Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46515 

Altus/Quartz Mountain Regional Airport; and 

within a 5.4-mile radius of Tipton Municipal 

Airport; and within a 7.2-mile radius of 

Frederick Municipal Airport; and within 2.5 

miles each side of the 180° bearing from the 

Frederick Municipal Airport extending from 

the 7.2-mile radius to 7.7 miles south of 

Frederick Municipal Airport; and within a 

12-mile radius of Altus AFB beginning at a 

point 3 miles west of the Altus VORTAC 019° 

radial, thence clockwise along the 12-mile 

radius of Altus AFB, ending at a point 3 

miles west of the Altus VORTAC 185° radial. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 27, 

2009. 

Ronnie L. Uhlenhaker, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. E9–21767 Filed 9–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 633 

[Docket No.: FTA–2009–0030] 

RIN 2132–AA92 

Capital Project Management 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In an effort toward greater 

transparency and to ensure integrity in 

public investments, FTA today 

publishes an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking on capital project 

management. The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is considering a 

revision of its Project Management 

Oversight (PMO) rule, shifting its focus 

from project oversight only to project 

management and oversight. A revised 

Part would more clearly identify 

necessary project management skills 

needed to be demonstrated by project 

sponsors for all fixed guideway capital 

projects, as well as additional 

requirements that would apply only to 

the more complex major capital 

projects, and distinguish project 

characteristics that would require 

documentation of project plans and 

implementation strategies in a project 

management plan, as well as the use of 

FTA’s Project Management Oversight 

Contractors (PMOCs). Beginning the 

rulemaking process to update its project 

management rule will aid some key 

agency priorities. It will help ensure 

integrity and accountability in its 

construction grant programs, and it will 

provide data the agency can use in its 

efforts to streamline its discretionary 

capital project approval process. FTA 

seeks to elicit a broad array of comments 

from project sponsors, the industry, 

other stakeholders, and the public on a 

number of subjects. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 9, 2009. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number (FTA– 

2009–0030) by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

U.S. Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

West Building, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

West Building, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Federal Transit 

Administration), and docket number 

(FTA–2009–0030) or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN 2132–AA92) 

for this rulemaking at the beginning of 

your comments. All comments received 

will be posted, without change and 

including any personal information 

provided, to www.regulations.gov and 

http://dms.dot.gov, where they will be 

available to internet users. Please see 

the Privacy Act. 

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. Due to security procedures in 

effect since October 2001 regarding mail 

deliveries, mail received through the 

U.S. Postal Service may be subject to 

delays. Parties submitting comments 

should consider using an express mail 

firm to ensure the prompt filing of any 

submissions not filed electronically or 

by hand. 

For access to the DOT docket to read 

materials relating to this notice, please 

go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or 

the Docket Management System. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program questions, please contact Aaron 

C. James, Sr. at (202) 493–0107 or 

aaron.james@dot.gov, or Carlos M. 

Garay at (202) 366–6471 or 

carlos.garay@dot.gov. For legal 

questions, please contact Jayme L. 

Blakesley at (202) 366–0304 or 

jayme.blakesley@dot.gov. The principal 

office of FTA is located at 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction, Background, and Purpose 

A. Introduction 

B. Background 

C. Purpose of This ANPRM 

II. Applicability 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Project 

B. Major Capital Project 

C. Questions 

III. Principles and Requirements for Fixed 

Guideway Capital Projects 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Projects 

1. Technical Capacity and Capability 

2. Satisfactory Continuing Control 

3. Maintenance of Facilities and 

Equipment 

4. Financial Plan 

5. Grant Project Description, Budget and 

Milestones 

B. Major Capital Projects 

1. Technical Capacity and Capability 

2. Project Management Plan (PMP) 

3. Project Implementation 

4. Performance Requirements 

5. Reporting 

6. Exceptions for Past Performance 

C. Questions 

IV. FTA Oversight of Fixed Guideway and 

Major Capital Projects 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Projects 

B. Major Capital Projects 

1. Roles and Responsibilities 

2. Risk-Informed Project Management 

Oversight Approach 

C. Questions 

I. Introduction, Background, and 

Purpose 

A. Introduction 

In this Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM), and to ensure 

integrity in its public investments 

through transparency and 

accountability, FTA begins the process 

of revising its Project Management 

Oversight rule at 49 CFR Part 633. The 

end result would be a Project 

Management rule governing all FTAfunded fixed guideway capital projects 

as well as additional requirements for 

major capital projects, emphasizing a set 

of standards and principles for sound 

project management. Specifically, FTA 

seeks to restructure the current Part 633 

to incorporate the best practices in the 

transit industry with respect to 

reasonable project performance 

measures. When final, this project 

management rule should articulate the 

criteria and skills expectations 

necessary to assure a project sponsor’s 

successful implementation of a fixed 

guideway capital project, including a 

major capital project. The new Part 633 

also would be updated to reflect 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

oversight tools and methodologies that 

have been developed since the original 

rule went into effect. 

Updating its project management rule 

at this time will aid FTA as it also 

considers streamlining its discretionary 

capital construction program. FTA seeks 

to establish methods that help ensure 

integrity and accountability in its 

capital grant programs before 

simplifying its competitive construction 

grant programs. 

As a first step in this rulemaking 

process, and in the spirit of openness 

and transparency, FTA is publishing 

this ANPRM to get as broad input as 

possible before developing a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. This ANPRM 

presents ideas and concepts and solicits 

comments and suggestions on FTA’s 

proposed requirements that are meant to 

help ensure that grantees deliver capital 

projects on time, within budget, and 

with the promised scope, while assuring 

a quality product and the safety and 

security of the riding public. This 

ANPRM does not seek to alter existing 

New Starts guidance previously 

published by FTA but instead to 

enhance engineering and project 

management aspects of all major capital 

projects. Through this ANPRM FTA 

seeks to obtain the views of its project 

sponsors, the industry, other 

stakeholders, and the public on a 

number of subjects related to project 

management and project management 

oversight. 

B. Background 

FTA awards over $10 billion annually 

for the purchase of all sizes and types 

of public transportation rolling stock, as 

well as the construction, rehabilitation, 

maintenance, and improvement of 

public transportation facilities and 

systems throughout the United States. 

Fixed guideway capital projects, 

including those traditionally defined as 

major capital projects, reflect significant 

investments by FTA, and typically are 

the largest and most challenging 

projects sponsored by FTA grantees. 

FTA (as the Urban Mass Transit 

Administration (UMTA)) issued the 

original Project Management Oversight 

(PMO) rule on September 1, 1989, 49 

CFR Part 633 (54 FR 36708). This rule 

prescribed the standards necessary at 

that time to carry out the 

responsibilities of UMTA’s Project 

Management Oversight Contractors 

(PMOCs) program; set forth basic 

requirements for project management 

plans for major capital projects; and 

implemented section 324 of the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Assistance Act of 1987, that permitted 

UMTA to use up to 1⁄2 of 1 percent of 

the funds available in each fiscal year 

for the agency’s capital programs for 

project management oversight of major 

capital projects. At the time the original 

rule was published, FTA’s annual 

program was less than $3 billion, and 

the PMO program had in effect 25 task 

orders for Project Management 

Oversight Contractors. 

The basic oversight framework at 49 

CFR Part 633 has served the agency 

well, focusing on the assignment of 

project management oversight 

contractors to major capital projects and 

requiring project sponsors to develop a 

comprehensive project management 

plan (PMP) to guide the planning and 

implementation of their major capital 

projects. The PMPs, combined with the 

PMOC deliverables have been critical to 

FTA for evaluating whether a project 

sponsor has the technical capacity and 

capability to execute a major capital 

project, verifying that projects proceed 

within schedule, scope, and budget, and 

mitigating problems as they arise. 

Today, the dollar value of the Federal 

transit program has tripled, and the 

number of active PMOC task orders has 

doubled, indicating several things. First, 

there has been a significant increase in 

local decisions to invest in public 

transportation. Second, there has been a 

proliferation of project sponsors of 

major capital projects and an emerging 

need for more specific and systematic 

expectations for the industry in 

executing these types of projects. Third, 

FTA is participating in a larger number 

of ‘‘mega projects’’—projects of a total 

cost of $1,000,000,000 or more—which 

entail unique challenges to the agency 

as the steward of Federal tax dollars. 

Further, FTA research into the factors 

contributing to cost escalation in capital 

projects indicates that in many 

instances cost increases resulted from 

lack of management capabilities or 

project controls at the sponsor level. 

Given the growth of the program, as 

well as the increasing number of 

relatively inexperienced transit agencies 

now seeking to execute complex 

infrastructure construction projects, 

FTA seeks to broaden the scope of its 

project management rule to include 

performance expectations for project 

sponsors seeking financial assistance in 

building major capital projects with 

significant FTA investment. 

C. Purpose of This ANPRM 

The purpose of this ANPRM is to 

provide general information about the 

direction, scope, and content of a 

possible revision to FTA’s project 

management oversight rule contained in 

Part 633 of its regulations, and to seek 

answers to questions that will help the 

agency make decisions about the 

appropriate direction to take in its 

future rulemaking. Ultimately, this 

rulemaking will help improve grantees’ 

project delivery success rate by 

establishing an effective regulatory 

framework for the management of 

project scope, schedule, cost, and 

quality for all fixed guideway projects. 

The overriding goals of this ANPRM and 

any subsequent rulemaking are to 

encourage grantees to apply more 

effective means of project management 

and for FTA to provide more effective 

oversight to its grantees and guidance to 

its PMOCs. 

With this ANPRM, FTA seeks 

comment and suggestions for alternative 

approaches on the specific topics 

discussed below that may be the subject 

of a proposed and final rule, including 

its applicability, the definition of ‘‘major 

capital project,’’ the technical capacity 

and capability of project sponsors, the 

use of project management plans, 

requirements for successful 

implementation of fixed guideway 

capital projects, and FTA’s project 

management oversight process. 

II. Applicability 

Anticipating a new project 

management rule generates several 

questions pertaining to the scope and 

applicability of the rule—i.e., what 

types of projects or project sponsors 

should the rule apply to and what 

aspects of project management should 

be subject to the more rigid 

requirements of a rule. FTA seeks 

comments on the approach described 

below. This approach would define two 

categories of projects—fixed guideway 

capital projects and major capital 

projects—with greater oversight being 

applied to major capital projects. We 

would apply ‘baseline’ competencies/ 

skills requirements to all fixed 

guideway capital projects funded under 

the discretionary and formula programs 

at 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(1) and (b)(2), based 

principally on the statutory 

requirements, with some focus on nonstatutory areas that agency experience 

has identified as impediments to timely 

execution of fixed guideway grants. 

More extensive demonstrations of 

technical skills and project management 

expertise would be required for projects 

categorized as major capital projects 

under the new regulation. 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Project 

A fixed guideway capital project 

would include any project funded with 

section 5309(b)(1) or (b)(2) funds. This 

would include all New Starts projects, 

Small Starts Projects (including Very 

Small Starts), and Fixed Guideway 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46517 

Modernization formula projects. 

However, projects that also fall within 

the category of a major capital project 

would be subject to the more detailed 

requirements outlined below. 

The fundamental distinction between 

a fixed guideway capital project and a 

major capital project are complexity, 

scale, and experience of the project 

sponsor. For example, some grants, 

despite exceeding $100 million, may 

only be for a single purpose, such as 

running rail and rail ties. Thus, even 

though this grant may have a very large 

dollar value, the necessary elements of 

a high risk capital project (i.e., 

interdependent parts, schedules, 

resources, and finances) do not exist. On 

the other hand, there are circumstances 

in which a series of fixed guideway 

modernization improvements, which 

individually might be under $100 

million, would be managed together as 

a single investment with interdependent 

parts, thus falling within the definition 

of a major capital project. 

Conversely, another project might 

qualify as a major capital project but be 

treated simply as a fixed guideway 

capital project because of certain 

characteristics that indicate lower risk. 

For instance, a small starts project or 

extension of a small start, executed by 

an experienced grantee, using the same 

technology and veteran in-house staff 

that had completed a previous project 

on time and on budget would represent 

a higher probability that it already has 

the requisite management skills to 

complete the new project on time and 

on budget. 

Regardless of the project specifics, a 

defined baseline of technical skills and 

products would apply to all fixed 

guideway capital projects, and are 

discussed in more detail below. In 

particular, FTA seeks comments and 

suggestions on exactly what baseline 

products and skills demonstration 

should be applied to all of these 

projects. 

B. Major Capital Project 

A major capital project would include 

the following types of fixed guideway 

capital projects: (1) New fixed guideway 

construction or extension of an existing 

fixed guideway at any cost, but for 

which the project sponsor seeks $75 

million or more in Section 5309 New 

Starts funds; or (2) fixed guideway 

construction, reconstruction, 

rehabilitation or modernization with a 

total project cost of $100 million or 

more, using funds under 49 USC section 

5309(b), that identifies a set of activities 

and tasks that are interdependent to 

accomplish a specific objective with 

specific time, cost, and performance 

constraints; or (3) a project that the 

Administrator finds would benefit from 

the FTA project management oversight 

program, or presents certain 

characteristics that indicate the project 

would benefit from enhanced project 

management, engineering, and 

documentation of plans and processes. 

FTA seeks comment on what criteria it 

should use to determine whether a fixed 

guideway project should also be 

classified as a major capital project. 

C. Questions 

1. Is the distinction between a fixed 

guideway capital project and a major 

capital project clear enough? Please 

provide detail about how you would 

define any of the terms differently. 

Please explain your rationale. 

2. Are there other characteristics—for 

either project category above—you 

believe should be called out? What are 

they and why? 

3. Should a Project Management rule 

contain provisions that apply to nonfixed guideway capital projects, for 

example, bus projects under section 

5309(b)(3)? Should the rule apply to 

projects above a certain dollar threshold 

only? 

4. Under consideration is an 

expanded list of circumstances under 

which the Administrator could 

designate a project a ‘‘major capital 

project’’, triggering additional skills 

demonstration and process planning 

and project implementation 

documentation. A list of examples 

follows. Please provide your opinion 

and regarding whether FTA should 

consider the following criteria for 

designating a project as a major capital 

project: 

• The project sponsor has limited 

experience in design, construction, 

rehabilitation, or modernization of fixed 

guideways; 

• The project sponsor has a history of 

exceeding project budget or schedule 

targets on other fixed guideway capital 

projects; 

• The project involves acquisition, 

maintenance, or rehabilitation of 

vehicles or rolling stock that is not 

routine for the sponsor; 

• The project is of significant expense 

or unique complexity for the sponsor; 

• The success of the project will 

depend upon the sponsor’s timely 

transaction of third-party agreements; 

• The project involves new 

technology, design or construction 

elements that increase risk to the project 

cost or schedule. 

III. Principles and Requirements for 

Fixed Guideway Capital Projects 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Projects 

Following is a description of the 

existing baseline requirements for fixed 

guideway capital projects and how FTA 

proposes to modify the requirements. 

1. Technical Capacity and Capability 

By law, before FTA can award grant 

funds for a capital fixed guideway grant, 

the project sponsor must certify, 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5309(c)(1)(B), 

that it ‘‘has or will have the legal, 

financial, and technical capacity to 

carry out its proposed program of 

projects, including safety and security 

aspects of that program’’ throughout the 

life of the project. In many cases, FTA 

accepts the annual certification of the 

project sponsor as sufficient evidence 

that it possesses adequate technical 

capacity and capability. In some 

instances, however, FTA has reason to 

question the sponsor’s technical 

capacity to manage the scale, expense, 

or complexity of the proposed project, 

thus, FTA must make an independent 

assessment of the sponsor. Through this 

rulemaking, FTA expects to set specific 

performance standards for technical 

capacity and capability. When assessing 

technical capacity, FTA may consider 

the results of its routine oversight 

reviews. Recurring and specialized 

reviews give FTA an opportunity to 

verify the grantee’s Certifications and 

Assurances (see Circular C 5010.1D, 

Chapter II.3, Responsibilities of Grant 

Management). In cases where FTA finds 

that a project sponsor’s certifications are 

inaccurate, FTA may withhold grant 

approval until it can verify the accuracy 

of the sponsor’s certifications. 

Technical capacity and capability is 

interpreted to mean evidence of an 

effective management approach, 

appropriate organizational structure, 

sufficient experienced staff, adequate 

internal and external controls and other 

resources (project partners, consultant 

support, and other non-sponsor agency) 

to administer the complexities of the 

capital project. FTA is seeking comment 

on what is the appropriate minimum 

demonstration of capacity and 

capability and whether there are times 

when FTA should seek more 

information to demonstrate capacity. 

2. Satisfactory Continuing Control 

A statutory requirement contained in 

49 U.S.C. 5309(c)(1)(B) is that FTA must 

assure itself that the project sponsor will 

have satisfactory continuing control 

over the use of the equipment or 

facilities. In short, this means that the 

project sponsor must own the assets, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

have a long-term lease, or otherwise be 

able to ensure that the federal 

investment will endure for the useful 

life of the investment. FTA’s circulars 

contain guidance on satisfactory 

continuing control. 

3. Maintenance of Facilities and 

Equipment 

The section 5309(c)(1)(B) requirement 

concerning this provision requires not 

only that the project sponsor have the 

capability to maintain the equipment or 

facilities, but that the project sponsor 

demonstrates the willingness to do so. 

Again, the FTA has typically relied on 

a certification for this requirement, 

except in the case of New Starts, where 

there is a statutory requirement that the 

sponsor demonstrate adequate financial 

resources to maintain and operate the 

existing system while expanding its 

capacity. We are considering requiring 

project sponsors to develop and apply 

an asset management plan for all fixed 

guideway capital projects. FTA 

proposes to use its current state of good 

repair (SGR) initiative to further refine 

its definition of asset management plan. 

However, FTA believes that an asset 

management plan would assist grantees 

in project identification and 

prioritization by showing the condition 

of existing facilities, equipment, and 

rolling stock, and by producing 

schedules for major maintenance or 

replacement along with estimated 

replacement, rehabilitation, and repair 

costs. 

4. Financial Plan 

The statute currently requires an 

annual financial plan for all projects 

exceeding $1 billion. FTA is considering 

whether to require some type of 

financial plan for all fixed guideway 

capital projects. Such a plan may 

include the identification of all Federal, 

State, and local resources anticipated to 

be used for the project. FTA invites 

comment on what should be the 

minimum expectations for financial 

plans of fixed guideway capital projects. 

5. Grant Project Description, Budget and 

Milestones. 

FTA Circulars require that a grant 

application contain sufficient project 

description, budget and milestones for 

both the sponsor and FTA to know what 

is included in the project and the 

timeframe for implementation. 

However, there is considerable disparity 

in the kind of information submitted 

and this can often cause delay in grant 

approvals. In order to assure 

consistency and transparency, FTA is 

considering enhancing the current grant 

project description, budget and 

milestone information it collects for 

fixed guideway capital projects. The 

agency is further considering the best 

way to elicit adequate detail to provide 

valuable oversight of project planning 

and implementation. FTA has found 

that project implementation delays are 

often caused by poor or incomplete 

planning, which means issues get 

addressed during implementation 

usually with both a time and cost 

impact. By including a more detailed 

description of the planning aspects of 

the project, FTA could assure 

appropriate oversight of these activities 

and that the project experiences fewer 

implementation delays. 

B. Major Capital Projects 

The design and construction of a 

major capital project is a challenging 

undertaking from a variety of 

perspectives, including the large 

number of organizations involved in 

delivering the project, the diverse 

interests of the organizations and 

individuals that have a stake in the 

project, the potential imbalance between 

the quantity of human resources with 

the right skill sets required to deliver a 

project and the current organizational 

resources of the project sponsor, and the 

timing and cost of procuring goods and 

services in a competitive market. 

Additional challenges include 

integrated work flow processes and 

controls that are internal and external to 

the owner’s organization, and 

management of the people, processes, 

physical and financial resources needed 

to successfully complete the project. 

Based on FTA’s experience, projects 

that exceeded their budget or schedule 

forecast typically encountered problems 

obtaining experienced staff in a timely 

manner or failed to properly manage 

cost increases that were within their 

control, including contract change 

orders. 

Therefore, FTA proposes to 

strengthen its requirements for major 

capital project sponsors by requiring 

them to demonstrate that they have 

sufficient staff in place to demonstrate 

the capacity and capabilities to 

successfully implement their proposed 

projects, as opposed to simply relying 

on a plan to acquire the needed 

personnel. Other changes would be 

aimed toward improving the 

effectiveness of the FTA-required 

project management plan by requiring 

processes to be in place, as described 

below, and proposing criteria to be used 

to measure grantees’ success in 

achieving desired outcomes or output 

and reporting the results to FTA. 

1. Technical Capacity and Capability 

FTA’s minimum expectations for a 

sponsor to demonstrate technical 

capacity and capability include a set of 

policies and procedures inclusive of 

resources and authority, defined, 

implemented, and maintained by the 

sponsor’s project management 

organization that demonstrates its 

ability to: (1) Manage the project at each 

stage of development, including the 

transitions between stages of 

development and implementation; (2) 

conform to grant agreements, applicable 

statutes, codes, ordinances, and safety 

and security standards; (3) comply with 

FTA requirements on the part of 

agencies, consultants, contractors, and 

subcontractors working under approved 

third party contracts or inter-agency 

agreements; (4) maintain the project 

work schedule agreed to by FTA and the 

sponsor and constantly monitor grant 

activities to assure that schedules are 

met and other performance goals are 

being achieved; (5) keep expenditures 

within the latest approved project 

budget; (6) select and implement 

appropriate project delivery methods; 

(7) implement an effective 

communications program to assure that 

all project functions work effectively 

towards project delivery; (8) 

demonstrate continuous in-house 

administrative and management 

direction of project implementation; and 

(9) conduct adequate technical 

inspection and supervision by qualified 

professionals of all work in progress. 

FTA would expect most, if not all, of 

the matters identified above to be 

addressed in the project management 

plan, or alternatively in a separate 

document that is clearly identified in 

the PMP and incorporated by reference. 

2. Project Management Plan (PMP) 

The project sponsor must submit a 

formal and documented management 

approach that embodies the agency’s 

policies, practices and procedures. 

Ideally, the PMP should outline in 

detail the sponsor’s plan for developing 

and implementing the project, including 

the monitoring that will take place to 

ensure that each major phase or stage in 

the project development process will be 

duly executed. The PMP should 

basically define what the project is, the 

person responsible for implementation, 

and when the work will be performed. 

The plans required should not be 

interpreted as ‘‘procedures.’’ Procedures 

define how the work or functions are to 

be implemented in conformance to a 

plan that sets out the underlying 

philosophy and approach to each 

process. While the procedures might 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46519 

identify who does something and when, 

the plan would describe why and what 

the action means. 

FTA is considering placing additional 

emphasis on the PMP as a primary tool 

in the sponsor’s management of the 

project. The PMP should demonstrate 

that the sponsor has thoroughly 

considered all phases of the project, 

giving careful thought, in particular, 

both to the methods used to execute the 

project and the interfaces between 

various participants. The PMP should 

explicitly define the objectives of the 

project and the methods and resources 

needed to meet those objectives. It 

should lay out the overall management 

strategy, including project controls, and 

the responsibilities, authorities, and 

measures of performance for all parties 

involved. Additionally, the PMP should 

reflect the unique characteristics of each 

project, such as the exact scope of work 

and specific resources, budget, and 

schedule. The PMP may be a 

compilation of associated plans or 

‘‘sub’’ plans. Each sub plan should be 

incorporated into the PMP by reference 

and a copy appended, if practical, or as 

a minimum the signature page of the 

sub plan should be provided. 

Additionally, FTA may require that the 

PMP and associated sub plans packaged 

in a single or separate volume be 

supported by individual procedures or 

references to existing procedures. For 

example, a Test and Inspection Plan 

would be supported by detailed test 

procedures and QA/QC procedures, but 

the procedures would be made available 

to FTA on request instead of being 

submitted with the PMP. 

FTA envisions that project sponsors 

will submit a core PMP document for all 

major capital projects, tailored for the 

type of project for which it is used, and 

including, at a minimum, the following 

sections or stand-alone volumes or 

references to existing plans that serve 

the same purpose: (1) General Project 

Overview (description, objectives, 

performance measures, management 

approach, etc.); (2) Defined Scope, 

Budget and Project Master Schedule; (3) 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/ 

QC) Plan; (4) Procurement Plan; (5) 

Safety and Security Management Plan; 

(6) Risk and Contingency Management 

Plan; (7) Staffing Plan (organizational 

chart, staff roles and responsibilities); 

and (8) Project Controls and Systems. 

FTA expects the project sponsor’s 

responsible office supervisor/manager 

would approve the plan for his/her 

respective office prior to submittal to 

FTA for approval. For example, the 

head of QA/QC would approve the QA/ 

QC Plan for the proposed major capital 

project. This allows an integrated 

approach to developing the PMP and is 

expected to result in a more effective 

and efficient document. FTA would 

require each associated sub plan and the 

overall PMP to be updated as needed 

and resubmitted for FTA’s approval. 

In addition to the above core PMP and 

associated plans, the following sub 

plans are examples of what a project 

sponsor would develop and integrate 

into the PMP: (1) Real Estate 

Management Plan; (2) Fleet 

Management Plan; (3) Noise and 

Vibration Control Plan; (4) Rail 

Activation Plan; and (5) Geotechnical 

Risk Management Plan. 

In the forthcoming Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), FTA will provide 

further guidelines on when each plan 

within the PMP should be submitted for 

approval. 

Currently for New Starts projects the 

sponsor establishes a PMP before entry 

into Preliminary Engineering and 

updates the PMP before advancing into 

the Final Design, construction, and 

start-up phases of a major capital 

project. FTA seeks comment on whether 

the requirement for Small Starts projects 

that are designated as major capital 

projects should establish a less detailed 

PMP than for New Starts projects. A less 

detailed PMP would be required before 

entry into project development and 

would be updated before advancing into 

construction. 

FTA is also seeking comment on 

whether all or portions of the project 

management plan should apply to some 

or all fixed guideway capital projects or 

whether you would suggest a different 

approach to project management, 

keeping in mind that FTA must ensure 

that project sponsors manage their 

projects effectively and deliver projects 

on time and within budget, while at the 

same time achieving projected benefits 

and meeting quality standards. 

3. Project Implementation 

FTA may require project sponsors to 

demonstrate readiness to advance their 

projects to the next phase or stage in the 

project development process by 

successfully implementing the 

prerequisite requirements. Currently, a 

typical New Starts project moves 

through six major phases—Alternative 

Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, 

Final Design, Full Funding Grant 

Agreement, Construction, and Revenue 

Service Operations. A typical Small 

Starts project moves through five major 

phases, with Preliminary Engineering 

and Final Design being collapsed into a 

single phase called Project 

Development. FTA has developed 

checklists for grantees to use as a quick 

reference guide and to evaluate 

readiness to move into the next phase of 

project implementation. To view 

existing checklists for Preliminary 

Engineering, Final Design, and Full 

Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) go 

to: http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/ 

newstarts/ 

planning_environment_218.html. If the 

proposals outlined in this ANPRM are 

implemented, FTA would create new 

checklists for all major capital projects 

as a guide to project implementation. 

FTA seeks your comments on whether 

this would be useful. 

4. Performance Requirements 

FTA would like project sponsors to 

use the PMP as a tool to create a series 

of performance measures that they 

could report against. FTA would use 

this information to report on the success 

of major capital projects. 

5. Reporting 

FTA intends to propose specific 

reporting requirements for recipients of 

federal funding for major capital 

projects, including but not limited to, 

value engineering reports, safety and 

security management reports, monthly 

progress reports, and cost updates for 

FTA’s cost databases. We seek 

comments both as to the 

appropriateness of these reporting 

requirements as well as the potential 

content of such reporting requirements. 

Please make your comments specific to 

each of the suggested reports. 

6. Exceptions for Past Performance 

FTA is considering relaxing 

requirements for project sponsors who 

have successfully completed other 

major capital projects within the past 7 

to 10 years if, for example, it can be 

demonstrated that the organization has 

retained critical resources like the 

project manager, the organization’s 

business processes and procedures have 

not been significantly altered, and the 

project involves the same or similar 

technology. In the above context, 

determining the successful completion 

of a major capital project would be 

based on FTA-established criteria such 

as cost and schedule performance 

contained within a percentage of the 

baseline cost estimate or revenue service 

date. We seek comment on whether you 

agree with this approach. Are there 

other factors that might justify relaxing 

FTA’s requirements? 

C. Questions 

1. If a project budget is under $100 

million, what is the appropriate 

demonstration of capacity and 

capability? Are there circumstances 

under which FTA should seek 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

additional demonstration of the project 

sponsor’s technical capacity and 

capability for a project categorized as a 

fixed guideway capital project beyond 

what is described in this document? 

2. What plans or requirements should 

FTA consider for a single purpose grant 

like a fixed guideway major capital 

project? Should a portion of the PMP 

apply? 

3. Should the requirement for 

demonstrating satisfactory continuing 

control be different for a fixed guideway 

capital project than the regular FTA 

formula grant? 

4. Are more detailed milestones and 

budget detail in a TEAM grant a feasible 

mechanism for managing and providing 

oversight to a fixed guideway capital 

grant? What other tools should be 

considered? 

5. What minimum requirements 

should be contained in an asset 

management plan? 

6. Would checklists for all fixed 

guideway capital projects be useful? 

7. Should all or portions of the project 

management plan apply to some or all 

fixed guideway capital projects? What 

portions would apply to what specific 

types of fixed guideway capital projects? 

Please be as specific as possible. 

8. Would you suggest a different 

approach to project management, 

keeping in mind that FTA must ensure 

that project sponsors manage their 

projects effectively and deliver projects 

on time and within budget, while at the 

same time achieving projected benefits 

and meeting quality standards? 

9. Please comment on FTA’s 

integrated project management plan 

approach discussed above. Do you think 

the integrated approach is more 

practical? If not, how would you 

structure the PMP to facilitate its 

usefulness? 

10. Do you agree with FTA’s plan to 

relax technical capacity and capability 

requirements for more experienced 

project sponsors that meet certain 

criteria? If you agree, are there other 

factors that FTA should consider? 

11. Should FTA require all sponsors 

of major capital projects to develop and 

update PMPs for every project at 

corresponding stages in project 

development? 

12. Other than the statutory 

evaluation process that applies to New 

Starts and Small Starts, should financial 

plans for all major capital projects meet 

the same minimum standards? 

13. For major capital projects other 

than Section 5309 New Starts, should 

FTA specify a minimum number of 

years that a grantee’s financial plan 

should cover? For example, is a 

financial plan covering three to five 

years of sufficient length to determine a 

grantee’s financial capacity? Or should 

FTA require that the financial plan 

extend through the time period required 

for completion of the major capital 

project? 

IV. FTA Oversight of Fixed Guideway 

and Major Capital Projects 

A. Fixed Guideway Capital Projects 

Not all fixed guideway projects are 

major capital projects. Consequently, 

the oversight of many Fixed Guideway 

Capital Projects is performed primarily 

by FTA staff in its regional offices. 

PMOCs are currently utilized to assist 

FTA in providing oversight of Major 

Capital Projects only. 

B. Major Capital Projects 

In the early 1980’s several FTAfunded transit projects suffered major 

setbacks due to problems with quality, 

cost overruns, and delays in schedules. 

Thus, FTA received its project 

management oversight program mandate 

and funding from Congress in the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform 

Relocation Act of 1987. Congress 

directed FTA (then UMTA) to establish 

the Project Management Oversight 

(PMO) Program. This program has 

grown correspondingly with the growth 

of the overall FTA program. 

1. Roles and Responsibilities 

Since the inception of its Project 

Management Oversight program in 

1989, FTA has supplemented its own 

staff with Project Management Oversight 

Contractors (PMOCs) to provide 

oversight for major capital projects. The 

primary role and responsibility of the 

PMOC is to help FTA ensure that such 

projects are on time, within budget, and 

in conformance with Federal 

requirements; are constructed to 

grantees’ approved plans and design 

specifications; and are efficiently and 

effectively implemented. An initial, 

important role of the PMOC is to review 

the project sponsor’s project 

management plan on behalf of FTA, and 

to make recommendations concerning 

its adequacy. 

During the design, construction, startup and operational phases of a project, 

on behalf of FTA, the PMOC monitors 

and reports on the project’s 

development and implementation, 

consistent with its approved project 

management plan and accepted 

engineering and project management 

practices. 

The PMOC performs routine project 

management oversight monitoring 

through on-site reviews and off-site 

document reviews. FTA uses these 

reviews to oversee the project and to 

conduct quarterly review meetings with 

the project sponsor. Periodic reports are 

submitted to FTA documenting project 

status, activities, and open issues 

including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

• Timely management decisions. 

• Delegations of authority. 

• Management of project scope. 

• Internal controls. 

• Schedule analysis. 

• Cost estimates and trends, 

including forecasting. 

• Delivery of a quality product. 

• Project security/safety. 

• Continuing technical capacity. 

• Risk assessment and contingency 

management. 

FTA’s primary objectives for 

providing Project Management 

Oversight of major capital projects are to 

assess grantees’ technical capacity and 

capability and project management 

experience to successfully implement 

major capital projects and to monitor 

projects to ensure that they are 

progressing on time, within budget, and 

in accordance with the grantees’ 

approved plans. 

While FTA’s program has grown 

significantly since 1989, its staff size has 

stayed the same. The PMOCs help to fill 

this resource gap as well as to provide 

specialized expertise when needed. 

While the oversight program has grown 

based on its percentage takedown of an 

expanding program, the need for 

oversight has increased even faster than 

the available funding because the larger 

program has generated both higher 

demand and more complex projects. 

FTA seeks comment on how it should 

best use its PMOCs to supplement its 

limited staff resources. 

2. Risk-Informed Project Management 

Oversight Approach 

Over the last five years, FTA has 

refined its approach to oversight to 

integrate risk analyses and transit 

specific databases to help the grantee 

deliver a successful project. By means of 

a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) 

for New Starts, or Project Construction 

Grant Agreement (PCGA) for Small 

Starts, both FTA and a grantee mutually 

agree on the scope, cost and schedule of 

a particular project. Management of the 

project to ensure that all three are 

delivered successfully begins early in 

the project development phase. 

FTA has increased its use of risk 

assessment, management and mitigation 

strategies to ensure that Major Capital 

projects are constructed on-time and 

within budget. FTA relies on a portfolio 

of risk management tools to prevent 

project costs from escalating, to assess 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46521 

the magnitude of risks in a project, and 

to help the project sponsor predict and 

establish a project budget and schedule. 

The most important objective of risk 

assessment and management protocols 

is to help the project sponsor predict the 

budget and schedule and to ensure that 

the sponsor can complete the project 

within the budget and schedule 

identified in the FTA grant award. 

Project risks track the project 

development process. In general terms, 

they can be described as follows: 

• Requirements Risk. The first step in 

project development is to identify the 

requirements—risks associated with 

definition of basic project needs and 

transit system requirements to meet 

those needs; 

• Design Risk. The second step is 

project design—risks involving the 

adequacy of the information available at 

each stage of design and engineering, 

geotechnical conditions in particular, 

and the impact of redesign; 

• Market Risks. The third step is to 

identify market risks—risks associated 

with both the procurement approach 

and the market conditions that can 

affect the cost of materials and the 

availability of bidders for construction 

services, materials, real estate, and 

manufactured products like vehicles; 

and 

• Construction Risks. The final step is 

to identify construction risks—those 

risks associated with the actual 

construction and start-up of the system. 

Once risks are identified, FTA and 

project sponsors must determine the 

best method for managing those risks. 

The preferred methods for managing 

risk are avoidance, reduction, and 

mitigation. Because they are really only 

ways of providing more up-front 

funding or reducing overall costs but do 

not reduce risk, less preferred risk 

management techniques include 

increasing contingency, reducing project 

scope, or reducing the level of service. 

FTA works with each project sponsor to 

determine the most feasible strategy for 

each project. 

Project sponsors document this riskinformed management process in the 

project management plan. Including 

these strategies can help ensure that the 

project sponsor has the requisite 

technical capacity and capability to 

deliver the project on time and within 

budget by ensuring that the project 

sponsor understands methods for 

addressing risks and that it implements 

strategies to avoid future delays. 

FTA can tailor these risk assessment 

and management tools to take into 

account the unique circumstances of a 

project, such as sponsor organization 

and technical capacity and capability, 

and the project complexity or status. 

C. Questions 

1. Should FTA assign PMOCs to 

oversee projects other than Major 

Capital Projects? Please provide the 

rationale for your recommendations 

including how oversight of these 

projects should alternatively be 

provided if PMOCs are not utilized. 

2. At what stage in the development 

process should FTA assign PMOCs to 

New Starts projects? Explain the basis 

for your recommendation. 

3. Other than a detailed review of a 

grantee’s financial plan, what other 

methods might FTA utilize to ensure a 

grantee has the financial capacity to 

construct and operate a major capital 

project? 

4. Please comment on FTA’s Risk 

Management approach. If you do not 

agree with FTA’s approach, please 

recommend an alternative and provide 

a basis for your recommendation. 

Following the close of the comment 

period on this ANRPM, FTA will 

summarize and respond to the 

comments and issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that posits 

explicit text for a rewrite of the 

regulation at 49 CFR Part 633. We 

expect to publish such a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in 2009. 

Issued this 4th day of September, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21849 Filed 9–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2009–0006] 

[MO 922105 0082–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Astragalus anserinus 

(Goose Creek milkvetch) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of a 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

12–month finding on a petition to list 

Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek 

milkvetch) as a threatened or 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of all available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing A. anserinus under the Act is 

warranted. However, listing is currently 

precluded by higher priority actions to 

amend the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We 

have assigned a listing priority number 

(LPN) of 5 to this species, because the 

threats affecting it have a high 

magnitude, but are non-imminent. Upon 

publication of this 12–month petition 

finding, A. anserinus will be added to 

our candidate species list. We will 

develop a proposed rule to list A. 

anserinus as our priorities allow. Any 

determinations on critical habitat will 

be made during development of the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R1–ES–2009–0006. Supporting 

documentation we used to prepare this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

2369 West Orton Circle Suite 50, West 

Valley City, Utah 84119. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address or via 

electronic mail (e-mail) at http:// 

www.fw1srbocomments@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES)); by telephone at 801– 

975–3330; or by facsimile at 801–975– 

3331. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition containing substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

that listing may be warranted, we make 

a finding within 12 months of the date 

of receipt of the petition on whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1