46352 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 

project implementation. It would also 

restrict the flexibility of the sites to 

quickly change project partners and cost 

share, which is important in research 

programs to respond to unforeseen 

problems. 

Therefore, FTA feels there is no risk 

that this research program will 

contribute to the transfer of market 

leadership from a U.S. to a foreign entity 

in the national market for hydrogen 

infrastructure. 

In regard to IP, FTA fully appreciates 

the importance of IP in highly 

competitive industries. FTA has no 

interest in facilitating the transfer of IP 

from U.S. firms to foreign entities. FTA 

assures all concerned that, within the 

Fuel Cell Bus Program, all IP developed 

or retained by U.S. interests will remain 

under the control of those interests. 

There is no additional risk that IP 

belonging to U.S. interests will be 

unwittingly transferred to outside 

entities. Foreign companies 

participating in the National Fuel Cell 

Bus Program are required to agree to 

standardized data collection. Objective 

evaluations of the bus demonstration 

programs are a major component of the 

program and will provide U.S. 

companies non-proprietary performance 

data and analysis of all fueling 

infrastructure used in the program. 

FTA recognizes that U.S. companies 

have significant experience developing 

and operating hydrogen fueling stations. 

However, though hydrogen production 

has advanced further than fuel cell 

technology, FTA determines it is still 

beneficial to examine all available and 

developing technologies. In cases where 

infrastructure funding is a major 

component of the project, it is focused 

on novel applications, not on replicating 

or competing with efforts where U.S. 

companies have already proven to be 

capable leaders. 

In conclusion, FTA’s review of the 

selection process and industry 

comments relating to the Fuel Cell Bus 

Program support our judgment that the 

transit industry and American public at 

large will best be served by a fuel cell 

bus research program not bound by Buy 

America requirements. 

Waiver 

Therefore, after carefully considering 

all comments, and for the reasons stated 

in its justification above, FTA hereby 

waives its Buy America requirements 

for all projects funded through its Fuel 

Cell Bus Program. Quick and successful 

deployment of fuel cell bus technology 

and infrastructure is in the public 

interest. Fuel cell technology will 

benefit the environment by lessening 

carbon emissions and decreasing the use 

of petroleum and other fossil fuels. 

Allowing foreign technologies will 

allow the project teams to focus on 

commercial viability instead of having 

to make fundamental advances 

independent of existing technology. 

Ultimately, this will lead to increased 

domestic demand for fuel cell bus 

technology and infrastructure, resulting 

in a sustainable U.S. market. 

Issued this 31st day of July, 2008. 

Severn E.S. Miller, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E8–18313 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2008–0020] 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Guidance on New Starts/Small Starts 

Policies and Procedures. 

SUMMARY: This notice conveys the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures. 

DATES: Effective Date: These policies 

and procedures will take effect on 

August 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Fisher, Office of Planning and 

Environment, telephone (202) 366–

4033, Federal Transit Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 

Washington, DC 20590 or 

Ronald.Fisher@dot.gov. 

Availability of Comments Considered in 

the Development of This Guidance 

A copy of the notice of availability of 

the proposed Guidance, issued on April 

18, 2008, and comments and material 

received from the public as a part of its 

review of the proposed Guidance, are 

part of docket FTA–2008–0020 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Room W12–140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. You may retrieve the 

comments online at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Enter docket 

number FTA–2008–0020 in the search 

field. In the ‘‘Narrow Results’’ section 

on the left side of the screen, click on 

‘‘Rules.’’ The Web site is available 24 

hours each day, 365 days each year. 

Electronic submission and retrieval help 

and guidelines are available under the 

help section of the Web site. An 

electronic copy of this document may 

also be downloaded by using a 

computer, modem and suitable 

communications software from the 

Government Printing Office’s Electronic 

Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may also reach the 

Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and 

the Government Printing Office’s Web 

page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. 

Response to Comments and New and 

Small Starts Program Changes 

The purpose of this notice is to 

convey the Final Guidance on New 

Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures, reflecting the changes 

implemented as a result of comments 

received on the April 18, 2008 Notice of 

Availability (73 FR 21170). FTA finds 

that there is good cause to make this 

guidance effective upon publication of 

this notice in order to assist grantees to 

enter or complete development of 

proposed projects. 

1. Initiation Package 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

require that project sponsors beginning 

an alternatives analysis prepare and 

provide to FTA a package of information 

on: (1) The problems that motivate 

consideration of major transit 

alternatives in a corridor; (2) the 

alternatives that have been identified for 

consideration; and (3) the information 

that will be prepared to support 

decisions on the alternatives along with 

the identification of the general 

approach to development of that 

information. 

Preparing the package at the 

beginning of an alternative analysis 

allows FTA and other stakeholders to 

better understand the key 

considerations for an alternatives 

analysis. We anticipate that this will 

result in a more streamlined process. 

Comments: A significant number of 

respondents supported this measure as 

a way to discuss potential road blocks 

that may occur in the project 

development process. Several 

commenters opposed this proposal 

indicating the scope of the proposal is 

best suited for a rulemaking process and 

is beyond the level of change 

appropriate for annual policy guidance. 

Response: The proposal is a small 

change in FTA requirements that is 

properly implemented through policy 

guidance. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 46353 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the proposal should not 

require approval or delay an alternatives 

analysis study and that FTA should 

provide guidance on the initiation 

package to aid the project sponsor in the 

planning process. 

Response: FTA does not intend to 

formally approve these documents, but 

will instead comment on them. If FTA 

expresses significant concerns with the 

description of problems in the study 

corridor, the nature of the alternatives, 

or the methodology, this could delay 

study progress. Because FTA must 

eventually agree to both the alternatives 

studied and the methodological 

approach as it affects development of 

information used for FTA evaluation, 

addressing these issues early in a study 

with possible delays means that 

technical work will not have to be 

redone later, which would likely result 

in more significant study delays. FTA 

has encouraged study sponsors to 

produce this kind of document for 

several years and provides guidance for 

what the document should contain on 

its Web site (http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

planning/newstarts/ 

planning_environment_2589.html). 

Comments: A few other respondents 

requested that care be taken so that the 

Federal perspective will not hamper the 

local project development process. 

Response: We agree. FTA’s 

responsibility is to ensure that a 

reasonable range of alternatives is 

considered to fulfill its responsibilities 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and the alternatives 

analysis requirement in 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

It is also FTA’s responsibility to ensure 

that the information developed for its 

evaluations is consistent with good 

planning practice and FTA guidance. 

FTA does not dictate what kind of 

information should be developed to 

serve local decision-making needs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

FTA should be aware that even with the 

most thorough planning efforts, new 

alternatives may arise after the initiation 

package is complete due to 

circumstances beyond the project 

sponsor’s control. 

Response: It is FTA’s aspiration to 

minimize changes to alternatives being 

studied by vetting them early with all 

interested parties. FTA understands that 

new alternatives could arise later in the 

study as a result of study findings. 

2. Small Starts Eligibility 

a. FTA adopts as final the 

modification of the Small Starts 

eligibility requirements for proposed 

projects that do not include an actual 

fixed guideway but meet the definition 

of being a corridor-based bus project. 

FTA eliminates the requirement that all 

four project elements (low-floor buses, 

traffic signal priority/pre-emption, 

significant stations, and branding) must 

be part of the project, and instead allows 

a project to be eligible if it includes at 

least three of the four elements. 

Heretofore, non-fixed guideway 

projects were not eligible for Small 

Starts funding if any of the four 

elements listed above already existed in 

the corridor. Our experience has shown 

that minor improvements already made 

in a corridor, such as the existence of 

one of the elements, prevents worthy 

projects from being eligible for Small 

Starts funding. Our intent for the Small 

Starts program has been to differentiate 

the Small Starts program from the 

Section 5309 Bus Program by funding 

significant corridor improvements. By 

revising the policy to allow projects in 

corridors with one of the existing 

elements to apply for Small Starts 

funding, FTA has attempted to strike a 

balance between being too restrictive so 

that many worthy projects are excluded 

from eligibility, and being too flexible 

thus allowing eligibility for projects that 

are not significant corridor 

improvements but rather incremental 

improvements better funded under 

another program. 

Comments: A few commenters 

opposed the measure, stating that no 

project should be eligible for funding 

under 49 U.S.C. 5309 unless it is an 

actual fixed guideway that includes rails 

or the exclusive use of right-of-way. 

Response: The Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–

LU) amended 49 U.S.C. 5309 to make 

non-fixed guideway projects eligible for 

Small Starts funding. 

Comments: A significant number of 

respondents supported the elimination 

of the low-floor bus requirement for 

Small Starts projects. 

A few commenters supported and 

expanded on the measure by stating that 

if one or more Small Starts elements are 

already present in a corridor that they 

should not preclude a project from 

Small Starts funds. 

One respondent encouraged FTA to 

allow some level of existing BRT 

components, but suggested that FTA 

clarify that it will not fund installation 

or replacement of existing components. 

One commenter suggested that FTA 

allow a project to qualify if it contains 

four of the following six elements : (1) 

Low floor buses/level boarding; (2) 

significant stations; (3) high frequency 

service; (4) branding; (5) traffic signal 

priority/pre-emption; and (6) real-time 

customer information. One respondent 

supported the use of a minimum 

threshold for Small Starts projects. 

Response: While the proposal was to 

eliminate only the low-floor 

requirement, we have modified that in 

response to comments asking for more 

flexibility. FTA has tried to be more 

flexible in its eligibility requirements 

while still ensuring that the 

improvements are substantial enough to 

differentiate the Small Starts program 

from the Section 5309 Bus Program. In 

order to keep the program as simple as 

possible, we have not required a large 

number of elements, instead settling on 

a few that we think are necessary for 

premium transit services that will result 

in significant improvements in service. 

Should a proposed corridor already 

include one of the four required 

elements and request that, as part of the 

proposed project, this element be 

replaced or upgraded, FTA considers 

these an eligible capital expense in the 

Small Starts Program. In addition, FTA 

considers installation an eligible capital 

expense. Should, however, a project 

involve repair to an existing element, 

this item would need to be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. As for a 

minimum threshold, FTA assumes that 

this is a reference to a minimum project 

cost or Federal funding threshold. FTA 

declines to adopt a minimum threshold, 

however, as any such threshold could 

discourage low-cost transit solutions. 

b. FTA adopts as final the removal of 

the current prohibition of dividing a 

Small Starts project envisioned for a 

corridor into multiple Very Small Starts 

projects. 

The intent is to allow smaller projects 

to qualify as Very Small Starts, since the 

eligibility provisions for Very Small 

Starts guarantee that the projects will 

have acceptable ratings for project 

justification regardless of whether they 

will eventually be part of a larger project 

or not. 

Comments: In the same comment, 

several respondents both supported the 

proposal to divide Small Starts into 

Very Small Starts projects and also 

noted that the Very Small Starts 

program is not authorized in SAFETEA–

LU. In addition, these respondents 

stated that the project requirements for 

Very Small Starts are inherently modebiased. 

Response: The Federal Transit 

Administrator may impose any terms 

and conditions on a grant award under 

49 U.S.C. 5309 as he ‘‘determines to be 

necessary or appropriate’’ to carry out 

the purposes of the Section 5309 capital 

programs FTA is mindful, of course, 

that in enacting SAFETEA–LU, the 

Congress expected the agency to 

develop criteria and procedures for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
46354 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 

certain types of projects that would be 

simpler, and quicker, than those 

applicable to New Starts, to meet travel 

demands in discrete corridors that are 

growing, but do not yet necessitate the 

cost or careful development of a 

traditional New Starts fixed guideway. 

The Very Small Starts program is an 

exercise of the Administrator’s inherent, 

discretionary authorities to make grants 

under Section 5309 and to meet the 

growing demand across the Nation for 

projects that do not require the time or 

expense of larger Small Starts projects—

which, in many instances, resemble 

those of traditional New Starts projects. 

Any project seeking funding, 

regardless of mode, must have an 

acceptable project justification rating. 

The eligibility requirements for Very 

Small Starts were set to guarantee that 

a project has an acceptable project 

justification rating. To meet an 

acceptable cost effectiveness rating, the 

costs for eligibility were constrained so 

that the user benefits resulting from the 

travel time and non-travel time benefits 

assure an acceptable cost effectiveness 

rating. 

Due to the generally higher cost and 

other variables of a fixed guideway, it is 

not possible to automatically assure that 

such a project can be cost-effective 

unless it meets the requirements put in 

place for Very Small Start projects. 

Comments: A few commenters 

opposed the proposal to allow for the 

subdivision of Small Starts projects into 

Very Small Starts projects because the 

project sponsor may potentially 

circumvent cost effectiveness, the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process, and public input. 

Response: The eligibility 

requirements for Very Small Starts 

ensure that a project will have an 

acceptable cost effectiveness rating. 

There is nothing in the Very Small 

Starts program that allows a project to 

either circumvent NEPA or avoid public 

input. 

Comments: A few respondents 

opposed the measure, arguing that Very 

Small Starts projects do not guarantee a 

high quality transit project that is 

permanent enough to help a region 

move to a sustainable transportation 

system. 

Response: The Very Small Starts 

eligibility requirements were developed 

to ensure that premium transit service is 

provided. FTA requires in its grant 

agreements that the federally funded 

assets stay in public transportation 

service for their entire useful lives, 

otherwise FTA must be reimbursed its 

share of the fair market value of the 

assets. This provision gives some 

permanence to Very Small Start 

projects. 

Comments: Several respondents also 

encouraged FTA to allow New Starts 

projects to be subdivided into Small 

Starts projects. 

Response: FTA does not allow New 

Starts projects to be subdivided into 

multiple Small Starts projects because 

we believe it violates the intent of the 

Small Starts program, eliminates the 

need for the more intense scrutiny 

required for larger projects, and 

stretches FTA oversight resources too 

far. The Small Starts program is 

authorized at only $200 million per 

year, which would be used up very 

quickly were FTA to allow New Starts 

projects to be divided into multiple 

Small Starts projects. 

Comments: A few commenters 

responded to the category of Small 

Starts eligibility by suggesting that if 

FTA notices an increase in the number 

of Small Starts project development 

applications, FTA should request a 

greater amount of funding for this 

program. 

Response: The President’s annual 

budget request of Congress is based on 

an evaluation of the many competing 

priorities for public transportation 

across the Nation, not simply the 

demand for funding for Small Starts 

projects. 

3. Documentation of Uncertainties in 

Predictions of Capital Cost and 

Ridership 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

require that predictions of capital costs 

and project ridership for the locally 

preferred alternative (LPA) be expressed 

as ranges with accompanying 

explanations of the contributing sources 

of uncertainty that bracket the range. 

This requirement would apply to 

predictions submitted to FTA in support 

of requests to advance the LPA into 

preliminary engineering or, for Small 

Starts projects, project development, to 

all subsequent environmental 

documents, and to requests for entry 

into final design. The requirement does 

not apply to Very Small Starts. The 

requirement will go into effect six 

months after FTA issues separate 

guidance concerning this provision, 

expected before the end of calendar year 

2008. Three months after guidance is 

issued, project sponsors are required to 

consult with FTA on the approach for 

the analysis to ensure that it meets FTA 

expectations. 

The intent of this requirement is to 

comply with a number of SAFETEA–LU 

provisions that relate to project 

uncertainties. An analysis of project 

uncertainties provides the 

underpinnings for the reasonability of 

key information that FTA must confirm 

to assure that its evaluations and ratings 

are sufficient for Federal funding 

decisions. As a result, the time required 

for FTA technical reviews will be 

shortened because uncertainties will be 

disclosed, reducing FTA questions and 

requests for follow-up analysis and the 

attendant impacts on review times. 

The requirement will support more 

effective FTA compliance with 

SAFETEA–LU provisions relating to 

reliability of forecasting methods, the 

Before and After Study, the Contractor 

Performance Incentive Report, incentive 

awards when forecasts of costs and 

ridership are close to those achieved, 

and grantee consideration of the 

Contractor Performance Assessment 

Report (all found on http:// 

www.fta.dot.gov). This is because FTA 

will be able to better understand the 

context of forecasts when comparing 

outcomes to forecasts, in contrast to 

having single estimate forecasts with no 

explanation of variances as a result of 

other causal factors. 

Comments: A significant number of 

respondents stated that the measure 

would add to the burden of the New and 

Small Starts project development 

process by delaying planning and 

increasing costs for very little additional 

information. Several respondents 

opposed the measure noting that 

expressing forecasts in terms of a range 

is unreasonable and does not add to the 

utility of the project’s forecast. 

Response: FTA believes that any 

additional overall level of effort and 

time impacts for documentation of cost 

and ridership uncertainties will be 

modest if good planning practices are 

followed. For costs, the documentation 

of scope-related uncertainties relies on 

information that is surfaced in the 

routine course of the development of 

alternatives. The representation of these 

uncertainties can be captured in the 

existing spreadsheet framework of 

FTA’s standard cost categories (SCCs). 

For ridership, the basis of the analysis 

is easily generated by rerunning models 

with minor changes in the inputs, thus 

significantly reducing the level of 

analysis necessary to understand the 

reasonableness of forecasts. 

FTA believes that expressing forecasts 

in terms of ranges acknowledges the 

uncertainties that are endemic to any 

profession that makes forecasts of the 

future. That the actual capital costs and 

ridership of major transit projects have 

varied significantly from previous 

forecasts is evidence of the uncertainties 

that exist in forecasts for transit projects. 

Comments: Several commenters 

stated that this measure is more 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 46355 

appropriately considered in a 

rulemaking process, not an annual 

policy guidance document. A few 

commenters suggested that if FTA were 

to accept this proposal as final that FTA 

should conduct research to establish the 

efficacy of the methodology and subject 

the research to a formal rulemaking 

process. 

Response: FTA finds that this policy 

addresses good practice for planning 

and project development at a level of 

detail not usually addressed in 

rulemaking, which is intended for 

establishing the framework for project 

eligibility and evaluation. FTA intends 

to use the results of the uncertainty 

analysis in its research related to 

‘‘before and after’’ studies. 

Comments: A few commenters 

expressed concern that FTA is seeking 

to impose this requirement three 

months after publishing guidance 

without consideration for project status 

and without providing training to 

project sponsors. 

Response: FTA has extended the time 

for the requirement to go into effect 

from three months in the proposal to six 

months after FTA publishes guidance 

on the uncertainty analysis, which 

should provide ample time for project 

sponsors to develop the analysis. 

Projects already approved into final 

design prior to the eventual effective 

date of this requirement will not be 

subject to this requirement. 

Comments: A few respondents stated 

that the project development process is 

intended to reduce uncertainty and 

develop a more accurate cost as the 

project progresses toward final design; 

not to provide a detailed assessment. 

Response: We agree that current 

practice reduces the uncertainty in the 

capital cost estimate as project 

development progresses, but an analysis 

of those uncertainties is not usually 

described in public documents. Travel 

forecasts are rarely refined in project 

development, so that analysis of 

uncertainties would not be expected to 

change significantly. 

Comments: A few respondents stated 

that FTA has not given existing 

improvements to its process that are 

already in place enough time to work 

and that this requirement would add 

extra work to an already cumbersome 

process. 

Response: We believe that the 

improvements already in place should 

facilitate the analysis of uncertainties 

and reporting of ranges, which, at this 

time, are rarely described for the LPA 

and in environmental documents. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that changing input variables would not 

indicate the accuracy of the travel 

model, but would only demonstrate 

sensitivity which is already documented 

in the methodology and demonstrated to 

be accurate based on actual behavior 

and the model calibration process. 

Response: Changing input variables 

provides the sensitivity of ridership to 

those variables. Having a sense of the 

reliability of those variables, and 

interpreting how the forecasts are 

affected, provides insights into the 

uncertainties of the travel forecasts, 

rather than mechanically producing 

results as implied in the comment. 

Comments: One respondent said that 

this measure would present a conflict to 

other FTA processes, noting that FTA’s 

Office of Program Management requests 

the risk assessment process to begin 

when Preliminary Engineering is 20–

50% complete. 

Response: The uncertainty analysis 

should draw upon the best available 

information at the time the estimates of 

cost and ridership are developed. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

project sponsors depending on a 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) with a large number of member 

agencies will have great difficulty 

coming to a consensus on a high and 

low set of forecasts. 

Response: It is not clear that they will 

have responsibility for facilitating a 

consensus on a range of forecasts, but if 

they do, one of the key missions of 

MPOs is to facilitate decisions on 

transportation issues. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

it was unfair to impose this requirement 

on New Starts and Small Starts projects 

when other Federally funded transit 

projects are not subject to the same 

scrutiny. 

Response: The New and Small Starts 

programs have a number of special 

requirements spelled out in 49 U.S.C. 

5309 that do not apply to other federally 

funded transit projects, for reasons of 

policy enunciated by the statute; we 

note, moreover, the New and Small 

Starts programs are discretionary, 

whereas most other program funding 

under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 is 

distributed by formulae. 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

while qualitative concerns such as 

political or financial conditions may be 

described in text, the respondent 

questioned the value of using staff or 

consultant time to attempt to value such 

components. 

Response: It is the responsibility of 

the project sponsor to decide which 

factors are important in performing the 

uncertainty analysis and how they 

should be interpreted. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the best way to improve 

models is to encourage existing 

activities such as peer reviews, surveys, 

research, calibration, best practices, and 

before and after studies. 

Response: FTA agrees that these 

actions can reduce the uncertainty 

inherent in forecasts. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested FTA place greater emphasis 

on reducing trips and trip lengths by 

rewarding density in project corridors 

and at stations, rather than retaining a 

focus on travel time. 

Response: This proposal addressed 

reporting of uncertainties, not 

evaluation of land use. FTA currently 

gives credit for transit-oriented 

development and densities in its ratings 

for the land use criterion. 

Comments: A few respondents 

suggested that FTA identify 

uncertainties and allow project sponsors 

to respond with a short explanatory 

document that acknowledges the 

uncertainties that may affect the 

project’s capital costs or ridership. 

Response: Prior to this proposal, FTA 

has collaborated with project sponsors 

to refine ridership forecasts and 

estimates for capital costs. We expect 

that collaboration will be useful in the 

determination of the uncertainty 

analysis. The results of any analysis of 

uncertainties must be summarized in 

submittals to FTA in support of requests 

to advance the LPA into preliminary 

engineering or, for larger Small Starts 

projects, project development, in all 

subsequent environmental documents, 

and in requests for entry into final 

design. 

Comments: A few respondents stated 

that this proposal should only be 

applied to those elements that are a 

direct component of a Section 5309 

funded project, and not to ‘‘concurrent 

non-project activities’’ that are beyond 

the control of the project sponsor. 

Response: It is FTA’s intent to focus 

the uncertainty analysis on those project 

elements that relate to the transit 

project. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

FTA reduce this requirement to allow 

project sponsors to report every other 

year or only at key milestones. In 

addition, the commenter noted that this 

requirement should not apply to Very 

Small Starts projects as it would make 

the simplified process too cumbersome. 

Response: The requirement applies to 

key milestones only and does not apply 

to Very Small Starts. 

Comments: Several respondents asked 

how cost effectiveness would be 

determined if cost and ridership are 

reported using ranges. 

Response: FTA will use the best 

estimate of costs and ridership to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
46356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 

quantify the evaluation measures related 

to mobility impacts and cost 

effectiveness. The project sponsor, in 

collaboration with FTA, will determine 

what constitutes the best estimate. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

FTA has not clearly stated how the 

production of this information will 

result in an improved project. 

Response: The reporting of 

uncertainties will help FTA in 

determining project merit. In addition, 

proper reporting of uncertainties could 

reduce review times by FTA, which in 

turn should result in shorter project 

development times and reduced costs. 

Comment: One respondent requested 

clarification on what was meant by 

‘‘* * * FTA will give credit, perhaps 

approaching full credit for useful 

presentations of forecasts.’’

Response: The quoted language means 

that during project development FTA 

would take into consideration an 

insightful uncertainty analysis when 

establishing the reliability rating 

discussed under item 4 of this paper. 

FTA would also use the uncertainty 

analysis when preparing the Before and 

After Study Report and the Contractor 

Performance Assessment Report. FTA 

would take into consideration an 

insightful uncertainty analysis if the 

predicted or actual costs and ridership 

varied from the best estimate and the 

reasons for the variance were discussed 

in the uncertainty analysis as 

possibilities. In contrast, if the predicted 

or actual costs and ridership varied in 

the same way from the best estimate and 

the uncertainty analysis provided no 

insights into the reasons for the actual 

variance, FTA would view the outcomes 

more negatively in its assessments. 

Comment: One commenter sought 

clarification on the following questions: 

(1) To what extent will FTA hold up a 

project’s advancement in relation to this 

requirement; (2) will FTA question the 

breadth of this range; and (3) what 

happens if a project sponsor submits a 

best estimate that is closer to the low 

end than the high end? 

Response: FTA will treat this 

requirement consistent with how it 

treats other evaluation and rating 

requirements. Under rare circumstances, 

FTA may hold up a project’s 

advancement if FTA believes there are 

good reasons for doing so. As stated in 

the proposal, FTA will work with 

project sponsors to establish the best 

estimate and allow project sponsors to 

establish the high and low ends of 

range. The choice of the range is made 

by the project sponsor. If the project 

sponsor thinks the best estimate is 

closer to the low end of the range for the 

ridership forecasts or cost estimate than 

the high end, the sponsor’s 

accompanying explanation would 

describe why there is a low probability 

that actual ridership or cost would reach 

the higher end of the range. 

4. Reliability Rating 

FTA adopts as final the proposal to 

develop ratings of the reliability of 

capital cost estimates and ridership 

forecasts beginning in January 2009, and 

to consider these ratings in the 

determination of the project justification 

rating for proposed projects beginning 

in August 2009. The rating will be 

included under ‘‘Other Factors’’ for 

project justification. This requirement 

would apply to ratings made for 

requests to advance the LPA into 

preliminary engineering or, for larger 

Small Starts projects, project 

development, and to requests for entry 

into final design and prior to an FFGA. 

This requirement does not apply to Very 

Small Starts. 

FTA is implementing this rating to 

better differentiate the worthiness of 

projects for funding recommendations 

and to minimize the likelihood for 

project scope reductions when projects 

have ratings near acceptable 

breakpoints. Projects seeking New Starts 

and Small Starts funding vary 

considerably in the risks inherent in 

their cost and ridership forecasts as 

evidenced in the variance between 

actual results compared to the estimates 

made during planning and project 

development. Capturing reliability 

within FTA’s evaluation allows funding 

to be directed to projects that have the 

greatest likelihood of achieving their 

forecasts, which are the source of much 

of the information used for project 

ratings. Additionally, incorporating 

reliability into FTA’s ratings will 

minimize changes to ratings (or project 

scope to maintain a rating) that can 

occur after a project advances into 

preliminary engineering or into final 

design. This allows FTA to better 

comply with the 49 U.S.C. 5309 

mandate that a proposed New Starts or 

Small Starts project shall not advance 

through the project development 

process unless the Secretary determines 

that there is a reasonable likelihood that 

the project will continue to meet the 

evaluation requirements. 

Comments: A significant number of 

respondents opposed this requirement 

stating that this should have been 

included in a rulemaking process, not 

annual policy guidance. Several 

commenters questioned why FTA 

singled out this factor versus others 

listed in SAFETEA–LU that are not 

currently included in the project 

justification rating. 

Response: FTA does not believe 

adding reliability as an ‘‘other factor’’

rises to the level of rulemaking. In the 

past we have added several 

considerations under ‘‘other factors’’

without rulemaking. A number of the 

‘‘other factors’’ listed in SAFETEA–LU 

are either incorporated into existing 

measures or are so difficult to compute 

that using them in our evaluations 

would be cumbersome and not add to 

the information we have on the merits 

of the project. 

Comments: Several respondents 

stated that the sub-criteria for reliability 

are subjective. A few commenters said 

that reliability is already being 

addressed in FTA’s risk assessment 

process. Other commenters stated that 

FTA works closely with all grantees to 

approve their transit demand models, so 

reliability of forecasting methods should 

already be accounted for. 

Response: Assessing reliability of 

forecasts is largely a subjective process 

given there are few analytical tools that 

cover many of the factors that contribute 

to risk. FTA’s risk assessment process 

deals with much of the assessment of 

required risk, but omits some of the 

factors described in the proposed policy 

guidance. FTA’s oversight of travel 

forecasts results in a reasonable estimate 

of ridership and user benefits. However, 

the reliability of model results depends 

on a number of factors relating to the 

uncertainty of the input variables and 

the ability of the models to forecast 

certain travel markets. These and other 

factors are captured in FTA’s rating of 

reliability. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that FTA should identify specific 

project uncertainties and project 

sponsors would then respond to FTA’s 

assessment. 

Response: Prior to this proposal, FTA 

has collaborated with project sponsors 

to refine ridership forecasts and 

estimates for capital costs. We expect 

that collaboration will be useful in the 

determination of the reliability rating. 

Comments: A few respondents 

recommended FTA implement this 

requirement with procedures that are 

consistent with Congressional intent for 

the Small Starts program (i.e., 

commensurate with the level of 

investment). A few respondents 

encouraged FTA to help project 

sponsors who are having trouble with 

the modeling process rather than 

penalizing them through the application 

of a subjective rating factor. 

Response: FTA will continue to 

provide technical assistance to project 

sponsors undertaking cost and ridership 

forecasts and encourage the analysis to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 46357 

be commensurate with level of 

investment. 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested that the following be added to 

the list of uncertainties: change of 

development patterns due to 

demographic changes, housing 

preferences for units close to transit, 

housing and transportation expense, 

and the growing concern over 

greenhouse gases. 

Response: FTA intends to use the 

factors listed in the proposal as we 

believe we can discern reliability from 

them. Change in development patterns 

is one of the proposed factors, but the 

others listed in the comment are not. 

The other factors cannot easily be used 

to assess reliability because travel 

models do not include them; our 

understanding of the link between them 

and ridership is very weak; and they are 

difficult to forecast. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the experience of the project sponsor or 

contractor is more appropriately used to 

determine the extent of the oversight 

needed. 

Response: FTA believes that 

experience of the project sponsor is a 

key variable in determining the 

reliability of the estimates. FTA already 

considers the project sponsor’s 

experience and technical capacity when 

making a decision to advance a project 

and when assigning oversight resources. 

Comment: A few respondents 

requested clarification on how the 

reliability assessment will be made and 

a rating assigned. 

Response: Given the multitude of 

factors that contribute to reliability, FTA 

believes that each project will have a 

variety of factors that will inform the 

rating, so a description of a rigid rating 

framework is not effective. The factors 

include: completeness of the 

documentation of uncertainties, the 

quality of efforts to collect appropriate 

data and test travel forecasting 

procedures, actions taken by the project 

sponsor to minimize uncertainties, FTA 

findings, the track record of the project 

sponsor for forecasts of previous 

projects, the national track record of 

forecasts for similar projects, and the 

extent to which the ridership forecasts 

depend on conditions in the corridor 

that are substantially different from 

today. The rating will be considered 

along with other considerations under 

‘‘Other factors’’ and a decision made as 

to whether the project justification 

rating should be changed. 

5. Local Financial Commitment for 

Recapitalization of the Existing Transit 

System 

In rating potential New and Small 

Starts projects for local financial 

commitment, FTA adopts as final its 

proposal to give additional scrutiny to 

the adequacy of the local financial 

commitment for ongoing 

recapitalization of the existing transit 

system. 

SAFETEA–LU included provisions 

that underscore the need for transit 

systems to first ensure they have 

sufficient funding for their 

recapitalization needs before spending 

additional resources for new projects 

that could exacerbate funding problems 

for recapitalization. This policy is 

intended to assure that transit agencies 

considering new projects have adequate 

resources to recapitalize their systems. 

Comments: Several respondents 

sought clarification on what was meant 

by ‘‘additional attention will be given to 

local financial commitment for ongoing 

recapitalization.’’ A few commenters 

were not clear on the proposal or how 

it was different from current practice. 

Response: FTA intends to review the 

estimates of recapitalization costs and 

revenues with greater scrutiny than it 

has done in the past. While FTA has 

always included an examination of 

these needs in its evaluation, project 

ratings have seldom been impacted. 

This policy merely describes the greater 

emphasis FTA will be placing on the 

recapitalization estimates. 

Comments: A few commenters 

supported the proposal, stating that 

funding for maintenance and 

recapitalization are appropriate 

considerations in financial planning and 

FTA’s project ratings. Several 

respondents stated that it is not clear 

why a financial plan that includes 

section 5307 and 5309 fixed guideway 

modernization funds should be rated 

less favorably, given that maintaining 

the existing system is an eligible use of 

these funds. 

Response: The proposal stated that 

FTA would apply extra scrutiny to 

ensure the recapitalization needs of the 

existing system were covered with 

sufficient funds if a project sponsor 

proposed diverting Section 5307 and 

Section 5309 fixed guideway funds from 

recapitalization needs to help fund the 

capital cost of the New or Small Starts 

project. If FTA determines that 

insufficient funds are identified for 

recapitalization needs or that 

recapitalization cost estimates are 

significantly understated in the 

financial plan, then the financial rating 

for the ‘‘capital cost estimates, planning 

assumptions, and financial capacity’’

subfactor may be downgraded. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that even if Congress had ‘‘the state of 

good repair’’ as its intent, that this is not 

applicable to Small Starts projects that 

only have to prove ‘‘each proposed local 

source of capital and operating 

financing is stable, reliable, and 

available within the proposed project’s 

timeline.’’

Response: Section 5309(c)(1)(B) of 

Title 49, U.S. Code, requires that the 

grantee have the ‘‘legal, technical, and 

financial capacity to carry out the 

project, including safety and security 

aspects of the project.’’ FTA must have 

evidence that a transit agency has 

adequate resources to maintain and 

recapitalize the system before we can 

confirm that the project sponsor has the 

financial capacity to carry out the 

proposed project. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that Congress did not intend to impose 

a state of good repair with this 

provision, but rather to ensure transit 

agencies not cut existing service in favor 

of the New Starts project. 

Response: The plain language of 49 

U.S.C. 5309(d)(4)(A)(iii) requires that 

‘‘local resources [be] available to 

recapitalize * * * the overall public 

transit system. * * *’’ This language is 

clearly focused not only on reducing 

existing service, but rather on the 

overall system. 

Comments: A few commenters stated 

that the triennial and planning 

certification reviews are more 

appropriate venues to assess 

maintenance and recapitalization 

funding than the New Starts project 

development process. 

Response: While the triennial and 

planning certification reviews may 

touch on financial capacity and 

financial planning, FTA feels that the 

large number of topics addressed in 

those reviews does not allow for the 

level of scrutiny necessary to assure that 

project sponsors will be able to 

adequately recapitalize their systems. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

FTA should continue to review capital 

plans for continued maintenance of the 

base system, but did not support giving 

the proposed requirement more weight 

than other aspects of a project’s 

financial plan. 

Response: The adopted policy does 

not give more weight to this factor than 

others when evaluating and rating local 

financial commitment. The weights for 

the subfactors for rating local financial 

commitment are unchanged. Rather, the 

policy merely puts project sponsors on 

notice that additional scrutiny will be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
46358 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 

applied to their projections of 

recapitalization costs and revenues. 

Comments: Several respondents 

suggested that adjustments to capital 

costs should be considered for 

extraordinary cost increases or inflation; 

cost effectiveness break points should 

also be adjusted due to these cost 

escalations. 

Response: FTA currently allows cost 

increases related to unforeseen 

commodities escalation or inflation. Per 

FTA’s April 2005 Dear Colleague letter, 

the cost-effectiveness breakpoints are 

adjusted annually using the increase in 

the Gross National Product deflator. 

6. Contractor Review of Information for 

the Before and After Study 

FTA adopts as final its proposal that 

contractors involved in a project’s 

capital cost estimation and travel 

forecasting be given an opportunity to 

review and comment each time the 

project sponsor is required to submit 

information for the ‘‘before and after’’

study. The contractor’s comments, if 

any, must be included in the 

information submitted to FTA. 

The intent of this provision is to 

facilitate communication between 

project sponsors and contractors on the 

responsibilities of contractors for 

variances between forecasts at the three 

milestones before a project opens and 

actual results two years after the project 

opens for revenue service. If this 

communication does not result in a 

common understanding that can be 

documented in the submittal of 

information from the ‘‘before and after’’

study to FTA, the contractor’s 

comments would have to be included in 

the submittal by the project sponsor. 

Comments: There was significant 

support for and no opposition to this 

requirement. 

Issued in Washington, DC this 4th day of 

August, 2008. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–18315 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. Marad 2008 0047] 

Information Collection Available for 

Public Comments and 

Recommendations 

ACTION: Notice of intention to request 

extension of OMB approval and request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Maritime 

Administration’s (MARAD’s) intention 

to request extension of approval (with 

modifications) for three years of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before October 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Harrelson, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: 202–366–5737; or e-mail: 

tom.harrelson@dot.gov. Copies of this 

collection also can be obtained from that 

office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Monthly Report of 

Ocean Shipments Moving under ExportImport Bank Financing. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved information 

collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0013. 

Form Numbers: MA–518. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Three 

years from date of approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Summary of Collection of 

Information: 46 App. U.S.C. 1241–1, 

Public Resolution 17, required MARAD 

to monitor and enforce the U.S.-flag 

shipping requirements relative to the 

loans/guarantees extended by the 

Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) to 

foreign borrowers. Public Resolution 17 

requires that shipments financed by 

Eximbank and that move by sea, must 

be transported exclusively on U.S.-flag 

registered vessels unless a waiver is 

obtained from MARAD. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

prescribed monthly report is necessary 

for MARAD to fulfill its responsibilities 

under Public Resolution 17, to ensure 

compliance of ocean shipping 

requirements operating under Eximbank 

financing, and to ensure equitable 

distribution of shipments between U.S.- 

flag and foreign ships. MARAD will use 

this information to report annually to 

Congress the total shipping activities 

during the calendar year. 

Description of Respondents: Shippers 

subject to Eximbank financing. 

Annual Responses: 336 responses. 

Annual Burden: 169 hours. 

Comments: Comments should refer to 

the docket number that appears at the 

top of this document. Written comments 

may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Comments also 

may be submitted by electronic means 

via the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. 

Specifically address whether this 

information collection is necessary for 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency and will have practical 

utility, accuracy of the burden 

estimates, ways to minimize this 

burden, and ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. All 

comments received will be available for 

examination at the above address 

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT (or 

EST), Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. An electronic version 

of this document is available on the 

World Wide Web at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. 

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) or you 

may visit http://www.regulations.gov/ 

search/index.jsp. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

Leonard Sutter, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18378 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[USCG–2006–24644] 

TORP Terminal LP, Bienville Offshore 

Energy Terminal Liquefied Natural Gas 

Deepwater Port License Application; 

Final Application Public Hearing and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; notice of 

public hearing; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

announce the availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the TORP Terminal LP, Bienville 

Offshore Energy Terminal Liquefied 

Natural Gas Deepwater Port license 

application. The application describes a 

project that would be located in the Gulf 

of Mexico, in Main Pass block MP 258, 

approximately 63 miles south of Mobile 

Point, Alabama. The Coast Guard and 

Maritime Administration request public 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES