Request for Information Concerning the Capital Investment Grants Program, 37402-37405 [2021-15079]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37402
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices
detailed in this request, that FTA should
consider in supporting the assessment
and mitigation of identified transit
safety risks?
(5) Should data sources outside of
those maintained by transit agencies
and FTA, such as geographic or
demographic data, be considered to
support the identification of safety
concerns and assessment and mitigation
of safety risk? If so, which data sources,
and why?
Examples
(6) What are examples of safety
concerns evaluated by a transit agency
that can be shared with FTA?
(7) What are examples of high-impact
data that support the identification of
safety concerns and hazards and the
corresponding safety risk assessment
and mitigation that can be shared with
FTA?
(8) Is there anything else FTA should
know regarding the identification of
safety concerns for the SRM process?
Please clearly indicate which
question(s) you address in your
response and any evidence to support
assertions, where practicable.
Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
To ensure that your comments are
filed correctly, please include the
docket number provided [FTA–2021–
0011] in your comments.
Please submit one copy of your
comments, including any attachments,
to the docket following the instructions
given above under ADDRESSES. Please
note, if you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file,
these documents must be scanned using
an Optical Character Recognition
process, thus allowing the Agency to
search and copy certain portions of
submissions.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Will FTA consider late comments?
FTA will consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent
practicable, the Agency will also
consider comments received after that
date.
How can comments submitted by other
people be read?
Comments received may be read at
the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. The hours
of the docket are indicated above in the
same location. Comments may also be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
located on the internet, identified by the
docket number at the heading of this
notice, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Please note, this RFI will serve as a
planning document. The RFI should not
be construed as policy, a solicitation for
applications, or an obligation on the
part of the Government.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–15078 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Request for Information Concerning
the Capital Investment Grants Program
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Request for Information.
AGENCY:
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 https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of Capital
Project Development, (202) 366–5159, or
Elizabeth.Day@dot.gov.
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices
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/capitalinvestments/final-capital-investmentgrant-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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
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, transitsupportive 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-askedquestions#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.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37403
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.
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
37404
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 CostEffectiveness 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 multihazard 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/emergencyrelief-program/hazard-mitigation-costeffectiveness-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
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
37405
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices
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 25year 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–15079 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am]
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Maritime Administration
include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
[Docket No. MARAD–2021–0122]
Electronic Access and Filing
Request for Comments on a Previously
Approved Information Collection:
Application for Coastwise
Endorsement Eligibility Determinations
for Foreign-Built Small Passenger
Vessels
A copy of the notice may be viewed
online at www.regulations.gov using the
docket number listed above. A copy of
this notice will be placed in the docket.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines
are available on the website. It is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this
document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register’s
website at www.FederalRegister.gov and
the Government Publishing Office’s
website at www.GovInfo.gov.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration,
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Maritime Administration
(MARAD) invites public comments on
our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval to renew a previously
approved information collection. The
information to be collected is necessary
for MARAD to identify the effect of
potential foreign-built small passenger
vessel coastwise operations on U.S.
vessel builders and coastwise trade
businesses. We are required to publish
this notice in the Federal Register by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before September 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by Docket No. MARAD–
2021–0122] through one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Search using the
above DOT docket number and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this rulemaking.
Note: All comments received will be
posted without change to
www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the Department’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information
collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Mead, 202–366–5723, Office of
Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
Email: james.mead@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Application for Coastwise
Endorsement Eligibility Determinations
for Foreign-built Small Passenger
Vessels.
OMB Control Number: 2133–0529.
Type of Request: Renewal of a
previously approved collection.
Abstract: Owners of foreign-built
small passenger vessels desiring a
coastwise endorsement to their USCG
issued certificate of documentation
must first obtain a Maritime
Administration (MARAD) eligibility
determination. Applications for
MARAD small passenger vessel
coastwise endorsement eligibility
provide justification for a positive
determination and a uniform means for
MARAD to obtain relevant information
necessary to perform its administrative
function in accordance with statute.
Respondents: Owners of foreign-built
small passenger vessels, prospective
vessel owners and operators, vessel
brokers.
Affected Public: Maritime businesses.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
138.
Estimated Number of Responses: 138.
Estimated Hours per Response: 1
hour.
Annual Estimated Total Annual
Burden Hours: 138.
Frequency of Response: Annually.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.93.
*
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
*
*
15JYN1
*
*
]]>Agencies
[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 https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of
Capital Project Development, (202) 366-5159, or [email protected].
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
https://www.regulations.gov.
Nuria I. Fernandez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15079 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
