[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38344-38365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15992]
[[Page 38343]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 38344]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of funding availability for Service Development
Programs; issuance of interim program guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice details the application requirements and
procedures for obtaining funding for high-speed and intercity passenger
rail Service Development Programs available under the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for 2010 (Div. A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L.
111-117, Dec. 16, 2009)). The Federal Railroad Administration has
issued a separate notice in today's edition of the Federal Register for
Fiscal Year 2010 funding made available for Individual Projects.
This document incorporates interim guidance required for the HSIPR
program pursuant to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 and 49 U.S.C.
24402(a)(2). The funding opportunities described in this notice are
available under Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number
20.319.
DATES: Applications for funding under this solicitation are due no
later than 5 p.m. EDT, August 6, 2010. FRA reserves the right to modify
this deadline.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted through http://www.grantsolutions.gov. See Section 4 for additional information
regarding the application process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
notice and the HSIPR program, please contact the FRA HSIPR Program
Manager via e-mail at [email protected], or by mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, MS-20, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 Att'n: HSIPR Program.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
1. Funding Opportunity Description
2. Award Information
3. Eligibility Information
4. Application and Submission Information
5. Application Review Information
6. Award Administration Information
7. Agency Contact
Appendix 1: Definition of High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail
Appendix 2: Additional Information on Stages of Project Development
Appendix 3: Additional Information on Financial Plans
Appendix 4: Additional Information on Applicant Budgets
Appendix 5: List of Acronyms and Abbreviated References
Section 1: Funding Opportunity Description
1.1 Legislative Authority
This interim program guidance and financial assistance announcement
pertains to the funding made available for Service Development Programs
under FRA's HSIPR program. The authority for this grant program is
contained in two pieces of legislation:
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008
(PRIIA), under Sections 301, 302, and 501: Intercity Passenger Rail
Service Corridor Capital Assistance (codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter
244), General Passenger Rail Transportation (codified at 49 U.S.C.
chapter 24105), and High-Speed Rail Assistance (codified at 49 U.S.C.
chapter 26106), respectively; and
The Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(Title I of Division A of Pub. L. 111-117, December 16, 2009) (FY 2010
DOT Appropriations Act), under the title ``Capital Assistance for High
Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.''
This document incorporates interim guidance required for the HSIPR
program pursuant to the FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act and 49 U.S.C.
24402(a)(2).
1.2 Funding Approach
The FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act appropriated a total of $2.5
billion for the HSIPR program. FRA is soliciting grant applications
separately for the different components of this appropriation:
FY 2010 Service Development Programs (at least $2,125
million): Service Development Programs with a 20 percent non-Federal
match. This solicitation is for these funds.
FY 2010 Individual Projects (up to $245 million): Final
Design/Construction or Preliminary Engineering/NEPA for Individual
Projects with a 20 percent non-Federal match. The notice of funding
availability (NOFA) for these funds is being issued concurrently with
this solicitation.
FY 2010 Planning Projects (up to $50 million): Planning
projects with a 20 percent non-Federal match. The solicitation for
these funds was published on April 1, 2010, and applications were due
May 19, 2010.
FY 2010 Multi-State Proposals (from $50 million for
Planning Projects): Proposals for Federally-led preparation of planning
documents for high-speed rail corridors that cross multiple States. The
guidance for submitting proposals was published on April 1, 2010, and
the proposals were due May 19, 2010.
The balance of the $2.5 billion is allocated to HSIPR program
administration and research.
1.3 Approach to Service Development Programs
Investment in Service Development Programs is the long-term
emphasis of the HSIPR program. Service Development Programs are aimed
at developing new high-speed or intercity passenger rail services or
substantially upgrading existing services. (See Appendix 1 for the
definition of ``high-speed and intercity passenger rail.'') Service
Development Programs contain sets of inter-related projects that
constitute the entirety or a distinct phase (or geographic section) of
a long-range Service Development Plan (SDP)--projects which
collectively produce benefits greater than the sum of each individual
project. These investments will generally address, in a comprehensive
manner, the construction and acquisition of infrastructure, equipment,
stations, and facilities necessary to operate high-speed and intercity
passenger rail service.
1.3.1 Service Development Program Administration
While the characteristics and outcomes of a Service Development
Program will be unique to each individual application, for the purposes
of this solicitation, FRA will classify Service Development Programs
into two categories: Major Capital Projects and Standard Capital
Projects.
As required by PRIIA (49 U.S.C. 24403(a)), and in keeping with
project management approaches in use by other DOT agencies (e.g., FTA's
Project Management Oversight program (49 CFR part 633), and FHWA's IPD
Major Project Delivery Guidance), large, complex capital projects,
designated as ``Major Capital Projects'' call for a particularly
rigorous approach towards project management and oversight.
Administratively, three primary distinctions exist between the
Major and Standard Capital Project designation when applied to a
Service Development Program: (1) The approach to the environmental
review process; (2) FRA's use of a Letter of Intent (LOI) to
contingently commit funds to the Service Development Program (as
[[Page 38345]]
described in Section 2); and, (3) the project delivery tools required
and employed by FRA in managing the Service Development Program.
Given the scope, complexity, and project delivery risk inherent in
implementing a Service Development Program, all Service Development
Program applications are considered to be ``Major Capital Projects''
unless the FRA Administrator determines that this classification and
the attendant requirements will not benefit the implementation of the
proposed program. Applicants for funding for a Service Development
Program may request to be considered a ``Standard Capital Project'' in
their Application Form (see Section 4.2.1). This designation will
typically be limited to Service Development Programs that:
1. Involve a recipient whose past experience in implementing
similar HSIPR projects indicates that the program will be delivered
successfully;
2. Generally are expected to have a total project cost less than
$100 million;
3. Are intended to benefit intercity passenger rail service
operating at top speeds of 79 mph or less; and
4. Solely involve the use of proven technology.
As the HSIPR program develops and Service Development Programs
become its primary focus, the approach to the Major and Standard
designations may change. As the HSIPR program matures, FRA expects to
work with project sponsors from the beginning of the service
development process and will designate a Service Development Program as
``Major'' or ``Standard'' in coordination with project sponsors during
or before the planning phase of project development.
1.3.2 Service Development Program Environmental Review
There are two general methods to satisfying National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for intercity passenger rail capital
investment projects:
A tiered approach, utilizing a Tier 1 environmental impact
statement (EIS) to address broad service level issues (``programmatic''
or ``Service'' NEPA), followed by Tier 2 EISs, environmental
assessments (EAs), or categorical exclusions (CEs) to address site-
specific project environmental reviews (``project'' NEPA); or
A non-tiered approach, in which one EIS or EA would cover
both service issues and individual project components.
Generally, FRA prefers to take a tiered approach with Major Service
Development Programs, and a non-tiered approach with Standard Service
Development Programs. For Major Service Development Programs, FRA also
generally prefers to use a Tier 1 environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the initial evaluation of the application. FRA encourages
applicants developing Standard Service Development Programs to develop
a single EIS or EA that covers both service and project environmental
analysis.
FRA is responsible for the NEPA process, including the
establishment of the scope of environmental reviews and the decision to
use tiering or a unified project-level document. FRA encourages
applicants to contact FRA as early as possible in the planning process
to discuss the appropriate form and level of NEPA documentation. For
more information on the NEPA process and FRA's requirements, please see
Section 4.2.5 and Appendix 2.2 of this solicitation.
1.4 Forthcoming Interim Guidance
FRA is preparing a draft guidance document as part of the process
of establishing a long-term framework for the HSIPR program. This
document, anticipated for publication later this year, will include
details about each stage of the project development process (from
planning and design through construction and operation), as well as
provide substantial technical assistance on the processes and
documentation needed for successful project development and delivery.
This guidance is intended for future program administration and does
not apply to this funding solicitation or the application process
described in this notice.
The initial draft of this pending guidance document will be open
for public comment, and FRA will utilize various outreach mechanisms
for soliciting feedback from the HSIPR stakeholder community. FRA
expects to modify the draft guidance document taking into account this
feedback and to eventually issue Final Guidance that will include
standards and guidelines that will be applicable to future funding
opportunities.
Section 2: Award Information
Of the $2.5 billion appropriated under the FY 2010 DOT
Appropriations Act, Congress mandated that not less than 85 percent of
funds ($2.125 billion) be allocated to programs aimed at developing new
high-speed or intercity passenger rail services or substantially
upgrading existing corridor services. These grants are authorized under
49 U.S.C. 24406, 49 U.S.C. 24105, and 49 U.S.C. 26106.
FRA will make awards for Service Development Programs through
cooperative agreements. Cooperative agreements allow for greater
Federal involvement in carrying out the agreed upon investment. The
substantial Federal involvement for these programs will include
technical assistance, review of interim work products, and increased
program oversight. The funding provided under these cooperative
agreements will be made available to grantees on a reimbursable basis.
For Major Service Development Programs, FRA will issue a Letter of
Intent (LOI) that represents the Federal Government's contingent
financial commitment--up to a prescribed amount of funding--to
implement the Service Development Program. An LOI will contain defined
milestones, grant conditions, and other requirements agreed upon by FRA
and the grantee that must be fulfilled or met prior to any funding
obligation or disbursement. These milestones and conditions will be put
in place to ensure successful and timely completion of projects. An LOI
does not represent an obligation or disbursement of funds. Funding will
be obligated through cooperative agreements and disbursed to grantees
as the agreed upon milestones are achieved. See Section 1.3 for further
information on Major and Standard Service Development Programs.
While there are no predetermined minimum or maximum dollar
thresholds for awards, FRA anticipates making multiple awards from the
$2.125 billion or more available for Service Development Programs. As
such, FRA expects applicants to tailor their applications and proposed
project scopes accordingly. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 24402(g)(1), FRA will
establish the net project cost for the scope of work proposed in an
application, based on engineering materials, studies of economic
feasibility, information on the expected use of equipment or
facilities, and other project information provided in an application.
FRA reserves the right to contact applicants with any questions or
comments related to applications.
Section 3: Eligibility Information
Applications under this solicitation will be required to meet
minimum requirements related to applicant eligibility, project
eligibility, and the fulfillment of other eligibility requirements. To
the extent that an application's substance exceeds the minimum
eligibility requirements described below, such information will be
considered in evaluating the merits of an application (see Section 5
for evaluation and selection criteria).
[[Page 38346]]
3.1 Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicant entities are as follows:
States (including the District of Columbia);
Groups of States (Sections 301 and 501 of PRIIA);
Interstate compacts (Sections 301 and 501);
Public agencies established by one or more States and
having responsibility for providing intercity passenger rail service
(Section 301) or high-speed passenger rail service (Section 501);
Amtrak (Section 501); and
Amtrak, in cooperation with States (Sections 301 and 302;
see 49 U.S.C. 24402(e) for additional information on Amtrak's
eligibility requirements when applying for grants in cooperation with
States).
3.2 Minimum Qualifications for Applicant Eligibility
An applicant must, in addition to demonstrating that it is an
eligible applicant type for the Service Development Program,
affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has or will have the
legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the activities
proposed within an application. A prospective applicant that does not
fall within the definition of a State, group of States, or Amtrak will
also be required to submit documentation (such as copies of
legislation) demonstrating its legal authority to provide intercity or
high-speed passenger rail service on behalf of a State or group of
States.
In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that it has or will
have satisfactory continuing control over the use of equipment or
facilities acquired, constructed, or improved by the project and the
capability and willingness to maintain such equipment or facilities.
For an applicant to demonstrate the legal, financial, and technical
capacity to carry out the activities proposed in the application, the
applicant will be required to address the following qualifications:
The applicant's ability to absorb potential cost overruns
or financial shortfalls;
The applicant's experience in effectively administering
grants of similar scope and value (including timely completion of grant
deliverables, compliance with grant conditions, and quality and cost
controls); and
The applicant's experience in managing railroad investment
project development activities of a nature similar to those for which
funding is being requested.
For an applicant to demonstrate that it has or will have
satisfactory continuing control over the use of equipment or facilities
acquired, constructed, or improved by the project, the applicant will
be required to show either:
That the applicant has or will have direct ownership of
the equipment or facilities acquired, constructed, or improved by the
project; or
That the applicant has secured or has made progress
towards securing and will have enforceable contractual agreements
providing satisfactory continuing control in place with the entity or
entities (e.g., one or more railroads, or a local government) that have
or will have direct ownership of such assets.
For an applicant to demonstrate that it has or will have the
capability and willingness to maintain the equipment or facilities
acquired, constructed, or improved by the project, the applicant will
be required to show:
That it has made progress toward, and will have
contractual agreements in place with, any entity or entities (e.g., one
or more railroads, or a local government) that have or will have direct
ownership of the equipment or facilities acquired, constructed, or
improved by the project, which address financial and operational
responsibility for asset use and maintenance for the useful life of the
asset;
That, to the extent financial responsibility will fall to
the applicant, a viable funding source(s) has been identified to cover
maintenance costs; and
The applicant's experience in maintaining assets with
similar financial and operational maintenance requirements as those
assets for which funding is being requested.
Information and documentation demonstrating the fulfillment of the
minimum qualifications described above must be submitted as part of the
application (see Section 4.2).
3.3 Cost Sharing
3.3.1 Applicant Cost Sharing
The Federal share of the costs of projects funded through this
solicitation shall not exceed 80 percent.
If an applicant chooses the option of contributing, from its own,
its partner project sponsors', or other interested parties' resources,
more than the required 20 percent non-Federal share of the costs of its
proposed project, such additional contributions will be considered in
evaluating the merit of its application.
3.3.2 Requirements for Applicant Cost Sharing
An applicant's contribution toward the cost of its proposed project
may be in the form of cash or, with FRA approval, in-kind contributions
of services or supplies related to the activities proposed for funding.
As part of its application, an applicant offering an in-kind
contribution must provide a documented estimate of the monetary value
of any such contribution and its eligibility under 49 CFR 18.24 or
19.23. However, all in-kind contributions must be allowable,
reasonable, allocable, and in accordance with applicable OMB cost
principles, and must not represent double-counting of costs otherwise
accounted for in an indirect cost rate pursuant to which the applicant
will seek reimbursement.
The applicant must provide, as part of its application,
documentation that demonstrates that it has committed and will be able
to fulfill any required and pledged contribution, including committing
any required financial resources that are budgeted or planned at the
time the application is submitted.
All applicants will be required to identify a viable funding
source(s) at the time of application to absorb any cost overruns and
deliver the proposed project with no Federal funding or financial
assistance beyond that provided in the cooperative agreement.
3.4 Eligible Service Development Programs
Eligible Service Development Program activities under this funding
announcement must consist of a coordinated and comprehensive grouping
of capital projects that will result in the introduction of new high-
speed or intercity passenger rail services or significant improvements
to existing corridor services. These investments will generally
address, in a comprehensive manner, the construction and acquisition of
infrastructure, equipment, and stations, and other facilities necessary
to operate high-speed and intercity passenger rail service.
Capital projects are defined by 49 U.S.C. 24401(2) and 49 U.S.C.
26106(b)(3) as acquiring, constructing, improving, or inspecting
equipment, track and track structures, or a facility for use in or for
the primary benefit of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service,
expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction (including
designing, engineering, location surveying, mapping, environmental
studies, and acquiring rights-of-way), payments for the capital
portions of rail
[[Page 38347]]
trackage rights agreements, highway-rail grade crossing improvements
related to high-speed and intercity passenger rail service, mitigating
environmental impacts, communication and signalization improvements,
relocation assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, acquiring,
constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing,
rehabilitating, remanufacturing or overhauling rail rolling stock and
facilities used primarily in intercity passenger rail service;
providing access to rolling stock for nonmotorized transportation and
storage capacity in trains for such transportation, equipment, and
other luggage; and the first-dollar liability costs for insurance
related to the provision of intercity passenger rail service under 49
U.S.C. 24404. FRA will not fund activities not included in this
definition nor consider the funding of any such activities in
calculating an applicant's required cost share.
Service Development Programs applying for funding under this
solicitation may not include individual projects that have received
HSIPR program funding under previous solicitations.
3.4.1 Major Service Development Programs
To be considered eligible for HSIPR program funding, an applicant
applying for funding for a Major Service Development Program must have
completed and submitted a NEPA document satisfying FRA's ``Service
NEPA'' requirement with its application. See Section 4.2.5 and Appendix
2.2 for additional details on NEPA requirements.
Project PE, site-specific NEPA, final design, and construction
activities are eligible for funding. See Appendix 2 of this
solicitation for additional information on these activities.
3.4.2 Standard Service Development Programs
As with Major Service Development Programs, an applicant applying
for funding for a Standard Service Development Program must have
completed and submitted with its application an EIS or EA that
addresses, at a minimum, Service NEPA issues. For applications for
Standard Service Development Programs that are intended to advance
directly into Final Design, FRA requires project NEPA documents and all
Preliminary Engineering (PE) for project components to be completed and
submitted with the application. See Appendix 2.2 for additional details
on NEPA requirements, and Appendix 2.3 for further details regarding PE
requirements.
Remaining project PE and site-specific NEPA, final design, and
construction activities are eligible for funding. See Appendix 2 of
this solicitation for additional information on these activities.
3.4.3 Previously Funded Service Development Programs
An application proposing to augment a Service Development Program,
or component thereof, which received funding from FRA under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 must demonstrate the
following:
The applicant has, at the time it submits the new
application, sufficiently refined the scope of previously funded
elements of the Service Development Plan to ensure those elements will
result in high-speed or intercity passenger rail service with
operational independence, as defined in Section 3.5.2 of this notice;
Any new elements of a Service Development Program proposed
in the current application will also result in high-speed or intercity
passenger rail service with operational independence, either
cumulatively with the previous investment or as an independent
operating segment of the Service Development Program;
The applicant possesses the capacity and capability to
manage and implement the proposed increase in scope of the Service
Development Program in addition to the scope of work funded under the
previous award; and
There is a demonstrated need for immediate additional
funding to implement the proposed increase in scope of the Service
Development Program and the ability to expend the original and
additional funds in the near term.
3.5 Additional Eligibility Requirements
3.5.1 Service Development Program Planning
Service Development Programs proposed for funding must be
identified through a Service Development Plan meeting the requirements
of this interim guidance. A Service Development Plan is prepared during
the planning phase for HSIPR Service Development Programs and lays out
the overall scope and approach for the proposed service. At a minimum,
a Service Development Plan must clearly demonstrate the purpose and
need for new or improved intercity passenger rail service; analyze
alternatives for the proposed new or improved intercity passenger rail
service, and identify the alternative that would best address the
identified purpose and need; identify the discrete capital projects
that will be required to implement the alternative that is proposed to
be pursued; demonstrate the operational and financial feasibility of
the alternative that is proposed to be pursued; and, as applicable,
describe how the implementation of the HSIPR Service Development
Program may be divided into discrete phases. More information on the
objectives and preparation of Service Development Plans is included in
Appendix 2.1.
3.5.2 Operational Independence
All Service Development Programs that are proposed to be advanced
using HSIPR program funding must have operational independence. A
Service Development Program is considered to have operational
independence if, upon being implemented, it will result in a minimal
operating segment of new or substantially improved high-speed or
intercity passenger rail service that demonstrates tangible and
measurable benefits, even if no additional investments in the same
service are made. Examples of these benefits would include operational
reliability improvements, travel-time reductions, and additional
service frequencies resulting in increased ridership.
Applications that include benefits or proposed activities that are
contingent upon FRA's selection of another application will not be
considered for funding.
3.5.3 Availability of Funds
It is important for awarded projects to be brought promptly to
obligation through execution of a cooperative agreement by the
applicant and FRA and for awarded funds to be expended without delay
and in accordance with the statement of work and project schedules
included in the cooperative agreement. Under 49 U.S.C. 24402(h), if any
amount awarded under the HSIPR program is not obligated within 2 years
of the date on which the award is made, FRA may cancel the award and
redistribute the funds to other HSIPR projects at the FRA
Administrator's sole discretion. Similarly, FRA may require the return
of obligated funds that remain unexpended if the grantee is not making
satisfactory progress in implementing the project or program as
provided for in the cooperative agreement.
3.5.4 Eligibility Restrictions
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 301, 302, and 501 of PRIIA,
the following activities are ineligible to
[[Page 38348]]
receive Federal funding under this solicitation:
Applications submitted by private entities other than
Amtrak;
Projects for which commuter rail passenger transportation
is the primary intended beneficiary (see Appendix 1);
Projects in which the physical improvements are located
outside of the United States; and
Any expenses associated with passenger rail operating
costs.
3.5.5 Funding Restrictions
In general, only those costs considered allowable pursuant to OMB
Circular A-87, ``Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal
Governments'' (codified at 2 CFR part 225), will be considered for
funding. Additionally, the following funding restrictions will apply to
cooperative agreements awarded under this solicitation and must be
taken into consideration in the development of budget information
submitted as part of an application:
Funding may not be used to fund expenses associated with
the operation of intercity passenger rail service; and
While there is no cap on a grant recipient's use of grant
funds for management and administrative costs, such costs must be
allowable, reasonable, allocable, and in accordance with applicable OMB
cost principles cited above.
FRA will also consider reimbursement of pre-award costs incurred
after the enactment of the FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act (December 16,
2009). However, such costs will be considered for reimbursement only to
the extent that they are otherwise allowable under the applicable cost
principles. To the extent such pre-award costs are incurred prior to
the date of submission of an application, the application must show in
detail what costs have been incurred in order for such costs to be
considered for reimbursement. Projects for which construction
activities commenced prior to receipt of an FRA environmental
determination under NEPA will not be eligible for funding.
Additionally, a grant recipient may not generally expend any of the
funds provided in an award on construction or other activities that
represent an irretrievable commitment of resources to a particular
course of action affecting the environment until after all
environmental and historic preservation analyses required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) (NEPA), the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) (NHPA), and related laws
and regulations have been completed and FRA has provided the grant
recipient with a written notice authorizing it to proceed.
3.5.6 Standards for Equipment Procurement or Design Grants
If the applicant is seeking a grant for the procurement or design
of railroad equipment, the proposed equipment should be consistent with
specifications developed by the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool
Committee. This Committee was established under Section 305 of PRIIA to
develop a pool of standardized next-generation rail corridor equipment.
Compliance with Section 305 of PRIIA will assist in creating the
economies of scale necessary to achieve the Administration's goal of
developing a sustainable railroad equipment manufacturing base in the
United States, as outlined in the Vision for High-Speed Rail in America
(April 2009). The Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee
will be issuing specifications for bi-level cars this summer, single-
level cars this winter, and locomotives in 2011.
3.5.7 Positive Train Control (PTC)
If, as a component of an overall Service Development Plan intended
to benefit high-speed or intercity passenger rail service, a project
involves installation and/or improvements to railroad signaling/control
systems, the application must demonstrate that the proposed
improvements are consistent with a comprehensive plan for complying
with the requirements for PTC implementation under Section 104 of the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (``RSIA,'' Division A of Pub. L.
110-432, October 16, 2008, codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157) and with FRA's
final rule on Positive Train Control Systems published in the Federal
Register on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2598).
Section 4: Application and Submission Information
4.1 Application Procedures
4.1.1 Applying Online Through GrantSolutions
FRA participates in the Grants Management Line of Business (GMLoB)
E-Gov initiative. As part of that initiative, FRA uses the
Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) GrantSolutions (GS)
Grants Management System. All applications must be submitted to FRA
through GrantSolutions. To access the system, go to https://www.grantsolutions.gov. Should an applicant encounter difficulties
accessing using GS, please contact the GrantSolutions Help Desk at 1-
866-577-0771 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Applicants must
complete the following three steps prior to submitting an application
through GS:
Register in GS. Go to https://www.grantsolutions.gov and
select ``Register'' on the right side of the page. Applicants should
begin the process immediately to meet the application submission
deadlines.
Obtain a Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number. All
applicants must include a DUNS number in their application.
Applications without a DUNS number are incomplete. A DUNS number is a
unique nine-digit number recognized as the universal standard for
identifying and keeping track of entities receiving Federal funds. The
identifier is used for tracking purposes and to validate address and
point of contact information for Federal assistance applicants,
recipients and subrecipients. The DUNS number will be used throughout
the grant lifecycle. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, simple, one-
time activity. Obtain a number by calling 1-866-705-5177 or by applying
online at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/displayHomePage.do.
Register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR)
database. FRA also requires that all applicants (other than
individuals) for Federal financial assistance maintain current
registrations in the CCR database. The CCR database is the repository
for standard information about Federal financial assistance applicants,
recipients and subrecipients. Organizations that have previously
submitted applications via http://www.grants.gov or GrantSolutions
should already be registered with CCR. Please note, however, that
applicants must update or renew their CCR registration at least once
per year to maintain an active status. Information about registration
procedures can be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov.
Standard OMB forms (identified in Section 4.2.3) will be available
electronically on the Funding Opportunity page at http://
www.GrantSolutions.gov. The Funding Opportunity screen provides
applicants with general announcement information and access to all
application kit materials in order to view and print application forms
and information. In addition, applicants can apply online through this
screen.
Program-specific forms (identified in Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and
4.2.4) may be downloaded from FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/477.shtml.
[[Page 38349]]
4.1.2 Address To Request Paper Application Package
If Internet access is unavailable, please write to FRA at the
address below to request a paper application: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Attn: HSIPR Program
Information (RPD-10), Mail Stop 20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
4.2 Application Package
Required documents for the application package are summarized in
the checklist below.
Application Checklist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents Format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Application Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] HSIPR Service Development Program Form
Application Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Budget and Schedule Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] HSIPR Service Development Program Budget Form
and Schedule Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. OMB Standard Forms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] SF 424: Application for Federal Assistance Form
[ballot] SF 424C: Budget Information--Construction Form
[ballot] SF 424D: Assurances--Construction Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FRA Assurances Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] FRA Assurances Document Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Service Development Supporting Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] Service Development Plan No Specified
Format
[ballot] NEPA Documentation No Specified
Format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Service Delivery Supporting Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] Project Management Plan No Specified
Format
[ballot] Financial Plan No Specified
Format
[ballot] System Safety Plan No Specified
Format
[ballot] Railroad and Project Sponsor Agreements No Specified
Format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Optional Supporting Documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot] Preliminary Engineering (PE) and/or Final No Specified
Design (FD) Documentation Format
[ballot] Other Relevant and Available Documentation n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants must complete and submit all components of the
application package; failure to do so may result in the application
being removed from consideration for award. All components of the
application package must be submitted through GrantSolutions (including
optional supporting documentation), as described in Section 4.1.1.
The HSIPR Service Development Program application package contains
seven components:
1. HSIPR Service Development Program Application Form (see Section
4.2.1).
2. HSIPR Service Development Program Budget and Schedule Form (see
Section 4.2.2).
3. OMB Standard Forms (see Section 4.2.3).
4. FRA Assurances Document (see Section 4.2.4).
5. Service Development Supporting Documentation (see Section
4.2.5).
6. Service Delivery Supporting Documentation (see Section 4.2.6).
7. Optional Supporting Documentation (see Section 4.2.7).
For any other documentation required prior to award that is not
specified in this notice, FRA will make individual arrangements with
applicants for the submission of the required documentation.
It is in the best interest of an applicant who is submitting an
application for a Service Development Program that is exceptionally
complex, long-term, or broad in scope to submit phased application
packages for the same Service Development Program. Applicants pursuing
this option should divide the activities into discrete phases, each
with operational independence, based on geographic section, type of
activity, or other appropriate criteria.
To apply for funding using this approach, an applicant should
structure the applications in such a way that an application for a
specific phase also includes all of the project activities and funding
requested in applications for all previous phases, in addition to the
set of activities and funding requested for the current phase. This
``nested'' approach will give FRA flexibility to select for funding
those phases of a Service Development Program that are sufficiently
developed to realize significant benefits, rather than selecting or not
selecting the entire program based on insufficient development of some
constituent parts.
For example, an applicant applying for funding for a Service
Development Program may break the program into three distinct phases
and apply as follows:
Application 1 includes package of projects A for $X;
Application 2 includes package of projects A + B for $X +
$Y; and
Application 3 includes package of projects A + B + C for
$X + $Y + $Z.
Applicants taking this phased approach to their application
submittals must ensure that each individual application includes all of
the required documentation described below. FRA recognizes that in
certain instances the same document may be used to support each of the
individual applications; however, to support FRA's eligibility and
evaluation review processes, each application package must be complete
and include all required documentation.
4.2.1 HSIPR Service Development Program Application Form
The Application Form includes fields that have been developed by
FRA to capture pertinent qualitative and quantitative program-specific
information that is needed for FRA to confirm applicant and project
eligibility, as well as information needed for evaluation and selection
of applications. The Application Form requests four types of
information:
1. General applicant and Service Development Program information;
2. Narratives that allow the applicant to make arguments for the
benefits of the proposed Service Development Program and other factors
that are used to evaluate the merits of the application (see Section
5.2 for evaluation criteria);
3. A corridor service overview that presents the applicant's
comprehensive vision for the development or improvement of a corridor
service and provides a navigation tool for multiple applications
related to a particular Service Development Program; and
4. An ``executive summary'' that outlines the major milestones for
the Service Development Program. It is FRA's intent that this portion
of the application form will provide the framework for the Letter of
Intent (LOI) if the project is selected for funding.
[[Page 38350]]
The Application Form also asks applicants who wish to be considered
for designation as a Standard Service Development Program to provide a
narrative describing how they meet the factors described in Section
1.3.1.
4.2.2 HSIPR Service Development Program Budget and Schedule Form
The HSIPR Service Development Program Budget and Schedule Form is a
Microsoft Excel document that supports the qualitative and quantitative
claims made in the applicant's HSIPR Service Development Program
Application Form. In addition to capturing detailed program budget and
schedule information, the form also describes the standard cost
categories developed by FRA to assist in evaluating and selecting
projects.
4.2.3 OMB Standard Forms
The Standard Forms are developed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and are required of all grant applicants. Applicants
applying for funding should submit the following forms electronically
through GrantSolutions:
Standard Form 424: Application for Federal Assistance;
Standard Form 424C: Budget Information--Construction
Programs; and
Standard Form 424D: Assurances--Construction Programs.
4.2.4 FRA Assurances Document
The FRA Assurances document contains standard Department
certifications on grantee suspension and debarment, drug-free workplace
requirements, and Federal lobbying. The FRA Assurances document can be
obtained from FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/admin/assurancesandcertifications.pdf. The document should be signed by an
authorized certifying official for the applicant, scanned into
electronic format, and submitted through GrantSolutions.
4.2.5 Service Development Supporting Documentation
The service development documentation below focuses on the physical
attributes of a project and its anticipated outcomes. These materials
must demonstrate that the project has completed specified prerequisites
and is ready to progress to the next phase of development.
Service Development Plan--Applicants must submit the
Service Development Pan (SDP) that informed the Service Development
Program. The SDP lays out the overall scope and approach for the
proposed service. The SDP must address the following objectives:
[cir] Clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for new or improved
HSIPR service;
[cir] Analyze alternatives for the proposed new or improved HSIPR
service and identify the alternative that would best address the
identified purpose and need;
[cir] Demonstrate the operation and financial feasibility of the
alternative that is proposed to be pursued;
[cir] Identify the discrete capital projects that will be required
to implement the alternative that is proposed to be pursued; and
[cir] As applicable, describe how the implementation of the HSIPR
Service Development Program may be divided into discrete phases.
FRA recognizes that a variety of formats and types of information
may meet the objectives described above. Applications that do not
demonstrate fulfillment of these objectives may be determined by FRA to
be not ready for consideration and evaluation. See Appendix 2.1 for
additional information and suggested content for an SDP that satisfies
the objectives above.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation--
Applicants must provide a completed Environmental Assessment or a
completed Final Environmental Impact Statement that demonstrates, at a
minimum, satisfaction of ``Service NEPA'' for the proposed Service
Development Program (either submitted with the application package or
references through an accurate URL). If the applicant has completed
project NEPA to satisfy this requirement, particularly for Standard
Service Development Programs, this documentation should be submitted.
If the applicant has prepared second-tier project NEPA documents for
projects within the program, those may also be submitted. Any NEPA
documentation submitted must be approved by the responsible State
agency as sufficient and complete. A NEPA decision document (a Record
of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact) is not required for an
application but must have been issued by FRA prior to award of a
construction grant and commencement of any construction activities
related to the project. NEPA requirements are detailed in Appendix 2.2
of this solicitation.
4.2.6 Service Delivery Supporting Documentation
Service delivery documentation of the types described below focuses
on the implementation of the project and how the risks and
uncertainties associated with the project will be managed.
FRA recognizes that a variety of formats and types of information
may meet the objectives described below. Applications that do not
demonstrate fulfillment of these objectives may be determined by FRA to
be not ready for consideration and evaluation.
Project Management Plan--Under PRIIA (49 U.S.C. 24403(a)),
all Major Capital Projects (which includes most Service Development
Programs) must prepare and carry out a Project Management Plan (PMP)
approved by FRA. A PMP is a formal integrated document that serves as
an overview of the applicant's approach toward the planning,
monitoring, and implementation of a project. This documentation
establishes the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the project.
While elements of the PMP may draw information from outputs of the
project development process (such as scope and design specifications,
cost estimates, and project schedules), the PMP serves as FRA's primary
source of information related to an applicant's plan for implementing
the project. Applications submitted pursuant to this solicitation must
include a PMP that demonstrates that the applicant's management
procedures and organization give it the legal, financial, and technical
capability and capacity to carry out successfully the Service
Development Plan. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 24403(a), the PMP must,
at a minimum, address the following topics:
[cir] Adequate recipient staff organization with well-defined
reporting relationships, statements of functional responsibilities, job
descriptions, and job qualifications of key personnel and positions;
[cir] A budget covering the project management organization,
appropriate consultants, property acquisition, utility relocation,
systems demonstration staff, audits, and miscellaneous payments the
recipient may be prepared to justify;
[cir] A construction schedule for the project;
[cir] A document control procedure and recordkeeping system;
[cir] A change order procedure that includes a documented,
systematic approach to handling the construction change orders;
[cir] Organizational structures, management skills, and staffing
levels required throughout the construction phase;
[cir] Quality control and quality assurance functions, procedures,
and responsibilities for construction, system
[[Page 38351]]
installation, and integration of system components;
[cir] Material testing policies and procedures;
[cir] Internal plan implementation and reporting requirements;
[cir] Criteria and procedures to be used for testing the
operational system or its major components;
[cir] Periodic updates of the plan, especially related to project
budget and project schedule, financing, and ridership estimates; and
[cir] The project sponsor's commitment to submit periodically a
project budget and project schedule to FRA if the project is selected.
Financial Plan--A Financial Plan is a formal integrated
document that addresses the applicant's approach toward managing the
financial resources necessary to deliver the project and must be
included with any application submitted pursuant to this solicitation.
For a Service Development Program, the objectives of a Financial Plan
are to (1) identify the sources of funding that will be used to satisfy
the financing requirements to develop and implement the project (as
based on the requirements established in project cost estimates); (2)
describe the risks associated with the financing of the project (such
as uncertainty regarding the commitment of required funding and the
potential for unanticipated cost overruns); (3) identify the sources of
any funding required to support the operations of the project. See
Appendix 3 for additional information and suggested content for a
Financial Plan that satisfies the objectives above.
System Safety Plan--A System Safety Plan (SSP) must be
submitted that demonstrates that the Service Development Program's
design, implementation, and operation will comply with all applicable
FRA safety requirements and will be performed in a manner that places
safety as the highest priority. In general, the length, detail, and
complexity of the SSP will depend significantly on the size and
complexity of the Service Development Program. For relatively simple
Service Development Programs, the SSP may be limited, describing the
program's compliance with specific safety regulations and providing
reference to procedures that will be followed for ensuring safe
implementation. As applicable, the preparation of the SSP should be
closely coordinated with, and may draw content from, documentation
prepared by the applicant to satisfy requirements of the FRA Office of
Railroad Safety, especially the guidelines for an APTA/FRA System
Safety Program Plan, the FRA guidelines for collision hazard analysis,
and any subsequent FRA regulations currently being developed requiring
System Safety Plans. Prior to FRA issuing an LOI or cooperative
agreement for a Service Development Program, an applicant must complete
a System Security Plan.
Railroad and Project Sponsor Agreements--Although the
implementation of a HSIPR Service Development Program will generally
require the development of numerous agreements of varying complexity
between the parties involved with and affected by the project, two
categories of agreement represent key elements of project delivery: (1)
Agreements between the project sponsor(s) and the railroad(s) that own
the infrastructure and that operate the service, and (2) agreements
between multiple project sponsors, for projects that cross
jurisdictional boundaries and/or involve subrecipients.
[cir] Railroad Agreements--Applications for Service Development
Programs must include, at a minimum, agreements in principle with
railroads that own any infrastructure to be improved as part of the
Service Development Program and the operator of the HSIPR service(s)
that will benefit from the project. Agreements in principle must
demonstrate the railroads' commitment to taking all steps within their
control to ensure the achievement of the public benefits (and
particularly all operational benefits) of the Service Development
Program that are described in the application, and their concurrence
with the program of capital project identified as being required to
achieve those benefits. Such agreements in principle should be
structured so as to be able serve as the basis for future contractual
agreements through which the railroads' cooperation in achieving the
public benefits may be enforced by the project sponsor.
[cir] Project Sponsor Agreements--For any project that has multiple
potential grantees or project sponsors, application must include a
Project Sponsor Agreement executed among all of the parties involved
that establishes the relationships between these entities and that
identifies a single legal Grantee who will be responsible to and serve
as the primary point of contact for FRA.
4.2.7 Optional Supporting Documentation
Preliminary Engineering (PE) and/or Final Design (FD)
Documentation--While not required as part of the application package,
applicants should provide any documents that demonstrate the PE status
(or Final Design status, if completed) of the proposed projects within
the program. PE refines project plans and conceptual designs in order
to identify the specific design alternative that can assure delivery of
project objectives. At a minimum, completed PE documentation must
demonstrate fully (1) the construction and operational feasibility of
the project, (2) a level of project design, cost estimates, and
schedules sufficient to advance immediately into full implementation,
e.g., through a ``design-build'' contract, and (3) identification of
service operation outcomes sufficient to support agreements with
stakeholders (e.g., railroads) needed to deliver those benefits. See
Appendix 2.3 for additional information on Preliminary Engineering and
Appendix 2.4 for information on Final Design.
Other Relevant and Available Documentation--To support the
Application Form, FRA welcomes the submission of other relevant and
available supporting documentation that may have been developed by the
applicant. The format and structure of any optional supporting
documents is at the discretion of the applicant. Optional supporting
documentation may be provided one of two ways: (1) As attachments to
the application or (2) in hard copy to the address in Section 4.5 for
materials that cannot otherwise be provided electronically. Applicants
should provide notification of any documentation being submitted in
hard copy in the appropriate section of the Application Form.
4.3 Submission Dates and Times
Applications for these funds must be submitted through
GrantSolutions by 5 p.m. EDT, August 6, 2010.
4.4 Intergovernmental Review
This program has not been designated as subject to Executive Order
12372 pursuant to 49 CFR part 17.
4.5 Other Submission Information
As detailed in Section 4.1.1, all application materials, including
supporting documentation, should be submitted through GrantSolutions.
Should an applicant encounter technical difficulties using the
GrantSolutions system, please contact the GrantSolutions Help Desk at
1-866-577-0771 or via e-mail at [email protected]. If the
applicant experiences technical issues that may cause the applicant to
miss the application deadline, the applicant must contact FRA at
[email protected] immediately to request consideration to
[[Page 38352]]
submit the application after the deadline. FRA staff may ask the
applicant to e-mail the complete grant application, the DUNS number,
and provide a GrantSolutions Customer Support tracking number(s). After
FRA reviews all of the information submitted and contacts the
GrantSolutions Customer Support to validate the technical issues
reported, FRA will contact the applicant to either approve or deny the
request to submit a late application. If the technical issues reported
cannot be validated, the application may be rejected as untimely. For
applications submitted by e-mail, the applicant should print, sign,
scan into electronic format (preferably Adobe Portable Document Format
(.pdf)), and attach to the submission e-mail copies of all application
forms requiring the applicant's signature.
For optional supporting documentation that an applicant is unable
to submit electronically (such as oversized engineering drawings), an
applicant may submit an original and two copies to the address below.
However, due to delays caused by enhanced screening of mail delivered
via the U.S. Postal Service, applicants are advised to use other means
of conveyance (such as courier service) to assure timely receipt of
materials.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration,
Attn: HSIPR Program Information (RPD-10) Room 38-302, Mail Stop 20,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Section 5: Application Review Information
5.1 Review and Selection Process
Complete applications are due by 5 p.m. EDT, August 6, 2010.
Applications will proceed through a three-step process:
1. Screening for completeness and eligibility (requirements
outlined above in Section 3);
2. Review of each eligible application individually by a technical
panel applying ``evaluation criteria''; and
3. Final review of all eligible applications collectively and
selection by the FRA Administrator applying ``selection criteria.''
All applications will first be screened for completeness and
applicant and project eligibility. Applications determined to be both
complete and eligible will be referred to a technical panel consisting
of subject-matter experts for an evaluation review. The panels will be
comprised of professional staff employed by FRA and other DOT modal
administrations, as appropriate.
Applications will be individually reviewed and assessed against the
evaluation criteria outlined in Section 5.2. For each of the criteria,
the panel will assign a rating of zero to three points, based on the
application's fulfillment of the objectives of each criterion. These
individual criterion ratings will then be combined according to
priority of criteria to arrive at an overall rating for the
application.
The evaluation criteria, ranked in order of priority, are:
1. Public Benefits.
2. Sustainability of Benefits.
3. Project Delivery Approach.
In addition to the ratings assigned by the technical evaluation
panels, the FRA Administrator may take into account several cross-
cutting and comparative selection criteria to determine awards. The
Administrator will review the preliminary results to ensure that the
scoring has been applied consistently and that the collective results
meet several key priorities essential to the success and sustainability
of the program (see Section 5.3). The five selection criteria are:
1. Fulfillment of DOT Strategic Goals.
2. Region/Location.
3. Innovation/Resource Development.
4. Partnerships/Participation.
5. Prior Federal Funding and State Investments.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 24402(c), FRA may also consider
``other relevant factors as determined by the Secretary'' of
Transportation, in addition to the evaluation and selection criteria
described below.
5.2 Evaluation Criteria
Careful economic analysis that quantifies and demonstrates the
monetary value of user benefits and, if available, public benefits,
will be particularly relevant to FRA in evaluating applications. The
systematic process of comparing expected benefits and costs helps
decision-makers organize information about, and evaluate trade-offs
between, alternative transportation investments. FRA will consider
benefits and costs using standard data provided by applicants and will
evaluate applications in a manner consistent with Executive Order
12893, Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59 FR 4233
(January 31, 1994).
5.2.1 Public Benefits
Evaluation against this criterion will consider the qualitative
factors outlined below, as supported by key quantitative metrics.
Applicants must determine and identify service outcomes to quantify the
anticipated benefits of the Service Development Program (or distinct
phase or geographic segment) proposed in an application.
5.2.1.1 Transportation Benefits
Each application will be assessed based on its demonstration of the
potential of the proposed Service Development Program investments to
achieve transportation benefits in a cost-effective manner. Factors to
be considered in assigning a rating include the contribution the
proposed Service Development Program would make to:
Supporting the development of intercity high-speed rail
service;
Generating improvements to existing high-speed and
intercity passenger rail service, as reflected by estimated increases
in ridership (as measured in passenger-miles), increases in operational
reliability (as measured in reductions in delays), reductions in trip
times, additional service frequencies to meet anticipated or existing
demand, and other related factors;
Generating cross-modal benefits, including anticipated
favorable impacts on air or highway traffic congestion, capacity, or
safety, and cost avoidance or deferral of planned investments in
aviation and highway systems;
Creating an integrated high-speed and intercity passenger
rail network, including integration with existing intercity passenger
rail services, allowance for and support of future network expansion,
and promotion of technical interoperability and standardization
(including standardizing operations, equipment, and signaling);
Encouragement of intermodal connectivity and integration
through provision of direct, efficient transfers among intercity
transportation and local transit networks at train stations, including
connections at airports, bus terminals, subway stations, ferry ports,
and other modes of transportation;
Enhancing intercity travel options;
Ensuring a state of good repair of key intercity passenger
rail assets;
Promoting standardized rolling stock, signaling,
communications, and power equipment;
Improved freight or commuter rail operations, in relation
to proportional cost-sharing (including donated property) by those
other benefiting rail users;
Equitable financial participation in the project's
financing, including, but not limited to, consideration of donated
property interests or services; financial contributions by freight and
commuter rail carriers commensurate with the benefit expected to their
operations; and
[[Page 38353]]
financial commitments from host railroads, non-Federal governmental
entities, nongovernmental entities, and others;
Encouragement of the implementation of positive train
control (PTC) technologies (with the understanding that 49 U.S.C. 20147
requires all Class I railroads and entities that provide regularly
scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger services to fully
institute interoperable PTC systems by December 31, 2015); and
Incorporating private investment in the financing of
capital projects or service operations.
5.2.1.2 Other Public Benefits
Each application will be assessed based on its demonstration of the
potential of the proposed Service Development Program investments to
achieve other public benefits in a cost-effective manner. Factors to be
considered in assigning a rating will include the contribution the
proposed Service Development Program would make to:
Environmental quality and energy efficiency and reduction
in dependence on foreign oil, including use of renewable energy
sources, energy savings from traffic diversions from other modes,
employment of green building and manufacturing methods, reductions in
key emissions types, and the purchase and use of environmentally
sensitive, fuel-efficient, and cost-effective passenger rail equipment;
Promoting interconnected livable communities, including
complementing local or State efforts to concentrate higher-density,
mixed-use development in areas proximate to multi-modal transportation
options (including intercity passenger rail stations);
Improving historic transportation facilities; and
Creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Although this
solicitation is not funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5), these goals remain a top priority of this
Administration. Therefore, Service Development Program applications
will be evaluated on the extent to which the project is expected to
quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid increases in
economic activity, particularly jobs and activity that benefit
economically distressed areas, as defined by section 301 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3161)
(``Economically Distressed Areas'').
5.2.2 Sustainability of Benefits
Applications will be evaluated against this criterion to assess the
likelihood of realizing the proposed Service Development Program's
benefits. Factors to be considered in assigning a rating will include:
The quality of a Financial Plan that analyzes the
financial viability of the proposed rail service;
The quality and reasonableness of revenue and operating
and maintenance cost forecasts for the benefiting intercity passenger
rail service(s);
The availability of any required operating financial
support, preferably from dedicated funding sources for the benefiting
intercity passenger rail service(s);
The quality and adequacy of project identification and
planning;
The reasonableness of estimates for user and non-user
benefits for the project;
The reasonableness of the operating service plan,
including its provisions for protecting the future quality of other
services sharing the facilities to be improved;
The comprehensiveness and sufficiency, at the time of
application, of agreements with key partners (including the railroad
operating the intercity passenger rail service and infrastructure-
owning railroads) that will be involved in the operation of the
benefiting intercity passenger rail service, including the commitment
of any affected host-rail carrier to ensure the realization of the
anticipated benefits, preferably through a commitment by the affected
host-rail carrier(s) to an enforceable on-time performance of passenger
trains of 80 percent or greater;
The favorability of the comparison between the level of
anticipated benefits and the amount of Federal funding requested; and
The applicant's contribution of a cost share greater than
the required minimum of 20 percent.
5.2.3 Project Delivery Approach
Each application will be assessed to determine the risk associated
with the project's delivery within budget, on time, and as designed.
Evaluation against this criterion will consider the factors outlined
below, which take into account the thoroughness and quality of the
supporting documentation submitted with the application. Factors to be
considered in assigning a rating will include:
The applicant's financial, legal, and technical capacity
to implement the project, including whether the application depends
upon receipt of any waiver(s) of Federal railroad safety regulations
that have not been obtained;
The applicant's experience in administering similar grants
and projects, including a demonstrated ability to deliver on prior FRA
financial assistance programs;
The soundness and thoroughness of the cost methodologies,
assumptions, and estimates for the proposed project;
The reasonableness of the schedule for project
implementation;
The thoroughness and quality of the Project Management
Plan;
The timing and amount of the project's future noncommitted
investments;
The overall completeness and quality of the application,
including the comprehensiveness of its supporting documentation;
The adequacy of any completed engineering work to assess
and manage/mitigate the proposed project's engineering and
constructability risks;
The sufficiency of system safety and security planning;
The project's progress, at the time of application,
towards compliance with environmental protection requirements;
The readiness of the project to be commenced; and
The timeliness of project completion and the realization
of the project's anticipated benefits.
5.3 Selection Criteria
The FRA Administrator will use the criteria below to ensure that
the projects selected for funding will advance key priorities of the
development of intercity and high-speed passenger rail and contribute
positively to the success and sustainability of the HSIPR program.
5.3.1 Fulfillment of DOT Strategic Goals (as Outlined in the U.S. DOT
Strategic Plan 2010-2015)
Improving transportation safety.
Maintaining transportation infrastructure in a state of
good repair.
Promoting economic competitiveness.
Fostering livable communities.
Advancing environmentally sustainable transportation
policies.
5.3.2 Region/Location
Ensuring appropriate level of regional balance across the
country.
Ensuring promotion of livable communities in urban and
rural locations.
Ensuring consistency with national transportation and rail
network objectives.
Ensuring integration with other rail services and
transportation modes.
[[Page 38354]]
5.3.3 Innovation/Resource Development
Pursuing new technology and innovation where the public
return on investment is favorable, while ensuring delivery of near-term
transportation, public and economic recovery benefits.
Advancing the state of the art in modeling techniques for
assessing potential intercity passenger rail costs and benefits.
Promoting domestic manufacturing, supply and industrial
development, including U.S.-based manufacturing and supply industries.
Developing professional railroad engineering, operating,
planning and management capacity needed for sustainable high-speed
intercity passenger rail development.
5.3.4 Partnerships/Participation
Where corridors span multiple States, emphasizing those
that have organized multi-State partnerships with joint planning and
prioritization of investments.
Employing creative approaches to ensure workforce
diversity and use of disadvantaged and minority business enterprises.
Engaging local communities and a variety of other
stakeholder groups in the project, where applicable.
5.3.5 Prior Federal Funding and State Investments
Assessing how a proposed project would complement previous
construction or planning grants made under the HSIPR or related
programs.
Assessing how the proposed project would complement
previous State investments in high-speed intercity passenger rail.
Assessing the applicant's track record in sustainable
funding and project delivery.
Section 6: Award Administration Information
6.1 Award Notices
Applications selected for funding will be announced after the
application review period. FRA will contact applicants with successful
applications after announcement with information and instructions about
the award process. Notification of a selected application is not an
authorization to begin proposed project activities.
6.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements
The provisions of this section apply to grant recipients of the
HSIPR program.
6.2.1 Contracting Information
A grant recipient's procurement of goods and services must comply
with the Procurement Standards requirements set forth at 49 CFR 18.36
or 49 CFR 19.40 through 19.48, whichever is applicable depending on the
type of grantee (part 18 covers State and local governments and part 19
covers non-profit and for-profit entities), and with applicable
supplementary U.S. DOT or FRA directives or regulations.
6.2.2 Compliance With Federal Civil Rights Laws and Regulations
The grant recipient must comply with all civil rights laws and
regulations, in accordance with applicable Federal directives, except
to the extent that FRA determines otherwise in writing. These include,
but are not limited to, the following: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (as implemented by 49 CFR part 21), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national
origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended
(20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of sex, (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1601-1607), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age;
(e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255),
as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse;
(f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,
Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended,
relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
alcoholism; (g) Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act
of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to
confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), as
amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, or
financing of housing, (i) 49 U.S.C. 306, which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in railroad
financial assistance programs; (j) any other nondiscrimination
provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for
Federal assistance was made; and (k) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the grant recipient.
Grant recipients must comply with all regulations, guidelines, and
standards adopted under the above statutes. The grant recipient is also
required to submit information, as required, to the FRA Office of Civil
Rights concerning its compliance with these laws and implementing
regulations and its activities implementing a grant award.
6.2.3 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)
FRA encourages its grant recipients to utilize small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals (as that term is defined for other DOT
operating administrations at 49 CFR part 26) in carrying out projects
funded under the HSIPR program, although FRA grant recipients are not
required to do so. The DOT DBE regulation (49 CFR part 26) applies only
to certain categories of Federal highway, Federal transit, and airport
funds. FRA is not covered under the DOT DBE regulations. The
procurement standards applicable to grant recipients require grant
recipients and subgrantees to take all necessary affirmative steps to
assure that minority firms, women's business enterprises, and labor
surplus area firms are used when possible (see 49 CFR 18.36(e) and
19.44(b)). The grant recipient shall submit information, as required,
to the FRA Office of Civil Rights concerning its activities with
respect to DBEs in implementing a grant award.
6.2.4 Assurances and Certifications
Upon acceptance of the grant by FRA, all certifications and
assurances provided by the grant recipient through the application
process are incorporated in and become part of the grant agreement.
Applicable forms include SF 424(A)/(B), SF 424(C)/(D), and FRA's
Assurances and Certification form. The OMB Standard Forms can be
accessed at http://www.forms.gov. The FRA Assurances and Certifications
Document is available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/admin/assurancesandcertifications.pdf.
6.2.5 Debarment and Suspension; and Drug-Free Workplace
Grant recipients must obtain certifications on debarment and
suspension for all third party contractors and subgrantees and comply
with all DOT regulations, ``Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment''
(2 CFR part 1200), and ``Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants)'' (49 CFR part 32).
[[Page 38355]]
6.2.6 Safety Oversight
Grant recipients must comply with any Federal regulations, laws,
policy, and other guidance that FRA or DOT may issue pertaining to
safety oversight in general and in the performance of any grant award
in particular. FRA has in place a comprehensive system of railroad
safety oversight (see 49 CFR part 209 et seq.) that is applicable to
railroad operations generally.
6.2.7 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Grant recipients must agree to use funds provided under the grant
agreement in a manner consistent with the requirements of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended; Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794); and
both statutes' implementing regulations at 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38.
DOT (through its delegate FRA) has responsibility to offer technical
assistance for the provisions of the ADA about which it issues
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 12206(c)(1) reads: ``Each Federal agency that
has responsibility under paragraph (2) for implementing this chapter
may render technical assistance to individuals and institutions that
have rights or duties under the respective subchapters of this chapter
for which such agency has responsibility.'' Grant recipients are
strongly encouraged to seek FRA's technical assistance with regard to
the accessible features of passenger rail systems, to include
accessibility at stations and on railcars. FRA believes such technical
assistance is essential where interpretation of DOT's regulatory
requirements is necessary and/or before the creation of any new rail
system.
6.2.8 Environmental Protection
All facilities that will be used to perform work under an award
shall not be so used unless the facilities are designed and equipped to
limit water and air pollution in accordance with all applicable local,
State, and Federal standards.
Grant recipients will conduct work under an award and will require
that work that is conducted as a result of an award be in compliance
with the following provisions, as modified from time to time: Section
114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, and Section 308 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318, and all
regulations issued there under. Through the grant agreement, grant
recipients will certify that no facilities that will be used to perform
work under an award are listed on the List of Violating Facilities
maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Grant
recipients will be required to notify the Administrator as soon as it
or any contractor or subcontractor receives any communication from the
EPA indicating that any facility which will be used to perform work
pursuant to an award is under consideration to be listed on the EPA's
List of Violating Facilities; provided, however, that the grant
recipient's duty of notification shall extend only to those
communications of which it is aware, or should reasonably have been
aware. Grant recipients will need to include or cause to be included in
each contract or subcontract entered into, which contract or
subcontract exceeds $50,000.00 in connection with work performed
pursuant to an award, the criteria and requirements of this section and
an affirmative covenant requiring such contractor or subcontractor to
immediately inform the grant recipient upon the receipt of a
communication from the EPA concerning the matters set forth herein.
6.2.9 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The following is a description of FRA's standard grant provisions
on NEPA compliance.
Generally, grant recipients may not expend any of the funds
provided in an award on construction or other activities that represent
an irretrievable commitment of resources to a particular course of
action affecting the environment until after all environmental and
historic preservation analyses required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) (NHPA), and related laws and regulations have
been completed and FRA has provided the grant recipient with a written
notice authorizing them to proceed.
In instances where NEPA approval has not been secured at the time
of grant award, grant recipients are required to assist FRA in its
compliance with the provisions of NEPA, the Council on Environmental
Quality's regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.),
FRA's ``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (45 FR
40854, June 16, 1980, as revised May 26, 1999, 64 FR 28545), Section
106 of the NHPA, and related environmental and historic preservation
statutes and regulations. As a condition of receiving financial
assistance under an award, grant recipients may be required to conduct
certain environmental analyses and to prepare and submit to FRA draft
documents required under NEPA, NHPA, and related statutes and
regulations (including draft environmental assessments and proposed
draft and final environmental impact statements).
No publicly-owned land from a park, recreational area, or wildlife
or waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as
determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having
jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national,
State, or local significance as so determined by such officials shall
be used by grant recipients without the prior written concurrence of
FRA. Grant recipients shall assist FRA in complying with these
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 303(c).
6.2.10 Environmental Justice
The grant recipient will be required to agree to facilitate
compliance with the policies of Executive Order No. 12898, ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations,'' 42 U.S.C. 4321 note, except to the extent
that FRA determines otherwise in writing.
6.2.11 Operating and Access Agreements
Grant recipients will be required to reach a written agreement,
approved by FRA, with each of the railroads or other entity on whose
property the project will be located. Among other things, such
railroad/owner agreements shall specify terms and conditions regarding
the following issues: responsibility for project design and
implementation, project property ownership, maintenance
responsibilities, and disposition responsibilities, and the owning
entity's commitment to achieve, to the extent it has control, the
anticipated project benefits. If an agreement between the grant
recipient and the owner that substantially addresses the above-
referenced issues is already in place as of the date of execution of
the grant agreement, the grant recipient will be required to submit it
to FRA for FRA's review and determination of adequacy. However, if
either no agreement is in place as of the date of execution of this
Agreement, or if an existing agreement has been determined by FRA to be
inadequate, the grant recipient shall, prior to the grant recipient's
execution of an agreement with the owner, submit the final draft of
such an agreement to FRA for FRA's review and approval. A finding by
FRA that the required approved railroad/owner agreement(s) are in place
is a prerequisite for the
[[Page 38356]]
obligation of funding for construction-related activities.
6.2.12 Real Property and Equipment Management, Discontinuance of
Service, and Disposition Requirements
The grant recipient will be required to ensure the maintenance of
project property to the level of utility (including applicable FRA
track safety standards) that existed when the project improvements were
placed in service for a period of a minimum of 20 years from the date
such project property was placed in service. In the event that all
intercity passenger rail service making use of the project property is
discontinued during the 20-year period, the grant recipient will be
required to continue to ensure the maintenance of the project property,
as set forth above, for a period of one year to allow for the possible
reintroduction of intercity passenger rail service. In the event the
grant recipient should fail to ensure the maintenance of project
property, as set forth above, for a period of time in excess of six
months, the grant recipient will be required to refund to FRA a pro-
rata share of the Federal contribution, based upon the percentage of
the 20-year period remaining at the time of such original default.
The grant recipient will also be required to acknowledge that the
purpose of the project is to benefit intercity passenger rail service.
In the event that all intercity passenger rail service making use of
the project property is discontinued (for any reason) at any time
during a period of 20 years from the date such project property was
placed in service, as set forth above, and if such intercity passenger
rail service is not reintroduced during a one-year period following the
date of such discontinuance, the grant recipient will be required to
refund to FRA, no later than 18 months following the date of such
discontinuance, a pro-rata share of the Federal contribution, based
upon the percentage of the 20-year period remaining at the time of such
discontinuance.
6.2.13 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
As a Federal agency, FRA is subject to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), which generally provides that any person has
a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency
records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them)
are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by
one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. Grant
applications and related materials submitted by applicants pursuant to
this notice of funding availability would become agency records and
thus subject to the FOIA and to public release through individual FOIA
requests. FRA also recognizes that certain information submitted in
support of an application for funding in accordance with this notice
could be exempt from public release under FOIA as a result of the
application of one of the FOIA exemptions, most particularly Exemption
4, which protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential (5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4)). In the context of this grant program, commercial or
financial information obtained from a person could be confidential if
disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive
position of the person from whom the information was obtained (see
National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (DC
Cir. 1974)). Entities seeking exempt treatment must provide a detailed
statement supporting and justifying their request and should follow
FRA's existing procedures for requesting confidential treatment in the
railroad safety context found at 49 CFR 209.11. As noted in the
Department's FOIA implementing regulation (49 CFR part 7), the burden
is on the entity requesting confidential treatment to identify all
information for which exempt treatment is sought and to persuade the
agency that the information should not be disclosed (see 49 CFR 7.17).
The final decision as to whether the information meets the standards of
Exemption 4 rests with FRA.
6.2.14 Security Planning and Oversight
The grant recipient must comply with any Federal regulations, laws,
policy, and other guidance that FRA, DOT, or the Department of Homeland
Security may issue pertaining to security oversight in general and that
FRA or DOT may issue regarding the performance of any grant award in
particular. Prior to FRA issuing an LOI or a cooperative agreement for
a Service Development Program, an applicant must complete a System
Security Plan.
6.3 Program-Specific Grant Requirements
6.3.1 Buy America
Grant recipients must comply with the Buy America provisions set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 24405(a), which specifically provide that the
Secretary of Transportation may obligate funds for a HSIPR project only
if the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are
produced in the United States. The Secretary (or the Secretary's
delegate, the FRA Administrator) may waive this requirement if the
Secretary finds that applying this requirement would be inconsistent
with the public interest; the steel, iron, and goods produced in the
United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available
amount or are not of a satisfactory quality; rolling stock or power
train equipment cannot be bought and delivered in the United States
within a reasonable time; or including domestic material will increase
the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. For purposes
of implementing these requirements, in calculating the components'
costs, labor costs involved in final assembly shall not be included in
the calculation. If the Secretary determines that it is necessary to
waive the application of the Buy America requirements, the Secretary is
required before the date on which such finding takes effect to publish
in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the
waiver is needed; and provide notice of such finding and an opportunity
for public comment on such finding, for a reasonable period of time,
not to exceed 15 days. The Secretary may not make a waiver for goods
produced in a foreign country if the Secretary, in consultation with
the United States Trade Representative, decides that the government of
that foreign country has an agreement with the United States Government
under which the Secretary has waived the requirement of this
subsection, and the government of that foreign country has violated the
agreement by discriminating against goods to which this subsection
applies that are produced in the United States and to which the
agreement applies. The Buy America requirements described in this
section shall only apply to projects for which the costs exceed
$100,000.
6.3.2 Operators Deemed Rail Carriers
With the exception of entities falling within the exclusions set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 24405(e), a person that conducts rail operations
over rail infrastructure constructed or improved with funding provided
in whole or in part in a grant made under this program shall be
considered a rail carrier, as defined in Section 49 U.S.C. 10102(5),
for purposes of title 49 of the United States Code and any other
statute that adopts the definition found in 49 U.S.C. 10102(5),
including the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.);
the Railway Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et
[[Page 38357]]
seq.); and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 351 et
seq.) (see 49 U.S.C. 24405(b)).
6.3.3 Railroad Agreements
As a condition of receiving a grant under this program for a
project that uses rights-of-way owned by a railroad, the grant
recipient shall have in place a written agreement between the grant
recipient and the railroad regarding such use and ownership, including
any compensation for such use; assurance that service outcomes
specified to result from the project, and for which the railroad is
necessary for delivery, will be delivered, and a mechanism to enforce
specified service outcomes; assurances regarding the adequacy of
infrastructure capacity to accommodate both existing and future freight
and passenger operations; an assurance by the railroad that collective
bargaining agreements with the railroad's employees (including terms
regulating the contracting of work) will remain in full force and
effect according to their terms for work performed by the railroad on
the railroad transportation corridor; and an assurance that the grant
recipient complies with liability requirements consistent with 49
U.S.C. 28103. Grant recipients that use rights-of-way owned by a
railroad must comply with FRA guidance regarding how to establish a
written agreement between the applicant and the railroad regarding use
and ownership as discussed in Sections 4.2.6 and 6.2.11 (see 49 U.S.C.
24405(c)).
6.3.4 Labor Protection
As a condition of receiving a grant under this program for a
project that uses rights-of-way owned by a railroad, the grant
recipient must agree to comply with the standards of 49 U.S.C. 24312,
as such section was in effect on September 1, 2003, with respect to the
project in the same manner that Amtrak is required to comply with those
standards for construction work financed under an agreement made under
49 U.S.C. 24308(a) and the protective arrangements established under
Section 504 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 (45 U.S.C. 836) with respect to employees affected by actions
taken in connection with the project to be financed in whole or in part
by grants under this program (see 49 U.S.C. 24405(c)).
6.3.5 Davis-Bacon Act
Projects funded through PRIIA that use rights-of-way owned by a
railroad are required to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.
3141 et seq.) as provided for in 49 U.S.C. 24405(c)(2). The Davis-Bacon
Act is a measure that fixes a floor under wages on Federal government
projects and provides, in pertinent part, that the minimum wages to be
paid for classes of workers under a contract for the construction,
alteration, and/or repair of a Federal public building or public work
must be based upon wage rates determined by the Secretary of Labor to
be prevailing for corresponding classes of workers employed on projects
of a character similar to the contract work in the civil subdivision of
the State in which the work is to be performed.
6.3.6 Replacement of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service
Grant recipients providing intercity passenger rail transportation
that begins operations after October 16, 2008, on a project funded in
whole or in part by grants made under this program and that replaces
intercity passenger rail service that was provided by Amtrak, unless
such service was provided solely by Amtrak to another entity as of such
date, are required to enter into a series of agreements with the
authorized bargaining agent or agents for adversely affected employees
of the predecessor provider (see 49 U.S.C. 24405(d)).
6.4 Reporting
6.4.1 Standard Reporting Requirements
Progress Reports--Progress reports are to be submitted
quarterly. These reports must relate the state of completion of items
in the statement of work to expenditures of the relevant budget
elements. The grant recipient must furnish the quarterly progress
report to FRA on or before the 30th calendar day of the month following
the end of the quarter being reported. Grantees must submit reports for
the periods: January 1-March 31, April 1-June 30, July 1-September 30,
and October 1-December 31. Each quarterly report must set forth concise
statements concerning activities relevant to the project and should
include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) An account of
significant progress (findings, events, trends, etc.) made during the
reporting period; (b) a description of any technical and/or cost
problem(s) encountered or anticipated that will affect completion of
the grant within the time and fiscal constraints as set forth in the
agreement, together with recommended solutions or corrective action
plans (with dates) to such problems, or identification of specific
action that is required by FRA, or a statement that no problems were
encountered; and (c) an outline of work and activities planned for the
next reporting period.
Quarterly Federal Financial Report (SF-425)--Grantees must
submit a quarterly Federal financial report on or before the thirtieth
(30th) calendar day of the month following the end of the quarter being
reported (e.g., for quarter ending March 31, the SF-425 is due no later
than April 30). A report must be submitted for every quarter of the
period of performance, including partial calendar quarters, as well as
for periods where no grant activity occurs. Grantees must use SF-425,
Federal Financial Report, in accordance with the instructions
accompanying the form, to report all transactions, including Federal
cash, Federal expenditures and unobligated balance, recipient share,
and program income.
Interim Report(s)--If required, interim reports will be
due at intervals specified in the statement of work and must be
submitted electronically in the GrantSolutions system.
Final Report(s)--Within 90 days of the project completion
date or termination by FRA, grantees must submit a Summary Project
Report, detailing the results and benefits of the grantee's improvement
efforts, as well as a final Federal Financial Report (SF-425).
6.4.2 Audit Requirements
Grant recipients that expend $500,000 or more of Federal funds
during their fiscal year are required to submit an organization-wide
financial and compliance audit report. The audit must be performed in
accordance with U.S. General Accountability Office, Government Auditing
Standards, located at http://www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, and OMB
Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations, located at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html. Currently, audit reports must be submitted to the Federal
Audit Clearinghouse no later than nine months after the end of the
recipient's fiscal year. In addition, FRA and the Comptroller General
of the United States must have access to any books, documents, and
records of grant recipients for audit and examination purposes. The
grant recipient will also give FRA or the Comptroller, through any
authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all
records, books, papers or documents related to the grant. Grant
recipients must require that subgrantees comply with the audit
requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-133. Grant recipients are
responsible for ensuring that sub-recipient audit
[[Page 38358]]
reports are received and for resolving any audit findings.
6.4.3 Monitoring Requirements
Grant recipients will be monitored periodically by FRA to ensure
that the project goals, objectives, performance requirements,
timelines, milestones, budgets, and other related program criteria are
being met. FRA will conduct monitoring activities through a combination
of office-based reviews and onsite monitoring visits. Monitoring will
involve the review and analysis of the financial, programmatic, and
administrative issues relative to each program and will identify areas
where technical assistance and other support may be needed. The
recipient is responsible for monitoring award activities, including
sub-awards and subgrantees, to provide reasonable assurance that the
award is being administered in compliance with Federal requirements.
Financial monitoring responsibilities include the accounting of
recipients and expenditures, cash management, maintaining of adequate
financial records, and refunding expenditures disallowed by audits.
6.4.4 Closeout Process
Project closeout occurs when all required project work and all
administrative procedures described in 49 CFR part 18, or 49 CFR part
19, as applicable, have been completed, and when FRA notifies the grant
recipient and forwards the final Federal assistance payment, or when
FRA acknowledges the grant recipient's remittance of the proper refund.
Project closeout should not invalidate any continuing obligations
imposed on the grantee by an award or by FRA's final notification or
acknowledgment. Within 90 days of the Project completion date or
termination by FRA, grantees agree to submit a final Federal Financial
Report (SF-425), a certification or summary of project expenses, a
final report, and third party audit reports, as applicable.
Section 7: Agency Contact
For further information regarding this notice and the HSIPR
program, please contact the FRA HSIPR Program Manager via e-mail at
[email protected], or by mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Railroad Administration, MS-20, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 Att'n: HSIPR Program.
Appendix 1: Definition of High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail
``Intercity rail passenger transportation'' is defined at 49
U.S.C. 24102(4) as ``rail passenger transportation except commuter
rail passenger transportation.'' An intercity passenger rail service
consists of a group of one or more scheduled trains (roundtrips)
that provide intercity passenger rail transportation between bona
fide travel markets (not constrained by State or jurisdictional
boundaries), generally with similar quality and level-of-service
specifications, within a common (but not necessarily exclusive or
identical) set of identifiable geographic markets.
Similarly, ``commuter rail passenger transportation'' is defined
at 49 U.S.C. 24102(3) as ``short-haul rail passenger transportation
in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare,
multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak
period operations.'' In common use, the general definition of ``rail
passenger transportation'' excludes types of local or regional rail
transit, such as light rail, streetcars, and heavy rail. Similarly,
both intercity passenger rail transportation and commuter rail
passenger transportation exclude single-purpose scenic or tourist
railroad operations.
The since-terminated Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
established six features to aid in classifying a service as
``commuter'' rather than ``intercity'' rail passenger transportation
\1\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Penn Central Transportation Company Discontinuance or Change
in Service of 22 Trains between Boston, Mass, and Providence R.I.,
February 10, 1971, I.C.C. 338, 318-333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The passenger service is primarily being used by
patrons traveling on a regular basis either within a metropolitan
area or between a metropolitan area and its suburbs;
The service is usually characterized by operation
performed at morning and peak periods of travel;
The service usually honors commutation or multiple-ride
tickets at a fare reduced below the ordinary coach fare and carries
the majority of its patrons on such a reduced fare basis;
The service makes several stops at short intervals
either within a zone or along the entire route;
The equipment used may consist of little more than
ordinary coaches; and
The service should not extend more than 100 miles at
the most, except in rare instances; although service over shorter
distances may not be commuter or short haul within the meaning of
this exclusion.
FTA further refined the definition of commuter rail in the
glossary for its National Transit Database (NTD) \2\ Reporting
Manual. In particular, FTA refined the ICC's third ``feature'' by
specifying that ``predominantly commuter [rail passenger] service
means that for any given trip segment (i.e, distance between any two
stations), more than 50 percent of the average daily ridership
travels on the train at least three times a week.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In additional to serving as a reference database, the NTD
captures data that serve as the basis for apportioning and
allocating funding to eligible grantees under FTA's formula grant
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In judging the eligibility of an application under this
solicitation, FRA will determine whether the rail passenger service
that is primarily intended to benefit from the proposal constitutes
``intercity passenger rail transportation'' under the statutory
definition and ICC and FTA interpretations. FRA may also take into
account whether the primary intended benefiting service has been or
is currently the direct or intended beneficiary of funding provided
by another Federal agency (e.g., FTA) for the purpose of improving
commuter rail passenger transportation and whether the service in
question is or will be operated by or on behalf of a local,
regional, or State entity whose primary rail transportation mission
is the provision of commuter or transit service.
``High-speed rail'' is an intercity passenger rail service that
``is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per
hour'' (49 U.S.C. 26106(b)(4)).
Appendix 2: Additional Information on Stages of Project Development
The information contained below in Appendices 2.1 Service
Development Program Planning, 2.3 Preliminary Engineering, and 2.4
Final Design represent suggested content and approaches for
completing the documentation required for each stage of project
development. While FRA does not require applicants/grantees to
follow the specific document structures and content listed below,
they are provided to assist applicants/grantees in fulfilling the
objectives necessary to successfully complete each stage of project
development. However, the information contained in Appendix 2.2
Environmental Documentation must be adhered to in order to
demonstrate compliance with NEPA.
Appendix 2.1 Service Development Program Planning
The Service Development Plan (SDP) is prepared during the
planning phase for HSIPR Service Development Programs. The SDP lays
out the overall scope and approach for the proposed service. Among
the primary objectives of the SDP are:
To clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for new or
improved HSIPR service;
To analyze alternatives for the proposed new or
improved HSIPR service and identify the alternative that would best
addresses the identified purpose and need;
To demonstrate the operation and financial feasibility
of the alternative that is proposed to be pursued; and
As applicable, to describe how the implementation of
the HSIPR Service Development Program may be divided into discrete
phases.
The following model outline for the SDP describes the specific
elements and content that optimally would be included in an SDP.
While nearly all of the topics addressed in the major sections of
this outline are necessarily interrelated, and should be addressed
through an iterative analytical process, this outline's organization
highlights the major disciplines and analytical capabilities that
should be brought together in the development of an SDP.
1. Purpose and Need
The fundamental starting point of any transportation planning
effort, including SDPs developed under the HSIPR program, is
[[Page 38359]]
the identification of the purpose and need for an improvement to the
transportation system service in a given geographic market. In
outlining a transportation problem in need of a solution, the
Purpose and Need section should provide, at a minimum, a description
of the transportation challenges and opportunities faced in the
markets to be served by the proposed service, based on current and
forecasted travel demand and capacity conditions.
2. Rationale
The rationale demonstrates how the proposed new or improved
HSIPR service would cost-effectively address transportation and
other needs. The rationale is based on current and forecasted travel
demand and capacity condition. This section should demonstrate how
the proposed service can cost-effectively address transportation and
other needs considering system alternatives (highway, air, other, as
applicable).
Development of the program rationale considers multimodal system
alternatives (highway, air, other, as applicable), including a
qualitative and quantitative assessment of the costs, benefits,
impacts, and risks of the alternatives. Program rationale also
explores synergies between the proposed service and large-scale
goals and development plans within its service region and
communities.
3. Identification of Alternatives
This section describes the alternative transportation
improvements, including HSIPR improvements and improvements to other
modes, which have been considered within the SDP as means of
addressing the underlying transportation purpose and need. At a
minimum, this section should identify a base case (also known as a
``do-nothing'' or ``do-minimum'' case), against which these
alternatives have been analyzed within the SDP, and provide a
rationale for the selection of the base case.
4. Planning Methodology
The SDP should clearly describe the basic elements of the
methodology used in developing the plan. This may address a wide
array of topics, but at a minimum, it should address:
a. The planning horizon utilized;
b. Any major, cross-cutting assumptions employed throughout the
SDP; and
c. The level of public involvement in developing the plan.
5. Demand and Revenue Forecasts
The SDP should address the methods, assumptions, and outputs for
travel demand forecasts, and the expected revenue from the service.
It should provide information on the following topics and outputs:
a. Demand Forecasts
Methodology--Document the modeling methodology and
approach used to forecast passenger rail demand (e.g., a four-step
model), including competing modes, HSIPR alternatives considered,
and the method for reflecting passenger capacity constraints (such
as equipment, station, and station access capacity) within the HSIPR
service.
Study Area Definition--Describe the extent of the study
area, road network extent, rail stations, airports, intercity bus
terminals considered.
Data sources--Provide the assumptions and data used to
quantify the existing travel market and forecast year travel market.
Travel Model--
i. Show the demand model structure including example equations
and elasticities.
ii. Describe the base and future year model, including specific
travel network and service characteristics. This should include
pricing assumptions (including the rationale and basis for including
or excluding both revenue-maximizing and public benefit-maximizing
pricing models) and travel time-related assumptions (including
frequency, reliability, and schedule data for the service). Also
include the manner in which exogenous growth (e.g., related to
general economic, employment, or population growth), has been
accounted for in the model.
iii. Include the mode choice model structure such as logit
nested diagrams.
iv. Explain the model calibration and validation.
Model Forecasts--Present and explain the detailed base
and forecast year ridership outputs (including trip-table outputs),
along with the ramp-up methodology employed for determining
ridership during the intermediate years between project completion
and the model forecast year.
b. Revenue Forecasts
Ticket Revenue Forecasts--Explain base and forecast
year ticket revenue forecasts.
Auxiliary Revenue Forecasts--If applicable, provide
base and forecast year auxiliary revenue, including but not limited
to, food and beverage revenue, mail and express revenue.
6. Operations Modeling
This section describes the underlying operational analyses,
including railroad operation simulations and equipment and crew
scheduling analyses, which in turn reflect such variables as travel
demand and rolling stock configuration. The modeling should include
all rail activity in the corridor including freight and commuter
rail.
If the new or improved HSIPR service contemplated under the SDP
makes use of facilities that would be shared with rail freight,
commuter rail, or other Intercity Passenger Rail services, the
existing and future characteristics of those services--as developed
cooperatively with the rail freight, commuter, and Intercity
Passenger Rail operators--should be included as a integral element
to the SDP. In particular, the SDP should show how the proposed
Service Development Program will protect the quality of those other
services through a planning horizon year. In general, operations
modeling performed in accordance with FRA's publication ``Railroad
Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual'' would support an
SDP. The section on operations modeling should provide information
on the following topics and outputs.
a. Modeling Methodologies
Describe in detail the Service Network Analysis models
and methodologies used, including the method through which potential
infrastructure improvement were identified and incorporated into the
modeling effort.
Specifically describe how stochastic operations
variation, in terms of operational reliability of scheduled rail
service, operational variability of non-scheduled rail service, and
equipment and infrastructure reliability, has been incorporated into
the modeling effort.
b. Operating Timetables
Provide base case and alternative-specific schedules
for existing and new HSIPR service and commuter rail service, and
operating windows or schedules, if applicable, for rail freight and
other activities (e.g., maintenance of way). Include both revenue
operations and all scheduled or likely non-revenue (deadhead)
movements.
c. Equipment Consists
Describe the equipment consists for all services
included in the operations modeling, including motive-power
(locomotive or multiple-unit) characteristics (e.g., weight,
horsepower, tractive effort, etc.), non-powered equipment
characteristics (e.g., consist lengths in units and distance,
trailing tonnage, etc.), and any use of distributed power,
electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking systems, or other
practices affecting train performance.
Provide baseline acceleration rates and braking curves
for all trains included in the operations modeling, consistent with
the consist characteristics described.
d. Rail Infrastructure Characteristics
Describe the origin on the rail infrastructure network
employed in the operations modeling, including whether or not it was
provided by the infrastructure owner or independently developed.
Describe any major infrastructure-related assumptions
employed in the operations modeling, including signal system
characteristics, maximum unbalance, and turnout speeds.
e. Outputs
Provide detailed outputs from the operations modeling
of all base case and alternative scenarios, including stringline
(time and distance) diagrams, delay matrices, and train-performance
calculator speed and distance graphs.
f. Equipment and Train Crew Scheduling
Provide outputs of HSIPR equipment and train crew
schedule modeling, demonstrating how equipment and train crews will
turn at endpoints, and the total equipment and train crew resources
required to meet each modeled HSIPR operating timetable.
g. Terminal, Yard, and Support Operations
Provide outputs of detailed modeling of operations at
major terminals, demonstrating the adequacy of identified platform
tracks, pocket tracks, yard capacity, and maintenance of equipment
facilities to meet the requirements of each modeled HSIPR operating
timetable.
7. Station and Access Analysis
This section of the SDP addresses the location of the stations
to be served by the
[[Page 38360]]
proposed new or improved HSIPR service, how these stations will
accommodate the proposed HSIPR service, how passengers will access
those stations, and how these stations will be integrated with
connections to other modes of transportation. The topics addressed
under this section will depend greatly on whether the Service
Development Plan is intended to support the introduction of a new
HSIPR service on a new route, or whether it relates to the
improvement of an existing HSIPR service--generally, the latter, in
serving existing stations, will not require detailed planning of
station locations. This section of the SDP should provide
information on the following topics and outputs.
a. Station Location Analysis
An analysis of potential alternatives for station
locations, with the identification of preferred locations.
A description of the methodology employed in selecting
station locations, including consideration of zoning, land use, land
ownership, station access, demographics, and livable community
factors (such the relative consideration of center-city and
``beltway'' type stations).
A description of any planned joint use or development
of each station facility by other passenger rail operators, other
transportation operators (e.g., transit, intercity bus, air
transport), or commercial or residential real estate developments.
b. Station Operations
An analysis to determine the adequacy of Station
capacity to meet the needs of the HSIPR service, including platform
length, platform and concourse pedestrian capacity, ticketing
capacity, compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements, and compatibility between station facilities and HSIPR
equipment (e.g., platform and equipment floor heights).
c. Intermodal Connectivity
A detailed description of all non-HSIPR passenger
transportation operations and services to be integrated into each
station.
A description of the degree on integration of
intermodal connections with each station facility (e.g., complete
collocation, short distance proximity, distant proximity, etc.),
including estimates of door-to-door passenger transfer times
(excluding waiting, ticketing, and/or check-in time) from one mode
to another (e.g., the time it would take to go from the an HSIPR
service platform to a subway station entrance, or an airline check-
in counter).
A description of additional intermodal integration
measures to be employed, such as integrated ticketing, schedule
coordination, travel information integration, etc.
d. Station Access
An analysis of how passengers will access each station,
and how these access options will provide sufficient capacity to
satisfy forecasted ridership to and from the station, including
public transportation, road network capacity, vehicle pick-up/drop-
off, and parking.
8. Conceptual Engineering and Capital Programming
The SDP describes the rail equipment and infrastructure
improvements (and other investments) required for each discrete
phase of service implementation. If applicable, the SDP should
prioritize improvements for each phase. The SDP presents estimated
capital costs for projects and project groups, with documentation of
assumptions and methods.
a. Project Identification
The SDP should identify in detail each discrete project
that will be necessary to implement the planned new or improved
HSIPR service, such as construction of specific stations, individual
sections of additional or upgraded track, locomotive and rolling
stock purchases, etc.
``Projects'' should be defined at a level of detail
sufficient to delineate between elements of the overall scope with
differing geographic locations, different types of investments
(e.g., track improvements vs. station projects vs. equipment
purchases), and different implementation schedules. The manner in
which the proposed scope is likely to be divided into contracts for
implementation may also be considered in identifying the scope of
discrete ``projects.'' In general, each ``project'' should be
defined with the aim of making its scope easily comprehensible and
identifiable to a layperson.
The identification of discrete projects should likewise
be consistent with proper usage of the Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) tool for project management--the ``projects'' themselves
should constitute one of the top levels of the Service Development
Program's overall WBS.
b. Project Cost Estimates
The SDP should include project costs estimates in both
the WBS and HSIPR Standard Cost Category format.
The SDP should include the documentation of the cost
estimates in their original format, illustrating exactly how those
cost estimates were calculated.
The cost estimates should be supported by a detailed
description of the methodology and assumptions used in developing
the estimates, including values and sources of unit costs for labor,
materials, and equipment; overhead costs or other additives;
allocated and unallocated contingencies; credit value of salvaged
materials; and cost escalation factors. The source of unit costs
should be explained for cost estimates based on broad, top-down
``indicative project'' prices. Unless explicitly justified, total
contingencies for cost estimates developed during the planning phase
should be no greater than 30%.
c. Project Schedule and Prioritization
The SDP should present the proposed schedule for the
implementation of the Service Development Plan organized in the
format of Work Breakdown Structure and consistent the phases of
projects development.
The schedule should illustrate the duration of each
activity within the WBS, the earliest date at which each activity
could commence, and the dependencies between the various activities.
d. Conceptual Engineering Design Documentation
The SDP should include basic visual depictions of the
projects encompassed by the proposed Service Development Program,
including maps and track charts.
Track charts should clearly show the current and
proposed future track configurations throughout the geographic area
encompassed by the Service Development plan (and any proposed
interim configurations, if phased implementation is proposed). Track
charts should be drawn to an appropriate linear scale for the level
of complexity of the track configuration in a particular segment,
and should clearly show turnout sizes, road crossings, overhead and
undergrade bridges, station and yard locations, junctions, track
curvature, grade, signal location, signal rule applicability (e.g.,
CTC, ATC, PTC, DTC, etc.) and maximum authorized speeds. The
physical location of specific projects should be shown clearly,
including the limits of any linear-oriented projects (e.g., roadbed
rehabilitation, rail replacement, tie replacement, etc.).
9. Operating and Maintenance Costs and Capital Replacement Forecast
The SDP should include operating and financial projections for
each phase of the planned intercity passenger rail service. The SDP
should address the methods, assumptions and outputs for operating
expenses for the train service including maintenance of way,
maintenance of equipment, transportation (train movement), passenger
traffic and services (marketing, reservations/information, station,
and on-board services), and general/administrative expenses. Cost-
sharing arrangements and access fees with infrastructure owners and
rail operators should also be included. Where applicable, allocation
of costs across routes should also be discussed.
a. Costing Methodology and Assumptions
For each different cost area, the SDP should provide the basis
for estimation (application of unit costs from industry peers or a
detailed resource build-up approach) of operating expenses. The SDP
should include documentation of key assumptions and provide back-up
data on how unit costs and quantities and cost escalation factors
were derived. Typical cost areas include:
Maintenance of way--Includes the cost of maintaining
the MOW, signals, buildings, structures, bridges etc.
Maintenance of equipment--Includes the cost of layover
and turnaround servicing, preventive maintenance, bad orders, wreck
& accidents, and contractor maintenance.
Transportation (train movement)--Includes the cost of
trainmen, enginemen, bus connections, train fuel, propulsion power,
railroad access and incentive payments.
Marketing and Information--Includes the cost of
advertising, marketing, reservations, information.
Station--Includes the cost of station staff (ticketing,
baggage, red caps, porters etc.),
[[Page 38361]]
building rent, maintenance, utilities, security.
On-board services--Includes the cost of on-board
service staff, food and provisions.
General/administrative expenses.
b. Summary of Operating Costs
c. Route Profit and Loss Statement
Estimate the Profit and Loss Statement for the route based on
revenue and operating cost forecasts.
d. Capital Replacement Costs
The SDP should provide detailed estimates of any additional
capital costs, beyond those incurred in the initial implementation
of the Service Development Program, that are anticipated to be
required due to lifecycle replacement or other factors through the
planning horizon of the SDP.
10. Public Benefits Analysis
The SDP should include a description and quantification of
benefits, whether operational, transportation output-related, and
economic in nature, with particular focus on job creation and
retention, ``green'' environmental outcomes, potential energy
savings, and effects on community livability. Except where clearly
unmonetizable, the SDP should provide the estimated economic value
of those benefits. At a minimum, this section of the SDP should
include:
a. Operational and Transportation Output Benefits
The SDP should clearly identify the operational and
transportation output-related benefits that will be generated by the
project. Examples of operational benefits include trip-time
improvements, reliability improvements (as measured by train delay-
minutes), frequency increases, and passenger capacity increases (as
measured by seat-miles). Transportation output benefits include
increases in HSIPR passenger-trips and passenger-miles traveled,
reductions in passenger-delay-minutes, and passenger-travel time
savings resulting from faster scheduled trips times.
b. User and Non-User Economic Benefits
The SDP should include an analysis of the monetized economic
benefits to user and non-user that will be generated by the project,
regardless of how or where those benefits are generated. User
benefits include items such as the value of travel time savings to
rail users, while non-user benefits include items such as the
monetized value of emissions reductions, community development, and
travel time savings due to congestion reduction for users of other
modes from which demand is anticipated to shift to the new or
improved HSIPR service.
c. Benefits by Rail Service Type
All user and non-user benefits should be delineated by the type
of improved rail service (i.e., HSIPR, commuter, or freight) that
will generate those benefits. For example, user benefits in the form
of travel time savings generated by a project for HSIPR passengers
should be shown delineated from those travel time savings accruing
to users of a commuter rail service that will also benefit from the
project. Likewise, non-user benefits in the form of emission
reductions resulting from the shift of passengers to HSIPR service
should be separated from benefits resulting from a shift of road
freight transport to rail freight service.
Appendix 2.2 Environmental Documentation
The environmental review process required by NEPA applies to all
Federal grant programs. NEPA requires Federal agencies to integrate
environmental values into their decision-making processes by
considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and
reasonable alternatives to those actions. NEPA also mandates that
all reasonable alternatives be considered, and to that end, an
alternatives analysis is typically conducted during the
environmental review process. Agencies must also make information on
these impacts and alternatives publicly available before decisions
are made and actions occur.
Appendix 2.2.1 Corridor-Wide Environmental Documentation (``Service
NEPA'')
As part of the Service Development Program planning phase
applicants must complete an environmental review, which addresses
the full extent of the overall Service Development Program and its
related actions. Within the context of the HSIPR program, this
evaluation is referred to as ``Service NEPA.''
Service NEPA involves at least a programmatic/Tier 1
environmental review (using tiered reviews and documents), or a
project environmental review, that addresses broad questions and
likely environmental effects in the entire corridor relating to the
type of service(s) being proposed, including alternative cities and
stations served, geographical route alternatives, service levels and
frequencies, choice of operating technologies (e.g., diesel vs.
electric operation and maximum operating speeds), ridership
projections, major infrastructure components, and identification of
major terminal area or facility capacity constraints. Standard
Service Development Programs are often best addressed with project
NEPA documentation; while more complex Major Service Development
Programs often call for a tiered approach.
Service NEPA is intended to support a Federal decision
concerning whether or not to implement a Service Development
Program. For major Service Development Programs, FRA generally
prefers to use a tiered NEPA process and a Tier-1 environmental
impact statement (EIS) to satisfy Service NEPA at a point prior to
Preliminary Engineering that is required to support a more detailed,
comprehensive ``project NEPA'' document. Furthermore, completion of
a tiered Service NEPA EIS allows for the significant narrowing of
the alternatives to be considered in preparing subsequent project
NEPA documents, allowing for reduced Preliminary Engineering costs.
While FRA anticipates that most Major Service Development
Programs will follow a tiered approach towards NEPA document
development (including preparation of a Service NEPA EIS during the
planning phase), FRA will consider a non-tiered service NEPA
approach where appropriate and conducive to the efficient
progression of the project and the consideration of environmental
impacts. In general, FRA will consider using project NEPA for
Service Development Programs where one or more of the following
factors apply:
There are no routing decisions required for the
proposed service;
The projects necessary to implement the proposal are
likely to be modest in scale and unlikely to cause significant
environmental impacts;
The Preliminary Engineering effort for the Service
Development Program is likely to be modest in scale, cost, and
duration; and
The project sponsor will be providing all necessary
funding, from non-HSIPR program sources, to complete Preliminary
Engineering and site-specific environmental analysis.
For Service Development Programs that meet these criteria and
for which FRA has decided not to tier, NEPA will be satisfied
through a unified project-level document developed during the PE/
NEPA phase.
Appendix 2.2.2--Project Environmental Documentation (``Project
NEPA'')
As part of the PE/NEPA phase of project development, a project
NEPA document and other required environmental documentation to
satisfy other Federal laws are prepared for the specific design
alternative identified through Preliminary Engineering and other
reasonable alternatives (integrated with the design alternatives
analysis performed as part of Preliminary Engineering).
Additionally, the design and engineering outputs of Preliminary
Engineering will serve as inputs into the evaluation of
environmental impacts just as identified impacts are inputs for
design and engineering. Therefore, it is essential that Preliminary
Engineering and project NEPA be closely coordinated and performed in
tandem with one another.
Appendix 2.2.3--NEPA Roles and Responsibilities
FRA, as the Federal sponsoring agency, has primary
responsibility for assuring compliance with NEPA and related
environmental laws for projects funded under the HSIPR program.
While NEPA compliance is a Federal agency responsibility and the
ultimate decisions remain with the Federal sponsoring agency, FRA
encourages applicants to take a leading role in preparing
environmental documentation, consistent with existing law and
regulations.
In the varied and flexible HSIPR program no single approach to
NEPA compliance will work for every proposal. Therefore, FRA will
work closely with applicants to assist in the timely and effective
completion of the NEPA process in the manner most pertinent to the
applicant's proposal.
Appendix 2.2.4--FRA NEPA Compliance
All NEPA documents must be supported by environmental and
historic preservation analyses required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) (NEPA), the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) (NHPA), and related
[[Page 38362]]
laws and regulations. Such analyses must be conducted in accordance
with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing
NEPA (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.), FRA's ``Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts'' (45 FR 40854, June 16, 1980, as revised May
26, 1999, 64 FR 28545), Section 106 of the NHPA, and related
environmental and historic preservation statutes and regulations,
and other related laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act
and the Endangered Species Act.
Appendix 2.3--Preliminary Engineering
Preliminary Engineering (PE) builds on the conceptual
engineering and other documentation developed during the planning
process in order to evaluate alternatives and to identify a specific
design alternative for implementing a project, and demonstrate its
feasibility for implementation. Within the context of the HSIPR
program, FRA relies on the documentation developed through PE in
order to make a decision as to whether to obligate funding for the
construction and implementation of a project. As such, HSIPR program
applicants seeking to progress a project to Final Design and
Construction should ensure that the PE documentation for the project
is adequate to support such a decision.
In the process of demonstrating the feasibility of a particular
design alternative, PE involves the refinement of the cost estimate
and schedule for the project and the reduction of uncertainties (as
represented by reduced cost estimate and schedule contingencies).
Furthermore, as part of PE, the analyses of the financial,
operational, and public benefit impacts of the project that were
developed during the planning phase are refined, so as to address
and reduce uncertainties and risks associated with the project after
it is placed in service.
The following documentation would demonstrate the completion of
PE for a project:
1. Project Description
a. A detailed description of the design alternative identified
through the PE process, including other design alternatives
considered.
b. A description of construction staging or phasing (such as
sequential phasing of interlocking reconfigurations) identified as
necessary to implement the identified design alternative.
c. A presentation of the work necessary to implement the
identified design alternative in a detailed Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) format. The WBS for the project would serve as the master
format for organizing and presenting the various elements of the
project through the subsequent phases of development, and presenting
cost estimates and project schedules.
d. An assessment of the physical condition and location of the
railroad in the project area (up to two to three miles beyond the
project construction limits depending upon effect and
interrelationship of the project with train operations), including:
bridges (rail and highway); track including the number and location
of previously existing railroad tracks on a roadbed; buildings
(stations and maintenance facilities, etc.); signal systems and
interlocked detectors, switches, derails, and snow melters; utility
systems on, over, adjacent to or under the rail line and agreements
concerning them; electrification systems, if any; description of
highway crossing warning systems (if any) and daily traffic counts
at public and private at grade highway crossings; existing and
proposed railroad operations and routes of freight, commuter and
intercity trains with train daily numbers of trains by type; a
safety and security management plan; and STRACNET routes and/or
moves for commercial high and wide loads.
2. Project Cost Estimate
a. Project cost estimates in both the project's WBS and the
HSIPR Standard Cost Category format.
b. Documentation of the cost estimate in its original format,
illustrating exactly how the cost estimates were calculated.
c. A detailed description of the methodology and assumptions
used in developing the estimates, including values and sources of
unit costs for labor, materials, and equipment; overhead costs or
other additives; allocated and unallocated contingencies; credit
value of salvaged materials; and cost escalation factors. Unless
explicitly and adequately justified, total contingencies for cost
estimates developed during PE should be no greater than 20%.
3. Project Schedule
a. A schedule for the implementation of the project organized in
the format of Work Breakdown Structure and consistent with the
phases of project's development.
b. The schedule should illustrate the duration of each activity
within the WBS, the earliest date at which each activity could
commence, and the dependencies between the various activities.
4. Design Documentation
a. A project locator map showing both the location of the
project area within the context of the State in which and the
corridor on which it is located.
b. A project area map showing the exact project location and the
immediate surrounding area (up to two to three miles beyond the
project construction limits consistent with the Project
Description).
c. Detailed PE drawings:
For projects involving improvements to track, track
structures, signals, or other linear railroad assets, full two-
dimensional depictions of the project (i.e, not track charts or
schematics) showing existing and proposed conditions at a scale of
one inch = 100 to 500 feet, depending on location (built-up vs.
undeveloped areas). PE drawings should incorporate scale maps or
scale aerial photography of existing conditions with design plan
drawings overlaid on the maps/photography, and should show: (i)
Existing railroad right-of-way limits along with the railroad
ownership; (ii) proposed track changes including track removals and
track installations showing track centers, turnout sizes, curve and
spiral data, etc.; (iii) vertical profiles and grades of existing
and proposed construction; (iv) public and private at grade highway
crossings; and (v) passenger stations, building(s), platforms,
parking, access to the primary highway system in the area, and
public transit services and facilities.
For projects involving improvements to maintenance
facilities and yards, PE drawings should show the track and facility
layout, specialized equipment (if any), and office and employee
welfare facilities.
For projects involving equipment procurement or
rehabilitation, PE drawings should include plan, side elevation, and
end elevation drawings, clearly showing interior configuration
(including seating configurations, restroom configuration, doorway
sizes), clearance envelope, and floor heights.
For projects involving improvements to stations
buildings, PE drawings should include all renderings and plan,
elevation, detail drawings necessary to illustrate the scope of the
project.
i. Schematic track charts for all projects involving
improvements to track, track structures, signals, or other linear
railroad assets, refined from those developed during the planning
process.
ii. Route and aspect charts for all projects involving signal
system improvements, signal system installation, or track
reconfigurations in signaled territory.
5. Design and Procurement Compliance
a. Demonstration that the proposed project design is compliant
with all applicable FRA safety regulations and AREMA design
standards.
b. For projects involving the procurement of rolling stock,
demonstration that the proposed equipment procurement will be
consistent with Section 305 of PRIIA, which calls for the
establishment of a standardized next-generation rail corridor
equipment pool. Compliance with Section 305 of PRIIA will assist in
creating the economies of scale necessary to achieve the
Administration's goal, as outlined in FRA's Strategic Plan, of
developing a sustainable railroad equipment manufacturing base in
the United States.
c. For projects involving improvements to railroad signaling/
control systems, the application should demonstrate that the
proposed improvements are consistent with a comprehensive plan for
complying with the requirements for positive train control (PTC)
implementation under Section 104 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act
of 2008 (``RSIA,'' Division A of Pub. L. 110-432, October 16, 2008,
codified at 49 U.S.C. 20147) and with FRA's final rule on Positive
Train Control System published in the Federal Register on January
15, 2010 (75 FR 2598).
6. Refinement of Planning Documentation
Many elements of the Service Development Plan developed during
the Planning phase of project development would be expanded and
updated in later phases of the project development process, as the
project itself becomes more refined. Much of this refinement is
completed as part of Preliminary Engineering, particularly as it
relates to the following Service Development Plan elements:
[[Page 38363]]
a. Identification of Alternatives (particularly as it relates to
design alternatives).
b. Demand and Revenue Forecasts.
c. Operations Modeling.
d. Station and Access Analysis.
e. Operating and Maintenance Costs and Capital Replacement
Forecast.
f. Public Benefits Analysis.
To demonstrate completion of PE, revised versions of planning
documentation that cover these topics (to the extent the topics are
applicable to the project), including descriptions of how project
decisions and refinements made as part of PE have resulted in
changes to key outputs of the planning process (such as demand
forecasts, forecasts of operational benefits, operations and
maintenance cost forecasts, and estimates of public benefits, should
be provided.
Appendix 2.4 Final Design
During the Final Design phase, any remaining uncertainties or
risks associated with minor changes to design scope are fully
addressed, and the products of Preliminary Engineering are refined
as additional detailed design work is completed. The objective of
the Final Design phase is to progress the engineering of the project
beyond what was required to demonstrate the feasibility of the
design of the project, to the point where the engineering
documentation is sufficient to support the procurement of
construction services to implement the project. Final Design
includes the preparation of final design plans, final construction
cost estimates, and a refined and revised project schedule, and may
also encompass early construction-related activities, such as right-
of-way acquisition and utility relocation.
In general, the documentation that project sponsors submit to
FRA to demonstrate completion of Final Design is similar to that
which constituted the outputs of Preliminary Engineering. Final
Design documentation will generally incorporate design changes and
refinements implemented as part of the FD process, and should
reflect a level of detail sufficient to support the procurement of
construction services and the effective control of the project
throughout its construction. As such, major differences between the
PE and FD documentation include:
Project Description: Upon completion of FD, the Work
Breakdown Structure of the project should reflect a level of detail
sufficient to support the effective control of the project's
construction, particularly as it relates to the project's scope and
specifications.
Project Cost Estimate: Upon completion of FD, cost
estimates should be at a level of detail sufficient to support
construction services procurement, and to allow for the tracking and
comparison during the construction phase of actual costs against
estimated costs.
[cir] Unless explicitly and adequately justified, total
contingencies for cost estimates developed during Final Design
should be no greater than 10%.
Project Schedule: Upon completion of FD, the project
schedule should reflect a level of detail sufficient to support the
effective control of the project's timely construction.
Final Design Documentation: Final Design drawings
should be at a level of detail sufficient to support the preparation
of construction and shop drawings, and to ensure the effective
control of the project's scope and configuration.
[cir] As part of Final Design, detailed specification should be
developed or adopted for the project, in order to ensure the
quality, suitability, and durability of all construction.
Appendix 3: Additional Information on Financial Plans
The information contained below in Appendix 3 represents
suggested content and approaches for completing the financial
planning documentation required for Service Development Programs.
While FRA does not require applicants/grantees to follow the
specific document structure and content listed below, they are
provided to assist applicants/grantees in fulfilling the objectives
necessary to successfully complete a Financial Plan.
The Financial Plan for a Service Development Program should
address two major areas of the projects financing:
The financing of the development and implementation of
the capital projects identified as necessary to support the Service
Development (referred to as ``capital financing''); and
The ongoing financing of the operations of the service
itself, including provisions for financing any ongoing operating
deficits (referred to as ``operating financing'').
Appendix 3.1 General Components for Financial Plans
In general, both the capital financing and the operating
financing elements of a Service Development Program's Financial Plan
should address the following topics:
The Financial Plan should demonstrate that the project
sponsor has the legal and necessary authority to accept and spend
Federal and non-Federal funds for the project.
The Financial Plan documents the recent and forecasted
financial condition and health of the project sponsor and other key
partners that are anticipated to provide funding for the project.
The Financial Plan should demonstrate that any
financing necessary to deliver the project has been budgeted and
committed to the project. The plan illustrates cash flow
requirements to assure that funds will be available as needed, that
grant funds can be spent on a timely basis, and that any project
financing will be available. In general, all capital financing
required for a given phase of the project's development must be
committed prior to the commencement of that phase, while all
required operating financing must be committed prior to the
commencement of the construction phase.
Both the initial Financial Plan and the annual updates
should be prepared in accordance with recognized financial reporting
standards such as the ``Guide for Prospective Financial
Information'' of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants and should be certified by the project's sponsor.
Appendix 3.1.1 Capital Financial Planning Components
The capital financing part of a Service Development Program's
Financial Plan should address the following topics:
The Financial Plan demonstrates that the project
sponsor has the ability to provide any required or proposed matching
funds and can absorb potential cost changes and increases without
impacting other proposed projects.
Project sponsors must accept responsibility for any
capital cost overruns if they occur and have a Financial Plan in
place and another source of funds to cover overruns if needed.
Where sole source or force account work is projected,
the project sponsor must provide an independent analysis of
comparative costs to ensure the reasonableness of the sole source
budget.
In addressing these topics, the capital financing part of the
Financial Plan should comprise at least the following sections:
1. Cost Estimate, presenting the total cost and cost-to-complete
for major project elements in year of expenditure dollars;
2. Implementation Plan, detailing the project schedule and the
cost-to-complete in annual increments in year of expenditure
dollars;
3. Financing and Revenues, showing each funding source as annual
amounts available for project obligations;
4. Cash Flow, presenting cash inflows and outflows on an annual
basis; and
5. Risk Identification and Mitigation Factors, showing how the
project sponsor intends to address major financial risks, such as
cost overruns and unavailability of anticipated funding.
Inputs for some of these sections will in part be drawn from,
and should be consistent with, documentation prepared as part of the
project development process (e.g., cost estimates and schedules),
while other inputs will be drawn from, and must be consistent with,
other project delivery documentation (such as risk management plans
developed as part of the Project Management Plan).
Appendix 3.1.2 Operating Financial Planning Requirements
Service Development Programs, by their very nature, carry
significant risks associated with the ongoing operating of the
service after the construction of capital projects has been
completed and the Service Development Program has been fully
implemented. In order to demonstrate that a project sponsor has the
ability to address or otherwise manage this operating financing
risk, the Financial Plan should include a section addressing
operating financing. The operating financing part of a Service
Development Program's Financial Plan should address the following
topics:
Operating financial projections for each phase of the
planned service, with documentation of the methods, assumptions, and
outputs of the following: travel demand forecasts, projected
revenue, and operating expenses, including maintenance of way,
maintenance of equipment, transportation
[[Page 38364]]
(train movement), passenger traffic and services (marketing,
ticketing, station, and onboard services), and general/
administrative expenses. Cost-sharing arrangements with
infrastructure owners and rail operators should also be included.
A presentation of all the assumptions used to develop
cost and revenue estimates, including the sources of information and
methodologies used. Supporting documentation and independent
verification of the cost and revenue assumptions (e.g., demand
studies, feasibility studies, economic forecasts) should be included
if they are available.
In addressing these topics, the operating financing part of the
Financial Plan should include at least the following sections:
1. Operating Forecast, presenting on an annual basis revenue and
operating and maintenance cost forecasts for the period encompassing
the anticipated life of the Service Development Program's component
capital investments (not less than 20 years);
2. Capital Replacement Forecast, presenting on an annual basis
forecasts of capital reinvestment necessary to keep the Service
Development Program's capital investments in a state-of-good repair
for the period encompassing the anticipated life of the most long-
lived of the Service Development Program's capital investments (not
less than 20 years);
3. Financing and Revenues, showing each funding source as annual
amounts available to support any operating deficit or capital
replacement requirements;
4. Cash Flow, presenting on an annual basis cash inflows and
outflows; and
5. Risk Identification and Mitigation Factors, showing how the
project sponsor intends to address major financial risks, such as
cost overruns, revenue shortfalls, and unavailability of anticipated
funding.
As with the capital financing part of the Financial Plan, inputs
for some of these sections will in part be drawn from, and must be
consistent with, the Service Development Plan (e.g., revenue and
operating and maintenance cost forecasts and capital replacement
forecasts).
Appendix 4: Additional Information on Applicant Budgets
The information contained in this appendix is intended to assist
applicants with developing OMB Standard Form 424C: Budget
Information--Construction Programs, as described in Section 4.2.
Applicants must present a detailed budget for the proposed
project that includes both Federal funds and matching funds. Items
of cost included in the budget must be reasonable, allocable, and
necessary for the project. At a minimum, the budget should separate
total cost of the project into the following categories and provide
a basis of computation for each cost:
Administrative and Legal Expenses: List the estimated
amounts needed to cover administrative expenses. Do not include
costs which are related to the normal functions of government.
Allowable legal costs are generally only those associated with the
purchases of land which is allowable for Federal participation and
certain services in support of construction of the project. This may
include:
[cir] Hours/Rate and total cost of local government staff.
[cir] Hours/Rate and total cost of outside counsel fees.
[cir] Hours/Rate and total cost of consultants.
Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, and
related items: List the estimate site and right(s)-of-way
acquisition costs (this includes purchase, lease, and/or easements).
If possible, include details of number of acres, acre cost, square-
footage, and square footage cost.
Relocation expenses and payments: List the estimated
costs relation to relocation advisory assistance, replacement of
housing, relocation payments to displaces persons and businesses,
etc. This may include:
[cir] The gross salaries and wages of employees for the grantee
who will be directly engaged in performing demolition or removal of
structures from developed land.
Architectural and engineering fees: List the estimated
basic engineering fees related to construction (this includes start-
up services and preparation of project performance work plan).
Other architectural and engineering fees: List the
estimated engineering costs, such as surveys, tests, soil borings,
etc.
Project inspection fees: List the estimated engineering
inspection costs. This may include:
[cir] Rate of project inspector.
[cir] Construction monitoring.
[cir] Audit or construction programs.
Site Work: List the estimated costs of site preparation
and restoration which are not included in the basic construction
contract. This may include:
[cir] Clearing.
[cir] Erosion control.
[cir] Reseeding.
Demolition and removal: List the estimated costs
related to demolition activities.
Construction: List the estimated cost of the
construction contract. This may include costs for:
[cir] Labor costs, e.g., associated with site preparation and
installation of grade crossings, highway warning signs, etc.
[cir] Equipment rental/purchase, e.g., an excavator or
bulldozer.
[cir] Materials, e.g., Rail anchors, retaining walls, etc.
Equipment: List the estimated cost of office, shop,
laboratory, safety equipment, etc. to be used at the facility, if
such costs are not included in the construction contract.
Miscellaneous: List the estimated miscellaneous costs.
Contingencies: List the estimated contingency costs.
Appendix 5: List of Acronyms and Abbreviated References
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym Meaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACF.......................... Administration for Children and Families.
ADA.......................... Americans with Disabilities Act.
Administrator................ Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration.
CAST......................... Custom Applications Support and Training
Unit (GrantSolutions).
CCR.......................... Central Contractor Registration database.
CE........................... Categorical Exclusion--a class of action
for the NEPA process.
DBE.......................... Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.
Department................... The United States Department of
Transportation.
DOT.......................... The United States Department of
Transportation.
DUNS......................... Data Universal Number System.
EA........................... Environmental Assessment--a NEPA
document.
EIS.......................... Environmental Impact Statement-- the most
extensive type of NEPA document.
FD........................... Final Design.
FHWA......................... Federal Highway Administration.
FONSI........................ Finding of No Significant Impact--a
possible decision concluding the NEPA
process.
FRA.......................... Federal Railroad Administration--an
operating administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
FTA.......................... Federal Transit Administration.
FY........................... Fiscal Year.
FY 2009 DOT Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban
Act. Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2009--Title I of
Division I of Public Law 111-8, March
11, 2009.
FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban
Act. Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010--Title I of
Division A of Public Law 111-117,
December 16, 2009.
GMLoB........................ Grants Management Line of Business.
GS........................... GrantSolutions grants management system.
ICC.......................... Interstate Commerce Commission.
[[Page 38365]]
IPD.......................... Innovation Program Delivery.
LOI.......................... Letter of Intent.
mph.......................... Miles Per Hour.
NEPA......................... National Environmental Policy Act.
NTD.......................... National Transit Database.
OMB.......................... Office of Management and Budget.
PE........................... Preliminary Engineering.
PRIIA........................ Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (Division B of Public Law
110-432, October 16, 2008).
PTC.......................... Positive Train Control.
ROD.......................... Record of Decision--a possible decision
concluding of the NEPA process.
RSIA......................... Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(Division A of Public Law 110-432,
October 16, 2008).
Secretary.................... Secretary of the United States Department
of Transportation.
State DOT.................... State Department of Transportation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC on June 25, 2010.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-15992 Filed 6-28-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P