Document ID: FRA-2009-0031-0025
Agency: fra
Document Type: Rule
Title: High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program
Posted Date: 2010-07-07T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Notices]               
[Page 38343-38365]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-163]                         

[[Page 38343]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Railroad Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program; 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 HSIPR@dot.gov, 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 help@grantsolutions.gov. 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 help@grantsolutions.gov. If the 
applicant experiences technical issues that may cause the applicant to 
miss the application deadline, the applicant must contact FRA at 
HSIPR@dot.gov 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 
HSIPR@dot.gov, 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