[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57450-57454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2012-0066]


State Rail Plan Guidance

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

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final State Rail Plan Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is publishing this notice to announce the availability of 
final State Rail Plan Guidance. The purpose of FRA's final State Rail 
Plan Guidance is to describe the processes for the development, 
submission, and acceptance of State rail plans. State rail plans are 
documents that are required under Section 303 of the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Section 303 of PRIIA 
provides for enhanced State involvement in rail policy, planning, and 
development efforts, including requiring States to develop FRA-accepted 
State rail plans in order to be eligible for the capital grants 
authorized in the Act and available under the High-Speed Intercity 
Passenger Rail program. This guidance provides an explanation of the 
process to be followed in developing State rail plans, FRA's process 
for reviewing and accepting State rail plans, a standardized format, 
and a list of the minimum content requirements for State rail plans. 
The State Rail Plan Guidance is available on FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0511.

DATES: The final State Rail Plan Guidance is effective as of the 
publication of this notice on September 18, 2013.
    Applicability: Any State rail plan whose development is begun after 
publication of this notice must adhere to the standardized format and 
minimum content requirements defined within the guidance in order to be 
accepted by the FRA.

[[Page 57451]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, 
please contact Kyle Gradinger, Transportation Industry Analyst, Office 
of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W38-202, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 
(202) 493-6191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final State Rail Plan Guidance was prepared 
through a notice and comment process involving publication of draft 
guidance announced in the August 28, 2012 issue of the Federal 
Register, soliciting public review and comment over the following 90 
day period. FRA received 121 individual comments from 55 respondents. 
Comments were received from a diverse group comprised of eight (8) 
State departments of transportation, one (1) metropolitan planning 
organization (MPO), eleven (11) trade organizations, five (5) national 
stakeholder organizations, one (1) private individual, and one (1) 
public transportation service provider.
    Broad support was offered by commenters for preparing State rail 
plans as part of a comprehensive, coordinated planning framework within 
and among States, and for addressing passenger and freight needs in an 
integrated, coordinated way. Almost unanimous support was offered for 
integrating, to the extent possible, preparation of State rail plans 
with the statewide/nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation 
planning programs required under the Federal-aid Highway and Federal 
Transit titles--23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C., respectively. 
Similarly, it is within that expanded transportation planning context 
of States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) that 
commenters proposed engagement of an expansive range of stakeholder 
interests in State rail plan development--spanning industry, 
government, labor, local communities, and the private sector.
    However, concerns were expressed by commenters for several 
procedural aspects of State rail plan preparation, including data 
collection and the depth of impact assessment required for the rail 
infrastructure, facilities, and service improvements contained in State 
rail plans. Other issues raised by commenters included the importance 
of involving private rail interests in meaningful ways in State rail 
plan development, while respecting the proprietary nature of their 
operational and financial records. These comments are grouped and 
summarized below by topic with FRA responses.

Coordination With Statewide/Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan 
Transportation Planning

    Several comments were received supporting full coordination of 
State rail plan development with the statewide/nonmetropolitan and 
metropolitan transportation planning programs required under 23 U.S.C. 
and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C. Commenters recommended a range of specific 
planning work activities and planning products that represent the best 
opportunities for coordination with State rail plan development. 
Following are the details of comments provided and FRA responses 
regarding coordination between State rail plan development and the 
transportation planning processes carried out by States and MPOs.
    Several commenters proposed that States prepare State rail plans as 
part of metropolitan and statewide/nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning processes in order to eliminate duplication of effort. 
Particular concern was expressed for not establishing a separate 
planning process for State rail plans--apart from those existing 
planning processes. It was proposed that States be able to incorporate 
visions, plans, and priorities that consider rail as one of many 
transportation modes, in a single statewide transportation plan, with 
the State rail plan incorporated within the overall plan or as an 
addendum. A commenter also requested clarification of the term 
``compatible,'' as it was used in the draft guidance to describe the 
relationship between the State rail plan and planning processes. 
Response: FRA has revised the draft guidance to emphasize the 
importance of preparing State rail plans within the policy and 
procedural contexts of the multimodal transportation planning processes 
conducted by states and MPOs and to integrate the documents as much as 
possible. In revising the guidance, FRA was careful not to convey the 
MAP-21 financial constraint requirements associated with highway and 
transit listings to the rail proposals listed in the State rail plan. 
Also, to improve clarity, the term ``compatible'' was replaced with 
language calling for state rail plans to be generally consistent with 
other planning documents and policies.
    A commenter recommended that the guidance stipulate that State rail 
plans should be prepared in coordination with the new freight planning 
activities carried out by States in accordance with MAP-21. The 
commenter proposed that the guidance direct States to describe how 
their State's long-term vision for rail integrates with the State 
Freight Plan, as well as the National Freight Policy, the National 
Freight Strategic Plan, and the National Export Initiative. Another 
commenter recommended that State rail plans include in depth discussion 
of the changing freight market. Response: FRA agrees that State rail 
plans should be prepared with full understanding of the current and 
emerging freight, as well as passenger, markets and has revised the 
guidance accordingly. Language also has been added to the guidance 
recommending that States coordinate preparation of State freight plans 
and State rail plans.
    A commenter proposed closer coordination between FRA and FHWA and 
State highway offices, suggesting that States be required to consider 
the cross-effects of investment in rail and highway improvements, 
including consideration of rail when planning future highway 
investments. Another commenter recommends that the guidance 
specifically require State rail plans to identify the potential impacts 
of individual projects, as well as the combined impact of all projects 
in the State rail plan. Specifically, they recommended that local 
transit modes be added to the list of ``highway, aviation and maritime 
modes'' included in the draft guidance. Response: FRA added ``local 
transit'' to the list of modes for which potential impacts of State 
rail plan implementation should be analyzed and added emphasis about 
the need to assess potential project impacts on an individual, as well 
as combined, basis.
    A commenter recommended revising the guidance to promote 
consistency between the performance measures used in preparing State 
rail plans and those used in the statewide/nonmetropolitan and 
metropolitan transportation planning process, including use of easy-to-
read tables. Response: FRA agrees that using consistent performance 
measures is preferable and has revised the guidance to include 
reference to using performance measures in coordination with those used 
in broader transportation planning processes, including promoting 
consistency with transit asset management plans required under MAP-21.
    A commenter recommended changing the 5-year state rail plan update 
cycle included in the draft guidance to a 4-year cycle, for consistency 
with the document update cycles prescribed in MAP-21 for planning 
documents. Another commenter proposed annual updates. Response: The 5-
year update provision is set forth in PRIIA and cannot be changed. 
However, FRA agrees that the update cycles of State

[[Page 57452]]

rail plans should be aligned, to the extent possible, with other 
planning documents. Accordingly, the guidance has been revised to 
encourage States to update State rail plans on a consistent cycle with 
other planning documents, at least every 5 years.
    A commenter suggested that the guidance be revised to allow States 
the flexibility to align the planning horizons of State rail plans with 
those used in their other planning and programming documents. Response: 
FRA has revised the guidance to allow States to use longer horizon time 
periods for the Rail Service and Investment Program as long as it 
identifies specific projects for the 4-year short-term and 20-year 
vision components.
    A commenter recommended adding a requirement that statewide/
nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation planning processes 
consider the rail transportation needs of military and federal 
facilities where appropriate and where regional transportation has an 
impact on ``military readiness.'' Response: FRA has revised the 
guidance to require States to identify Strategic Rail Corridor Network 
(STRACNET) facilities in the State rail plans. In addition, revisions 
also were made to encourage States to include the rail transportation 
needs of military and federal facilities in their statewide/
nonmetropolitan planning processes, as well as in development of State 
rail plans, as appropriate.
    A commenter recommended that the FRA Regional Manager be included 
as a non-voting member on MPO policy boards. Response: While FRA staff 
can provide technical assistance to States during State rail plan 
development and MPOs have broad latitude to include non-voting members 
from Federal and non-Federal agencies, recommending such action is 
beyond the scope of PRIIA and this guidance.
    A commenter questioned the focus directed to ``megaregions,'' in 
that the concept does not apply to rural States as they seek to 
accommodate their product shipment needs, as well as serving as 
through-movement ``bridge states'' for transporting goods to market. 
Response: FRA has revised the guidance to reference rail service needs 
within and between mega-regions, as well as to passenger service and 
freight movement needs in all other appropriate sections of the 
country.

Public and Stakeholder Involvement

    Several comments were received that recommended linking public 
involvement processes during State rail plan development with the 
statewide/nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation planning 
programs required under 23 U.S.C. and Chapter 53 of 49 U.S.C. Following 
are the detailed comments provided and FRA responses regarding 
coordination of public and stakeholder involvement between State rail 
plan development and the transportation planning processes carried out 
by States and MPOs.
    Commenters recommended that the guidance explicitly require that 
draft State rail plans be presented for public comment for at least 30 
days prior to being submitted to the FRA for acceptance, as well as 
identify milestones and minimum standards for stakeholder and public 
involvement that emphasize collaborative partnerships. Response: The 
guidance has been revised to encourage States to conduct stakeholder 
involvement in full coordination with, or incorporated within, the 
public involvement activities conducted by States and MPOs in their 
respective transportation planning processes. Federal requirements for 
transportation planning (23 CFR part 450) call for those public 
involvement processes to be developed by State and local officials, not 
the Federal government, and to be prepared in collaboration with the 
public and stakeholders. The agreed upon public involvement processes 
must then be documented and periodically evaluated for effectiveness.
    Several commenters called for greater clarity of the role of 
freight rail, noting the unique position, perspectives, and interests 
of privately owned freight rail lines--as owners, operators, investors, 
and private sector partners in rail development. Comments particularly 
focused on the need for States to respect the proprietary nature of 
inventory and operations data held by private freight rail operators 
and to protect the confidentiality of such data if obtained for use in 
State rail plan development. Concern was expressed for including 
privately funded rail improvements in the State rail plan, as privately 
funded improvements typically are not included in the plans of States 
and MPOs. Response: FRA recognizes limitations to imposing requirements 
on and requesting data from private operators and the guidance has been 
revised to stress the importance of obtaining private freight rail 
perspectives in State rail plan development while respecting their 
private business status and the proprietary nature of their market and 
operating data. Language requesting States to include privately funded 
rail facility improvements in State and MPO plans, TIPs, and STIPs was 
retained for information and coordination purposes.
    Several commenters noted how rail unions both influence, and are 
influenced by, the contents of State rail plans, and recommended that 
those organizations be explicitly mentioned among the stakeholder 
interests. Response: FRA has added ``Rail Labor Organizations'' to the 
list of stakeholder interests for which an opportunity to contribute to 
and comment on the development of the State rail plan should be 
provided.
    A commenter recommended including MPOs among the list of 
stakeholders with whom State rail plan development should be 
coordinated. Response: FRA has added focus on engaging MPOs in the 
development of State rail plans in the revised guidance.

Content and Format of State Rail Plans

    Several comments were received recommending a relaxation of the 
level of detail required of the proposed improvements in the 20-year 
State rail plan, as well as potential sources of funding and analysis 
of impacts. Other topics were proposed for more detailed discussion, 
including the role and planning implication of public-private 
partnerships, integrated planning for passenger and freight rail, and 
reference to Service Development Plans (SDPs) in the State rail plan 
documents.
    A commenter suggested requiring less detailed information on 
commuter rail activities because the State rail plan qualifies States 
to receive grants for high-speed rail only. Response: Operational 
information about all relevant services, including intercity and 
commuter rail, is needed for coordinated planning. Such information 
should be readily available from the public operators of commuter rail. 
Accordingly, the guidance was not changed.
    A commenter expressed concern for requiring inclusion of a detailed 
list of rail capital projects in the State rail plan due to the cost 
and administrative burden, as well as the separate MAP-21 requirements 
for highway and transit project listings in the STIP. Several other 
commenters questioned the need to identify the distribution of benefits 
from rail service implementation to regions. Response: PRIIA requires 
State rail plans to include a list of proposed rail improvements, as 
well as an analysis of the distribution of benefits to regions. 
Accordingly, FRA has not modified those provisions in the guidance. 
However, inclusion of rail improvements in the TIPs/STIPs prepared by 
MPOs and States, while encouraged by the guidance, is not

[[Page 57453]]

required. The guidance has been revised to clarify that inclusion of 
rail improvements in TIPs/STIPs is for information and coordination 
purposes only.
    Several commenters expressed concern for the level and detail of 
analysis of rail's impact on the range of factors published in the 
guidance, including congestion mitigation, safety, economic 
development, air quality, land use, and energy use. A commenter 
proposed that the impact analyses for the 20-year plan be conducted on 
a corridor-basis, rather than at the project level. Another commenter 
expressed concern that specific financing strategies and the level of 
detail requested for data associated with the passenger and freight 
rail proposals are too detailed for projects in the early stages of 
planning over a 20-year period. Response: FRA agrees that the 
descriptive detail of individual rail proposals and discussion of their 
potential impacts should be most detailed for the immediate 4-year 
phase of the Rail Service Investment Program, with a more aggregate, 
general description of impacts and financial information that is 
``reasonably expected'' for the outer years of the full 20-year plan. 
The guidance was revised accordingly, with distinction between the 
information that is expected of the 4-year phase vs. the outer years of 
the 20-year plan.
    A commenter proposed expanding the discussion of public private 
partnerships (PPP) to include a fuller description of the concept, 
benefits, and supportive planning techniques associated with PPPs. 
Response: Text regarding the value of PPPs in rail development and 
operation has been added.
    A commenter noted that planning for passenger and freight rail 
needs to take place in a coordinated, non-competitive fashion. It was 
recommended that narrative be added to the guidance to describe the 
shared rail synergies and win-win solutions that are possible with 
passenger and freight coordination. Response: FRA supports coordinated 
and integrated rail planning and operation across passenger and freight 
markets and has revised the guidance in several sections accordingly.
    A commenter suggested that States be required to include discussion 
of SDPs in State rail plans. Response: While an SDP is a vital plan for 
passenger rail corridor investment, the time horizon of each SDP may 
not always fit within every State's long-range rail improvement 
framework. States may optionally choose to include discussion of SDPs 
where they exist.

Procedures for Preparing and Submitting State Rail Plans

    Several comments were received regarding the administrative 
preparation of State rail plans, as well as review and acceptance by 
FRA. Some commenters proposed increasing the frequency of State rail 
plan updates and lengthening the planning horizon. Other commenters 
requested clarification of when and how FRA would review the draft 
documents.
    A commenter sought clarification of the eligibility of States to 
receive funding under Section 301, 302, and 501 of PRIIA if their State 
rail plans were under development at the time of publication of final 
State Rail Plan Guidance. Another commenter requested clarification of 
FRA's timetable for reviewing and accepting State rail plans if a 
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) should happen to be issued for 
capital grants under Sections 301, 302, and 501 prior to ``acceptance'' 
of the plan by FRA. Response: The guidance has been revised to clarify 
that State rail plans that were in preparation prior to issuance of 
this final guidance, and that substantially meet the requirements of 
PRIIA, will be deemed by FRA to meet program and project eligibility 
requirements for grants authorized under Sections 301, 302, and 501 of 
PRIIA. The guidance has been revised to add that a State rail plan for 
which contractor assistance had reached the ``notice-to-proceed'' stage 
will be considered ``underway.'' Also, FRA will exercise due diligence 
in reviewing as-yet-unapproved State rail plans in a timely manner when 
any future funding NOFAs may be issued.
    A commenter questioned the need for States to establish two 
separate authorities and asked if a single authority could serve both 
purposes. Response: PRIIA calls for States to designate the two 
authorities noted above; however the guidance was revised to indicate 
that the same State entity can serve both purposes.
    A commenter suggested that the guidance outline a clear process and 
timeline for FRA review and acceptance of draft and final State rail 
plans, as well as a process for submitting amended State rail plans. 
Response: The published draft guidance described a formal process for 
State rail plan submittal to FRA and notification of receipt by FRA, 
upon which FRA has committed to a 90-day review and acceptance 
schedule. Language has been added clarifying that updates of State rail 
plans may be submitted at any time the State deems necessary, for which 
FRA would follow the process described for all plan submissions--
regardless of their frequency or what triggered the update.
    A commenter noted potentially conflicting statements in the 
guidance regarding submission of State rail plans in draft form to FRA 
vs. transmittal of the final draft. Response: The guidance was 
clarified to describe how States are encouraged to submit preliminary 
drafts of their State rail plans to FRA for review and comment prior to 
formal submission of the final draft plan.

Data Requirements for State Rail Plans

    Most commenters expressed concern for the amount of data collection 
and analysis required in State rail plans--particularly for rail 
concepts that were more than 20 years in the future. Commenters 
expressed concern for the availability of data, particularly for 
privately owned/operated services. Special attention was proposed for 
collecting information around stations and intermodal transfer points.
    A commenter noted that data was not available for all of the 
metrics contained in Section 207 of PRIIA and that States should be 
responsible only for accessing information that is actually available. 
Two other commenters proposed that FRA assemble the required data 
inventories and provide them to the States as a cost-saving measure and 
to ensure consistency. Response: FRA has revised the guidance to 
indicate that only available data should be required for inclusion in 
State rail plans. The suggestion that FRA compile the necessary data 
resources will be taken under advisement and considered, subject to 
resource availability at the Federal level.
    A commenter noted that the effort entailed in compiling demographic 
data for all station areas could be excessive. Four other commenters 
expressed concern that assembling detailed information on station 
facility improvements and area land use plans would be excessive and 
possibly duplicative of local plans, necessitating the provision of 
more detailed guidance on the methodologies and data inputs. Response: 
The guidance has been revised to remove the request for detailed 
demographic data and instead promotes close integration of State rail 
plan development within the statewide/nonmetropolitan transportation 
planning process, which could provide ready access to land use data for 
entire study areas, corridors, and station-specific information. FRA 
also agrees with the concern about collecting information on 
improvements to non-major station facilities and has revised

[[Page 57454]]

the presentation of that information at a summary or program level. 
However, station information for major passenger and freight intermodal 
connections and facilities is an explicit provision in PRIIA, and 
remains a part of the guidance. Lastly, the guidance was revised to 
call for ``a summary level of discussion'' on land use impacts.
    A commenter expressed concern for reporting station-to-station 
intrastate ridership for any but the top ten city pairs, proposing that 
States simply report boardings and alightings. Response: A 
comprehensive profile of current usage is a critical component to 
preparation of a credible State rail plan, and limiting ridership flows 
to the top city pairs will not provide useful information on growth 
trends in small and mid-sized markets. Therefore, no change has been 
made.
    Several commenters proposed not collecting information on the 
owner/operator status of rail lines, citing the difficulty, expense, 
and inconsistency with PRIIA. Response: Owner/operator status of rail 
lines as a key element of the inventory of the existing rail services 
and facilities within the State, which is an explicit requirement of 
PRIIA. The guidance has been revised to identify the availability of 
the data in GIS format from the National Transportation Atlas Database 
(NTAD), which is maintained online by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. In addition, information on publicly funded commuter 
rail operations should be available through the MPO if in an urbanized 
area or State if in a non-urbanized area.
    A commenter regarded ``railway assets currently out of service or 
rail banked'' as abandoned and expressed concern for the burden of 
assembling an inventory of those lines. Response: Rail-banked and out 
of service rail lines have not been formally abandoned and therefore 
remain important rail facilities to be inventoried.
    A commenter recommended adding a section on passenger station needs 
and plans. Response: FRA agrees that station planning, including 
consideration of usage, station area development and interfaces with 
other modes, is important and the topic has been added to the guidance.
    A commenter suggested that evaluation of passenger rail projects 
for impact on livability, land use, and walkability would be too 
detailed for a statewide level document describing projects at the 
systems planning stage of development. Response: FRA has revised the 
guidance to call for analysis of land use impacts only for those 
projects that have reached the environmental analysis phase, with a 
summary discussion of land use impacts required elsewhere.
    A commenter requested that FRA provide benefit-cost formulas for 
use by States. Response: Currently, FRA does not have specific guidance 
on benefit-cost analyses but may be able to provide technical 
assistance upon request. However, the DOT Office of Inspector General 
recently released a report highlighting best practices in conducting 
rail benefits assessments, available at: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/OIG-HSR-Best-Practice-Public-Benefits-Report.pdf. 
Additionally, benefit-cost guidance used for the TIGER grant program 
can be used to structure a rail analysis: http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/TIGER%202013%20NOFA_BCA%20Guidance_0.pdf.
    A commenter requested more information on the list of performance 
measures proposed in Appendix 1 for possible inclusion in Section 2.1. 
Response: The guidance was not revised because the measures were listed 
as optional information items offered for consideration, subject to 
their availability.
    A commenter suggested that ridership information may not be 
available from more than 5 years prior and proposed modifying the 
request to apply to only the previous five years. Another commenter 
noted that passenger train miles (adjusted for cancellations/
terminations) is typically available only from Amtrak. Another 
commenter proposed that passenger mile data be provided on a route 
basis. Response: FRA has revised the guidance to request data only for 
only the past 5 years, with States encouraged to use data from earlier 
years if they have it. The guidance also was revised to advise that 
``general estimates'' of passenger mile data are acceptable for state-
supported services, with route-level data acceptable for long-distance 
trains.
    A commenter expressed concern for the lack of intercity rail mode 
share data, as required by the draft guidance for State rail plans. 
Response: FRA has revised the guidance to require inclusion of mode 
share data only if it is available, or able to be calculated, through 
the use of existing information.
    A commenter suggested that commuter rail mode share be calculated 
as commuter rail trips per total public transit trips. Response: FRA 
has retained the definition given in the draft guidance in order to 
provide a consistent measurement standard for all State rail plans. 
Individual States may optionally choose additional measures and 
alternative definitions of mode share if they wish.

Availability of Final Guidance

    Notice is hereby given that FRA has released final State Rail Plan 
Guidance, which is available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0511. The 
purpose of FRA's final State Rail Plan Guidance is to describe the 
processes for the development, submission, and acceptance of State rail 
plans. State rail plans are documents that are required under Section 
303 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.

Paul Nissenbaum,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-22679 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P