45510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 

Modality of completion Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

response 

Average 

burden per 

response 

(minutes) 

Total annual 

burden 

(hours) 

(i) 20 CFR 411.320; .........................................................................................

SSA–1394; EN Contract Changes .................................................................. 202 1 10 34 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 206,826 ........................ ........................ 110,804 

6. Medical Consultant’s Review of 

Psychiatric Review Technique Form—20 

CFR 404.1520a, 404.1640, 404.1643, 

404.1645, 416.920a—0960–0677. Form 

SSA–3023 is a program evaluation form 

SSA’s regional review component uses 

to facilitate the contract medical/ 

psychological consultant’s review of the 

Psychiatric Review Technique Form 

(PRTF). SSA–3023 records the 

reviewing medical/psychological 

consultant’s assessment of the PRTF. 

The medical/psychological consultant 

only completes form SSA–3023 when 

an adjudicating component’s PRT is in 

the file. SSA requires form SSA–3023 

for each PRT form completed. The 

respondents are medical/psychological 

consultants who review the Psychiatric 

Review Technique Form for quality 

purposes. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 344. 

Frequency of Response: 165. 

Average Burden per Response: 12 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 11,352 

hours. 

Dated: August 28, 2009. 

Elizabeth A. Davidson, 

Director, Center for Reports Clearance, Social 

Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21215 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2009–0036] 

Additional 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 additional 2009 final 

guidance on New Starts/Small Starts 

policies and procedures. On July 29, 

2009, FTA announced in the Federal 

Register the availability of proposed 

guidance and requested public 

comment. FTA received a total of 15 

comments from transit agencies, 

metropolitan planning organizations, 

labor unions, advocacy groups, and 

other interested parties. After reviewing 

the public comments, FTA is issuing 

final guidance, which is included at the 

end of this notice. 

DATES: Unless otherwise stated in this 

notice, this final guidance is effective 

September 2, 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 July 

29, 2009 covered the following three 

topic areas: (a) Proposed policy changes; 

(b) clarification to existing policies and 

procedures; and (c) potential changes to 

FTA internal practices for managing the 

New Starts and Small Starts program. 

This guidance first presents and 

responds to comments for area (a), 

proposed policy changes, for which the 

following three proposed policy changes 

are presented: (1) Local financial 

commitment rating; (2) New Starts and 

Small Starts ‘‘other’’ factors criteria; and 

(3) New Starts project planning horizon 

year. The second section of the guidance 

presents and responds to comments 

regarding area (b), clarification to 

existing policies and procedures, and 

addresses: (1) Documentation of 

uncertainties; and (2) alternate ridership 

and transportation user benefits 

estimation methods. These responses to 

comments are provided to further clarify 

existing policy. The third section of the 

guidance presents and responds to 

comments regarding area (c), potential 

changes to FTA internal practices for 

managing the New Starts and Small 

Starts program, specifically, expanded 

use of pre-award authority and letters of 

no prejudice (LONPs). The fourth 

section presents and responds to 

submitted comments not directly related 

to any of the three areas covered in the 

proposed guidance. Following the 

responses to comments for each of these 

areas, the final guidance and a 

description of changes to FTA internal 

practices are articulated in full. 

Proposed Policy Changes—Response to 

Comments 

1. Local Financial Commitment Rating 

In the proposed guidance, FTA 

suggested eliminating 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. 

Specifically, FTA proposed eliminating 

the policy of increasing the operating 

financial plan rating when project 

sponsors provide evidence that the 

operations and maintenance for the 

proposed 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. 

Of the 15 comments received, 12 

expressed general support for the 

proposal. Of the remaining respondents, 

two did not directly address the 

proposal and one expressed concern 

with the proposal. The latter comment 

is addressed below. 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

public investments in transportation, 

including New Starts and Small Starts 

projects, might trigger reimbursement 

clauses in the public/private contracts 

of competing infrastructure. For 

example, a new light rail line may cause 

automobile commuters to shift from a 

privately operated toll road to public 

transit. Depending on the terms of the 

toll road public/private partnership 

contract, such a shift could trigger a 

reimbursement clause. The commenter 

suggested that the cost of the example 

light rail line should, therefore, include 

the cost of reimbursing the private 

entity operating the example toll road. 

The respondent encouraged FTA to 

rethink this proposal to the extent that 

it would exclude information on the 

existence of infrastructure privatization 

terms that would increase the costs of 

new or improved public transit projects. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 45511 

Response: FTA’s proposal would 

eliminate the policy of increasing the 

operating financial plan rating when a 

project sponsor provides evidence that 

the operations and maintenance of the 

proposed project will be contracted out 

or when there is evidence that an 

opportunity had been given for 

contracting out. The commenter’s 

concern and recommendation deals 

with a different issue, that is, 

reimbursement clauses in the public/ 

private partnership contracts of 

transportation infrastructure and 

inclusion of such reimbursement costs 

in the budget of the proposed project 

that would impact the public/private 

infrastructure project. The proposal 

changes how FTA rates a proposed 

project; it does not address the terms in 

existing contracts for public/private 

partnerships for other transportation 

infrastructure projects. 

2. New Starts and Small Starts Other 

Factors Criterion 

In the proposed guidance, FTA 

suggested being less prescriptive on the 

items considered under the ‘‘other’’ 

factors criterion to better accommodate 

all of the unique project characteristics 

or circumstances that may justify 

special treatment in the evaluation of a 

project. Examples of other factors 

previously highlighted by FTA in earlier 

guidance included whether the project 

was a principal element of a congestion 

management strategy/auto pricing 

strategy, ‘‘make-the-case’’ documents, 

and the reliability of cost estimates and 

ridership forecasts. 

Of the 15 comments received, six 

expressed general support for the 

proposal. Of the remaining respondents, 

six did not directly address the 

proposal, and three expressed concerns 

with specific aspects of the proposal. 

The concerns of the three respondents 

are addressed below. 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

that not formally evaluating and rating 

the reliability of information (as was 

previously scheduled to begin in August 

2009) goes against President Obama’s 

transparency goals. The respondent 

suggested that FTA’s assessment of 

reliability should be communicated in 

an open and clear manner, which is best 

accomplished by assigning an explicit 

rating to the reliability of information as 

opposed to FTA’s proposal of 

considering, but not explicitly rating, 

reliability. The respondent also noted 

that FTA calling out any ‘‘other’’ factors 

does not prevent FTA from also 

considering the unique characteristics 

or circumstances that may justify 

special treatment. 

One other respondent inquired as to 

the rationale for not formally and 

explicitly rating the reliability of 

information provided on costs and 

travel forecasts. The respondent argued 

that it is fundamental to the public good 

that FTA provide independent 

oversight, including assessing the 

reliability of cost estimates and travel 

forecasts. 

One other respondent stated that 

measuring the reliability of project costs 

and ridership has merit and the rating 

procedures should be implemented 

through notice and comment rule 

making. 

Response: If FTA were to formally 

evaluate and rate each of the project 

justification ‘‘considerations’’ listed in 

the Safe, Accountable, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which can 

vary significantly among proposed 

projects, the submittal of information 

would be cumbersome to project 

sponsors and increase FTA review time. 

FTA recognizes that the project 

justification criteria that FTA does 

explicitly rate, while broad, cannot 

always capture the project 

characteristics or circumstances that 

may justify special treatment. In some 

cases, confidence in or concerns with 

the reliability of cost and ridership/user 

benefit estimates may motivate FTA to 

adjust a project’s justification rating. In 

other cases, the positive impacts of the 

project, for example, the consequences 

of project-related compact land use 

development on the capacity, 

utilization, or longevity of other surface 

transportation assets—a project 

consideration listed in 49 U.S.C. 

5309(d)(3)(E)—may motivate FTA to 

adjust a project’s justification rating. 

The proposed guidance suggests not 

dictating which of these considerations 

may be more or less important to all 

projects. Rather, FTA encourages project 

sponsors to submit information germane 

to their proposed project, whether that 

information relates to considerations 

specifically listed in SAFETEA–LU or 

other considerations/factors, for FTA to 

consider in determining a project 

justification rating. 

FTA will continue to perform 

thorough examinations of the cost and 

ridership/user benefit estimates 

submitted in support of New Starts and 

Small Starts projects to ensure the 

estimates are plausible and that the 

methods used generally follow accepted 

practice. Further, FTA will continue to 

consider the reliability of cost and 

ridership/user benefit estimates using 

factors described in the August 2008 

policy guidance, including the track 

record of the project sponsor in 

implementing similar projects within 

budget, and the track record of the 

project sponsor in achieving projected 

ridership after implementing similar 

projects. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that the ‘‘make-the-case’’ document 

requires very little effort to produce 

provided the project sponsor 

understands the justification for the 

proposed project. Further, the 

respondent noted that the document 

helps many project sponsors and the 

public understand the project’s benefits. 

The respondent argued that the 

document should be required. 

Response: FTA agrees that the ‘‘makethe-case’’ document is valuable and 

FTA encourages project sponsors to 

voluntarily prepare and submit the 

document to FTA for the reasons stated 

by the respondent. The document can 

help FTA and the public understand a 

project’s benefits. However, the ‘‘makethe-case’’ documents submitted to FTA 

over the past two years were not 

sufficiently consistent to allow FTA to 

assign ratings; the content and 

presentation varied widely. In an effort 

to streamline and simplify the New 

Starts and Small Starts program, FTA 

does not want to continue to require 

documents that are useful on an 

individual basis, but have not proven 

effective in meaningfully distinguishing 

between competing projects. 

3. New Starts Project Planning Horizon 

Year 

In the proposed guidance, FTA 

suggested, effective March 2010, 

allowing New Starts project sponsors to 

use the adopted planning horizon 

forecast year—provided the year is 

either 2030 or 2035—of the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) to estimate project ridership, 

transportation system user benefits, and 

operations and maintenance costs. 

Of the 15 comments received, six 

expressed general support for the 

proposal. Of the remaining respondents, 

six did not directly address the proposal 

and three either suggested changes or 

requested clarification of the policy 

moving forward. Comments from the 

latter three respondents are addressed 

below. 

Comments: Two respondents 

suggested allowing the use of adopted 

planning horizons more than 25 years 

into the future to allow for additional 

flexibility to those regions which have 

already adopted plans with longer 

planning horizons. Another respondent 

asked if this proposal is intended as a 

short- or long-term practice. 

Response: In acknowledgement of the 

long-term nature of major capital transit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
45512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 

investments, FTA asks New Starts 

project sponsors to estimate project 

ridership, user benefits, and operations 

and maintenance costs for some future, 

horizon year—20 years ‘‘out’’ is the 

adopted standard. By using a standard 

forecast year, FTA can compare projects 

fairly: the benefits provided by Project 

A in 20 years can be compared to the 

benefits provided by Project B in 20 

years. For the next few years, a 20-year 

horizon could reasonably be represented 

by either a 2030 or 2035 forecast. In an 

effort to streamline and simplify the 

New Starts process, FTA proposed 

allowing project sponsors to use the 

same horizon year as the regional 

metropolitan planning organization, 

provided that horizon year is either 

2030 or 2035. This proposal strikes a 

compromise between two agency/ 

program goals: maintaining a level 

playing field nationally and simplifying 

the New Starts process. Allowing 

project sponsors to use horizon years 

beyond 2035, as suggested by the 

respondents, would compromise FTA’s 

ability to evaluate projects fairly. In the 

next few years, FTA expects most 

metropolitan planning organizations 

will adopt a 2035 or later horizon year. 

At a point five years or so in the future, 

FTA may again allow project sponsors 

the option of adopting one of two 

horizon years. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

this proposal be implemented 

immediately, as it allows more 

flexibility for metropolitan planning 

organizations, rather than implementing 

the proposal in March 2010 as proposed 

by FTA. 

Response: Implementing this proposal 

immediately would motivate numerous 

project sponsors who have already 

generated 2030 forecasts required in 

support of information submitted for 

FTA’s fiscal year 2011 Annual Report 

on Funding Recommendations to hastily 

prepare a new set of 2035 forecasts. By 

allowing a delayed implementation, 

FTA is providing sponsors and 

metropolitan planning organizations the 

opportunity to use 2035 forecasts or 

continue to use 2030 forecasts next year. 

Clarification to Existing Policies— 

Response to Comments 

The proposals presented in this 

section are intended to further clarify 

existing policy rather than introduce or 

change policy. 

1. New Starts and Small Starts 

Documentation of Uncertainties 

In the proposed guidance, FTA 

reminded project sponsors that the 

policy adopted in the August 2008 

guidance requiring that predictions of 

capital costs and project ridership for 

the locally preferred alternative be 

expressed as ranges, with accompanying 

explanations of the contributing sources 

of uncertainty, will not be implemented 

until six months after FTA issues 

separate guidance concerning this 

provision. Separate guidance has not 

been published. 

Comments: Three respondents 

expressed concern that, when put into 

place, the documentation of 

uncertainties will increase the reporting 

burden of the project sponsor. These 

respondents note that significant 

oversight tools are currently in place 

and that FTA should give these tools 

time to work before implementing new 

ones. Another respondent suggested that 

expressing cost and ridership 

projections as ranges could be costly 

and time consuming and is unlikely to 

improve the reliability of forecasts. This 

respondent suggested the factors 

contributing to uncertainty be discussed 

in text. 

One other respondent noted the 

difficulty in large, multi-jurisdictional 

metropolitan planning organizations of 

reaching consensus on a single land use 

forecast and suggested it would be very 

difficult to come to consensus on 

alternative high and low land use 

forecasts. 

Two respondents suggested that FTA 

rescind the policy. 

Response: The point of clarification 

that FTA wishes to convey is that FTA 

has not issued guidance requiring that 

predictions of capital costs and project 

ridership be expressed as ranges, 

therefore it is not currently in effect. 

FTA will take into consideration the 

above comments in any future action 

developing guidance on this subject. 

2. Alternate Ridership and 

Transportation System User Benefits 

Estimation Methods for New Starts and 

Small Starts 

In the proposed guidance, FTA 

reminded project sponsors that regional 

travel forecasting models are not always 

required for New Starts or Small Starts 

predictions of ridership and 

transportation system user benefit 

estimates. Under the right 

circumstances, quality data paired with 

straightforward analysis can provide a 

more direct representation of travel than 

a regional model. 

Comment: Two respondents suggested 

FTA compile and share alternate 

ridership and user benefits estimation 

methods best practices. Two other 

respondents suggested FTA provide 

additional information on what 

constitutes adequate data collection 

approaches. 

One other respondent suggested FTA 

be clear about expectations as a failure 

to do so could result in a long and 

confusing cycle of attempts and 

adjustments with no clear endpoint. 

Response: FTA encourages project 

sponsors to discuss potential modeling 

approaches and the data collection 

efforts intended to support those 

modeling approaches early in the 

alternatives analysis process. FTA’s 

Office of Planning and Environment is 

available to discuss the methods used 

by other project sponsors as well as 

provide guidance on data collection 

efforts. 

Comment: One respondent asked FTA 

not to make alternate estimation 

methods mandatory. 

Response: The point of clarification 

that FTA wishes to convey is its 

willingness to work with project 

sponsors on alternate approaches to 

using regional transportation models in 

the appropriate circumstances. The 

clarification to existing policy included 

in the proposed guidance does not make 

alternate estimation methods 

mandatory. 

Changes to Internal FTA Practices— 

Response to Comments 

The changes to internal FTA practices 

described below are not subject to 

public notice-and-comment per 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A). However, FTA here presents 

and responds to comments to clarify the 

intent of the changes to internal FTA 

practices. These changes are further 

discussed below in the section labeled 

‘‘Revised Practices for Pre-award 

Authority and Letters of No Prejudice.’’ 

Expanded Pre-Award Authority and/or 

Expanded Use of Letters of No Prejudice 

The proposed guidance noted that 

FTA was 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). 

Of the 15 comments received, seven 

expressed general support for the 

proposal and eight did not directly 

address the proposal. The comments 

below either elaborate on the general 

support or provide specific ideas for 

expanding the use of pre-award 

authority and LONPs. 

Comments: Two respondents suggest 

that the expanded use of pre-award 

authority and LONPs will help mitigate 

the cost and schedule impacts of delays 

that can be caused by FTA reviews and 

approvals. Another suggests that the 

need to expedite projects far outweighs 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 45513 

any feared consequences of an 

individual sponsor claiming they 

thought they had a guarantee. 

Response: FTA concurs that 

expanding pre-award authority should 

help expedite project delivery. 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

giving pre-award authority for utility 

work and for project management costs 

associated with work conducted under 

pre-award authority. Another 

respondent suggested granting preaward authority to all project activities 

as long as they are covered under a 

completed NEPA process, including but 

not limited to the following timesensitive activities: Land acquisition; 

vehicle procurement; procurement of 

design build and construction 

management/general contractor 

contracts; demolition; rail and ties or 

other special equipment; and, critical 

path construction activities. 

Response: As described in the 

‘‘Revised Practices for Pre-Award 

Authority and Letters of No Prejudice’’ 

section below, FTA agrees that preaward authority for utility relocation 

and vehicle procurement should be 

granted following the completion of the 

NEPA process. FTA already gives preaward authority for land acquisition 

following the completion of NEPA. FTA 

already gives pre-award authority for 

the management tasks necessary to carry 

out activities covered by pre-award 

authority. 

FTA believes that pre-award authority 

for demolition and rails, ties or other 

special equipment should be granted at 

entry into final design rather then after 

the completion of NEPA. Frequently, 

engineering that has been completed 

post-NEPA, but before final design, has 

affected project plans. Furthermore, the 

costs of rails, ties and/or other special 

equipment may be difficult to recover if 

the project were not constructed. 

Consequently, FTA considers it prudent 

to grant pre-award authority for 

demolition and the procurement of rails, 

ties and/or other special equipment 

following entry into final design, when 

more information about the project is 

available and confidence in the project’s 

implementation is higher. 

FTA does not believe that allowing 

pre-award authority for the procurement 

of design-build and construction 

management/general contractor 

contracts prior to final design will 

expedite project delivery. These 

activities are not generally considered to 

have ‘‘long lead times.’’ 

FTA does not consider it prudent to 

grant pre-award authority for ‘‘critical 

path construction’’ activities. This term 

could assume a host of meanings. FTA 

will consider LONPs for ‘‘critical path 

construction’’ activities by a case-bycase analysis of the specific requests. 

Comments: Two respondents suggest 

allowing a project sponsor to use an 

LONP where an entire project has been 

cleared under NEPA and a Record of 

Decision (ROD) or Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 

published and the project sponsor seeks 

to construct an initial segment of the 

project utilizing non-section 5309 funds. 

The respondents note that the entire 

project would have to be evaluated, 

rated, and approved for funding by FTA 

under the New Starts or Small Starts 

program, but that this approach would 

enable local funds to be considered 

‘‘local match’’ for the segment advanced 

under the New Starts or Small Starts 

program. 

Response: Under the proposed 

guidance, FTA sought ways to expedite 

the delivery of New Starts projects, but 

did not intend to suggest using LONPs 

to expedite the delivery of a program of 

projects. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that activities not covered by automatic 

pre-award authority should be given an 

LONP upon request with minimal 

review consisting of determining 

whether or not the activity is covered 

under a completed NEPA process and 

whether the activity would eventually 

be eligible for 5309 New Starts funds. 

Response: FTA generally agrees with 

this comment, with some reservations. 

Please see the ‘‘Revised Practices for 

Pre-Award Authority and Letters of No 

Prejudice’’ section below for a full 

description of FTA’s position on review 

of requests for LONPs. 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

granting LONPs for some final design 

activities during the portion of 

preliminary engineering that occurs 

prior to the completion of NEPA. 

Another respondent suggested granting 

pre-award authority for engineering at 

any level needed to improve cost 

estimates or reduce risks to project 

implementation. 

Response: FTA requires project 

sponsors to ‘‘lock in’’ the amount of 

New Starts funds requested by the 

project at the end of New Starts 

preliminary engineering/entry into final 

design. Consequently, FTA allows 

project sponsors, during New Starts 

preliminary engineering, to do the 

engineering work necessary for the 

sponsor to arrive at a project scope, 

schedule and cost estimate sufficiently 

defined to seek entry into final design. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

establishing a clock for review of LONP 

requests, which should improve the 

predictability of the process, thus 

improving schedule adherence and 

expediting project delivery. 

Response: Under the procedures 

discussed in the ‘‘Revised Practices for 

Pre-Award Authority and Letters of No 

Prejudice’’ section below, pre-award 

authority will be expanded and, 

consequently, the need for LONPs will 

be reduced. In this framework, 

establishing a clock for all LONPs is 

difficult. FTA intends to perform 

limited review of LONP requests of a 

routine nature, especially of those from 

experienced project sponsors. 

Broader Comments on New Starts and 

Small Starts Program—Response to 

Comments 

FTA received several comments 

regarding aspects of the New Starts and 

Small Starts program not explicitly 

discussed in the proposed guidance. 

Comments: One respondent asked 

FTA to consider rescinding and another 

asked FTA to rescind the funding 

recommendation practice generally 

requiring a ‘‘medium’’ cost-effectiveness 

rating announced in the 2005 ‘‘Dear 

Colleague’’ letter. 

Response: The Administration is 

continuing to review the 

appropriateness, efficacy, and impact of 

the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter practice. 

Comments: One respondent asked 

FTA to consider, as a new project 

justification factor, transit trip time as 

compared to driving time. This 

respondent also suggested including 

network connectivity—the degree to 

which a project increases connections 

among regional employment centers—as 

a new project justification factor. 

Response: FTA’s user benefits 

measure implicitly compares transit 

travel time to driving time and reflects 

the connectivity of regional employment 

centers. 

Comment: One respondent expressed 

support for a legislative change which 

would expand the use of early systems 

work agreements to guarantee Federal 

match for clearly defined and necessary 

early work to allow the most efficient 

and expedited implementation of a New 

Starts project. 

Response: As indicated by the 

commenter, expanded use of early 

systems work agreements would require 

legislative change, which is beyond the 

scope of FTA’s proposed changes in 

policy guidance. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

FTA adjust the cost effectiveness index 

upward by considering the value of 

Federal investment in the project, or the 

Federal investment in a program of 

related projects, particularly for phases 

of the same project. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
45514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 

Response: FTA will consider this 

comment, as well as all other comments 

received, as the agency seeks to further 

streamline and simplify the New Starts 

and Small Starts program. 

Final Guidance 

1. Local Financial Commitment Rating 

In 2007, FTA implemented a policy of 

considering the degree to which a 

project employs innovative contractual 

agreements when evaluating local 

financial commitment. Specifically, 

FTA increased the operating financial 

plan rating (from ‘‘medium’’ to 

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

to ‘‘high’’) when project sponsors 

provided 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 eliminates a project sponsor’s use 

or consideration of contracting out 

operations and maintenance when 

evaluating and rating the operating 

financial plan. 

This change applies 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 

described in FTA’s Interim Guidance on 

Small Starts and Very Small Starts. 

2. New Starts and Small Starts Other 

Factors Criterion 

FTA will no longer emphasize 

specific items that 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, FTA 

will consider any factors related to the 

project that it deems appropriate under 

the discretion granted to it in statute. 

FTA will consider these ‘‘other’’ factors 

on a project-by-project basis. 

Thus, FTA will no longer call out 

congestion management strategies, with 

automobile pricing strategies 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 such information. 

In addition, FTA will not formally and 

explicitly rate the reliability of 

information provided on costs and 

travel forecasts, but will still consider 

reliability of the information when 

determining whether the project 

justification rating should be changed. 

3. New Starts Project Planning Horizon 

Year 

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 metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO) 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 

use a 2035 planning horizon year only 

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 FTA’s Annual 

Report on Funding Recommendations, 

this policy does not go into effect until 

March 2010. 

This proposed change does not affect 

potential Small Starts or Very Small 

Starts projects, as they submit 

information based on the opening year 

of the project rather than a forecast year. 

Revised Practices for Pre-Award 

Authority and Letters of No Prejudice 

FTA reminds project sponsors and the 

public that neither pre-award authority 

nor an LONP has ever been a guarantee 

of future Federal funding. Moreover, 

FTA here highlights that contrary to 

past practice, an LONP no longer serves 

as an indicator of a project being a 

promising candidate for a Full Funding 

Grant Agreement (FFGA) or Project 

Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA). 

The following discussion presents a 

summary of existing and revised 

practices for pre-award authority and 

LONPs. 

Under existing practice, upon FTA 

approval to enter preliminary 

engineering, FTA extends pre-award 

authority to incur costs for preliminary 

engineering. Upon FTA approval to 

enter final design, FTA extends preaward authority to incur costs for final 

design. Pre-award authority for each 

phase is automatic upon FTA’s signing 

of a letter to the project sponsor 

approving entry into that phase. 

Also under existing practice, FTA 

extends automatic pre-award authority 

for the acquisition of real property and 

real property rights for a New Starts or 

Small Starts project upon completion of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process for that project. The 

NEPA process is complete when FTA 

signs an environmental Record of 

Decision (ROD) or Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), or makes a 

Categorical Exclusion (CE) 

determination. 

Previously, FTA granted pre-award 

authority for utility relocation upon 

entry into final design. FTA hereby 

changes its existing practice by 

extending pre-award authority for utility 

relocation upon completion of the 

NEPA process for New Starts and Small 

Starts projects. 

Previously, an LONP was required for 

grantees to purchase vehicles. FTA 

hereby changes existing practice by 

extending pre-award authority for the 

procurement of vehicles upon 

completion of the NEPA process for 

New Starts and Small Starts projects. 

FTA cautions grantees that do not 

currently operate the type of vehicle 

proposed in the New Starts or Small 

Starts project about exercising this preaward authority and encourages these 

sponsors to wait until later in the 

project development process when 

project plans are more fully developed 

and Federal support for the project is 

more certain. FTA reminds project 

sponsors that the procurement of 

vehicles must comply with all Federal 

requirements including, but not limited 

to, competitive procurement practices, 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 

Buy America. FTA encourages project 

sponsors to discuss the procurement of 

vehicles with FTA in regards to Federal 

requirements prior to exercising preaward authority. 

FTA hereby changes existing practice 

by extending pre-award authority for 

non-construction activities upon entry 

into final design for New Starts projects. 

The intent is to allow for the 

procurement of long-lead time items or 

items for which market conditions play 

a significant role in the acquisition 

price. Previously, an LONP was 

required for these activities. The 

following list of non-construction 

activities is illustrative rather than 

exhaustive. Please contact your FTA 

Regional Office for a determination of 

activities not listed here, but which 

meet the intent described above. 

FTA grants pre-award authority upon 

entry into final design for the following 

activities: Procurement of rails, ties, and 

other specialized equipment; the 

procurement of commodities; and 

demolition. 

Because Small Starts projects are not 

subject to approval into a final design 

phase, they must obtain an LONP for the 

following activities to remain eligible 

for reimbursement or as credit toward 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Notices 45515 

local match: Procurement of rails, ties, 

and other specialized equipment; the 

procurement of commodities; and 

demolition. 

FTA reminds project sponsors and the 

public that local funds expended by the 

project sponsor pursuant to and after the 

date of the pre-award authority are 

eligible for reimbursement or as credit 

toward local match 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. 

The above changes to automatic preaward authority are expected to reduce 

the need for LONPs. FTA will still 

consider LONPs for activities not 

covered by automatic pre-award 

authority. As a change in administrative 

practice, FTA will, following the 

completion of the requirements under 

NEPA, expedite the issuance of LONPs, 

when appropriate, by no longer 

performing a detailed review of the cost 

and scope of the request in every 

instance. Rather, a limited review will 

be performed in those cases that are of 

a more routine nature, especially those 

involving an experienced sponsor. 

This change has the following 

ramifications. First, an LONP is no 

longer an indication by FTA that the 

project is a promising candidate for 

either an FFGA or PCGA. Second, FTA 

is transferring more risk to the project 

sponsor. LONPs 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 as credit toward the local match 

only if FTA approves the project for 

funding at a later date. Federal funding 

is not implied or guaranteed by an 

LONP. The reduced level of FTA 

oversight should expedite the delivery 

of New Starts and Small Starts projects, 

but will also require increased diligence 

on the part of project sponsors to ensure 

that public funds are expended wisely. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21173 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Advisory Circular 33.70–1, Guidance 

Material for Aircraft Engine LifeLimited Parts Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory 

circular. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 

33.70–1, Guidance Material for Aircraft 

Engine Life-limited Parts Requirements. 

This AC provides definitions, guidance, 

and acceptable methods that may be 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

the engine life-limited parts integrity 

requirements of § 33.70 of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. Section 

33.70 contains requirements applicable 

to the design and life management of 

propulsion system life-limited parts 

including high-energy rotating parts. 

DATES: The Engine and Propeller 

Directorate issued AC 33.70–1 on July 

31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: 

Timoleon Mouzakis, Engine and 

Propeller Standards Staff, ANE–111, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone: 

(781) 238–7114; fax: (781) 238–7199; 

e-mail: timoleon.mouzakis@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 

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 

e-mail address provided. 

How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy 

of AC 33.70–1 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/ 

regulations_policies (then click on 

‘‘Advisory Circulars’’). 

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

44702, 44704. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 31, 2009. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21068 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Advisory Circular 33–8, Guidance for 

Parts Manufacturer Approval of 

Turbine Engine and Auxiliary Power 

Unit Parts Under Test and 

Computation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory 

circular. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 33– 

8, Guidance for Parts Manufacturer 

Approval of Turbine Engine and 

Auxiliary Power Unit Parts under Test 

and Computation. This AC provides 

guidance for developing substantiation 

data to support the design approval of 

critical and complex turbine engine and 

auxiliary power unit (APU) parts 

produced under parts manufacturer 

approval. This guidance is for the 

comparative test and analysis method 

used to show compliance to the 

airworthiness requirements under test 

and computation, per S21.303 of Title 

14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). This method supports 

showing the engine or APU still 

complies with 14 CFR part 33 and 

Technical Standard Order (TSO) C77. 

DATES: The Engine and Propeller 

Directorate issued AC 33–8 on August 

19, 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 

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 33–8 may be obtained by writing 

to the U.S. Department of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES