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site provides the option of making 

submissions by filling in a ‘‘General 

Comments’’ field, or by attaching a 

document. We expect that most 

submissions will be provided in an 

attached document. If a document is 

attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See 

attached’’ in the ‘‘General Comments’’ 

field. 

Submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) 

or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) are preferred. If 

you use an application other than those 

two, please identify the application in 

your submission. For any comments 

submitted electronically containing 

business confidential information, the 

file name of the business confidential 

version should begin with the characters 

‘‘BC’’. Any page containing business 

confidential information must be clearly 

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ 

on the top of that page. If you file 

comments containing business 

confidential information you must also 

submit a public version of the 

comments. The file name of the public 

version should begin with the character 

‘‘P’’. The ‘‘BC’’ and ‘‘P’’ should be 

followed by the name of the person or 

entity submitting the comments. If you 

submit comments that contain no 

business confidential information, the 

file name should begin with the 

character ‘‘P’’, followed by the name of 

the person or entity submitting the 

comments. Electronic submissions 

should not attach separate cover letters; 

rather, information that might appear in 

a cover letter should be included in the 

comments you submit. Similarly, to the 

extent possible, please include any 

exhibits, annexes, or other attachments 

to a submission in the same file as the 

submission itself and not as separate 

files. 

We strongly urge submitters to use 

electronic filing. If an on-line 

submission is impossible, alternative 

arrangements must be made with Ms. 

Blue prior to delivery for the receipt of 

such submissions. Ms. Blue may be 

contacted at (202) 395–3475. General 

information concerning the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative may 

be obtained by accessing its Internet 

Web site (http://www.ustr.gov). 

Carmen Suro-Bredie, 

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. 

[FR Doc. E9–17798 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W9–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2009–0036] 

Additional Proposed Guidance for New 

Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures and Request for 

Comments for 2009 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed guidance; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice includes, and 

requests comments on, additional 

Proposed Guidance on New Starts/ 

Small Starts Policies and Procedures. 

This guidance continues FTA’s efforts to 

streamline and simplify the New and 

Small Starts programs. The notice: (1) 

Proposes modifications to the 

evaluation and rating process; (2) 

clarifies existing policies; and (3) 

solicits public feedback on potential 

changes to FTA’s internal practices for 

the New and Small Starts programs. 

Please note this guidance is in addition 

to, and distinct from, the guidance on 

New Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures published concurrently in 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

DATES: Comments on the additional 

Proposed Guidance on New Starts/ 

Small Starts Policies and Procedures 

must be received by August 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

comments—identified by the docket 

number FTA–2009–0036—by any of the 

following methods: 

Web site: http://regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 8:30 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Federal Transit 

Administration) and the docket number 

(FTA–2009–0036). You should submit 

two copies of your comments if you 

submit them by mail. If you wish to 

receive confirmation that FTA received 

your comments, you must include a 

self-addressed stamped postcard. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to the Federal 

Government Web site located at http:// 

regulations.gov. This means that if your 

comment includes any personal 

identifying information, such 

information will be made available to 

users of the Web site. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice includes, and requests comments 

on, additional Proposed Guidance on 

New Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures. This guidance continues 

FTA’s efforts to streamline and simplify 

the New and Small Starts programs. 

This guidance is in addition to, and 

distinct from, the Final Guidance on 

New Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures published concurrently in 

this issue of the Federal Register. After 

reviewing and considering public 

comment on the guidance proposed 

below, FTA intends to publish 

Supplemental Final Guidance on New 

Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures, which will take effect 

immediately upon publication. Projects 

approved into final design within 30 

days of issuance of the Supplemental 

Final Guidance or prior to its issuance 

will not be affected in accordance with 

the policy established by FTA in 2006 

so as to provide more stability for New 

Starts projects far along in the project 

development process. 

Organization 

This notice covers three topic areas: 

(1) Proposed policy changes; (2) 

clarification of existing policies and 

procedures; and (3) potential changes to 

FTA internal practices for managing the 

New Starts and Small Starts program. 

This notice fully articulates the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37761 

proposed guidance; the guidance will 

also be made available on the docket at 

http://regulations.gov and on FTA’s 

public Web site at http:// 

www.fta.dot.gov/planning/ 

planning_environment_5221.html. 

Proposed Policy Changes 

1. Local Financial Commitment Rating 

FTA proposes to eliminate the policy 

of considering the degree to which a 

project employs innovative contractual 

agreements in the evaluation and rating 

of the operating financial plan under the 

local financial commitment criterion. 

In 2007, FTA implemented policy 

guidance stating that when evaluating 

local financial commitment it would 

consider the degree to which a project 

employs innovative contractual 

agreements. Specifically, FTA stated it 

would increase the operating financial 

plan rating (from ‘‘medium’’ to 

‘‘medium-high’’ or from ‘‘medium-high’’ 

to ‘‘high’’) when project sponsors 

provide evidence that the operations 

and maintenance of the project will be 

contracted out or when there is 

evidence that an opportunity had been 

given for contracting out but the project 

sponsor had substantive reasons for not 

doing so. FTA has determined that the 

type of contracting arrangement used or 

considered by a project sponsor is not 

useful or appropriate in determining the 

strength of the overall project. Thus, 

FTA proposes to eliminate 

consideration of it in evaluating and 

rating the operating financial plan. 

This change would apply to New 

Starts projects, as well as to any Small 

Starts or Very Small Starts projects that 

do not qualify for the streamlined local 

financial commitment evaluation 

enumerated in FTA’s Updated Interim 

Guidance on Small Starts. 

2. New Starts and Small Starts Other 

Factors Criterion 

FTA proposes to be less prescriptive 

on the items considered under the 

‘‘Other Factors’’ criterion so as to better 

accommodate all of the unique project 

characteristics or circumstances that 

may justify special treatment in the 

evaluation of a project. 

Existing FTA policy guidance calls 

out specific items for consideration and 

rating as ‘‘other’’ factors (e.g., whether 

the project is a principal element of a 

congestion management strategy for the 

region, ‘‘make-the-case’’ documents, 

reliability of data). FTA proposes not to 

emphasize specific items it will 

consider when determining whether to 

modify a project’s rating based on 

‘‘other’’ factors pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

5309(d)(3)(K) and 49 U.S.C. 

5309(e)(4)(E). Rather, anything related to 

the project deemed appropriate by FTA 

under the discretion granted to it in 

statute can be considered under ‘‘other’’ 

factors on a project-by-project basis. 

Thus, FTA proposes to no longer call 

out congestion management strategies 

with automobile pricing schemes in 

particular or the contents of a ‘‘makethe-case’’ document as items it will 

specifically consider or formally rate as 

‘‘other’’ factors. Under this proposal, 

project sponsors would be free to submit 

information on these items voluntarily 

to assist FTA in its overall evaluation 

and rating of the project, but would not 

be required to submit the information. 

In addition, FTA proposes to no longer 

formally and explicitly rate the 

reliability of information provided on 

costs and travel forecasts, but will still 

consider reliability of the data as an 

‘‘other’’ factor when determining 

whether the project justification rating 

should be changed. 

3. New Starts Project Planning Horizon 

Year 

FTA proposes to allow New Starts 

project sponsors to use the adopted 

planning horizon forecast year of the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) to estimate project ridership, 

transportation system user benefits, and 

operations and maintenance costs. 

Since 2005, FTA has required project 

sponsors to submit information on 

ridership, transportation system user 

benefits, and operations and 

maintenance costs based on forecasts 

representing conditions in 2030. 

Because many MPOs have now moved 

to a horizon year of 2035, FTA will 

allow project sponsors to submit 

information consistent with the MPO’s 

adopted planning horizon year, whether 

it is 2030 or 2035. Project sponsors may 

only use a 2035 planning horizon year 

if it has been officially adopted by the 

MPO. 

Because of the timing of this guidance 

relative to the annual review of projects 

conducted in support of preparing 

FTA’s Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations, this policy, if 

adopted, would not go into effect until 

March 2010. 

This proposed change does not 

impact potential Small Starts or Very 

Small Starts projects, since they submit 

information based on the opening year 

of the project rather than a forecast year. 

Clarification of Existing Policies 

1. New and Small Starts Documentation 

of Uncertainties 

In August 2008, FTA adopted a policy 

to require predictions of capital costs 

and project ridership for the locally 

preferred alternative to be expressed as 

ranges with accompanying explanations 

of the contributing sources of 

uncertainty that bracket the range. FTA 

reminds project sponsors that this 

policy will not be implemented until six 

months after FTA issues separate 

guidance concerning this provision, 

which has not yet been published. As 

such, the requirement is not yet in 

effect. 

2. Alternate Ridership and 

Transportation System User Benefits 

Estimation Methods for New Starts and 

Small Starts 

FTA reminds project sponsors that 

regional travel forecasting models are 

not always required for New or Small 

Starts predictions of ridership and 

transportation system user benefit 

estimates. 

FTA’s evaluation of New Starts and 

Small Starts projects requires estimates 

of ridership and user benefits. These 

estimates are often generated by regional 

travel demand models, which attempt to 

represent existing travel patterns and 

choices in order to predict future travel 

patterns and choices. Under the right 

circumstances, quality data paired with 

straightforward analysis can provide a 

more direct representation of travel than 

a regional model. 

The following paragraph gives a broad 

description and example of the ‘‘right 

circumstances’’ in which data-driven 

approaches may be preferable to a 

regional-model-based approach. 

Approaches outside the broad 

guidelines presented here may also be 

appropriate. Project sponsors should 

contact FTA’s Office of Planning and 

Environment to discuss potential 

analytical techniques when beginning 

an alternatives analysis. 

Data-driven analytical techniques first 

require quality data. Further, the 

corridor should be served by a mature 

transit system in which existing riders 

exhibit a variety of behaviors, including 

travelers choosing transit when a 

reasonable automobile option is 

available (so-called ‘‘choice riders’’). 

Extensions of existing rail projects 

typically offer an excellent opportunity 

to use data-driven, incremental 

techniques. For example, a two-mile 

extension of a heavy rail line from the 

outer-most suburban station. If a large 

number of transit riders currently travel 

to the existing outer-most station by bus 

from the surrounding neighborhood and 

by car from more distant suburbs, an 

extension of the rail system would 

likely represent an incremental 

improvement to the transit trips in these 

two well-established travel markets. An 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37762 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

incremental, data-driven approach 

might well be preferred over a regional 

model-based approach under these 

types of circumstances. Several Small 

Starts projects have already used 

simplified, data-driven analytical 

techniques to estimate ridership and 

user benefits. FTA welcomes New Starts 

project sponsors to use similar 

techniques as appropriate. 

Changes to Internal FTA Practices 

FTA invites comment on certain 

changes the agency is considering to its 

own internal practices, described below. 

Any adoption of these changes would 

not require public notice-and-comment 

per 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(A), but FTA 

welcomes any opinions or suggestions 

whether these proposed changes would 

help improve FTA’s management of the 

New Starts program. 

1. Expanded Pre-Award Authority and/ 

or Expanded Use of Letters of No 

Prejudice 

FTA is considering expanding the 

activities covered by ‘‘automatic’’ preaward authority upon completion of the 

requirements under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/ 

or expanding the circumstances under 

which FTA will issue Letters of No 

Prejudice (LONPs). Both approaches 

strive to expedite project delivery by 

allowing project sponsors to undertake 

activities covered by the pre-award 

authority or LONP with non-Federal 

sources while maintaining eligibility for 

future Federal reimbursement should an 

award be forthcoming. Neither preaward authority nor an LONP is a 

guarantee of future Federal funding. 

Thus, project sponsors should 

understand they undertake the activities 

at their own risk. 

Current FTA practice limits automatic 

pre-award authority for New and Small 

Starts projects to the following: 

• Upon FTA approval to enter 

preliminary engineering (PE), FTA 

extends pre-award authority to incur 

costs for PE activities; 

• Upon FTA approval to enter final 

design, FTA extends pre-award 

authority to incur costs for final design 

activities; and 

• Upon completion of the NEPA 

process, FTA extends pre-award 

authority to incur costs for the 

acquisition of real property and real 

property rights. 

FTA is considering expanding the 

activities covered by automatic preaward authority at the completion of 

NEPA to include procurement of items 

such as vehicles, rails and ties, etc., that 

are long-lead time items or items for 

which market conditions play a 

significant role in the acquisition price. 

FTA reminds the public that local 

funds expended by the project sponsor 

pursuant to and after the date of the preaward authority are eligible for credit 

toward local match or reimbursement 

only if FTA later makes a grant or grant 

amendment for the project. Local funds 

expended by the project sponsor prior to 

the date of the pre-award authority are 

not eligible for credit toward local 

match or reimbursement. Furthermore, 

the expenditure of local funds on 

activities such as land acquisition, 

demolition, or construction prior to the 

completion of the NEPA process would 

compromise FTA’s ability to comply 

with Federal environmental laws and 

may render the entire project ineligible 

for FTA funding. 

Letters of No Prejudice (LONP) also 

allow a project sponsor to incur costs 

using non-Federal resources, with the 

understanding that the costs incurred 

subsequent to the issuance of the LONP 

may be reimbursable as eligible 

expenses or eligible for credit toward 

the local match should FTA approve the 

project for funding at a later date. 

Currently, before considering an 

LONP, FTA determines whether a 

project seeking an LONP is a promising 

candidate for a Full Funding Grant 

Agreement (New Starts) or a Project 

Construction Grant Agreement (Small 

Starts). Typically, New Starts projects 

need to be approved into final design to 

be considered ‘‘promising candidates.’’ 

However, LONP requests have 

occasionally been approved by FTA for 

projects prior to entry into final design 

when the LONP is sufficiently justified 

based on the cost or schedule impacts 

of not undertaking the work prior to 

final design. Currently, approval of 

LONPs is determined by FTA on a caseby-case basis. FTA is considering 

expanding the use of LONPs prior to 

project entry into final design but after 

completion of NEPA. Decisions on 

LONPs would still be determined caseby-case based on the justification 

provided by the project sponsor. 

Note that LONPs neither provide 

Federal funds nor constitute a 

commitment that Federal funds will be 

provided in the future. Nonetheless, 

LONPs are often viewed by project 

sponsors and/or other stakeholders as a 

signal of a future Federal commitment 

because FTA does not generally award 

them unless it believes the project to be 

a promising candidate for an FFGA or 

PCGA. Thus, should FTA move to a 

practice of awarding LONPs earlier in 

project development before it has 

sufficient information to know whether 

a project is a promising candidate for an 

FFGA or PCGA, the public should be 

aware that LONPs may no longer serve 

as a signal of a future Federal 

commitment. 

Issued on: July 24, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18096 Filed 7–24–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Advisory Circular 33.87–2, 

Comparative Endurance Test Method 

To Show Durability for Parts 

Manufacturer Approval of Turbine 

Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Parts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory 

circular. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 

33.87–2, Comparative Endurance Test 

Method to Show Durability for Parts 

Manufacturer Approval of Turbine 

Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Parts. 

This AC describes a comparative 

endurance test method to be used for 

certain turbine engine or auxiliary 

power unit parts when manufactured 

under Parts Manufacturer Approval 

(PMA). This method may be used when 

PMA applicants introduce changes that 

could affect the durability of their 

proposed designs. It may also be used 

when an applicant has insufficient 

comparative data to show that the 

durability of their proposed PMA part is 

at least equal to the type design. The 

applicant can use this method when 

requesting PMA under test and 

computation, per part 21 of Title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, and 

using the comparative test and analysis 

approach detailed in Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 8110.42, Part 

Manufacturer Approval Procedures. 

DATES: The Engine and Propeller 

Directorate issued AC 33.87–2 on June 

25, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: 

Karen M. Grant, Engine and Propeller 

Standards Staff, ANE–111, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803–5299; telephone: (781) 238–7119; 

fax: (781) 238–7199; e-mail: 

karen.m.grant@faa.gov. 

We have filed in the docket all 

substantive comments received, and a 

report summarizing them. If you wish to 

review the docket in person, you may go 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES