Notice2026-20179
Notice of Availability of Proposed Policy Guidance for the Capital Investment Grants Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Transit Administration
Abstract
This notice requests comment on FTA's revised policy guidance for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program. The CIG Policy Guidance provides an overview of CIG project types and the CIG process from project initiation to construction grant award. The proposed revisions are intended to streamline the CIG process, improve accountability of CIG project sponsors, and improve overall readability of the policy guidance. The proposals incorporate suggestions FTA received in response to its Request for Information published on August 19, 2025. The final CIG Policy Guidance, when published on the FTA website, is to be effective immediately; no grandfathering will be allowed for any projects currently in the CIG pipeline.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62586-62595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[FTA-2026-0331]
Notice of Availability of Proposed Policy Guidance for the
Capital Investment Grants Program
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests comment on FTA's revised policy guidance
for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program. The CIG Policy
Guidance provides an overview of CIG project types and the CIG process
from project initiation to construction grant award. The proposed
revisions are intended to streamline the CIG process, improve
accountability of CIG project sponsors, and improve overall readability
of the policy guidance. The proposals incorporate suggestions FTA
received in response to its Request for Information published on August
19, 2025. The final CIG Policy Guidance, when published on the FTA
website, is to be effective immediately; no grandfathering will be
allowed for any projects currently in the CIG pipeline.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2026. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to DOT docket number FTA-2026-0331
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments using the docket
number above.
<bullet> U.S. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W58-213,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W58-213, Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
<bullet> Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and docket number (FTA-2026-0331) for this notice at
the beginning of your comments.
All comments received will be posted, without change and including
any personal information provided, to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. You
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477. For access to the
docket and to read background documents and comments received, go to
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at any time or to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Docket Management Facility,
Room W58-213, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Ferroni, FTA Office of Planning
and Environment, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0ada1b2abeea6a5b2b2afaea980a4afb4eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a171b0811541c1f08081514133a1e150e541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>, or 202.366.3233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
A copy of the CIG Proposed Policy Guidance is available for
download and public inspection through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
using the docket number listed above, and on the FTA website: <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov">https://www.transit.dot.gov</a>. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are
also available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Proposed Changes to the CIG Policy Guidance
A. Organization and Format
B. CIG Program Overview
C. CIG Process
D. Evaluation and Rating
E. Demonstrating Progress Toward Meeting TAM Performance Targets
I. Background
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(5), FTA must publish policy guidance
on the discretionary CIG program each time the agency makes significant
changes to the CIG review and evaluation process and criteria. The
policy guidance FTA issues for the CIG program (CIG Policy Guidance)
complements FTA's CIG regulations at 49 CFR part 611. These regulations
set forth the process grant applicants (project sponsors) must follow
to be considered for discretionary funding, and the procedures and
criteria FTA uses to rate and evaluate CIG projects to determine
program eligibility. The CIG Policy Guidance provides a greater level
of detail about the methods FTA uses to evaluate and rate a project and
the sequential steps a project sponsor follows in developing a project.
In addition, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5334(k), FTA follows applicable
rulemaking procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553 prior to amending the CIG
Policy Guidance with new or modified binding obligations.
FTA is proposing a comprehensive update to the CIG Policy Guidance
to streamline the CIG process, improve accountability of CIG project
sponsors, and improve overall readability of the policy guidance. FTA
most recently updated the CIG Policy Guidance in November 2025 (90 FR
50886). This update revised the methodology for evaluating the
environmental benefits of CIG projects, consistent with certain
Executive Orders signed by the President in early 2025 and DOT Order
2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of
Transportation Policies, Programs, and Activities (Jan. 29, 2025). FTA
did not publish a comprehensive update of the CIG Policy Guidance in
November 2025 due to the urgent need to revise the environmental
benefits methodology to address the Executive Order and DOT Order.
On August 19, 2025, FTA published a Request for Information (RFI)
in the Federal Register (90 FR 40463) seeking input on ways to
streamline and enhance the CIG Policy Guidance, while
[[Page 62587]]
increasing the accountability of project sponsors and ensuring Federal
investment in the most successful projects. In the RFI, FTA noted the
public feedback received would inform FTA's development of a potential
future comprehensive update to the CIG Policy Guidance. FTA received
comments from 22 unique respondents in response to the RFI. FTA
reviewed and thoroughly considered each of these comments. Where FTA
has incorporated stakeholder suggestions into its proposals, FTA
discusses the suggestion in corresponding sections of this Notice
below.
II. Proposed Changes to the CIG Policy Guidance
FTA is proposing format and policy changes to the CIG Policy
Guidance to streamline the guidance document and right-size the
requirements throughout the CIG process. The intent of these proposed
revisions is to improve readability for practitioners while ensuring
greater transparency of FTA and accountability of CIG project sponsors
within the funding constraints of the program. FTA discusses each of
its proposals in the sections below.
A. Organization and Format
FTA is proposing to considerably streamline the organization and
format of the CIG Policy Guidance for conciseness and readability.
Previous versions of the CIG Policy Guidance have been structured with
self-contained, stand-alone chapters outlining the requirements for
each CIG category (i.e., New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity),
and ``bundles'' of CIG projects. The format resulted in duplicative
information across CIG categories and a lengthy document, which created
a burden for project sponsors when navigating the document. To
streamline the guidance, FTA reorganized the information by major
program element or process (Introduction, Program Overview, Process,
Evaluation and Rating, and Bundles of CIG Projects), and simplified the
document by consolidating the common program characteristics and
identifying any unique requirements within individual sections. In
addition, FTA has clarified language throughout the CIG Policy
Guidance, including in the section on ``Bundles of CIG Projects,'' to
ensure the document is easy to understand and clearly conveys FTA's
policy and practice regarding the CIG process. When possible, FTA also
referenced supporting documents or tools where the reader can find more
information. These changes are responsive to suggestions raised by
several RFI respondents, who requested FTA clarify the sequence of
steps in the CIG process and the associated deliverables project
sponsors provide to FTA.
These organizational changes and clarifications are non-substantive
and do not alter existing requirements.
B. CIG Program Overview
To assist with FTA's intent to improve the readability of the CIG
Policy Guidance, FTA created a section, ``CIG Program Overview,'' which
provides an overview of the three CIG project categories (New Starts,
Small Starts, and Core Capacity), the different eligible CIG project
types (e.g., fixed guideway project, corridor-based bus rapid transit
project), eligible CIG applicants, and eligible CIG costs. This section
organizes high-level CIG program information for improved readability.
This section does not alter existing requirements.
C. CIG Process
1. Prior To Applying To Enter Project Development
The first phase of the CIG process for all categories of projects
is called Project Development. The statute governing the CIG program
requires New Starts and Core Capacity projects to complete the Project
Development phase within two years. (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(1)(C)(i) and
(e)(1)(C)(i)). In addition, FTA requires Small Starts projects to make
sufficient progress during the Project Development phase. Through
experience, FTA has observed that completing the Project Development
phase within these thresholds can be challenging for all categories of
CIG projects. Often, a CIG project schedule slips due to environmental
review or permitting issues. For this reason, and to ensure projects
entering the CIG pipeline are ready to succeed in the Project
Development phase, FTA is proposing that project sponsors initiate the
environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) before requesting entry into Project Development. NEPA
initiation may include early scoping, planning and environmental
linkages efforts, or preliminary NEPA readiness and class of action
discussions with the local FTA Regional Office or FTA issuance of
formal NEPA initiation. FTA has for many years requested information on
a proposed project's NEPA status as part of their entry into Project
Development request pursuant to 49 U.S.C 5309(d)(1)(A)(i) and
(e)(1)(A)(i). FTA's proposed new practice would require project
sponsors to include documentation demonstrating NEPA initiation (in
addition to any status updates) as part of their entry into Project
Development request.
2. Request for Entry Into Project Development
To request entry into the Project Development phase, FTA currently
requires project sponsors to submit a letter to FTA containing certain
information. In many instances, project sponsors have submitted
incomplete requests to FTA and have failed to provide missing
information in a timely manner, which delayed entry to Project
Development decisions. To encourage project sponsors to submit an entry
to Project Development request only when they are ready to complete
Project Development activities, FTA is proposing to require the project
sponsor to provide all listed information (see CIG Policy Guidance,
Section III) within 30 days of submitting its initial request to FTA.
If the request remains incomplete after 30 days, FTA would no longer
consider the request. The project sponsor would be allowed to submit a
new request when it can provide all required information.
FTA proposes additional clarifications regarding the required
contents of the request to enter Project Development. These changes
clarify to project sponsors the information FTA needs to ascertain
whether a project is ready to enter Project Development.
3. Project Development Phase
Project sponsors must complete several activities during Project
Development, including adoption of the locally preferred alternative
(LPA) into the fiscally constrained metropolitan transportation plan,
completion of NEPA, and completion of sufficient design and engineering
to submit information for FTA to rate and evaluate the project pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 5309(g) and (h). As noted above, there are certain
timeline expectations regarding completion of the Project Development
phase across the three CIG categories. However, FTA has found many CIG
projects struggle to complete the required activities in a timely
manner. To better ensure projects are on track to complete Project
Development within the required timeframes, FTA is proposing changes to
the timeline for completing certain Project Development activities:
<bullet> Within the first three months of any CIG project entering
Project Development, a project sponsor would be required to: (1) submit
FTA's documented NEPA class of action determination to FTA
Headquarters, if
[[Page 62588]]
not completed before entering Project Development; and (2) provide a
ridership data collection plan and an on-board survey plan to FTA
Headquarters (required for New Starts and Core Capacity projects and
encouraged for Small Starts projects).
<bullet> Within one year of a CIG project entering Project
Development, a project sponsor would be required to: (1) determine an
updated project cost, scope, and schedule estimate to reflect the
current level of design; (2) complete at least 15 percent overall
design; and (3) develop a list of third-party agreements necessary to
complete the project along with an implementation plan and schedule.
<bullet> For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, FTA would
require project sponsors to obtain commitments of at least 50 percent
of all non-CIG funds prior to applying for entry into Engineering. This
would increase the amount of funding commitments currently required for
such projects (30 percent). This proposal would align the percentage
for New Starts and Core Capacity projects with that of Small Starts
projects, which already are required to obtain commitments of at least
50 percent of all non-CIG funds, but on a quicker timeline. Small
Starts projects must continue to meet the funding commitment
requirement within three years of entering Project Development.
<bullet> For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, FTA would
clarify that before requesting entry into Engineering, FTA strongly
encourages project sponsors to collaborate with FTA on the development
of an oversight plan and roadmap to assist with the request for entry
into Engineering. FTA proposes project sponsors engage in this
collaboration at least six months prior to anticipated entry into
Engineering. In the current CIG Policy Guidance, FTA encourages
collaboration with FTA to begin ``early in Project Development'' and
states that FTA formal oversight begins ``no later than six months
prior to entry into Engineering or six months prior to the end of the
two-year [Project Development] timeframe specified in law, whichever is
earlier.'' FTA finds the proposed language clearer and anticipates it
should reduce project sponsor misinterpretations of requirements.
Congress and the transit industry expect projects to move quickly
through the CIG process and not become stagnant once a project has
entered the program. Together, these proposals would improve project
sponsor accountability and ensure projects sponsors can successfully
complete Project Development in a timely manner.
4. Project Development Timeframe Extension Requests
Under the current CIG Policy Guidance, project sponsors may request
up to a one-year extension of the Project Development phase for New
Starts and Core Capacity projects, which FTA is not changing in the
proposed CIG Policy Guidance. However, FTA is seeking to clarify the
extension request considerations and timing. FTA proposes to clarify
that a project sponsor for New Starts and Core Capacity projects may
request a Project Development extension when the sponsor: (1) is unable
to complete the required Project Development activities within the
statutorily required two-year timeframe due to unforeseen
circumstances; or (2) has completed the required Project Development
activities in a timely manner but requests additional time to further
develop the project's design and engineering before entering the
Engineering phase. This is not a change to FTA's internal policy or
practice, but it is the first time the policy is clearly stated in the
CIG Policy Guidance. The proposed CIG Policy Guidance also clarifies
that if FTA does not provide a response to the extension request before
the end of the two-year Project Development period, the project remains
in the CIG program until FTA provides a written response either
approving the extension request or removing the project from CIG
program. This is not a new policy or practice, but it is the first time
FTA is including the information in the CIG Policy Guidance.
5. Request for Entry Into Engineering
For New Starts and Core Capacity projects, the second phase of the
CIG process is called Engineering. This phase does not apply to Small
Starts Projects. To request entry into the Engineering phase, the
project sponsor submits a request to the FTA Associate Administrator
for Planning and Environment that includes certain required information
about the project. FTA proposes several changes to the required content
of the Engineering request:
<bullet> Increase the required amount of non-CIG funding committed
during Project Development for New Starts and Core Capacity projects
from 30 percent to 50 percent. Accordingly, FTA also proposes to
require the project sponsor to demonstrate in its Engineering request
that such funding has been committed so FTA can verify the sponsor has
obtained the required commitments. By requiring project sponsors to
demonstrate a higher local funding commitment at entry to Engineering,
FTA anticipates lower financial risk to the Federal government and
better protection of taxpayer funds by having a higher degree of
confidence in the viability of the proposed project. It also ensures
the project sponsor is advancing the project efficiently and
effectively and the local community is vested in the continued
advancement of the project.
<bullet> No longer require a signed statement from the agency's CEO
(Accountable Executive) describing the agency's progress toward meeting
its Transit Asset Management (TAM) performance targets. FTA still would
require an up-to-date TAM plan and narrative report from the National
Transit Database. This change is discussed in greater detail in Section
II.E of this Notice.
<bullet> Minor, non-substantive changes to the contents of the
Engineering request for clarity and conciseness. For example, FTA
removed bullets listing individual engineering and planning documents
related to FTA's Project Management Oversight (PMO) process and
replaced them with an overarching bullet referencing the PMO Oversight
Procedures (OPs) on FTA's website. This change is intended both to
simplify the list and provide a more accurate description of the
required PMO-related documentation. FTA also added bullets regarding
selection of the LPA, adoption of the LPA into the region's fiscally
constrained metropolitan transportation plan, and the CIG risk
assessment process for clarity.
6. Determining Section 5309 CIG Funding Amount
Under the current CIG Policy Guidance, FTA ``locks in'' the maximum
dollar amount of CIG funding for New Starts and Core Capacity projects
at the project's entry into the Engineering phase. To date, FTA has not
included a formal methodology in the CIG Policy Guidance that
demonstrates how FTA will calculate a project's CIG percentage share
(i.e., percentage of total project cost). To bridge this gap, FTA is
proposing to adopt a formal methodology in the CIG Policy Guidance. The
proposed formal methodology would provide a uniform and consistent
approach for FTA to consider project merits, such as cost-effectiveness
and transit ridership, when determining the CIG percentage share and
corresponding CIG funding amount for a New Starts or Core Capacity
project.
Under the formal methodology, FTA would continue to calculate and
lock in
[[Page 62589]]
a project's CIG funding amount at entry into Engineering. FTA proposes
adjustment factors to determine a project's CIG percentage share, which
would then be used to calculate the corresponding CIG funding amount
based on the anticipated total project cost at entry into Engineering.
Every New Starts and Core Capacity project with an overall project
rating of ``Medium'' or higher would start with a CIG share of 40
percent of total project cost. FTA then would adjust this percentage
upward or downward based on the project's ratings for each of the six
Project Justification criteria, up to the maximum percentage allowed
under Section 5309. The proposed adjustment factors are shown in Table
1 below:
Table 1--CIG Percentage Share Adjustments for Project Justification Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment
Project justification criteria Rating factor (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-Effectiveness.......................................... High.............................. +10
Medium-High....................... +5
Medium............................ 0
Medium-Low........................ -10
Low............................... -25
Mobility Improvements, Congestion Relief (applies to each High.............................. +5
criterion). Medium-High....................... +4
Medium............................ 0
Medium-Low........................ -8
Low............................... -10
Land Use (NS), Capacity Needs (CC) and Economic Development High.............................. +3
(applies to each criterion). Medium-High....................... +2
Medium............................ 0
Medium-Low........................ -4
Low............................... -6
Environmental Benefits...................................... High.............................. +2
Medium............................ 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a New Starts project rated ``High'' for all six
Project Justification criteria would result in a calculated CIG
percentage share of 68%; however, this would be statutorily limited to
60% of total project cost per 49 U.S.C. 5309(l)(1)(B). A project rated
``Medium'' in all six categories would result in a calculated CIG
percentage share of 40% of total project cost. FTA believes these
adjustment factors are appropriate because they clearly put the
emphasis on cost-effectiveness and ridership, which will allow FTA to
provide a higher CIG percentage share to projects that are cost-
effective and projected to have high transit ridership, and will ensure
Federal taxpayer funds are supporting worthy investments.
In addition, FTA proposes that the CIG percentage share adjustments
would boost a New Starts or Core Capacity project's CIG percentage
share at entry to Engineering if the project is in a transit corridor
with birth or marriage rates at or above the national average, or
within a certain percentage below the national average. This proposal
is consistent with DOT Order 2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound
Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, Programs,
and Activities, which directs DOT programs ``to the extent practicable,
relevant, appropriate, and consistent with law, . . . give preference
to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national
average (including in administering the Federal Transit
Administration's Capital Investment Grant[s] Program).''
As depicted in Table 2 below, FTA proposes to increase the CIG
percentage share by an additional five percentage points if the average
birth rate in the corridor is more than one percent above the national
average. FTA would increase the CIG percentage share by three
percentage points if the birth rate is equal to the national average or
up to one percent higher than the national average. FTA would increase
the CIG percentage share by one percentage point if the average birth
rate is within one percent below the national average. FTA proposes to
apply the same approach to adjust the CIG percentage share based on
average marriage rates.
Table 2--CIG Percentage Share Boosts for Birth and Marriage Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIG share adjustment factor (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria for additional boost on CIG Up to 1% higher than
share Over 1% higher than national average or Within 1% below the
national average equal to national national average
average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average corridor birth rate.......... +5 +3 +1
Average corridor marriage rate....... +5 +3 +1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, this proposal could boost the CIG percentage share by up
to 10 percentage points for projects that satisfy the demographic
criteria. Projects that do not satisfy the criteria would not be
eligible for the boost, but they would not otherwise be penalized in
calculating the CIG share. Please see Section 3.3.1 of the revised CIG
Policy Guidance for FTA's proposed definitions of birth rate and
marriage rate, the study area, and identification of
[[Page 62590]]
the data source. FTA developed the birth and marriage rates boost
considerations based on the best available data that is public and
available nationwide. FTA defined the study area as a one-mile buffer
around the project corridor based on a review of past Before and After
Studies. Through that review, FTA has found that fixed guideway
investments typically draw the majority of their ridership from within
one mile of the CIG project.
FTA would calculate the project's final CIG percentage share by
summing the percentage obtained from the Project Justification sub-
factor rating criteria (Table 1) and the applicable marriage and birth
rate boost (Table 2). FTA would use the calculated CIG percentage share
to derive the actual Federal CIG funding amount, which will be locked
at entry into Engineering. The final calculated CIG funding amount
using the CIG percentage share adjustments would not exceed the project
sponsor's request or the maximum allowed under 49 U.S.C. 5309(l)(1)(B).
FTA approved CIG share will remain locked for the New Starts and Core
Capacity projects currently in the Engineering phase in the CIG
program.
7. Engineering Phase
As the result of public comment review of an earlier version of the
CIG Policy Guidance in 2015 (Docket ID FTA-2015-0007; Document ID FTA-
2015-0007-0045), FTA requires New Starts and Core Capacity project
sponsors to make sufficient progress toward meeting CIG requirements
during the Engineering phase. This is also consistent with the
statutory requirement at 49 U.S.C. 5309(g) that projects must show
progress through the Project Development and Engineering phases to
continue to advance. As stated in the existing CIG Policy Guidance,
project sponsors must demonstrate progress on obtaining non-CIG funding
commitments and advancing the project's level of design within three
years of entering Engineering. This requirement reflects that both
Congress and the transit industry want the CIG process to move quickly.
Under FTA's current practice, if a project sponsor does not demonstrate
sufficient progress during this timeframe, FTA removes the project from
the CIG program.
Currently, FTA follows established project management processes and
engages with the project sponsor's team on a regular basis to receive
project updates. To build on this regular interaction and formally
document that projects are making sufficient progress during the
Engineering phase, FTA is proposing a new requirement for project
sponsors to submit an annual update to FTA Headquarters that includes
refined estimates for the project's scope, schedule, and total project
cost, and the status of non-CIG funding commitments and critical third-
party agreements. FTA is further proposing that if the project sponsor
does not demonstrate sufficient progress annually during the
Engineering phase, FTA would remove the project from the CIG program.
The project sponsor may apply for re-entry into the CIG program after
gaining the necessary funding commitments and demonstrating the
project's design has progressed to a higher percentage after the last
in-program update.
8. Application for Construction Grant Award
The final phase of the CIG process is called the Construction Grant
Award phase. FTA is proposing non-substantive clarifications to the CIG
Policy Guidance regarding this phase. FTA has added a discussion of the
different types of CIG construction grant agreements required by 49
U.S.C. 5309, including single grants or Small Starts Grant Agreements
(SSGAs) for Small Starts projects and Full Funding Grant Agreements
(FFGAs) for New Starts and Core Capacity projects. In addition, FTA has
made changes to the guidance regarding construction grant requests for
clarity and conciseness. These changes are similar to those discussed
above for Engineering requests. FTA added bullets regarding
documentation demonstrating selection of the LPA and demonstrating
adoption of the LPA into the region's fiscally constrained metropolitan
transportation plan. FTA also added clarifications on the TAM
performance target requirements and review process. In addition, FTA
removed bullets listing individual engineering and planning documents
related to FTA's PMO process and replaced them with a citation to the
PMO OPs on FTA's website. FTA has also clarified the CIG risk
assessment process.
9. Funding Allocation
FTA added a new section to the Policy Guidance to clarify CIG
funding allocations. FTA often receives questions about the CIG funding
recommendations, allocations, and the CIG annual report to Congress,
and their interrelationship. Though this section does not represent new
guidance, it is intended to explain those existing processes and their
interrelationship more clearly.
10. Pre-Award Authority and Letters of No Prejudice
FTA currently grants automatic pre-award authority for projects to
incur certain expenses and at certain milestones before a CIG grant is
awarded and retain the eligibility of those costs for subsequent
reimbursement after grant approval. This authority is available to
project sponsors upon the project's: (1) entry to Project Development;
and (2) for New Starts and Core Capacity projects, entry to Engineering
or for Small Starts projects, completion of the environmental review
process and satisfactory rating of the project. FTA provided a table
outlining the eligible pre-award activities by milestone in Section 3.7
of the proposed CIG Policy Guidance. A Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) is
a type of specific pre-award authority. FTA uses LONPs to grant pre-
award authority for projects and activities not covered by automatic
pre-award authority.
Historically, FTA has outlined the activities eligible for
automatic pre-award authority and LONPs in an annual apportionment
notice published in the Federal Register, which meant FTA did not need
to include such information in the CIG Policy Guidance. However,
beginning with the FTA Fiscal Year 2025 Apportionments, Allocations,
and Program Information notice (90 FR 44452), FTA removed the pre-award
authority language specific to the CIG program. In addition to
including automatic pre-award authority activities in response letters,
which FTA already does, FTA determined it would ease the burden on
project sponsors navigating the CIG program to include this information
in the CIG Policy Guidance.
Accordingly, FTA is proposing to add new sections to the CIG Policy
Guidance containing the CIG-specific automatic pre-award authority and
LONP language from prior apportionments notices. FTA generally is not
proposing changes to its existing policy or practice regarding pre-
award authority or LONPs for CIG projects, except FTA is proposing to
expand full pre-award authority (including construction activities)
under certain conditions for projects seeking less than or equal to a
25 percent total Federal share and meet the project justification
warrants thresholds. FTA proposes this expansion to provide flexibility
and to promote projects seeking a lower CIG percentage share and
demonstrating high transit ridership.
FTA also proposes a change in the types of funding that may be
expended for pre-award authority work.
[[Page 62591]]
Previously, FTA permitted only local, or non-Federal, funding for pre-
award authority work. In the proposed Policy Guidance, FTA would also
allow project sponsors to use non-CIG Federal funds for pre-award
authority activities, subject to the requirements of the applicable
Federal funding program, including any environmental determinations.
FTA proposes this change because many CIG projects have been awarded
other Federal funds, such as funding under 49 U.S.C. 5339, which may
have earlier obligation or disbursement dates. FTA believes it should
allow use of non-CIG Federal funds for pre-award authority activities
in those situations, especially since they involve projects that have
been vetted and approved by another Federal program. The LONP is
limited to a five-year period from the FTA approval date, unless
otherwise authorized in the LONP or otherwise extended.
11. Early Systems Work Agreements
Early Systems Work Agreements (ESWA), which are available for New
Starts and Core Capacity projects, are contracts covering only a
portion of the project rather than the full project. Project sponsors
may enter an ESWA only once NEPA review is complete and ``the Secretary
finds there is reason to believe (i) a [FFGA] for the project will be
made; and (ii) the terms of the [ESWA] will promote ultimate completion
of the project more rapidly and at less cost'' (49 U.S.C.
5309(k)(3)(A)).
In the proposed Policy Guidance, FTA clarifies requirements for a
project sponsor request for an ESWA, providing that the request should
include an identification of project activities to be covered by the
ESWA and associated costs, including interest and financing costs; for
interest and financing costs, demonstration of reasonable diligence in
seeking the most favorable financing terms reasonably available; an
explanation of how the ESWA supports expedited project completion at
less cost; an identification of the project sponsor's preferred date to
receive the ESWA and explanation of the relevance of the date; and an
identification of the status of the remaining CIG requirements left to
complete before receiving the FFGA.
D. Evaluation and Rating
1. Ratings Overview
FTA has made minor clarifications to the guidance regarding the
required contents of a CIG rating request package. These changes
conform the guidance to FTA's existing policy and practice. FTA has
also added a new graphic that visually depicts the CIG evaluation and
rating process.
2. Cost Effectiveness
Standardizing Across Project Types
Under FTA's current CIG Policy Guidance, the cost effectiveness
criterion is calculated differently depending on whether the project is
a New Starts, Core Capacity, or Small Starts project. For New Starts
projects, the criterion is calculated as the annual capital and
operating and maintenance (O&M) cost divided by the annual number of
trips on the project. For Small Starts, it is calculated as the
``annualized capital federal share of the project divided by the annual
number of trips using the project.'' For Core Capacity projects, it is
calculated as the annualized Core Capacity share divided by the annual
number of trips in the project corridor. The differing measures have
resulted in unnecessary complexity and excessive burden for project
sponsors to navigate the CIG program.
Moreover, FTA received comments on its previous CIG Policy Guidance
(Docket ID FTA-2021-0010) suggesting FTA modify the cost-effectiveness
measures for consistency across the three project categories. FTA did
not adopt this suggestion when the guidance was finalized in December
2024 but stated it would consider the suggestion in the future. To be
responsive to this concern, FTA is now proposing to standardize the
calculation of cost effectiveness across CIG projects. Accordingly, FTA
proposes that New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts projects
would all utilize the same cost-effectiveness measure currently used
for New Starts projects: ``annual capital and operating and maintenance
(O&M) cost per linked transit trip on the project.''
FTA notes that the statute defines cost effectiveness the same way
across all categories of projects: the project's cost-effectiveness
``as measured by cost per rider.'' See 49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(2)(A)(iii),
5309(e)(2)(A)(iv), and 5309(h)(4). However, FTA historically has stated
that it must evaluate cost effectiveness for Small Starts projects
using the Federal share pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(6), which
provides: ``the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the [Small Starts]
project . . . based on an evaluation of the benefits of the project as
compared to the Federal assistance to be provided.'' Upon re-analysis
of this statutory language, FTA has determined the statute does not
require FTA to compare the cost-effectiveness criterion individually
against the Federal share. In the context of Small Starts projects, the
word ``benefits'' should be interpreted by reading sections 5309(h)(3),
(h)(4), and (h)(6)(A) together. These provisions indicate that all six
Project Justification criteria are ``benefits of the project.'' Thus,
FTA should compare project benefits to the ``Federal assistance to be
provided'' when calculating the Project Justification summary rating.
FTA proposes to do so through the Project Justification weighting
proposal discussed later in this notice.
Breakpoints
Given FTA's proposal to harmonize the method of calculating the
cost-effectiveness criterion across New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity projects, FTA is proposing one unified set of cost
effectiveness breakpoints that would apply to all CIG projects. The
proposed breakpoints are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3--Cost Effectiveness Breakpoints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Cost per trip range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High................................... <$8.00.
Medium-High............................ Between $8.00 and $9.99.
Medium................................. Between $10.00 and $12.99.
Medium-Low............................. Between $13.00 and $19.99.
Low.................................... >$20.00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These breakpoints would provide a simplified and uniform approach
to analyzing cost-effectiveness for all CIG projects. FTA believes
these breakpoint values are appropriate because they are based on
analysis of past and current project cost data in the CIG program. When
evaluating the universe of recent CIG projects, FTA found that projects
from all three project categories could be accommodated within one set
of breakpoints with substantially similar results as would be achieved
using separate breakpoints, once recent inflation-related adjustments
were incorporated. Evaluating all projects for cost effectiveness on
the same level playing field further ensures taxpayer funds are
equitably invested in the most successful, cost-effective projects,
regardless of size, scale, or type.
Enrichments
FTA is proposing two main changes to the enrichments calculation:
(1) limiting which activities qualify as enrichments for purposes of
the cost effectiveness criterion and (2) expanding the availability of
enrichments to all three project categories, rather than applying only
to New Starts projects. Enrichments are improvements to the transit
project that
[[Page 62592]]
are desired by the project sponsor but are non-integral to the planned
functioning of the project, and whose benefits are not captured in
whole by the criteria. In calculating the cost effectiveness measure
for CIG projects, the capital cost of scope elements considered
enrichments are either reduced by an FTA defined percentage or
eliminated entirely from the annualized capital cost calculation. Per
the current CIG Policy Guidance, FTA allows enrichments for a finite
list of items: (1) Sustainable Building Design Features; (2) Joint
Development; (3) Zero Emissions Fueling Stations; (4) Pedestrian/Bike
Access and Accommodation and Functional Landscaping; and (5)
Alternative Energy Bus Vehicles. FTA excludes enrichments from the cost
effectiveness calculation as a matter of policy.
FTA proposes to remove all current enrichments from the Policy
Guidance except Joint Development. FTA is proposing this change to
promote joint development and private investment in transit projects.
In line with administration's priority to prevent crime and protect
safety of riders and workers, FTA is also adding transit safety and
security as a new enrichment category for using innovative and advanced
technology equipment, facilities, and services--beyond such elements
considered standard.
In addition, since FTA proposes to harmonize the method of
calculating cost effectiveness across New Starts, Small Starts, and
Core Capacity projects, FTA is proposing to expand the applicability of
enrichments to Small Starts and Core Capacity projects. In FTA's
response to comments received on the April 2024 proposed CIG Policy
Guidance (Docket ID FTA-2021-0010-0146), FTA stated it applied
enrichments to New Starts and not Small Starts and Core Capacity
projects because the former was the only category that measured total
project cost. FTA stated the cost effectiveness calculations for Small
Starts and Core Capacity projects were already based on less than the
total project cost, and thus there was no need to remove additional
costs from the calculation. Since FTA seeks to harmonize the cost
effectiveness calculations across New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity projects, this reasoning would no longer apply. FTA therefore
proposes to allow Small Starts and Core Capacity projects to utilize
enrichments.
3. Economic Development
Subfactor Weightings
FTA proposes to change the weighting of the three subfactors for
the economic development criterion: (1) supportive zoning in station
areas; (2) performance and impacts of transit-supportive plans and
policies; and (3) tools to maintain or increase the share of affordable
housing in station areas. Currently, FTA gives equal weight (\1/3\ or
33.3 percent) to each of the three subfactors. FTA proposes to increase
the weighting of the ``performance and impact of transit-supportive
policies'' and the ``supportive zoning in station areas'' subfactors to
40 percent each. FTA proposes a corresponding decrease in the ``tools
to maintain or increase the share of affordable housing'' subfactor to
20 percent. These changes place greater emphasis on policies and
programs that promote self-sufficiency in the housing market by
encouraging private sector innovation, reducing regulatory barriers,
and stimulating the production of market-rate affordable housing. They
also emphasize how zoning supportive to transit usage demonstrates a
community commitment to make transit projects more successful by
encouraging a development environment where transit can reasonably
compete for riders.
FTA notes that in its April 2024 proposed CIG Policy Guidance (89
FR 24086), FTA asked whether it should do more to increase the relative
weight of zoning as part of the economic development rating. Some
commenters supported this idea, with one suggesting FTA should increase
the weight of the zoning subfactor to 40 percent. FTA responded that it
would take this into consideration in future updates to the CIG Policy
Guidance. After further consideration, FTA believes it is now
appropriate to increase the weight of the zoning subfactor for the
reasons noted above.
Non-Substantive Changes
In addition, FTA has made non-substantive changes to the economic
development section for clarity. FTA reduced the text in this section
and added a reference to the January 2025 CIG Guidelines for Economic
Development Effects for New Starts and Small Starts Projects, found on
FTA's website (<a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/guidelines-economic-development-effects-new">https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/guidelines-economic-development-effects-new</a>), to alert project sponsors that they can find the technical
guidance for the economic development evaluation in that resource. In
addition, FTA revised the descriptions of the economic development
subfactors for consistency with the guidelines document and removed
redundant language that is already included in the technical guidance.
4. Land Use (New Starts and Small Starts)
FTA is proposing to remove the ``access to essential services''
subfactor under the CIG land use criterion. This measure, which FTA
adopted in December 2024, examines essential services in transit
station areas using data from the Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS) Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) (<a href="https://hifld-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/">https://hifld-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/</a>). In response to FTA's August 2025
proposed update to the CIG Policy Guidance and the August 2025 CIG RFI,
commenters alerted FTA that DHS discontinued the HIFLD data set, and
some commenters recommended removing the subfactor. In response to
these comments, and due to the unavailability of the data, FTA proposes
to remove the ``access to essential services'' subfactor from the land
use calculation. FTA would retain the other four existing subfactors
under the land use criterion.
FTA is proposing to continue giving each remaining subfactor equal
weight (25%) in the land use rating calculation. FTA would maintain the
existing breakpoints for the four remaining land use measures. FTA has
also revised the land use section for clarity and to remove unnecessary
and redundant language.
5. Other Project Justification Criteria
FTA is proposing minor, non-substantive clarifications to the CIG
Policy Guidance regarding the mobility improvements, congestion relief,
environmental benefits, and corridor capacity needs criteria. FTA is
not proposing any changes to breakpoints for these criteria.
6. Project Justification Warrants
FTA is proposing changes to the Project Justification warrants
process. Project Justification warrants are pre-qualification
approaches that allow a proposed project to automatically receive a
satisfactory rating on a given criterion based on the project's
characteristics or the characteristics of the project corridor. Section
5309(g)(3) requires FTA to develop and use warrants when evaluating
Project Justification criteria for New Starts and Core Capacity
projects to the maximum extent practicable if the CIG share of the
[[Page 62593]]
project does not exceed 50 percent. The project sponsor must request
the use of warrants and certify its existing public transportation
system is in a state of good repair.
In the current CIG Policy Guidance, Project Justification warrants
are available to New Starts and Small Starts projects for three Project
Justification criteria: (1) cost effectiveness; (2) mobility
improvements; and (3) congestion relief. FTA assigns an automatic
Medium rating for each criterion if the cost of the proposed project
and existing transit ridership in the corridor fit within certain
thresholds defined in the Policy Guidance. For Core Capacity projects,
warrants are available for the environmental benefits and economic
development criteria. FTA automatically assigns a Medium rating on both
criteria for all Core Capacity projects, unless the project sponsor
requests the project be evaluated and rated in accordance with the
requirements under the New Starts environmental benefits or economic
development criteria.
FTA proposes several changes to the Project Justification warrant
process to expand the use and effectiveness of warrants, consistent
with the statutory direction for FTA to develop and use warrants to the
``maximum extent practicable'' (49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(3)). FTA believes
these proposals will streamline the CIG process with less burden on
project sponsors while promoting projects with higher transit ridership
that are seeking a lower CIG share. In addition, FTA received several
comments on the August 2025 RFI expressing support for warrants and
requesting FTA expand warrants to other project justification criteria,
such as land use.
First, FTA proposes to allow all three categories of CIG projects
to be eligible for warrants if they meet defined ridership and cost
thresholds, thus reducing the complexity of the warrants process. This
allows all three project categories to have an opportunity to be
evaluated using a simplified analysis with the same criteria. Because
one of the primary Project Justification warrant criteria is total
cost, it is reasonable to expect that fewer New Starts and Core
Capacity projects (which tend to be more expensive) may qualify for
such warrants, but this may not be universally so. This expansion
allows New Starts and Core Capacity projects that do meet the same
criteria the same opportunity to benefit from the simplified warrants
approach. Next, FTA proposes to modify the cost and ridership
thresholds governing when a project is eligible for warrants, as shown
in the table below. As in the current Policy Guidance, projects with a
total capital project cost of $600 million or higher would not qualify
for Project Justification warrants, as such projects merit more careful
and detailed analysis to ensure they are an effective use of taxpayer
dollars.
Table 4--Project Justification Warrant Eligibility Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project justification warrant thresholds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$100 million and 2,500 Existing Transit Riders
$100-$199 million and 5,000 Existing Transit Riders
$200-$299 million and 8,000 Existing Transit Riders
$300-$399 million and 12,000 Existing Transit Riders
$400-$599 million and 18,000 Existing Transit Riders
$600 million and higher not eligible for warrants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA is proposing these thresholds to support projects because
recent experience has shown that projects within these ranges of
ridership and cost are cost-effective and tend to lead to successful
transit capital improvements in their corridors. FTA developed the
warrant thresholds based on an examination of data from past and
current projects in the CIG program, consideration of national transit
ridership trends, and cost inflation that has occurred since the
thresholds were first established in 2015. New Starts and Core Capacity
projects below this cost may also be able to utilize warrants to
simplify their rating process. The transit industry has been supportive
of warrants and has in multiple recent CIG RFIs, including the August
2025 RFI, consistently expressed interest in expanding their use and
eligibility.
FTA proposes that projects fitting within the proposed thresholds
would receive ratings of Medium-High for all six Project Justification
criteria, as opposed to a Medium rating for only certain criteria. This
means any warranted project (New Starts, Core Capacity, or Small
Starts) would receive an overall Project Justification rating of
Medium-High. FTA believes projects meeting the proposed cost and
ridership thresholds have a high likelihood of success and can be
advanced without time-consuming and costly analysis of the six
individual project justification criteria. Ultimately, this proposal
would incentivize project sponsors to explore ways to increase project
ridership and control cost escalation, which would ensure the Federal
investment is targeted toward the most successful projects. By
warranting ratings across all six Project Justification criteria,
projects that qualify would not only know they have received a
satisfactory Project Justification rating, but also would be spared the
time-consuming effort of developing information for each individual
criterion rating (e.g., ridership forecasting, detailed economic
development documentation). Though seeking a warrant has always been
and is proposed to remain optional, the current guidance awarding a
Medium rating on only three Project Justification criteria
unintentionally led to a tension for some project sponsors who
qualified for warrants but felt compelled to conduct the full rating
analysis to potentially obtain a better overall rating. Such analysis
is duplicative, made more work for sponsors and for FTA, and was
counter to the intent of the warrants program in the first place. By
proposing to increase the rating to Medium-High across all six project
justification criteria, FTA would remove this unintended tension for
project sponsors.
FTA also proposes an additional warrant for projects seeking a
relatively small Federal share. This is responsive to comments received
on the August 2025 CIG RFI voicing that warrants should be expanded to
account for local funding overmatch. FTA is proposing that a project
meeting the cost and ridership criteria defined in Table 4 above would
receive an automatic High rating for all six project justification
criteria if they seek a Federal share of 25 percent or less. FTA also
proposes to extend full pre-award authority, including construction
activities, to such projects upon Engineering approval for New Starts
and Core Capacity projects and upon completing NEPA and receiving an
acceptable rating for Small Starts projects. See Section II.C.10 of
this notice for further discussion of this proposal.
For either of the two proposed warrants, the project would receive
an automatic rating on all six project justification criteria. As is
FTA's current practice, a project sponsor may not selectively pick and
choose to be warranted for only some of the criteria. FTA would retain
the availability of the existing automatic environmental benefits and
economic development warrants for Core Capacity projects. Accordingly,
if a Core Capacity project sponsor does not qualify for either of the
proposed warrants discussed above, or if the project sponsor elects for
the project to be rated individually under the applicable rating
criteria, the Core Capacity project would remain eligible for the
established automatic Core
[[Page 62594]]
Capacity economic development and environmental benefit warrants.
7. Project Justification Summary Ratings
The statute requires FTA to provide ``comparable, but not
necessarily equal, numerical weight'' to each of the six Project
Justification criteria when calculating the overall project rating (49
U.S.C. 5309(g)(2)(B)(ii) and 5309(h)(6)(A)). In the current CIG Policy
Guidance, FTA gives equal weight to the six project justification
criteria (16.66 percent each) when calculating the Project
Justification summary rating. Given the statute does not mandate the
criteria to be weighted exactly equally, FTA is proposing to change the
Project Justification criteria weightings to place a greater emphasis
on cost effectiveness. Accordingly, FTA is proposing the following
weightings: cost effectiveness at 25 percent, congestion relief at 20
percent, mobility improvements at 20 percent, economic development at
15 percent, land use (for New Starts and Small Starts projects) or
capacity needs in the corridor (for Core Capacity projects) at 15
percent, and environmental benefits at 5 percent.
This proposal is responsive to comments FTA received on the August
2025 CIG RFI. One commenter requested that congestion relief be given a
higher relative weighting compared to the status quo. Another commenter
recommended the Project Justification weightings better capture return
on investment, such as ridership growth. FTA agrees with both
commenters. FTA also notes that cost effectiveness is correlated with
the level of Federal investment, as required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(h)(6)
for Small Starts projects. Giving the cost-effectiveness criterion a
higher weighting ensures the benefits of Small Starts projects are
compared to the Federal assistance to be provided.
FTA notes the proposed environmental benefits criterion weighting
(5 percent) is lower than the other Project Justification criteria
weights. Based on CIG program history, CIG projects have proven to be
environmentally beneficial. The proposed environmental benefits
criterion weighting reflects this positive project outcome for all CIG
projects and the corresponding relative difficulty in differentiating
between transit projects based on this measure. In addition,
environmental benefits are based on the transportation conformity
status of the project area (nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment).
Therefore, FTA cannot assign a five-point scale to this criterion due
to the limited options. As explained in the November 2025 Federal
Register notice of the Final CIG Policy Guidance (90 FR 50886), FTA
determined not to assign a Medium-High rating for maintenance areas
(i.e., areas formerly designated nonattainment but have since achieved
attainment) because the High rating rewards areas formerly in
nonattainment that have since achieved attainment to a higher degree.
FTA does not propose changes to the environmental benefits rating
methodology and will continue to assign CIG projects a Medium or High
rating under this Project Justification criterion.
8. Local Financial Commitment
The statute governing the CIG program requires proposed CIG
projects to be supported by an acceptable degree of local financial
commitment (49 U.S.C. 5309(d)(2)(A)(iv), (e)(2)(A)(v), and (h)(3)(C)).
In the current CIG Policy Guidance, the local financial commitment
rating is comprised of three subfactors: current capital and operating
condition of the project sponsor, commitment of capital and operating
funds, and reasonableness of the financial plan submitted by the
project sponsor. FTA calculates the overall local financial commitment
rating by giving a 25 percent weighting to both the ``capital and
operating condition'' and ``commitment of capital funds'' subfactors,
and a 50 percent weighting to the ``reasonableness of the financial
plan'' subfactor. After this calculation, FTA then boosts the local
financial commitment rating one level (e.g., from Medium to Medium-
High) if the project sponsor is providing significant local funding
overmatch. This boost is available if the project's summary local
financial commitment rating is at least Medium and the requested CIG
share for the project is less than 50%.
FTA is proposing several changes to the local financial commitment
evaluation. First, FTA proposes to revise the relative weightings of
the three subfactors in the calculation of the overall local financial
commitment rating. FTA proposes to weight the three subfactors as
follows: current capital and operating condition at 20 percent;
commitment of funds at 20 percent; and reasonableness of the financial
plan at 60 percent. With the proposed changes, FTA places a greater
emphasis on the ``reasonableness of capital and operating cost
estimates'' criterion, which includes planning assumptions and
additional capital funding capacity and demonstrates a project
sponsor's ability to withstand unexpected cost overruns or funding
shortfalls. The higher weight would improve financial accountability
and reduce risk to the Federal investment in CIG projects.
FTA is also proposing to ``round down'' the calculated local
financial commitment summary rating to the lower rating level when the
``averaged'' rating would be in-between ratings. FTA currently ``rounds
up'' the calculated local financial commitment summary rating to the
next rating level. The proposed change adds stringency in financial
evaluation by right-sizing the local financial commitment criteria. In
addition, FTA is proposing to re-define the circumstances in which it
will boost the local financial commitment ratings by one level. Under
the current CIG Policy Guidance, FTA increases the overall local
financial commitment rating by one level if the rating is Medium or
higher and the CIG percentage share is less than 50 percent of the
project's capital cost. FTA proposes to eliminate this boost and
replace it with a new one that would apply only to the ``commitment of
funds'' subfactor and reflect significant overmatch. For New Starts
projects, FTA would increase the ``commitment of funds'' subfactor
rating by one level if the project sponsor requests a CIG percentage
share of less than or equal to 40 percent of the project's total cost.
For Core Capacity and Small Starts projects, FTA would boost the
``commitment of funds'' subfactor rating by one level if the project
sponsor requests a CIG percentage share of less than or equal to 50
percent of the project's total cost. The proposed change would
encourage project sponsors of large projects to provide significant
non-CIG funding overmatch and would recognize the significant decision
a region makes when committing to such an overmatch. The different
overmatch threshold proposed for New Starts would strike a balance
based on recent real-world experience that New Starts projects
typically have a higher cost--while still acknowledging the importance
of significant overmatch.
FTA would retain the existing commitment of funds rating boost for
projects with significant private contributions. However, FTA proposes
that projects may only receive a single boost (i.e., either the
significant overmatch boost or the significant private contributions
boost). Multiple commitment of funds rating boosts for a single project
would not be allowed to avoid skewed weighting. Multi-step boosts given
to any particular criterion could have an unintentionally outsized
impact on the rating, which could risk minimizing the importance of the
other criteria.
[[Page 62595]]
E. Demonstrating Progress Toward Meeting TAM Performance Targets
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) added a
new requirement to the CIG program, codified at 49 U.S.C.
5309(c)(1)(C). FTA must determine an applicant has made progress toward
meeting their Transit Asset Management (TAM) performance targets before
awarding a construction grant. FTA first implemented this requirement
in January 2023 (88 FR 2166) by adopting an interim approach and
stating that FTA would propose a long-term approach in a future
guidance update.
The interim approach, which is still in effect in the current CIG
Policy Guidance, provides that when a project sponsor submits an entry
to Engineering request or an FFGA request, the project sponsor must
include a statement signed by the CEO (Accountable Executive)
describing the progress the project sponsor's transit agency has made
toward meeting the TAM targets. This self-certification statement must
include two supporting documents: (1) the up-to-date TAM plan and (2)
the narrative report submitted to FTA's National Transit Database (NTD)
that explains the agency's progress towards achieving the TAM goals for
all asset classes in the TAM plan. Each year, transit agencies report
their progress toward meeting the performance targets to FTA through
the NTD. In addition, transit agencies set targets on State of Good
Repair measures and report those targets through the NTD.
On December 17, 2025, the DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG)
released an audit report regarding FTA's evaluation of TAM performance
targets for purposes of the CIG program.\1\ In this report, OIG
recommended FTA ``[d]evelop and document implementation of a
methodology to verify that CIG applicants that are subject to the TAM
performance target progress requirement have made progress on
established TAM performance targets before awarding CIG grants.'' In
accordance with this recommendation, FTA is proposing to enhance its
existing TAM performance target verification process. Specifically, FTA
proposes to enhance its review of the project sponsor's TAM
documentation by reviewing the project sponsor's submissions to the NTD
(data and accompanying narratives) against the transit agency's TAM
Plan and State of Good Repair targets. FTA would verify the transit
agency's progress by comparing the project sponsor's NTD submissions
with the transit agency's TAM Plan and State of Good Repair targets for
consistency. FTA would also add review of TAM documentation to the
Project Management Oversight (PMO) applied to all CIG projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDOT Office of Inspector General, FTA Did Not Verify
Transit Asset Management Performance Target Progress Prior to
Awarding Capital Investment Grants (Dec. 17, 2025), <a href="https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/47025">https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/47025</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To minimize burden on project sponsors at entry to Engineering, FTA
also proposes to no longer require the Accountable Executive to submit
a signed statement describing the progress the transit agency has made
toward meeting its TAM targets. FTA would only require the signed
statement at the construction grant request stage. FTA would retain the
requirement for the sponsor to provide to FTA the transit agency's
current TAM plan and most recent submission to the NTD (data and
accompanying narrative) at both the entry to Engineering and
construction grant request stages. FTA has also changed the term
``Chief Executive Officer'' to ``Accountable Executive'' when
describing the performance target requirement for consistency with the
terminology used in FTA's TAM regulation (49 CFR part 625). This is a
non-substantive change.
Request for Comments
FTA requests comments on this CIG Policy Guidance, which is
available in the docket for this notice and on FTA's website. FTA will
consider any substantive comments received on the proposed CIG Policy
Guidance and will either revise sections in the guidance based on
comments received or will finalize the guidance as proposed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5309; 49 CFR 1.91.
Matthew Cahill,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-20179 Filed 9-30-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 1, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.