Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52527 

49 U.S.C. 10501(b) would apply and 

preempt most State and local laws. By 

decision served on June 27, 2007, the 

Board found that the proposed 

passenger-rail system would be within 

the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction, 

would require Board authority under 49 

U.S.C. 10901, and, if such authority 

were granted, Federal preemption 

would apply. California-Nevada Super 

Speed Train Commission, a bi-state 

commission and an agency of the State 

of Nevada, and its private-sector 

partner, American Magline Group, 

jointly petitioned to intervene and 

reopen the 2007 declaratory order, 

arguing that, because DesertXpress’s rail 

system would not transport any freight 

or connect to lines on which freight is 

transported, the Board erred in 

determining that the line would be part 

of the interstate rail network and thus 

subject to its jurisdiction. The Board 

will hear argument on that petition to 

intervene and reopen. 

The Board will hear argument 

regarding the above-mentioned 

proceedings on October 27, 2009. The 

Board will provide further procedural 

guidance, including the time allotted for 

each party to present its argument, in a 

future decision. The oral argument will 

be open for public observation, but only 

counsel for the parties will be permitted 

to present argument. 

The Board will hold another oral 

argument on Monday, November 23, 

2009 at 9:30 a.m. The cases to be argued 

then will be announced by decision at 

a later date. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Dated: October 7, 2009. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–24519 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Announcement of Project Selections of 

Fiscal Year 2009 Recipients of Transit 

Investments for Greenhouse Gas and 

Energy Reduction (TIGGER) Grants; 

Response to Comments 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of project selections; 

response to comments. 

SUMMARY: The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

appropriated $100 million for a new 

discretionary grant program for public 

transportation projects that reduce a 

transit system’s greenhouse gas 

emissions or results in a decrease in a 

transit system’s energy use. 

This notice announces the selection of 

the grant recipients and responds to the 

comments received in response to the 

request for comments on the program 

structure and requirements in FTA’s 

Notice of Funding Availability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general program information, contact 

Walter Kulyk, Office of Mobility 

Innovation, (202) 366–4995, e-mail: 

walter.kulyk@dot.gov. Project selectees 

should contact the appropriate FTA 

Regional Office in Appendix B for 

application-specific information and 

issues. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

FTA published a Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) on March 24, 2009 

(74 FR 12447), seeking program 

applications for Transit Investments for 

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction 

(TIGGER) grants and inviting interested 

parties to comment on the program 

elements as outlined in the NOFA. 

FTA received 224 applications 

proposing 561 projects, which totaled 

over $2 billion. Because of the intense 

demand for the $100 million, FTA was 

unable to fund all eligible applications, 

and as stated in the NOFA, to maximize 

the impact of the program, some 

applicants were provided with less than 

the full amount of funding requested in 

their application. 

In this notice, FTA is publishing its 

list of TIGGER program selectees and 

responding to comments received in 

response to the NOFA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Funding Opportunity 

Description 

II. Basis for Allocation 

III. General Program and Award Information 

IV. Response to Comments 

Appendix A—Table of Allocations 

Appendix B—Regional Contact Information 

I. Background and Funding 

Opportunity Description 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111– 

5) provided $8.4 billion to the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) for transit 

capital improvements and reinvestment. 

Of this $8.4 billion, $100 million was 

appropriated for a new program to 

provide funding to public transit 

agencies for capital investments to assist 

in reducing the energy consumption or 

greenhouse gas emissions of their public 

transportation systems. In response, 

FTA developed the Transit Investments 

for Greenhouse Gas and Energy 

Reduction (TIGGER) program. 

Because of statutory provisions for 

this ARRA funding, the NOFA 

requested that all proposals be 

submitted by May 22, 2009, while at the 

same time seeking comments on the 

proposed program outline, structure, 

and requirements. FTA reviewed the 

comments received during the comment 

period and determined that no 

substantive changes to the program were 

required, although FTA is responding to 

them in this Notice. 

ARRA specified two types of eligible 

investments under the TIGGER program: 

first, for capital investments that will 

assist in reducing the energy 

consumption of a transit system; and, 

second, for capital investments that will 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions of a 

public transportation system. Proposals 

for projects were accepted under either 

or both categories. To ensure that the 

purposes of the ARRA are met, FTA 

established a range of funding that will 

be considered for approval. Each 

submitted proposal had to meet a 

minimum threshold of $2,000,000. FTA 

allowed consolidated proposals from 

transit agencies to reach this $2,000,000 

threshold; thus, individual projects 

within a proposal may receive less than 

$2,000,000. Conversely, to ensure a 

variety of funded projects, FTA 

established a maximum grant amount of 

$25,000,000. 

II. Basis for Allocation 

This notice allocates all ARRA 

funding for the TIGGER Program. In 

making these allocations, FTA 

considered both the specific direction 

provided in the legislation as well as 

Congress’ and the Administration’s 

general objectives for accountability and 

transparency in the administration of 

ARRA funds. These objectives include 

the prompt and fair distribution of 

funding, the assurance that funds are 

being used for authorized purposes, and 

that instances of waste, fraud, and abuse 

are avoided. 

Energy consumption reduction and 

greenhouse gas reduction projects were 

evaluated separately. An applicant 

could request evaluation under both 

criteria if it provided the necessary 

project measurement information. Two 

criteria were specific to energy 

consumption reduction projects and one 

criterion was specific to greenhouse gas 

reduction projects. The remaining 

criteria applied to all projects. 

A. Project Evaluation Criteria for Energy 

Consumption Reduction Projects 

FTA evaluated projects on total 

energy consumption savings projected 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
52528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 

to result from the project, and projected 

energy savings of the project as a 

percentage of the total energy usage of 

the public transit agency. 

B. Project Evaluation Criterion for 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 

Projects FTA 

Evaluated projects based on the total 

amount of greenhouse gas reductions 

projected to result from the project. 

C. Project Evaluation Criteria for All 

Projects FTA 

Evaluated all projects on the 

following criteria: 

(1) Return on Investment. This 

includes the ratio of energy savings or 

greenhouse gas reductions per dollar of 

Federal TIGGER funds invested. 

(2) Project Readiness. The Project Is 

Ready To Implement. 

a. Any required environmental work 

has been initiated for construction 

projects requiring an Environmental 

Finding. 

b. Implementation plans are ready, 

including initial design of facilities 

projects. 

c. The Transportation Improvement 

Plan (TIP) and Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Plan (STIP) can be 

amended. 

d. Project funding can be obligated 

and implemented quickly, if selected. 

(3) The applicant demonstrates the 

capacity to carry out the project. 

a. The applicant is in fundable status 

for the FTA grant program 

b. The applicant demonstrates the 

technical capacity to carry out the 

project including the project approach 

or project management plan. 

c. The applicant has systems and 

internal controls in place that allow it 

to separately track and report ARRA 

funds even used to fund an existing 

project/activity. 

d. The applicant has the ability to 

collect information and demonstrate the 

results of the project for at least one year 

following project implementation. (But 

note that useful life criteria apply for 

FTA funded assets.) 

(4) Project Innovation 

The project identifies a unique, 

significant, or innovative approach to 

reducing energy consumption or 

greenhouse gas emissions not currently 

in widespread practice within the 

transit industry or an approach distinct 

from the other proposals received by 

FTA. 

(5) The national applicability of the 

project as an example of energy savings 

or greenhouse gas reductions including 

whether the project could be replicated 

by other transit agencies regionally or 

nationally. 

D. Review and Selection Process 

After screening projects for eligibility, 

projects were evaluated based on the 

established technical criteria. Projects 

were selected to build a portfolio of a 

range of technological solutions and 

national applicability that will 

maximize the impact of the program. 

Funding levels, when less that the 

amount requested, were based on a 

determination of the amount required 

for a viable project. 

The allocation of TIGGER Program 

funding is presented in the Appendix A 

of this notice. 

III. General Program and Award 

Information 

A. Award Notices 

As set forth in the NOFA, FTA prescreened all proposals to determine that 

all required eligibility elements were 

present. Because FTA will manage 

TIGGER grants through FTA’s TEAM 

grant management system, selectees 

must work with the appropriate FTA 

Regional Office to ensure that they are 

part of the TEAM grants management 

system and are in compliance with the 

standard Federal requirements 

contained in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and 

additional requirements specified in 

ARRA. 

B. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

Information about the requirements 

for FTA grant programs funded by 

ARRA can be found in Federal Register 

Notice E9–4745 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public 

Transportation Apportionments, 

Allocations and Grant Program 

Information, (74 FR 9656, March 5, 

2009) and subsequent information 

posted on FTA’s Recovery Act webpage 

at http://www.fta.dot.gov/recovery. 

1. FTA Grant Requirements 

Selectees must comply with the usual 

and customary FTA grant requirements 

of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, including those 

of the current version of FTA Circular 

5010 and the FTA Master Agreement. 

Discretionary grants greater than 

$1,000,000 will go through the 

Congressional notification process. 

Technical assistance regarding these 

requirements is available from each FTA 

regional office. 

All recipients and their sub-awardees 

are required to have a Dun and 

Bradstreet Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number (http://www.dnb.com) 

and direct recipients must have a 

current registration in the Central 

Contractor Registration database http:// 

www.ccr.gov. 

Recipients of ARRA funds must have 

systems and internal controls that allow 

them to separately track and report 

ARRA funds even if the funds are being 

used to fund an existing project/activity. 

The Applicant must submit current 

Certifications and Assurances prior to 

receiving a grant. The Applicant must 

assure that it will comply with all 

applicable Federal statutes, regulations, 

executive orders, FTA circulars, and 

other Federal administrative 

requirements in carrying out any project 

supported by the FTA grant. The 

Applicant must acknowledge that it is 

under a continuing obligation to comply 

with the terms and conditions of the 

grant agreement issued for its project 

with FTA. The Applicant must 

understand that Federal laws, 

regulations, policies, and administrative 

practices might be modified from time 

to time and that could affect the 

implementation of the project. The 

Applicant must agree that the most 

recent Federal requirements will apply 

to the project, unless FTA issues a 

written determination otherwise. 

2. ARRA Reporting Requirements 

As a condition of award, recipients 

receiving ARRA funds will be required 

to report on grant activities on a routine 

basis. FTA recipients will be 

responsible for reporting up-to-date and 

accurate grant management information 

in a milestone status report and 

financial status report on a quarterly 

basis, as well as additional data in 

compliance with Sections 1201 and 

1512 of the Act. Additionally, special 

certifications and grant conditions also 

will be required of ARRA grant 

recipients, such as: 

a. One-Time Funding. The Recipient 

acknowledges that receipt of ARRA 

funds is a ‘‘onetime’’ disbursement that 

does not create any future obligation by 

the FTA to advance similar funding 

amounts. 

b. Integrity. The Recipient agrees that 

all data it submits to FTA in compliance 

with ARRA requirements will be 

accurate, objective, and of the highest 

integrity. 

c. Violations of Law. The Recipient 

agrees that it and its subrecipients shall 

report any credible evidence that a 

principal, employee, agent, contractor, 

subrecipient, subcontractor, or other 

person has submitted a false claim 

under the False Claims Act or has 

committed a criminal or civil violation 

of law pertaining to fraud, conflict of 

interest, bribery, gratuity, or similar 

misconduct involving ARRA funds. 

d. Maintenance of Effort. A Recipient 

that is a State agrees to comply with the 

maintenance of effort certification it has 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52529 

made in compliance with Section 1201 

of ARRA. 

e. Emblems. The Recipient agrees to 

identify projects supported by FTA by 

attaching the appropriate emblems as 

the Federal Government may require. 

f. Reporting Requirements. In addition 

to other Federal reporting requirements 

applicable to the type of project 

undertaken, the Recipient agrees to: 

(1) Comply with the periodic 

reporting requirements consistent with 

section 1201 of ARRA. 

(2) Comply with the quarterly 

reporting requirements consistent with 

section 1512 of ARRA. 

The Recipient will report on the use 

of the funds and on the status of 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act by submitting 

the Standard Form-Performance 

Progress Report-Recovery form not later 

than 10 days after the end of each 

calendar quarter to FTA. The Recipient 

agree to obtain a DUNS number (http://

www.dnb.com) for any first tier 

subrecipient that does not have a DUNS 

number, and agrees to maintain active 

and current profiles in the Central 

Contractor Registration database (http:// 

www.ccr.gov). 

3. Special TIGGER Reporting 

Requirements 

A recipient of TIGGER funds must 

report on an annual basis on all active 

TIGGER grants and must submit a final 

report at the time of grant close-out: 

(1) Actual annual energy consumed 

within the project scope attributable to 

the investment, for energy consumption 

reduction projects; 

(2) Actual greenhouse gas emissions 

within the project scope attributable to 

the investment, for greenhouse gas 

reduction projects; 

(3) Actual annual reductions or 

increases in operating costs attributable 

to the investment, for all projects. 

4. Planning Requirements 

Applicants must notify the 

appropriate State Department of 

Transportation and Metropolitan 

Planning Organization in areas likely to 

be served by the project funds made 

available under this program. 

Incorporation of funded projects in the 

long range plans and transportation 

improvement programs of States and 

metropolitan areas is required of all 

funded projects. 

5. Period of Availability 

ARRA requires that all program funds 

must be obligated by September 30, 

2010. However, to ensure full utilization 

of program funds, FTA requires that all 

TIGGER program funds allocated in this 

notice be obligated by March 31, 2010. 

FTA reserves the right to reallocate 

unobligated funds to other TIGGER 

applications. Under ARRA 

requirements, all funds must be 

disbursed by September 30, 2015. Any 

balances remaining after that date will 

revert to the U.S. Treasury. 

IV. Response to Comments 

Comment: Can a county submit a 

grant application that includes a 

university as a ’public transit agency’ 

thereby allowing us to address GHG 

emissions in a more comprehensive way 

given that we are facing non-attainment 

designation in the upcoming year? We 

would also like to include them in any 

energy efficiency efforts through this 

grant, as well. 

FTA Response: Proposers may involve 

universities as project partners. 

However, only public transportation 

agencies are eligible recipients. 

Comment: Please check the accuracy 

of the carbon footprint conversion that 

you are referring people to in Appendix 

D of the NOFA. The carbon footprint of 

fuel combustion is properly determined 

stoichiometrically plus a 1% correction 

factor for incomplete combustion. For 

diesel, EPA’s Web site at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/ 

420f05001.htm shows this calculation in 

more detail and results in 22.22 lbs CO2/ 

gal diesel (10.7 kg/gal) and not 9.17 kg/ 

gal as stated in Appendix D. 

FTA Response: Calculations based on 

values given under the EPA Web site are 

acceptable. 

Comment: Guidance to applicants is 

needed from FTA on what equivalent 

carbon footprint should be used for 

diesel combustion during idle and cold 

starts because the average value of 22 

tons (sic) CO2/gal is unrealistically low. 

FTA Response: Although more CO2

may be emitted during cold engine 

starts compared to hot starts, this is 

because more fuel may be consumed 

during and immediately after a cold 

start. The (typical) value of 22 pounds 

CO2/gal is a function of the carbon 

content of the fuel itself and is not 

affected by the amount of fuel used or 

changes in operating conditions. 

Proposers are allowed to use data from 

reliable sources that can be 

substantiated. 

Comment: While it is good FTA is 

supporting green house gas emissions 

reductions and energy consumption, 

this division between the two areas is 

arbitrary. FTA should only have one 

area. This could negatively impact 

smaller or medium sized grantees. 

Under the ‘‘Project Innovation’’ area, the 

grantee should also provide for an 

evaluation and dissemination plan. The 

results of the effort should be conducted 

in a manner others can review the 

results. Joint projects with 

transportation research centers and 

universities should be encouraged. 

Under the ‘‘Reporting Requirements’’ 

the guidance asks for annual reports; 

however, the notice does not mention 

the numbers of years this data needs to 

be reported. It would be logical if the 

reporting requirement should conclude 

upon final expenditure of the ARRA 

funds or two years after start of the 

project. 

FTA Response: ARRA provides for 

grants for capital investments that will 

assist in reducing the energy 

consumption or greenhouse gas 

emissions of their public transportation 

systems. It is FTA’s intent to carry out 

independent evaluation of select 

projects whose results will be widely 

disseminated. Reporting requirements 

remain until a project is officially 

closed. 

Comment: 

a. When ‘evaluating the Green house 

Gas Emissions reductions, are you 

requiring they be performed on a tank 

to wheel basis or do you want them 

performed on a wells to wheels basis? 

b. If funds other than these grant 

funds are used to buy down some of the 

cost of the project, will the ROI 

Evaluation be performed only assuming 

the costs applied from the grant funds? 

c. Can these grant funds be applied to 

refueling station infrastructure 

construction such as hydrogen (an 

enabling element of GHG Reduction)? If 

so how should they show the long term 

GHG reduction associated with the use 

of this fuel? 

d. Can a Transit agency apply for its 

normal 80% capital bus subsidy at the 

cost of a conventional bus and also 

apply for these grant funds to 

supplement the premium incremental 

cost of an advanced technology bus? If 

so will the Return on Investment (ROI) 

be evaluated only on the grant request 

amount? 

e. Does the proposal have to identify 

specifically the buses that will be taken 

out of the fleet if the grant is for new 

buses? 

f. Can you be more explicit about 

what you consider mainstream 

technologies and what you consider 

unique technologies you would like to 

see bid on this grant? 

FTA Response: 

a. Evaluation of project proposals was 

performed on a ‘‘tank to wheels’’ and 

not on a ‘‘well to wheels’’ basis. 

b. The Return on Investment (ROI) 

evaluation criteria only applied to 

Federal TIGGER funds invested. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
52530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 

c. Construction costs associated with 

refueling station infrastructure are an 

eligible program item if they are part of 

a project also involving the operation of 

vehicles that need to be refueled 

through the use of the station. The 

calculation of the GHG reduction 

associated with the use of the fuel 

dispensed at the station would be based 

on the consumption of the fuel by the 

vehicle over its useful life. 

d. A project proposal can include the 

incremental cost of an advanced 

propulsion system, and the associated 

ROT will be based on requested TIGGER 

funding. 

e. New buses purchased under the 

TIGGER program must replace those 

that have achieved their FTA useful life 

criteria. 

f. Mainstream technologies are 

generally those available from multiple 

sources and those that have significant 

operating experience. Unique 

technologies were not defined under the 

TIGGER program to avoid bias towards 

any specific technology. 

Comment: I have one comment and 

question. Teaming projects are 

encouraged yet it is unclear to me how 

entities that team transit agencies, such 

as consortia, participate in program. My 

question is, can a consortia team a 

number of transit agencies together for 

a proposed submission, and then 

distribute a selected project to the team 

of transit agencies? Such teamed 

projects can gain knowledge and 

experience with a new technology in a 

very beneficial way by a highly 

communicative teaming strategy. How 

do ‘‘teamers’’ charge for administering 

teamed-projects? 

FTA Response: Under the TIGGER 

program, grant recipients are limited to 

single public transit agencies who will 

be responsible for conducting a project. 

However, other transit agencies can 

participate in a project as subrecipients, 

and their administrative costs are 

eligible if they contribute to the project. 

Comment: We remain concerned that 

in describing eligible expenses in 

section 1I.0 of the NOFTA, FTA has 

excluded fleet expansion, assuming the 

impact on transit agency emissions and 

energy consumption would be 

increased. We believe FTA should 

instead acknowledge that a fleet 

expansion, conducted in conjunction 

with fleet replacement, could reduce 

overall emissions and energy 

consumption where, for example, eight 

inefficient buses were replaced with 

nine highly efficient buses. The nine 

new buses in the expanded fleet could 

still accomplish the program goals. 

FTA Response: The purpose of the 

TIGGER program is to encourage 

reduction of energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction to the 

best extent possible without sacrificing 

service. Fleet expansions were 

discouraged under the program as they 

would reduce the competitiveness of the 

proposed project since the incremental 

energy use and GHG emission over the 

life of the expanded fleet would be 

higher than a replacement fleet of the 

original size. 

Comment: I believe our organization’s 

experience with advanced vehicle 

technology project-management, 

performance data collection protocols, 

project public relations, education, and 

awareness campaigns, and all FTA 

recipient requirements would be a 

valuable asset to individual or multiple 

transit agencies as they develop and 

implement Transit Investments for 

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction 

(TIGGER) projects. In this regard, I 

would like to point out a possible 

administrative weakness of the program 

and suggest a solution. 

Typically, transit agencies and the 

other eligible recipients listed are not 

set up to serve as the prime contractor 

for large projects involving other transit 

agencies and other states. A project 

involving multi-city deployment with 

multiple agencies serving as contractors, 

for example, would be unwieldy and 

very difficult to manage for both the 

agencies and the FTA. However, this 

challenge can be met by an organization 

like ours, which can serve as the prime 

contractor for all of the agencies in this 

scenario. By providing a centralized, 

nonprofit project management team, we 

can better help the FTA ensure that 

multi-agency TIGGER projects are well 

planned, executed, reported, and 

evaluated. 

We would like to know if the 

structure of the program can be changed 

to allow us to play this Prime Contractor 

role for potential multiple transit agency 

demonstration projects. 

FTA Response: Under ARRA 

requirements for TIGGER, only public 

transit agencies could receive grants 

directly from FTA. 

Comment: 

1. Section IV. A. Project Evaluation 

Criteria for Energy Consumption 

Reduction Projects: FTA will evaluate 

projects on total energy consumption 

savings projected to result from the 

project, and projected energy savings of 

the project as a percentage of the total 

energy usage of the public transit 

agency. Evaluating the project as a 

percentage of the total energy usage of 

the public—transit agency is 

inconsistent with the examples given 

under Section III. B.(3). ‘‘For example, a 

project could consist of replacing 10 

buses in a 100 vehicle bus fleet with 

more energy efficient buses. In this case, 

measurement would focus on the 10 

vehicles, not the entire fleet’’. 

2. Section IV C. (4) Project Innovation. 

The project identifies a unique, 

significant, or innovative approach to 

reducing energy: This criterion is more 

consistent with pilot or experimental 

grant projects that may not have long 

term benefits or sustainability. In 

addition, this criterion needs specific 

examples in order to clarify the intent. 

Examples given under Section III.B.(3) 

such as making the buses more energy 

efficient are good projects but don’t 

appear to be consistent with the 

language provided under Section IV 

C.(4). We recommend that this section 

be reworded to encourage purchasing 

more energy efficient buses such as 

hybrid. 

FTA Response: (1) In order to keep 

comparisons among different proposals 

to a common norm, project evaluations 

were based on total energy consumption 

savings from the project and the energy 

savings of the project as a percentage of 

the total energy usage at the public 

transit agency. Actual projections on 

what would be achieved in terms of 

energy reduction were limited to what 

the project introduced and did not 

include non-project elements. The 

examples given were not inconsistent 

with this project evaluation approach. 

(2) The criterion addressing project 

innovation was deliberately worded 

towards non-biasing a particular project 

or technology. 

Comment: My organization’s 15 years 

of experience with advanced vehicle 

technology project management, 

performance data collection protocols, 

project public relations, education, and 

awareness campaigns, and all FTA 

presentation and reporting requirements 

should continue to be a valuable asset 

to the FTA and its transit agency 

partners as they develop and implement 

Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas 

and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) 

projects. Organizations like mine are 

capable of assuring that TIGGER 

projects are well planned, executed, and 

reported. With this in mind, we 

respectfully submit two questions: (1) Is 

our role as a subcontractor to transit 

agencies in the development and 

execution of TIGGER projects an 

acceptable one? And (2) If acceptable, 

will the FTA endorse this role with 

interested transit agencies? 

FTA Response: (I) It is entirely up to 

the transit agency seeking TIGGER 

funds to form its team and decide what 

each member of the team will do. FTA 

did not limit or suggest how the transit 

agency should form its team or conduct 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52531 

its project. 2. FTA does not endorse any 

organization for a formal role in the 

TIGGER program projects. 

Comment: Under the NOFA, can 

applicants submit proposals that 

include plans to purchase transit buses 

that would fit the goals of the program, 

but have not yet gone through Altoona 

testing, so do not yet meet FMVSS? The 

idea is that the prospective vehicle type 

will have gone through this testing and 

be put into service within the funding 

period. 

FTA Response: FTA did not limit the 

type of vehicles that can be purchased. 

However, the purchase will have to 

meet the FTA Capital Program 

requirements before any Federal 

funding can be committed. We also note 

FTA’s long-standing requirement that 

buses must certify compliance with 

applicable FMVSS requirements prior to 

starting Altoona testing. 

Issued on: Oct. 6, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
52532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52533 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.022</GPH>
52534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52535 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.024</GPH>
52536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 52537 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN13OC09.026</GPH>
52538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–24479 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Request for an Extension of 

an Informational Filing 

In accordance with Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 236.913, 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) has 

received a request for extension of an 

informational filing from the Union 

Pacific Railroad Company (UP) to 

permit continued field testing of the 

railroad’s processor-based train control 

systems. For informational purposes 

only, the original informational filing is 

briefly described below, including the 

submitting party and the requisite 

docket number where the original 

informational filing, the informational 

filing extension request and any related 

information may be found. These 

documents are also available for public 

inspection; however, FRA is not 

accepting public comment on the 

documents. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company 

[Docket Number FRA–2007–27322] 

UP has submitted an informational 

filing to FRA to permit field testing of 

the railroad’s processor-based train 

control systems identified as Vital-Train 

Management System (V–TMS). The 

informational filing addresses the 

requirements under 49 CFR 

236.913(j)(1). 

Specifically, the informational filing 

contains a description of the V–TMS 

product and an operational concepts 

document, pursuant to 49 CFR 

236.913(j)(1). V–TMS is a locomotivecentric, vital train control system 

designed to be overlaid on existing 

methods of operation and intended to 

provide a high level of railroad safety 

through enforcement of authority limits, 

permanent speed restrictions and 

temporary speed restrictions. 

UP requests that the formal test and 

demonstration period for this 

informational filing be extended until 

December 31, 2015, or until such time 

as this informational filing is 

superseded by an FRA approved PTC 

Implementation Plan. 

Interested parties are invited to 

review the informational filing and 

associated documents at the following 

locations: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for a simple search on the 

DOT electronic docket site (Docket 

Number FRA–2007–27322). All 

documents in the public docket that are 

associated with the informational filing 

are available on the web site for 

inspection and copying. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– 

78). The Statement may also be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 6, 

2009. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–24478 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD–2009 0091] 

Requested Administrative Waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Invitation for public comments 

on a requested administrative waiver of 

the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel 

MER SEA. 

SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 

12121, the Secretary of Transportation, 

as represented by the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), is authorized 

to grant waivers of the U.S.-build 

requirement of the coastwise laws under 

certain circumstances. A request for 

such a waiver has been received by 

MARAD. The vessel, and a brief 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. The complete application 

is given in DOT docket MARAD–2009– 

0091 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Interested parties may comment on the 

effect this action may have on U.S. 

vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. 

that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD 

determines, in accordance with 46 

U.S.C. 12121 and MARAD’s regulations 

at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 

30, 2003), that the issuance of the 

waiver will have an unduly adverse 

effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a 

business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in 

that business, a waiver will not be 

granted. Comments should refer to the 

docket number of this notice and the 

vessel name in order for MARAD to 

properly consider the comments. 

Comments should also state the 

commenter’s interest in the waiver 

application, and address the waiver 

criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR part 388. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

docket number MARAD–2009–XXXX. 

Written comments may be submitted by 

hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. You may also 

send comments electronically via the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

All comments will become part of this 

docket and will be available for 

inspection and copying at the above 

address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

E.T., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An electronic version 

of this document and all documents 

entered into this docket is available on 

the World Wide Web at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W21–203, 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 

366–5979. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant, the intended 

service of the vessel MER SEA is: 

Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: 

‘‘Private charters in Southern 

California.’’ 

Geographic Region: ‘‘California’’. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Dated: October 5, 2009. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Christine Gurland, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–24476 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES