[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29432-29437]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0031]

Establishment of the Corridor Identification and Development
Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of establishment; request for expressions of interest.

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

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), which requires the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to establish a Corridor Identification and
Development program to facilitate the development of intercity
passenger rail corridors within 180 days of enactment. In compliance
with this directive, by this Notice, FRA is establishing the Corridor
Identification and Development program.

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
information regarding submitting expressions of interest to docket
number FRA-2022-0031.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Peter Schwartz, Chief, Project Engineering and Transportation
Planning Division, by email: [email protected] or by telephone: 202-
493-6360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Federal Role in Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development
III. Statutory Overview

IV. Outreach
V. Corridor ID Program Implementation
VI. Expressions of Interest
VII. Next Steps

I. Executive Summary

    The BIL requires the Secretary to establish a program--referred to
here as the Corridor Identification and Development Program or Corridor
ID Program--to facilitate the development of intercity passenger rail
corridors, within 180 days of enactment. 49 U.S.C. 25101(a). The
Federal Railroad Administrator is delegated the authority to establish
and administer the Corridor ID Program. 49 CFR 1.89(a).
    The Corridor ID Program establishes a comprehensive intercity
passenger rail planning framework that will help guide future federal
project development work and capital investments. FRA encourages
eligible entities to submit expressions of interest in the Corridor ID
Program consistent with the directions below. In addition, as described
below, FRA plans to publish a notice soliciting proposals by eligible
entities to participate in the Corridor ID Program in the last quarter
of this calendar year.

II. Federal Role in Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development

    The establishment of the Corridor ID Program represents a major
milestone in the over five decades of Federal work on intercity
passenger rail development. Beginning with the enactment of the High-
Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, FRA worked to deploy modern
high-speed ground transportation technologies and introduced a multi-
modal, long-term planning effort for the Northeast Corridor (NEC). With
the creation of Amtrak in 1970, and the subsequent major engineering
and construction effort of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project,
FRA helped to demonstrate the ability of intercity passenger rail to
compete successfully in the passenger transportation market of one of
the country's most heavily traveled corridors.
    In the 1980s, FRA, in conjunction with Amtrak, issued a series of
reports on ``Emerging Corridors,'' which explored the potential for the
development of intercity passenger rail corridors throughout the United
States. At the same time, States began to demonstrate increased
interest and involvement in intercity passenger rail development, with
many undertaking independent investigations into the development of new
corridors. State interest in intercity passenger rail development has
continued to grow, with many States now considering passenger rail an
integral part of their State transportation policy, and providing
significant funding to the operation, improvement, and expansion of
such services.
    With the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, Congress called upon FRA to designate five
high-speed rail corridors for the purpose of directing funding for the
elimination of railroad-highway grade crossings (from 1998 through 2011
FRA made additional corridor designations and extensions). FRA also
completed a ``commercial feasibility study'' of high-speed ground
transportation systems, resulting in the 1997 report High-Speed Ground
Transportation for America, which examined the potential of a variety
of high-speed ground transportation technologies across eight
illustrative corridors.
    Then, in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008,
Congress expanded the role of States in intercity passenger rail
development and implementation, and created several new grant programs
to fund capital improvements to existing and new intercity passenger
rail services. Under these new programs, FRA administered significant
investments in passenger rail development and implementation. These
efforts included funding for service development plans, preliminary
engineering and environmental review work activities, and engagement
with State rail plans, as well as the development of regional rail
plans. Additional railroad capital improvement programs were
established by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015,
and significant funding has been appropriated for those programs in
every year since. Most recently, the enactment of the BIL has provided
a historic, unprecedented level of funding for the improvement and
expansion of intercity passenger rail service. Importantly, the BIL
requires the establishment of the Corridor ID Program--a formal
framework to guide the future development of intercity passenger rail
throughout the country. Unlike previous Federal intercity passenger
rail planning efforts, the Corridor ID Program is intended both to
support a sustained long-term development effort, and to set forth a
capital project pipeline ready for Federal (and other) funding.

III. Statutory Overview

A. In General

    The BIL requires the Secretary, within 180 days of enactment, to
establish the Corridor ID Program to facilitate the development of
intercity passenger rail corridors. 49 U.S.C. 25101(a).
    The BIL further provides that the Corridor ID Program shall
include: (1) A process for eligible entities to submit proposals for
the development of corridors; (2) a process for the review and
selection of such proposals; (3) criteria for determining level of
readiness for Federal financial assistance of a corridor (to include
identification of the service operator, service sponsor, and capital
project sponsors; engagement with host railroads; and other criteria
determined appropriate by the Secretary); (4) a process for preparing
service development plans; (5) the creation of a pipeline of intercity
passenger rail corridor projects; (6) planning guidance; and (7) such
other features as the Secretary considers relevant to the successful
development of intercity passenger rail corridors. 49 U.S.C.
25101(a)(1)-(7).

B. Eligible Entities

    The following entities are eligible to submit proposals to
participate in the Corridor ID Program: (1) Amtrak; (2) States; (3)
groups of States; (4) entities implementing interstate compacts; (5)
regional passenger rail authorities; (6) regional planning
organizations; (7) political subdivisions of a State; (8) federally-
recognized Indian Tribes; and (9) other public entities, as determined
by the Secretary. 49 U.S.C. 25101(b).

C. Eligible Routes

    The following types of routes are eligible to participate in the
Corridor ID Program: (1) A new intercity passenger rail route of less
than 750 miles; (2) the enhancement of an existing intercity passenger
rail route of less than 750 miles; (3) the restoration of service over
all or portions of an intercity passenger rail route formerly operated
by Amtrak; and (4) the increase of service frequency of a long-distance
intercity passenger rail route. 49 U.S.C. 25101(h).

D. Selection Criteria

    In selecting intercity passenger rail corridors for participation
in the Corridor ID Program, the Secretary must consider 14 criteria, as
follows:
    (1) Whether the route was identified as part of a regional or
interregional planning study;

    (2) The projected ridership, revenues, capital investment, and
operating funding requirements;
    (3) The anticipated environmental, congestion mitigation, and other
public benefits;
    (4) The projected trip times and their competitiveness with other
transportation modes;
    (5) The anticipated positive economic and employment impacts;
    (6) The committed or anticipated non-Federal funding for operating
and capital costs;
    (7) The benefits to rural communities;
    (8) Whether the corridor is included in a State's approved State
rail plan;
    (9) Whether the corridor serves historically unserved or
underserved and low-income communities or areas of persistent poverty;
    (10) Whether the corridor would benefit or improve connectivity
with existing or planned transportation services of other modes;
    (11) Whether the corridor connects at least 2 of the 100 most
populated metropolitan areas;
    (12) Whether the corridor would enhance the regional equity and
geographic diversity of intercity passenger rail service;
    (13) Whether the corridor is or would be integrated into the
national rail passenger transportation system and would create benefits
for other passenger rail routes and services; and
    (14) Whether a passenger rail operator has expressed support for
the corridor.

E. Service Development Plans

    For each proposal selected for development under the Corridor ID
Program, the Secretary shall partner with the proposing entity,
relevant States, and Amtrak, as appropriate, to prepare a service
development plan (or to update an existing service development plan).
49 U.S.C. 25101(d).
    These service development plans include the following information:
(1) A detailed description of the proposed intercity passenger rail
service, including train frequencies, peak and average operating
speeds, and trip times; (2) a corridor project inventory that
identifies the capital projects necessary to achieve the proposed
service and the order in which Federal funding will be sought; (3) a
schedule and associated phasing of projects and related service
initiation or changes; (4) project sponsors and other entities expected
to participate in carrying out the plan; (5) a description of how the
corridor would comply with Federal rail safety and security laws; (6)
the locations of existing and proposed stations; (7) the needs for
rolling stock and other equipment; (8) a financial plan; (9) a
description of how the corridor would contribute to the development of
a multi-State regional network of intercity passenger rail; (10) an
intermodal plan describing how the new or improved corridor facilitates
travel connections with other passenger transportation services; (11) a
description of the anticipated environmental benefits of the corridor;
and (12) a description of the corridor's impacts on highway and
aviation congestion, energy consumption, land use, and economic
development in the service area. 49 U.S.C. 25101(d)(1)-(12).
    In partnering on the preparation of a service development plan, the
Secretary must consult with: Amtrak; State and regional transportation
authorities and local officials; representatives of employee labor
organizations; host railroads; and other stakeholders as determined by
the Secretary. 49 U.S.C. 25101(e).
    In addition, every five years after the initial development of a
service development plan, if at least 40% of the work to implement the
plan has not been completed, then the plan's sponsor, in consultation
with the Secretary, shall determine whether the plan should be updated.
49 U.S.C. 25101(f).

F. Project Pipeline

    Within 1 year of establishing the program, and by February 1st of
each year thereafter, the Secretary must submit a ``project pipeline''
report to Congress. 49 U.S.C. 25101(g). The project pipeline report:
(1) Identifies intercity passenger rail corridors selected for
development; (2) identifies capital projects for Federal investment,
project applicants, and proposed Federal funding levels, as applicable;
(3) specifies the order in which the Secretary would provide Federal
financial assistance to projects that have been identified; (4) takes
into consideration the appropriate sequence and phasing of projects;
(5) takes into consideration the existing commitments and anticipated
Federal, project applicant, sponsor, and other relevant funding levels
for the next 5 fiscal years; (6) is prioritized based on the level of
readiness of the corridor; and (7) reflects consultation with Amtrak.
49 U.S.C. 25101(g)(1)-(7).

G. Funding

    FRA is authorized to use up to 5 percent of the funding made
available for the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger
Rail grants (Fed-State Partnership) program to carry out planning and
development activities, including eligible activities related to the
Corridor ID Program. 49 U.S.C. 24911(k). Such activities include: (1)
Providing funding to public entities for the development of SDPs
selected under the Corridor ID Program; (2) facilitating and providing
guidance for intercity passenger rail systems planning; and (3)
providing funding for the development and refinement of intercity
passenger rail systems planning analytical tools and models. 49 U.S.C.
24911(k).
    In addition, under the Fed-State Partnership program, when
selecting projects for funding that are not located on the NEC, the
Secretary must give preference to eligible projects that are identified
in, and consistent with, a corridor inventory prepared under the
Corridor ID Program. 49 U.S.C. 24911(d)(2)(A)(i). Similarly, under the
Restoration and Enhancements Grants program, the Secretary must give
priority to applications for routes selected under the Corridor ID
Program and operated by Amtrak. 49 U.S.C. 22908(d)(10).

IV. Outreach

    FRA has conducted, and intends to continue, extensive outreach to
ensure the Corridor ID Program is positioned to successfully facilitate
the development of intercity passenger rail corridors.

A. Request for Information

    FRA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal
Register on February 7, 2022 seeking comments on the Corridor ID
Program and how it can best serve stakeholders and the public in
facilitating the development of intercity passenger rail corridors.
FRA-2022-0006-0001. The RFI included a number of specific questions
regarding the Corridor ID Program, including: Roles and
responsibilities within the Corridor ID Program; service development
plans; the project pipeline; the funding of program activities;
readiness of proposals for selection into the Corridor ID Program;
criteria for the selection of proposals; and the selectivity of the
Corridor ID Program.
    In response, FRA received over 400, many quite detailed, comments
in connection with the RFI. These comments are invaluable to FRA and
inform FRA's approach to the Corridor ID Program.

B. Listening Sessions

    FRA conducted three listening sessions in connection with the
Corridor ID Program. On February 16, 2022, FRA held a virtual listening
session with entities who are eligible to submit proposals under the
Corridor ID

Program. On February 17, 2022, FRA held a virtual listening session
with host railroads. Also, on February 17, 2022, FRA held a virtual
listening session with associations, advocacy groups, contractors, and
other stakeholders interested in the Corridor ID Program. A total of
469 individuals registered to attend these three listening sessions.
    At each of these listening sessions, FRA presented an overview of
the statutory framework of the Corridor ID Program, and invited
comments and statements on the Corridor ID Program and the focused
topics presented in the RFI.
    The listening sessions successfully generated many comments on the
Program. While the comments were not uniform, represented a variety of
perspectives, and addressed many aspects of the Corridor ID Program
from its broad framework to its details, several themes emerged. These
themes included the following, that the Corridor ID Program should: (1)
Expand on the geographic scope of previous corridor development efforts
in order to serve communities and regions that are not currently well-
served by passenger rail service; (2) in addition to laying the
foundation for a longer-term planning framework, also strive to deliver
``quick wins;'' (3) include multi-State and multi-project corridors;
(4) be clear on the length of eligible corridors; (5) place relatively
less emphasis on the selection criteria regarding non-Federal funding
for operating costs; (6) be clear on how the Corridor ID Program
relates to other FRA programs and requirements; (7) be clear on whether
the corridor must be in a State rail plan; (8) provide multi-year
funding; (9) provide ``tracks'' with different evaluation criteria to
accommodate corridor proposals at different levels of readiness; (10)
be clear on how a project that is not initially selected can join the
Corridor ID Program at a later date; and (11) provide a clear timeline
for application and selection.

V. Corridor ID Program Implementation

A. In General

    FRA intends for the Corridor ID Program, as it grows and matures,
to become the primary means for directing Federal financial support and
technical assistance toward the development of proposals for new or
improved intercity passenger rail services throughout the United
States. Development activities under the Corridor ID Program will
include the preparation of Service Development Plans, the
identification of capital projects necessary to support a corridor, and
the advancement of such projects, as appropriate, through preliminary
engineering (PE) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, for the ultimate purpose of advancing the corridor for
subsequent and immediate implementation (comprising final design and
construction activities). Importantly, the selection of a corridor into
the Corridor ID Program will represent a decision by FRA to provide
financial assistance for the completion of these pre-implementation
corridor development activities, subject to the successful completion
of program requirements and the availability of funding. That said, FRA
also intends to provide guidance, outreach, and technical assistance to
entities that submit proposals that are not selected for the Corridor
ID Program, in order to assist in the refinement of such proposals for
future consideration.
    While the Corridor ID Program itself will only encompass the pre-
construction development of selected corridors--which may include
planning, environmental review, preliminary engineering, and other
corridor development activities--selection of corridors into the
Corridor ID Program by FRA will reflect the agency's interest in the
advancement of these corridors to implementation and operation. As
such, an important consideration in selecting corridors will be the
demonstration of a commitment on the part of the entity submitting the
proposal, and the corridor's proposed capital project and service
sponsors, to the future implementation and operation of the corridor
(e.g., documented support for the proposal from relevant legislative
and executive government bodies, an established history of support for
intercity passenger rail operations and capital investments, etc.).
While this commitment may be preliminary when submitting a proposal,
FRA expects that the commitment will grow and solidify as the corridor
advances through development under the Corridor ID Program.
    As detailed below under ``Next Steps,'' in the last quarter of
calendar year 2022, FRA plans to issue a notice soliciting proposals
from eligible entities to participate in the Corridor ID Program. That
solicitation will provide detailed information on the Corridor ID
Program's application requirements, in addition to other relevant
information. FRA will consider proposals both for entirely undeveloped
concepts for new or improved corridors, and for concepts that have been
the subject of past or ongoing development efforts. For the latter,
selection into the Corridor ID Program will provide the opportunity to
complete or update the prior corridor development efforts, and to
include capital projects necessary to implement those corridors in the
Corridor ID Program project pipeline.
    In keeping with the long-range orientation of the Corridor ID
Program, FRA anticipates issuing subsequent solicitations for proposals
at regular intervals to allow new corridors, when ready, to enter the
Corridor ID Program. Such an approach will allow for a consistent flow
of new corridors entering the Corridor ID Program for development, and
fully-developed corridors (or implementation phases of corridors)
exiting the Corridor ID Program with capital projects ready for
construction and funding opportunities. Furthermore, in advance of the
first solicitation of proposals FRA is encouraging eligible entities
interested in submitting a corridor proposal to submit a comment in
response to this Notice expressing such interest (see section VI.
Expressions of Interest below). FRA intends to use these Expressions of
Interest to assist in developing the initial solicitation of proposals,
and to facilitate potential outreach, prior to the issuance of the
initial solicitation, to entities that express an interest in
submitting a proposal.

B. Proposals

    The details of the required content for proposals to the Corridor
ID Program will be set forth in FRA's forthcoming notice soliciting
proposals. In general, FRA will seek: (1) Information regarding the
basic characteristics of the corridor; (2) information necessary to
assess the readiness of the corridor to enter into development under
the Corridor ID Program; and (3) information necessary to assess a
proposal against the Corridor ID Program's statutory selection criteria
(see section III.D. Selection Criteria above).
    In terms of the basic characteristics of a proposed corridor, a
proposal will need to identify the key geographic travel markets
(``corridor-defining markets'') which must be served for the corridor
to fulfill its intended objectives. The proposal should also include
high-level initial estimates, preferably expressed as ranges or
options, of certain characteristics for the corridor, including: (1)
Potential service frequencies and travel times between the corridor-
defining markets; and (2) the potential geographic routes for the
proposed corridor, particularly if the subject corridor is intended to
operate over existing rail lines.

    In general, proposals should not include information at a level of
detail or specificity that overlaps with that of an SDP, as such
information will be prepared in partnership with FRA as part of the
subsequent development of the corridor under the Corridor ID Program.
49 U.S.C. 25101(d). However, for proposals that relate to corridors
that have been the subject of prior development efforts (such as the
preparation of an SDP) undertaken with FRA's direct participation, such
proposals may reference the findings, recommendations, and conclusions
of that earlier development work.
    In regards to the readiness of the corridor for development under
the Corridor ID Program, a proposal should demonstrate the existing
level of commitment of the entity submitting the proposal, and the
corridor's proposed capital project and service sponsors, to the future
implementation and operation of the corridor, including the degree of
coordination and agreement among these parties. FRA does not plan to
require that a proposal demonstrate a commitment by host railroads over
which the corridor would operate, as coordination and consultation with
host railroads will be conducted as part of the preparation of an SDP
under the Corridor ID Program. 49 U.S.C. 25101(e)(4). Furthermore, due
to the significance that the operation of a service by Amtrak would
have on the corridor development process (including the use and
improvement of facilities of host railroads, ongoing operating and
maintenance costs, and requirements regarding the provision of
operating financial support by service sponsors), FRA also plans to
request that proposals explicitly state whether or not the corridor is
intended to be operated by Amtrak.
    FRA also plans to request that proposals include information
regarding: The legal, technical, and financial capability and capacity
of the eligible entity and relevant partners to engage in the
development of the corridor, as well as their ability to develop
further such capabilities and capacities to support the future
implementation and operation of the corridor; and the ability to
provide the necessary future non-Federal share of funding for capital
projects and ongoing operating financial support for the corridor. The
ability to secure such future funding may be demonstrated by the
corridor sponsor's past or current funding of intercity passenger rail
capital improvements and operations. In addition, FRA plans to request
that an entity submitting a corridor proposal demonstrate that funding
has been secured for the non-Federal share of costs associated with the
first stage of development of the proposal under the program (i.e., the
preparation, or updating, of an SDP, and the definition and
identification of a preliminary range of reasonable alternatives for
the immediate implementation phase or phases of the corridor--see
``Development Stages'' below).
    Lastly, FRA recognizes that corridor proposals will vary widely in
their complexity, risks, and requirements. As such, the required level
of detail for a corridor proposal will vary based on the
characteristics of the corridor. For example, the required content for
proposals for more complex corridors (e.g., proposing the construction
of new rail lines, involving significant improvement to host railroad
facilities, requiring significant increases in ongoing operating
financial support by the service sponsor, etc.) will be more
comprehensive than those for less complex corridors (e.g., proposing
incremental improvements to an existing corridor with few or no
improvements to host railroad facilities, and little to no increased
requirement for ongoing operating financial support by the service
sponsor).

C. Selection

    FRA will select corridors for participation in the Corridor ID
Program based on an assessment of the readiness of the corridor to
commence development under the Corridor ID Program (including the
demonstrated level of commitment to the development, implementation,
and operation of the corridor), and through the application of the
statutory selection criteria. As noted above, the selection of a
corridor will represent a key decision by FRA to provide financial
assistance for pre-implementation activities supporting the development
of the corridor under the Corridor ID Program (subject to the
successful completion of program requirements and the availability of
funding). FRA also intends to provide guidance to entities that submit
proposals that are not selected in order to assist in the refinement of
such proposals for future consideration.
    While FRA intends the Corridor ID Program to support the
development of many, varied intercity passenger rail corridors, FRA may
limit its selection of corridors, particularly during the start of the
program, based on several considerations. Such considerations may
include the availability of Federal funding to implement corridors
developed under the Corridor ID Program, the capacity of the intercity
passenger rail industry as a whole to support the corridor development
efforts, and a strategy to grow the Corridor ID Program at a
sustainable rate.

D. Development Stages

    As discussed, for selected corridors, FRA will partner with the
entity that submitted the proposal, relevant States, and Amtrak, as
appropriate, to complete the corridor development activities necessary
to prepare the proposed corridor (or the independent implementation
phases of a proposed corridor) for implementation. This corridor
development work will be undertaken in two stages.
    The first stage is the preparation of an SDP (or an update to an
existing SDP), and the completion of the additional planning and
engineering work required to fully define a preliminary range of
reasonable alternatives for the capital projects identified as
necessary to implement the corridor (or the initial implementation
phase or phases of the corridor).
    Following the successful completion of this first stage, the
corridor (or the initial implementation phase or phases of the
corridor) will advance to the second stage of development under the
Corridor ID Program. The second stage is the completion of all
additional corridor development work required to ready the corridor (or
the initial phase or phases of implementing the corridor) for
implementation. Such work will include the completion of PE and NEPA
activities for the corridor, and other prerequisites to implement the
service.

E. Service Development Plans

    Under the Corridor ID Program, SDPs will represent the first major
product of the corridor development process and will address all those
topics described in section III.E. above. Furthermore, SDPs may be
prepared under the Corridor ID Program as long-range corridor planning
documents, with the option for the implementation of such a long-range
plan to be pursued in multiple consecutive phases. In particular, SDPs
may reflect two or more discrete implementation phases, with each phase
associated with a specific geographic scope and set of service
characteristics. Likewise, the corridor project inventory that is a
major element of an SDP would be categorized by those projects required
to implement each discrete phase. With this approach, FRA intends both
to avoid a situation in which a corridor may be developed only as an
``all-or-nothing'' proposition, and to minimize the possibility that
near-term implementation of a corridor

would conflict with the longer-term implementation of the corridor.

F. Project Pipeline

    FRA will annually submit to Congress a project pipeline that
addresses the topics described in section III.F. above, including the
identification of capital projects necessary to implement corridors
developed under the Corridor ID Program. These capital projects will
consist of those ready for immediate implementation (i.e., to advance
towards the completion of final design and construction).
    FRA recognizes that not all capital projects included within the
corridor project inventory of an SDP--and particularly those projects
associated with a corridor's later implementation phases--will be
immediately advanced within the Corridor ID Program to prepare them for
implementation. As such, FRA also plans to include in its annual report
to Congress a separate list of those projects that are under active
development (i.e., projects conducting PE and NEPA work activities) for
future advancement into the project pipeline.

G. Funding

    As described above, funding for the Corridor ID Program is
available. FRA will provide this funding through cooperative agreements
with eligible entities, and will require not less than a 20 percent
non-Federal share of eligible costs, consistent with the requirements
of the Fed-State Partnership program.
    FRA will provide such funding consistent with the two stages of
project development for selected corridors described above. First, FRA
will provide funding for the preparation of an SDP (or to update an
existing SDP) and the completion of the additional planning and
engineering work required to fully-define a preliminary range of
reasonable alternatives for the capital projects identified as
necessary to implement the corridor. Second, following the successful
completion of the first stage, FRA will provide funding for applicable
PE and NEPA work activities for the corridor, to ready them for
implementation.

VI. Expressions of Interest

    FRA encourages eligible entities interested in submitting a
corridor proposal under the Corridor ID Program to submit a comment in
docket number FRA-2022-0031 available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Search by using the docket number and follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this Notice, and should be limited to the following
information: Name and contact information, a description of the entity
submitting the expression of interest, and the endpoints of the
corridor.

    Note:  All comments received, including any personal
information, will be posted without change to the docket and will be
accessible to the public at https://www.regulations.gov. You should
not include information in your comment that you do not want to be
made public. Input submitted online via www.regulations.gov is not
immediately posted to the site. It may take several business days
before your submission is posted.

VII. Next Steps

    FRA anticipates publishing a notice requesting proposals to
participate in the Corridor ID Program in the last quarter of the 2022
calendar year. That notice may include funding opportunities and will
provide detailed procedural and substantive Corridor ID Program
information.
    In addition, in connection with the administration of the Corridor
ID Program, FRA plans to provide guidance for intercity passenger rail
planning, including guidance for intercity passenger rail corridors not
selected by the Corridor ID Program, and to develop and refine
intercity passenger rail planning analytical tools and models. Lastly,
as the Corridor ID Program matures, FRA will likely develop additional
guidance in support of the program.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Paul Nissenbaum,
Asociate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-10250 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91160-91162]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-2-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549D and FERC-
733); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
requirements and burden \1\ of the information collections described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due February 14,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC17-2-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in
your comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection
requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the
current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is
distinct from the next.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

FERC-549D [Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate
Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines]

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0253.
    Abstract: The reporting requirements under FERC-549D are required
to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general
authority in Sections 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \2\ and
Sections 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).\3\ This
collection promotes transparency by collecting and making available
intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline transactional information. The
Commission collects the data upon a standardized form with all
requirements outlined in 18 CFR 284.126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 717-817-w.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC Form 549D collects the following information:
     Full legal name and identification number of the shipper
receiving service;
     Type of service performed for each transaction;
     The rate charged under each transaction;
     The primary receipt and delivery points for the
transaction, specifying the rate schedule/name of service and docket
were approved;
     The quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to
transport, store, and deliver for each transaction;
     The term of the transaction, specifying the beginning and
ending month and year of current agreement;
     Total volumes transported, stored, injected or withdrawn
for the shipper; and
     Annual revenues received for each shipper, excluding
revenues from storage services.
    Filers submit the Form-549D on a quarterly basis.
    Access to the FERC-549D Information Collection Materials: A copy of
the current form and related materials can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#549d, but will not be included in
the Federal Register. The Commission will not publish these materials
in the Federal Register.
    Type of Respondent: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                                                                        FERC-549D
                             [Quarterly transportation and storage report for interstate natural gas and hinshaw pipelines]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                      Number of     Annual number   Total number of   Average burden     burden hours        Cost per
                                                     respondents     of responses      responses       and cost per    and total annual   respondent ($)
                                                                    per respondent                     response \4\          cost
                                                              (1)              (2)  (1) * (2) = (3)               (4)   (3) * (4) = (5)        (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDF filings......................................              76                4              304      12.5, $1,048   3,800, $318,516           $4,191
XML filings......................................              33                4              132          10, $832   1,320, $110,642            3,352
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................  ..............  ...............              436  ................   5,120, $429,158  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-733 [Demand Response/Time-Based Rate Programs and Advanced
Metering]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The hourly wage figure is $83.82/hour. This cost represents
the average cost of four career fields: Legal ($129.12/hour),
Accountants ($53.86/hour), Management Analyst ($60.53/hour), and
Computer and Information ($91.76/hour); this cost also includes
benefit costs within the hourly estimates. These figures were
compiled using Bureau of Labor Statistics data that were specific to
each occupational category: http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0271.
    Abstract: Section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,\5\
requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate region, that
assesses demand response resources, including those available from all
consumer classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 Section 1252(e)(3) requires
that the Commission identify and review:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public Law 109-58, 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 966 (2005)
(EPAct 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and
communications technologies, devices and systems;
    (B) existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;
    (C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;
    (D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable
resource for regional planning purposes;
    (E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning
and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of
any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party;
and

    (F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in
demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.
    Type of Respondent: Persons interested in the above topics.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Annual  number of                      Average  burden    Total annual  burden
                Number of respondents                     responses per    Total number  of    and cost  per       hours and  total         Cost per
                                                           respondent         responses         response \6\         annual cost        respondent  ($)
(1)                                                                 (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)                (4)        (3) * (4) = (5)          (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,400................................................                 1              3,400    260.75, $19,426   886,550, $66,047,975            $19,426
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
2016 FERC average salary plus benefits of $154,647/year (or $74.50/
hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this
information collection is typically done by wage categories similar
to those at FERC.

    Dated: December 9, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30208 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14912-14913]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 129

International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program Change

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: This statement describes a policy change to the FAA's
International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program. The FAA wants
to ensure that countries do not remain on this listing when the results
of the FAA's IASA determinations as to those countries might no longer
be accurate or reasonably current. The FAA is accordingly adopting a
procedure to remove a country from the IASA program summary listing
when that country's air carriers no longer provide air service to the
United States, none of the country's air carriers participates in code-
share arrangements with U.S. air carriers, and the country's civil
aviation authority (CAA) has ceased interacting with the FAA for an
extended period of time. The FAA is making this change to improve the
quality of the IASA summary listing. This statement also explains IASA
Categories 1 and 2 in terms of what the flying public may reasonably
take them to mean. This document modifies the IASA policies previously
announced by the FAA.

DATES: Effective date: April 8, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manager of the International Programs
and Policy Division (AFS-50), Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Removal of Inactive Countries; and Public Expectations of IASA
Categories

Removal of Inactive Countries
    Under the IASA program, the FAA assesses whether another country's
oversight of its air carriers that operate, or seek to operate, into
the U.S., or codeshare with a U.S. air carrier, complies with
international aviation safety standards established by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The FAA maintains and
publishes a country-by-country summary listing of the results of its
IASA determinations. Some countries continue to be listed on the IASA
summary, whether in Category 1 or 2, even though the countries have no
air carriers that are serving the United States or code sharing with
one or more U.S. partner airlines. Because of the lack of air service
to the United States, there is minimal, if any, interaction between the
FAA and the subject CAAs. To date, countries have not been removed from
the category listing for inactivity, even though the safety oversight
information previously collected may become stale and unreliable. To
improve the quality of information on the IASA program summary category
listing, the FAA is initiating a process to remove inactive countries
from the listing.
    Information generated by the IASA program is used by the U.S. and
foreign governments, the aviation industry, and the traveling public.
IASA information disseminated should be accurate and reasonably
current. To this end, countries whose IASA information can no longer be
considered accurate and reasonably current will be removed from the
published IASA summary listing.
    In determining whether a country's IASA information is no longer
accurate and reasonably current, we will proceed on the basis that if,
after a four year period, a country has no air carrier providing air
transport service to the United States, none of the country's air
carriers participates in code-share arrangements with U.S. air
carriers, and the CAA does not interact significantly with the FAA, the
FAA will remove that country from the IASA summary category listing.
These criteria will be applied immediately in a review of countries
currently on the list and on a continual basis going forward.
    Before the FAA removes a country from the IASA program listing, the
country's CAA will receive formal notification prior to the removal.
Just as it does when a country is added to the list or a country's IASA
category is changed, the FAA will notify the public regarding the
removal of a country from the IASA summary listing.
    Once a country is removed from the IASA summary listing, a full
reassessment of the CAA must be conducted before the country can be
rated in the IASA program and before a carrier subject to that
country's aviation safety oversight can serve the United States using
its own aircraft or can put a U.S. carrier code on its flights.

Public Expectations of IASA Category Ratings

    Members of the public have asked what the IASA category rating for
a country means when they are making transportation choices. Category 1
means that the FAA has found that the country meets ICAO Standards for
safety oversight of civil aviation. Category 2 means that the FAA has
found that the country does not meet those Standards. The ICAO
Standards are presumptively binding on ICAO Member States as
signatories to the Chicago Convention. The Standards are promulgated
from time to time by ICAO and grouped by subject matter (for example,
airline personnel licensing or operation of aircraft) in Annexes to the
Chicago Convention.
    The FAA normally determines the appropriate IASA category rating
for a country using information collected during an in-country
assessment of that country's CAA. The FAA also may consider other
reliable sources of information on a CAA's compliance with
international standards when making a determination of safety oversight
under the IASA program. The FAA may use the information developed by
these other sources to supplement the information developed during an
FAA assessment of the CAA, or to entirely replace the assessment
altogether, when making an IASA category determination.
    In conducting its IASA assessments, the FAA uses a standardized
checklist that groups the ICAO Standards on safety oversight into eight
critical elements: (1) Primary aviation legislation, (2) specific
operating regulations, (3) organization structure

and safety oversight functions, (4) technical personnel qualification
and training, (5) technical guidance, (6) certification personnel and
procedures, (7) surveillance obligations, and (8) resolution of safety
issues. To achieve Category 1, the country must demonstrate that it
meets the ICAO Standards for each of the eight elements. Category 2
means that the CAA was noncompliant in at least one critical element.
The IASA assessment typically is conducted over the course of one week
by a team consisting of a team leader and at least one expert in
operations, maintenance, and aviation law. Each FAA expert works
through the checklist with host country officials for each of the
critical elements. The team looks at a representative sampling of
records and processes, and it follows up with host country aviation
officials if deficiencies appear.
    The FAA assessment focuses on the ability of the host country's
aeronautical authorities to oversee the operational safety of its
airlines. It does not assess the safety compliance of any particular
air carrier (nor does it address aviation security, airports, or air
traffic management). Although the FAA assessment team typically visits
one or more air carriers during its mission, it does so only to verify
the relationship between the carrier and the country's aviation safety
officials, not to assess the carrier itself.
    Finally, the IASA category rating applies only to services to and
from the United States and to codeshare operations when the code of a
U.S. air carrier is placed on a foreign carrier flight. The category
ratings do not apply to a foreign carrier's domestic flights or to
flights by that carrier between its homeland and a third country. The
assessment team looks at those flights only to the extent that they
reflect on the country's oversight of operations to and from the United
States and to codeshare operations where a U.S. air carrier code is
placed on a flight conducted by a foreign operator.
    In short, a category 1 rating means that, as to the operations by a
category 1 country's carriers between that country and the United
States, and when the code of a U.S. air carrier is placed on a foreign
carrier flight, the FAA has found that the country's civil aviation
authorities exercise safety oversight over those carriers consistent
with international safety standards. A Category 2 rating, on the other
hand, means the FAA has found that, in at least one critical area, the
safety measures applied by the country's civil aviation authorities do
not meet international standards.
    Current IASA category determinations for countries included in the
IASA categorization system are available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2013.
Margaret Gilligan,
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-05452 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P