[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56655-56656]
[DOCID:fr28se05-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EY05-14-001, RM01-10-000 and EY05-13-000]

Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers and Entergy
Services, Inc.; Notice Granting Extension of Waiver of Recordkeeping
Requirements

September 16, 2005.
    Due to the emergency conditions in the Gulf Coast area of the
United States created by Hurricane Katrina, on August 31, 2005, the
Commission issued a notice that, among other things, allowed affected
transmission providers to delay, until September 30, 2005, compliance
with the requirement of section 358.4(a)(2) of the Commission's
regulations, 18 CFR 358.4(a)(2)(2005), to report to the Commission and
post on the OASIS or Internet Web site, as applicable, each emergency
that resulted in any deviation from the standards of conduct.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice Granting Extension Of Time To Comply With Posting And
Other Requirements, Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers,
Docket No. EY05-14-000, et al. (August 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the extreme nature of the emergency, the Commission also
waived, on September 7, 2005, the requirement to record and retain a
record of each deviation of the standards of conduct, until September
16, 2005.\2\ The notice added that ``[t]he

Commission [would] consider extending the waiver if it continues to be
needed after that date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Notice Waiving Recordkeeping Requirements, Standards of
Conduct for Transmission Providers, Docket Nos. EY05-14-001 and
RM01-10-000 (September 7, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entergy Services, on behalf of Entergy Operating Companies, seeks a
two-week extension, through September 30, 2005, of the waiver of the
requirement that Entergy record a log of each individual deviation from
the standards of conduct associated with the information sharing and
joint operations activities necessitated by the hurricane. It explains
that due to the extreme flooding and damage caused by the hurricane in
the City of New Orleans and the Amite-South area, it continues to
experience emergency circumstances affecting system reliability,
including a previously-unseen stability limit. These circumstances,
according to Entergy, require detailed communication, coordination and
joint operations among Entergy's transmission and merchant units on
virtually an hourly basis and the requirement to log each individual
deviation would be an extremely burdensome task that would complicate
Entergy's restoration operation. Entergy proposes to limit the
application of the waiver to deviations associated with information
sharing and joint operations activities necessitated by Hurricane
Katrina, but would not apply to deviations from standard OATT
practices.
    The Commission grants Entergy's request for this limited waiver
under these emergency circumstances.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5214 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40065-40066]
[DOCID:fr11au09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0225; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-4]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Plentywood, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Plentywood, MT.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new
Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Plentywood Sher-Wood Airport,
Plentywood, MT. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Plentywood Sher-Wood
Airport, Plentywood, MT.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 22, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 28, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking to establish additional controlled airspace at
Plentywood, MT (74 FR 25459). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Plentywood, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary
to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV (GPS) approach
procedure at Plentywood Sher-Wood Airport, Plentywood, MT.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at Plentywood Sher-Wood Airport, Plentywood, MT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT, E5 Plentywood, MT [New]

Plentywood Sher-Wood Airport, MT
    (Lat. 48[deg]47[min]19[sec] N., long. 104[deg]31[min]23[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Plentywood Sher-Wood Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface of the
earth bounded by a line beginning at lat. 49[deg]00[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 105[deg]02[min]00[sec] W.; to lat. 49[deg]00[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 104[deg]02[min]00[sec] W.; to lat. 48[deg]32[min]35[sec] N.,
long. 104[deg]02[min]00[sec] W.; to lat. 48[deg]27[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 104[deg]11[min]12[sec] W.; to lat. 48[deg]40[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 105[deg]02[min]00[sec] W.; thence to the point of origin.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 31, 2009.
H. Steve Karnes,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-19031 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

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:

    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

(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.

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