[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37402-37405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15079]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Request for Information Concerning the Capital Investment Grants 
Program

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for Information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration is seeking suggestions from 
all transit stakeholders (transit authorities, planning officials, 
States, cities, the private sector, and the public) on improvements 
that could be made to the evaluation process for projects seeking 
funding from the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program. Specifically, 
FTA seeks input on evaluation measures and data sources that can better 
capture the benefits and costs of transit and how the CIG program can 
facilitate outcomes that maximize those benefits.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before October 13, 2021. FTA 
will consider comments filed after this date to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: All responses MUST be submitted electronically to Docket No. 
FTA-2021-0010 at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of 
Capital Project Development, (202) 366-5159, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46032a2f3c272423322e6802273f0622293268212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d095bcb9aab1b2b5a4b8fe94b1a990b4bfa4feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: To receive discretionary Capital Investment Grants 
(CIG) program funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), an 
applicant must complete the multi-year, multi-step process outlined in 
law at 49 U.S.C. 5309 for the proposed transit capital project. The law 
specifies evaluation criteria covering project justification and local 
financial commitment that FTA must use to develop a project rating on a 
five-point scale from low to high. It also specifies that a project 
must receive a Medium or better overall rating to advance through the 
process and receive CIG program funding. The law establishes three 
categories of projects eligible under the CIG program, which are known 
as New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement projects. 
Each project type has a unique set of requirements and evaluation 
criteria in law, although many similarities exist among them.
    For New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects, the steps in 
the CIG process include project development, engineering, and 
construction. The CIG process for Small Starts projects includes only 
project development and construction. New Starts and Core Capacity 
Improvement projects receive construction funds from the CIG program 
through a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) that defines the scope of 
the project and specifies the total multi-year Federal commitment to 
the project. Small Starts projects receive construction funds through a 
single-year grant or a Small Starts grant agreement (SSGA) that defines 
the scope of the project and specifies the Federal commitment to the 
project.
    There are six statutory project justification criteria that FTA 
must evaluate and rate individually for projects pursuing CIG funding 
that differ slightly between the three categories of projects. The law 
requires each project justification criterion to be given a 
``comparable, but not necessarily equal, numerical weight'' when FTA 
develops a summary project justification rating. The law also requires 
FTA to evaluate local financial commitment. For New Starts and Core 
Capacity, the law requires FTA to determine whether: (A) The proposed 
financial plan provides for the availability of reasonable contingency 
to cover unanticipated cost increases or funding shortfalls; (B) each 
proposed local source of capital and operating financing is stable, 
reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable; and (C) 
local resources are available to recapitalize, maintain, and operate 
the overall existing and proposed public transportation system, 
including essential feeder bus and other services necessary to achieve 
the projected ridership levels, without requiring a reduction in 
existing public transportation services or level of service to operate 
the proposed project. For Small Starts projects the law requires FTA to 
determine that, ``each proposed local source of capital and operating 
financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed 
project timetable.''
    Lastly, the law requires FTA to issue policy guidance on the CIG 
review and

[[Page 37403]]

evaluation process each time FTA makes significant changes to the 
process or criteria, but not less frequently than once every two years. 
When there are significant guidance changes proposed, the document is 
subject to notice and comment procedures.
    For more information on the existing CIG process and evaluation 
criteria, please see the CIG Policy Guidance found at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/final-capital-investment-grant-program-interim-policy.
    Through this request for information (RFI), FTA seeks input on the 
CIG process and evaluation criteria to inform the development of 
proposed changes to the existing CIG policy guidance that would undergo 
formal notice and comment in the future. The timing for publication of 
proposed CIG policy guidance is not certain and could be impacted by 
enactment of reauthorization legislation. FTA looks forward to feedback 
from all interested parties.

CIG Process (New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity Improvements)

    1. The law currently specifies that the Project Development phase 
for New Starts and Core Capacity Improvement projects must be completed 
within two years, signifying Congress' intent that projects move 
through the CIG process expeditiously. However, the law allows project 
sponsors to seek, and FTA to approve, an extension of the two-year 
timeframe. Is there a maximum amount of time beyond two years that FTA 
should allow a project sponsor to extend Project Development to remain 
consistent with the statutory intent?
    2. In addition to the requirements specified in law that must be 
completed to advance from one phase of the CIG process to the next, FTA 
has also issued CIG policy guidance. For example, FTA specifies in the 
guidance that a minimum of 30 percent design be completed and a minimum 
of 30 percent of the non-CIG funding be committed or budgeted before a 
New Start or Core Capacity Improvement project may advance from the 
Project Development phase to the Engineering phase. FTA also specifies 
in the guidance that all types of CIG projects (New Starts, Small 
Starts, and Core Capacity) have all of the non-CIG funding committed or 
budgeted, all critical third-party agreements completed, and a firm and 
reliable cost, scope, and schedule developed before a construction 
grant is awarded. Should FTA alter any provisions of its CIG guidance? 
Please be specific as to the reason for the response and any proposed 
alterations.

Economic Development Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core 
Capacity Improvements)

    FTA currently evaluates the Economic Development criterion for New 
Starts and Small Starts projects based on the extent to which a 
proposed project is likely to induce additional, transit-supportive 
development in the future. The evaluation is based on: (1) The transit-
supportive plans and policies in place (e.g., growth management plans, 
transit-supportive corridor policies; supportive zoning regulations 
near transit stations; and tools to implement land use policies); (2) 
the performance and impacts of those policies; and (3) the tools in 
place to maintain or increase the share of affordable housing in the 
project corridor (e.g., evaluation of project corridor-specific 
affordable housing needs and supply, or plans or policies to preserve 
and increase affordable housing).
    3. Should FTA consider under the Economic Development criterion 
whether a proposed CIG project is located in a federally designated 
community development zone (e.g., designated opportunity zones, promise 
zones, empowerment zones, or choice neighborhoods)? Please provide 
reasons for answering yes or no. [See https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/opportunity-zones-frequently-asked-questions#designated; 
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/field_policy_mgt/fieldpolicymgtpz; 
https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/empowerment_zones, and https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn.]
    4. Should FTA consider other ways of assessing whether local plans 
and policies are transit supportive and encourage affordable housing 
under the Economic Development criterion? Please be specific as to what 
different or additional metrics could be used, and what thresholds for 
these metrics could be deemed as transit-supportive.

Land Use Criterion (New Starts and Small Starts)

    The Land Use criterion examines what exists in the project corridor 
today. FTA currently evaluates Land Use for New Starts and Small Starts 
projects based primarily on existing station area population densities, 
total existing employment served by the project, and the percentage of 
existing ``legally binding affordability restricted'' housing within a 
\1/2\ mile of station areas as compared to the counties in which the 
corridor is located.
    5. For equity considerations, should FTA evaluate measures under 
the Land Use criterion that are easy to calculate using census data, 
such as the minority population or the number of households in poverty 
along the alignment?
    6. Should FTA consider ``access to opportunity'' under the Land Use 
criterion? If so, how specifically could FTA measure it? For example, 
should access provided by the project to education facilities, health 
care facilities, or food stores be considered? Please identify 
measures/data sources that would be readily available nationwide 
without requiring an undue burden on project sponsors to gather and FTA 
to verify the information.
    7. In a Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation's and the Federal 
Government's History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies 
(January 26, 2021), President Biden highlighted the Federal 
government's history of disconnecting neighborhoods from access to 
high-quality housing, jobs, public transit, and other resources. Should 
FTA consider under the Land Use criterion whether the project corridor 
has been affected by major transportation projects in the past that 
destroyed, divided, or isolated neighborhoods? If so, how should FTA 
analyze and evaluate those impacts and consider them in the Land Use 
criterion?
    8. The more measures used to develop a criterion rating, the less 
influence each measure has on the outcome. How many measures are 
appropriate to include in total under the Land Use criterion given the 
questions above? Should the use of multiple, strongly correlated 
measures be avoided?

Environmental Benefits Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core 
Capacity Improvements)

    FTA currently evaluates Environmental Benefits for New Starts 
projects based on the dollar value of the anticipated direct and 
indirect benefits of the project resulting from the change in air 
quality criteria pollutants, change in energy use, change in greenhouse 
gas emissions, and change in safety divided by the annualized capital 
and operating cost of the proposed project. These benefits are computed 
based on the change in vehicle miles traveled resulting from 
implementation of the proposed project. The Environmental Benefits 
measure for Small Starts projects is currently the dollar value of the 
anticipated direct and indirect benefits to safety, energy, and air 
quality calculated in the same way as for New Starts projects but 
divided by the annualized Federal share of the project.

[[Page 37404]]

Core Capacity Improvement projects receive an automatic Medium rating 
on the Environmental Benefits criterion unless the sponsor requests to 
be evaluated using the New Starts measures.
    9. As mentioned in the existing CIG policy guidance, FTA intended 
to include the direct and indirect benefits to human health resulting 
from implementation of a proposed project in the Environmental Benefits 
measures, but has had difficulty in determining how to do so. How 
should FTA calculate the health benefits of transit projects? Please 
provide specific proposed measures and data sources that would be 
readily available across the nation without requiring an undue burden 
on project sponsors to gather the information or on FTA to verify the 
information.
    10. Should FTA also consider impacts to water quality under the 
Environmental Benefits criterion? Please provide any available research 
or data on the impact of a transit project on water quality. Please 
identify measures/data sources that would be readily available across 
the nation without requiring an undue burden on project sponsors to 
gather the information and FTA to verify the information.

Cost Effectiveness Criterion (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core 
Capacity Improvements)

    FTA currently evaluates Cost-Effectiveness by measuring the annual 
capital and operating and maintenance cost per trip on the project (New 
Starts); the annualized capital Federal share of the project per trip 
on the project (Small Starts); or the annualized Core Capacity 
Improvement share of the project per trip (Core Capacity).
    11. As an incentive to encourage project sponsors to consider 
``green'' elements in their proposed CIG projects, FTA currently allows 
the additional costs of such elements to be excluded from the Cost-
Effectiveness calculation for New Starts projects. Specifically, FTA 
allows 50 percent of the purchase cost of ``green'' buses and 2.5 
percent of the cost of facilities designed to achieve U.S. Green 
Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or a 
comparable third-party certification to be excluded. Because the Core 
Capacity Improvement and Small Starts Cost-Effectiveness calculations 
are based only on the CIG share or Federal share and not the total 
annualized project cost, a similar incentive is not provided for those 
types of projects.
    (a) How could FTA further incentivize project sponsors to 
incorporate environmentally sustainable project elements into CIG 
projects? Please be specific in any suggestions provided.
    (b) Are there lifecycle cost savings or other benefits that transit 
agencies have realized from implementing ``green'' elements (i.e., 
evidence of fuel, maintenance, or parts savings)? Please provide 
examples or data.

Mobility Improvements (New Starts and Small Starts)

    FTA currently evaluates Mobility Improvements on the total number 
of linked trips estimated to use the proposed CIG project, with a 
weight of two given to trips that would be made on the project by 
transit-dependent persons.
    12. Should more emphasis be placed on trips made by transit-
dependent persons? Why or why not?

Capacity Needs (Core Capacity Improvements)

    The law specifies that to be eligible as a Core Capacity 
Improvement, a proposed project corridor must be at capacity today or 
will be in five years and the project must increase capacity by at 
least 10 percent. FTA currently uses space per passenger in the peak 
hour in the peak direction to evaluate Capacity Needs for light rail 
projects and seated load in the peak hour in the peak direction to 
evaluate Capacity Needs for commuter rail projects.
    13. By what methods do transit agencies determine if a transit 
corridor is at capacity today or soon will be? Please be specific on 
the measures and calculations used. Are the measures based on readily 
available data routinely calculated by transit agencies or do they 
require a situation-specific analysis? Could the measures be applied in 
a national program evaluating various modes and corridors across the 
country?
    14. What load factor policies do transit agencies use to determine 
when additional vehicles are needed on a transit line? Please provide 
specific examples of what load factors are used, and how they are 
calculated? Please include load factors used for each mode.

Congestion Relief (New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 
Improvements)

    For New Starts and Small Starts projects, FTA currently evaluates 
the number of new weekday linked trips resulting from implementation of 
the proposed project to determine Congestion Relief, which serves as an 
indirect measure of reduced traffic congestion because those trips 
typically represent people who have chosen to take transit rather than 
drive. For Core Capacity Improvement projects, FTA evaluates the 
percent increase in capacity in the corridor resulting from the 
proposed project to determine Congestion Relief.
    15. Should FTA evaluate Congestion Relief differently? If so, 
please identify measures/data sources that would be readily available 
at transit agencies across the nation without requiring an undue burden 
on project sponsors to gather the information and FTA to verify the 
information.

Resiliency/Futureproofing (Not Currently Considered in the Evaluation 
Process)

    FTA regulations, at 49 CFR 602.5, define ``resilience'' as the 
``ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions 
and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions such as 
significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to social well-
being, the economy, and the environment.''
    16. Do transit agencies measure and evaluate resilience benefits of 
proposed capital projects? Do they use a quantitative approach? Please 
provide examples of specific metrics or analyses used.
    17. Should resilience elements be formally incorporated into the 
CIG project evaluation process? If so, how might resilience be measured 
and incorporated? What thresholds would distinguish one project from 
another? Should FTA use its Hazard Mitigation Cost Effectiveness (HMCE) 
Tool to measure benefits and costs of resilience elements as it has 
done for projects considered for emergency relief funding (see https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hazard-mitigation-cost-effectiveness-hmce-tool)? Please be specific in 
your responses.
    18. The concept of ``future-proofing'' is often discussed along 
with resilience to ensure infrastructure projects will continue to be 
of value into the distant future and not become obsolete quickly. What 
emerging technologies may have an impact (positive or negative) on a 
transit system, and how can avoiding this situation be prepared for in 
the planning and design of CIG capital projects?

Local Financial Commitment (New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity 
Improvements)

    Currently, FTA evaluates three factors when examining Local 
Financial Commitment: (1) The current financial condition of the 
project sponsor; (2) the amount of committed funds; and (3) the 
reasonableness of financial planning

[[Page 37405]]

assumptions and the resulting financial capacity they demonstrate. 
After evaluation of those three factors and calculation of a rating for 
Local Financial Commitment, FTA considers the CIG share request. 
Specifically, if the CIG share request is less than 50 percent and the 
calculated Local Financial Commitment rating is at least Medium, the 
rating is boosted one level. Small Starts and Core Capacity Improvement 
projects can qualify for financial warrants (automatic financial 
ratings) under certain circumstances.
    19. Project sponsors that do not qualify for warrants (automatic 
financial ratings) must submit a 20-year cash-flow statement to FTA for 
evaluation and rating. Should FTA consider accepting cash flow 
statements for other time periods (e.g., a 10-year, 15-year, or 25-year 
project cash-flow statement)? If so, please explain why and the 
suggested time period.
    FTA welcomes any additional feedback on the CIG program, including 
topics not listed in the questions above.
    All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this RFI. 
Submissions are strictly voluntary. Individuals or entities responding 
to the RFI should state their role as well as knowledge and experience 
of the CIG program. FTA may request additional clarifying information 
from any or all respondents. If a respondent does not wish to be 
contacted by FTA for additional information, a statement to that effect 
should be included in the response. All information submitted should be 
unclassified and should not contain proprietary information.
    FTA is not obligated to officially respond to the information 
received, but the responses will greatly assist FTA in developing 
proposed CIG policy guidance changes.
    Comments may be submitted and viewed at Docket No. FTA-2021-0010 at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15079 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>