37762 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

incremental, data-driven approach 

might well be preferred over a regional 

model-based approach under these 

types of circumstances. Several Small 

Starts projects have already used 

simplified, data-driven analytical 

techniques to estimate ridership and 

user benefits. FTA welcomes New Starts 

project sponsors to use similar 

techniques as appropriate. 

Changes to Internal FTA Practices 

FTA invites comment on certain 

changes the agency is considering to its 

own internal practices, described below. 

Any adoption of these changes would 

not require public notice-and-comment 

per 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(A), but FTA 

welcomes any opinions or suggestions 

whether these proposed changes would 

help improve FTA’s management of the 

New Starts program. 

1. Expanded Pre-Award Authority and/ 

or Expanded Use of Letters of No 

Prejudice 

FTA is considering expanding the 

activities covered by ‘‘automatic’’ preaward authority upon completion of the 

requirements under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/ 

or expanding the circumstances under 

which FTA will issue Letters of No 

Prejudice (LONPs). Both approaches 

strive to expedite project delivery by 

allowing project sponsors to undertake 

activities covered by the pre-award 

authority or LONP with non-Federal 

sources while maintaining eligibility for 

future Federal reimbursement should an 

award be forthcoming. Neither preaward authority nor an LONP is a 

guarantee of future Federal funding. 

Thus, project sponsors should 

understand they undertake the activities 

at their own risk. 

Current FTA practice limits automatic 

pre-award authority for New and Small 

Starts projects to the following: 

• Upon FTA approval to enter 

preliminary engineering (PE), FTA 

extends pre-award authority to incur 

costs for PE activities; 

• Upon FTA approval to enter final 

design, FTA extends pre-award 

authority to incur costs for final design 

activities; and 

• Upon completion of the NEPA 

process, FTA extends pre-award 

authority to incur costs for the 

acquisition of real property and real 

property rights. 

FTA is considering expanding the 

activities covered by automatic preaward authority at the completion of 

NEPA to include procurement of items 

such as vehicles, rails and ties, etc., that 

are long-lead time items or items for 

which market conditions play a 

significant role in the acquisition price. 

FTA reminds the public that local 

funds expended by the project sponsor 

pursuant to and after the date of the preaward authority are eligible for credit 

toward local match or reimbursement 

only if FTA later makes a grant or grant 

amendment for the project. Local funds 

expended by the project sponsor prior to 

the date of the pre-award authority are 

not eligible for credit toward local 

match or reimbursement. Furthermore, 

the expenditure of local funds on 

activities such as land acquisition, 

demolition, or construction prior to the 

completion of the NEPA process would 

compromise FTA’s ability to comply 

with Federal environmental laws and 

may render the entire project ineligible 

for FTA funding. 

Letters of No Prejudice (LONP) also 

allow a project sponsor to incur costs 

using non-Federal resources, with the 

understanding that the costs incurred 

subsequent to the issuance of the LONP 

may be reimbursable as eligible 

expenses or eligible for credit toward 

the local match should FTA approve the 

project for funding at a later date. 

Currently, before considering an 

LONP, FTA determines whether a 

project seeking an LONP is a promising 

candidate for a Full Funding Grant 

Agreement (New Starts) or a Project 

Construction Grant Agreement (Small 

Starts). Typically, New Starts projects 

need to be approved into final design to 

be considered ‘‘promising candidates.’’ 

However, LONP requests have 

occasionally been approved by FTA for 

projects prior to entry into final design 

when the LONP is sufficiently justified 

based on the cost or schedule impacts 

of not undertaking the work prior to 

final design. Currently, approval of 

LONPs is determined by FTA on a caseby-case basis. FTA is considering 

expanding the use of LONPs prior to 

project entry into final design but after 

completion of NEPA. Decisions on 

LONPs would still be determined caseby-case based on the justification 

provided by the project sponsor. 

Note that LONPs neither provide 

Federal funds nor constitute a 

commitment that Federal funds will be 

provided in the future. Nonetheless, 

LONPs are often viewed by project 

sponsors and/or other stakeholders as a 

signal of a future Federal commitment 

because FTA does not generally award 

them unless it believes the project to be 

a promising candidate for an FFGA or 

PCGA. Thus, should FTA move to a 

practice of awarding LONPs earlier in 

project development before it has 

sufficient information to know whether 

a project is a promising candidate for an 

FFGA or PCGA, the public should be 

aware that LONPs may no longer serve 

as a signal of a future Federal 

commitment. 

Issued on: July 24, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18096 Filed 7–24–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Advisory Circular 33.87–2, 

Comparative Endurance Test Method 

To Show Durability for Parts 

Manufacturer Approval of Turbine 

Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Parts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory 

circular. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 

33.87–2, Comparative Endurance Test 

Method to Show Durability for Parts 

Manufacturer Approval of Turbine 

Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Parts. 

This AC describes a comparative 

endurance test method to be used for 

certain turbine engine or auxiliary 

power unit parts when manufactured 

under Parts Manufacturer Approval 

(PMA). This method may be used when 

PMA applicants introduce changes that 

could affect the durability of their 

proposed designs. It may also be used 

when an applicant has insufficient 

comparative data to show that the 

durability of their proposed PMA part is 

at least equal to the type design. The 

applicant can use this method when 

requesting PMA under test and 

computation, per part 21 of Title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, and 

using the comparative test and analysis 

approach detailed in Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 8110.42, Part 

Manufacturer Approval Procedures. 

DATES: The Engine and Propeller 

Directorate issued AC 33.87–2 on June 

25, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: 

Karen M. Grant, Engine and Propeller 

Standards Staff, ANE–111, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803–5299; telephone: (781) 238–7119; 

fax: (781) 238–7199; e-mail: 

karen.m.grant@faa.gov. 

We have filed in the docket all 

substantive comments received, and a 

report summarizing them. If you wish to 

review the docket in person, you may go 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37763 

to the above address between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. If you wish to contact 

the above individual directly, you can 

use the above telephone number or email address provided. 

How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy 

of AC 33.87–2 may be obtained by 

writing to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Subsequent Distribution 

Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC 121.23, 

Ardmore East Business Center, 3341Q 

75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, 

telephone 301 322–5377, or by faxing 

your request to the warehouse at 301– 

386–5394. The AC will also be available 

on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regu1atjpjpplicies (then click on 

‘‘Advisory Circulars’’). 

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

44702, 44704. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

June 25, 2009. 

Peter White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17844 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2009–0009] 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Response to comments; final 

guidance. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is 

to convey the 2009 final guidance on 

New Starts/Small Starts policies and 

procedures. On May 20, 2009, FTA 

announced in the Federal Register the 

availability of proposed guidance and 

requested public comment. FTA 

received a total of 29 comments, 

primarily from transit agencies and 

metropolitan planning organizations, as 

well as cities, advocacy groups, State 

departments of transportation, and other 

interested parties. After reviewing the 

public comments, FTA is issuing final 

guidance, which is included at the end 

of this notice. Please note that FTA is 

concurrently publishing a separate 

notice in today’s Federal Register that 

includes additional proposed guidance 

on the New Starts and Small Starts 

program for public comment. 

DATES: This final guidance is effective 

July 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Day, Office of Planning and 

Environment, telephone (202) 366–5159 

and Christopher Van Wyk, Office of 

Chief Counsel, telephone (202) 366– 

1733. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE., East Building, Washington, 

DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:30 

a.m. to 5 p.m., EST, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Organization 

The proposed guidance issued on 

May 20, 2009 was developed to 

implement the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. 

L. 110–244), which amends 49 U.S.C. 

5309. The guidance covered three 

distinct topics: Proposed weighting of 

project justification criteria and 

evaluative methodology for the 

economic development effects, 

operating efficiencies, and transit 

supportive land use criteria for New 

Starts projects; Proposed weighting of 

project justification criteria and 

evaluative methodology for the 

economic development effects and 

transit supportive land use criteria for 

Small Starts projects; and Proposed 

procedures for considering the benefits 

of project alternatives that include a 

tunnel, as well as certain costs when a 

tunnel is considered but not selected for 

a project. Responses to comments on 

each of these topics are presented 

below. Following the responses, the 

final guidance is articulated in full. 

Response to Comments 

1. New Starts Project Justification Rating 

The SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act directed that the project 

justification criteria for New Starts 

projects be given comparable, but not 

necessarily equal, weights. In the 

proposed guidance, FTA suggested the 

use of the following weights: mobility 

improvements (20 percent); 

environmental benefits (10 percent); 

cost effectiveness (20 percent); operating 

efficiencies (10 percent); economic 

development effects (20 percent); and 

public transportation supportive land 

use (‘‘land use’’) (20 percent). FTA also 

proposed methods for evaluating the 

criteria for economic development 

effects, land use, and operating 

efficiencies. 

Of the 29 respondents, 19 expressed 

general support for FTA’s proposed 

weighting scheme. Of the remaining 

respondents, four did not directly 

address the proposal; three proposed 

minor changes to the weighting scheme 

and three others proposed significant 

changes—modifications to both the 

weighting scheme and the criteria 

measures (two of these three 

respondents proposed identical 

modifications). Each of the six proposals 

suggesting different weighting schemes 

is discussed in the comments and 

responses below. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

reducing the weight on operating 

efficiencies to zero, on the premise that 

the cost effectiveness measure captures 

this criterion, and suggested increasing 

the weight on mobility improvements to 

30 percent. 

Response: FTA formerly used the 

operating efficiencies criterion in 

evaluating projects, but found that the 

measure did not provide meaningful 

distinctions between projects. 

Consistent with the direction in the 

SAFETEA–LU Technical Corrections 

Act, FTA will evaluate operating 

efficiencies as a stand-alone criterion, 

but, in recognition of the limitation of 

the current measure for this criterion, 

will give it less weight than some of the 

other criteria. 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

modifying the distinction between land 

use and economic development by: (1) 

Removing the evaluation of existing 

land use; (2) considering the transit 

supportive plans and policies for 

present and future development as the 

core of the land use evaluation; (3) 

considering the transportation 

performance and impact of land use 

policies in the land use evaluation (e.g., 

parking requirement reductions); and, 

(4) considering the economic 

performance and impact of land use 

policies to economic development (e.g., 

increase in tax base). The respondent 

stated that existing land use is already 

captured by the estimates of ridership 

generated by the travel forecasting 

model. 

Response: For project evaluation and 

rating, FTA uses travel forecasts based 

upon forecast year population and 

employment projections compiled by 

regional metropolitan planning 

organizations, not opening year 

forecasts which would be more 

reflective of existing transit supportive 

land use. FTA considers the existence of 

existing transit supportive land use in 

the corridor to be relevant to the 

understanding of the proposed project 

and a criterion for which credit should 

be given in the evaluation of the project. 

FTA is working with the transit 

community to develop a more robust 

methodology for measuring economic 

development effects and will consider 

the alternative proposed by the 

respondent as it continues that work. 

The proposed measure for economic 

development effects in this guidance is 

intended to be an interim approach, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES