Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Implementation Guidance for the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4622]

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Implementation

Guidance for the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and

the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments; solicitation of applications for

fiscal year (FY) 2000 grants.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides implementation guidance on section 1118

and 1119 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-

21). These sections established the National Corridor Planning and

Development Program (NCPD program) and the Coordinated Border

Infrastructure Program (CBI program). The NCPD and the CBI programs are

funded by a single funding source. These programs provide funding for

planning, project development, construction and operation of projects

that serve border regions near Mexico and Canada and high priority

corridors throughout the United States. States and metropolitan

planning organizations (MPOs) are, under the NCPD program, eligible for

discretionary grants for: Corridor feasibility; corridor planning;

multistate coordination; environmental review; and construction. Border

States and (MPOs) are, under the CBI program, eligible for

discretionary grants for: Transportation and safety infrastructure

improvements, operation and regulatory improvements, and coordination

and safety inspection improvements in a border region.

DATES: Grant applications should be received by FHWA Division Offices

on November 29, 1999. Specific information required in grant

applications is provided in Section III of this notice. Comments on

program implementation should be received on or before January 27,

2000. The additional time is provided so that any applicants can use

the first 60 days to fully concentrate on preparing grant applications

and, subsequently, to use information developed during that time to

formulate comments in the following 90 days. The FHWA will consider

comments received in developing the FY 2001 solicitation of grant

applications. More information on the type of comments sought by the

FHWA is provided in Section II of this notice.

[[Page 47223]]

ADDRESSES: You signed, written comments on program implementation for

FY 2001 and beyond should refer to the docket number appearing at the

top of this document and you must submit the comments to the Docket

Clerk, US DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for

examination at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring

notification of receipt of comments should include a self-addressed,

stamped envelope or postcard.

Applications for FY 2000 grants under the NCPD and CBI programs

should be submitted to the FHWA Division Office in the State where the

applicant is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues: Mr. Martin Weiss,

Office of Intermodal and Statewide Programs, HEPS, (202) 366-5010; or

for legal issues: Mrs. Diane Mobley (for the NCPD program), Office of

the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1366; or Ms. Grace Reidy (for the

CBI program), Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-6226;

Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington D.C.

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):

http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each

year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and

help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a

computer, modem and suitable communications software from the

Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Service at (202) #512-

1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's

home page at: http://www.access.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government

Printing Office's web page at htt://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

In addition, a number of documents and links concerning the NCPD

and CBI programs are available though the home page of the Corridor/

Border Programs: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/corbor.html.

Background

Sections 1118 and 1119 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.

107, at 161, establish the NCPD and CBI programs, respectively. These

programs respond to substantial interest dating from, as early as,

1991. In that year, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, designated a number of

high priority corridors. Subsequent legislation modified the corridor

descriptions and designated additional corridors. Citizen and civic

groups promoted many of these corridors as, for example, a means to

accommodate international trade. Similarly, since 1991, a number of

studies identified infrastructure and operation deficiencies near the

U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. Also various groups, some

international and/or intergovernmental, studies opportunities to

improve infrastructure and operations.

In 1997, the DOT's Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 was established.

The strategic goals in this plan are: Safety, mobility, economic growth

and trade, human and natural environment, and national security. In

1998, the FHWA's National Strategic Plan was established. The strategic

goals in this plan are: Mobility, safety, productivity, human and

natural environment and national security. Both sets of goals are

consistent with the language of TEA-21, including sections 1118 and

1119.

The NCPD and CBI programs are funded by a single funding source.

The combined authorized funding for these two programs is $140 million

in each year from FY 1999 and FY 2003 (a total of $700 million).

However, obligations are limited each year by the requirements of

section 1102 (Obligation Ceiling) of the TEA-21.

Under the NCPD program, funds are available to States and MPOs for

coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national

significance, economic growth, and international or interregional

trade. Under the CBI program, funds are available to border States and

MPOs for projects to improve the safe movement of people and goods at,

or across, the border between the United States and Canada, and the

border between the United States and Mexico. In addition, the Secretary

may transfer up to a total of $10 million of combined program funds,

over the life of the TEA-21, to the Administrator of General Services

for the construction of transportation infrastructure necessary for law

enforcement in border States. Such transfer(s) will be made, based on

funding requested and supporting information furnished by the

Administrator of General Services. Finally, the Secretary of

Transportation (the Secretary) will implement any provisions in

legislation that directs that FY 2000 NCPD/CBI funds be used for

specific projects. Based on the factors noted above (i.e., obligation

limitations, transfer of funds to GSA and legislation), the FHWA

anticipates that between $95 million and $130 million will be available

for allocation for projects submitted in response to this notice.

The Federal share for these funds is set by 23 U.S.C. 120

(generally 80 percent plus the sliding scale adjustment in States with

substantial public lands). The period of availability for obligation is

the fiscal year for which the funds are authorized and the three years

following. States which receive an allocation of funds under these

programs will, at the same time, receive an increase in obligation

equal to the allocation. Under section 1102 of TEA-21, obligation

authority for discretionary programs that is provided during a fiscal

year is extinguished at the end of the fiscal year. Funds allocated to

projects which, under the NCPD/CBI programs, receive an obligation

authority increase for FY 2000, must therefore be obligated during FY

2000 or be withdrawn for redistribution.

This notice includes four sections:

Section I--Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI

Discretionary Program in FY 1999

Section II--Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2000 Grants

Section III--Request for Comments on Program Implementation in FY

2001 and Beyond

Section IV--Solicitation of Applications for FY 2000 Grants

Section I--Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI

Discretionary Program in FY 1999

The FHWA implemented the NCPD/CBI programs with specific goals. In

addition, the FHWA considered the following: Comments received at

outreach sessions; information received during program discussions

within the DOT; and information received during discussions between

officials of the DOT and a variety of public sector and private sector

officials. The FY 1999 implementation goals were:

1. Respect both the letter and the intent of existing statutes.

2. Minimize administrative additions to statutory requirements.

3. Minimize grant application paperwork.

4. Maximize administrative control of grants by FHWA field

personnel rather than FHWA Headquarters personnel.

5. Encourage substantive coordination of grant applications and

grant administration by State and local officials.

6. Encourage appropriate private/public, State/local, intermodal,

[[Page 47224]]

interregional, multistate and multinational coordination.

7. Encourage grant applications that have realistic objectives and

time horizons.

Summary of Selection Process--FY 1999

The FHWA received 151 applications for NCPD/CBI funding, all of

which were at least partially eligible (e.g., some applications

included work components that were not eligible and also included work

components that were eligible) for consideration. The requests for

funding totaled over $2.2 billion compared with $123,620,000 available

for allocation. The FHWA established an evaluation panel comprised of

officials from various agencies within the DOT (e.g., the Federal

Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Office

of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as the FHWA) which reviewed

the applications and tabulated summaries of applications. The

evaluation panel identified applications that were ``well qualified''

and those which were ``qualified'' based on summary information

prepared by the FHWA program office. This information was presented to

the FHWA Administrator and other DOT management officials who together

selected 55 applications for funding totaling $123,603,000; some for

full funding of the amount requested, some for funding of a portion of

the amount requested. An announcement of the selections was made on May

27, 1999. The list of all applications, and well as the list of

selected applications, are available at the URL noted above. A report,

for the fiscal quarter covering the May 27, 1999, selections,

containing the reasons for selection of projects, is required by

section 1311 of the TEA-21, as amended. At the time of this notice, the

report for that quarter is not available. When completed, it will be

available at URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/

Summary of Comments to the Docket

The November 12, 1998 Federal Register notice (63 FR 63351)

requested comments on how the NCPD/CBI programs implementation could be

improved in FY 2000, as well as other aspects of the program.

Commenters were asked specifically for improvements that could be made

at the discretion of the FHWA that would more effectively meet the

seven goals established for the program.

The following organizations submitted letters to the docket (FHWA-

1998-4622):

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Texas Department of Transportation

Canadian National Railway

Whatcom County Council of Governments

State of Michigan, Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Washington State Department of Transportation

Illinois Department of Transportation

ITS America

Science Applications International Corporation

Although no specific comment was raised by more than one or two of

the letters, there were a number of comments that addressed similar

issues or discussed similar problems.

The most common comment, made to some extent by all but one letter,

was the suggestion that more evaluation weight be given to certain

characteristics of applications. In a number of such cases, commenters

asserted that Congress ``meant'' to give more weight to these

characteristics. The FHWA was unable to find any statutory language to

support any of these assertions. In all cases where a suggestion was

made to give more weight to certain characteristics of applications,

these characteristics were those contained in applications submitted or

favored by the organization writing the letter. The FHWA has, however,

reconsidered the overall subject of selection in response to these

comments. Based on this reconsideration, the FHWA will emphasize, in

the selections, applications that support the DOT and the FHWA

strategic goals noted previously in the context of the statute.

A common problem, cited to some extent by four commenters, was that

of addressing criteria specifically cited in the statute, e.g.,

international truck-borne cargo, reduction in commercial and other

travel time through a port of entry, the value of the cargo and

congestion impose economic costs on the Nation's economy, and encourage

or facilitates multistate or regional mobility. While developing the FY

1999 solicitation of applications, the FHWA did not find any cost

effective, easy-to-use methodologies for quantifying the specific terms

noted above. thus, in that solicitation, the FHWA allowed the use of

surrogates to address such requirements and will continue to allow the

use of surrogates in addressing statutory criteria in the FY 2000

solicitation. However, the FHWA and other agencies are currently

investing time and money in developing better means to measure and

predict these terms.

Another common problem, cited to some extent by four commenters,

was that of not being sure where to place particular project

information in the application. One commenter suggested that the FHWA

prescribe a consistent uniform format for applications. While the FHWA

does not believe a prescriptive approach is needed, additional

consistency in applications is desirable. Therefore, the FHWA has

modified and clarified the section containing the application format

accordingly.

Four commenters mentioned performance measures. One noted that

there was no detailed direction about this for applicants and three

suggested examples of performance measures for use by applicants. The

FHWA did not provide detailed direction on this during the FY 1999

solicitation process, because there was no clear statutory basis to

develop such direction. However, the FHWA Strategic Plan, discussed

above, includes a number of measures particularly relevant to these

programs (e.g., reduction of delay on Federal-aid highways, reduction

of delay at international border crossings, reduction of freight costs

per ton mile, education of fatalities). The FHWA Strategic Plan is

available at URL: http://intra.fhwa.dot.gov/strategic/index.htm. Thus,

the evaluation considerations have been modified to note that meeting

the goals in the FHWA strategic plan goals will be specifically

considered in evaluating the selection criteria. Furthermore, the item

in the application format on performance measures has been similarly

modified.

Two commenters complimented certain aspects of the solicitation

process. One especially appreciated the extensive guidance posted on

the Internet; the other appreciated the flexibility to use existing

planning and project development products as constituting the corridor

development and management plan. The FHWA intends to continue the

Internet posting of guidance and is continuing the flexibility

regarding the corridor development and management plan.

The Texas Department of Transportation stated that the FHWA's

interpretation of the statutory language was too flexible in that the

FHWA allowed applicants to provide information on ``interstate or

interregional traffic'' as a surrogate for the term ``international

truck-borne commodities.'' The latter term is the one which appears in

section 1118 of the TEA-21. The same letter suggested clarification on

how States and MPOs should address criteria that are difficult to

quantify and specifically noted that

[[Page 47225]]

``international truck-borne commodities'' was one of those criteria. As

noted above, the FHWA has not found any cost effective easy-to-use

methodologies for quantifying the specific term used in the statute and

will continue to allow the use of surrogates in addressing statutory

criteria for FY 2000 while the FHWA and other agencies are

investigating better measurement.

In addition, the Texas Department of Transportation stated that

there is little transportation related trade data that is complete,

reliable, comparable from State to State, easy to use, and inexpensive

to obtain. The comment was made that the DOT should ensure this data is

verified before using it to distribute program funds. The FHWA agrees

with the comment about the lack of the kind of data desired. Because of

this situation, the FHWA did not distribute FY 1999 program funds based

on formulas or fixed numerical rating methods. Since there is no

reasonable probability that this data situation will change, the FHWA

does not expect to use formulas or fixed numerical rating methods for

distributing FY 2000 program funds.

Finally, the Texas Department of Transportation commented that FHWA

should provide applicants with information on how projects were

selected and how applications could be improved. Information on

selection was provided earlier in this notice. With respect to

improving future applications, the FHWA division offices provide

information to applicants on a case-by-case basis.

The Canadian National Railway stated that corridor plans (required

by section 1118 of the TEA-21) will not indicate substantive

intermodal, particularly freight rail, improvement opportunities.

Section 1118(d) of the TEA-21, which provides the statutory reference

for the corridor plan, nowhere requires, or even mentions rail freight

or intermodal opportunities as a plan element. However, the FHWA

considers intermodal opportunities as valid in the more general context

of statewide and metropolitan planning, and intends, in updating

regulations on statewide and metropolitan planning, to assure an

appropriate level of intermodal attention.

The Whatcom County Council of Governments stated that a fixed

schedule for announcing solicitations and allocations over the life of

the program would be desirable. The FHWA is attempting to meet this

desire by making the NCPD/CBI solicitations and allocations closer to

the timetable used in other discretionary programs (e.g., ferry boats,

public lands).

The State of Michigan, Department of Transportation objected to the

FHWA division office accepting the application of a metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) which had not cleared the application with

the State DOT. The statute allows grants to an MPO and, therefore,

acceptance of this application was clearly proper. It is expected that

through its involvement in the MPO, the State DOT will be consulted in

the MPO application(s).

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation commented that no new

corridors be designated until substantial progress has been made on the

corridors already listed in the TEA-21. Since the FHWA does not have

the authority to designate corridors (nor does the Secretary), no

response is made to this comment.

The Washington State Department of Transportation stated that

spreading allocations to every corridor and every border crossing

(referred to by the commenter as ``peanut buttering'') should be

avoided. The comment went on to note that this point was made at other

venues. This comment has merit and the FHWA took this into

consideration in the FY 1999 allocations and intends to do so in the FY

2000 allocations.

Finally, two commenters encouraged the DOT/FHWA to ensure that a

significant number of selected projects incorporated Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS) and related technologies. As noted below,

the FHWA strategic goals will be considered in the FY 2000 selections,

specifically those involving ITS.

Section II--Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2000 Grants

In general, the eligibility and selection criteria for FY 2000

grants are the same as those used for FY 1999 grants with one change;

namely, that the FHWA is, in effect, considering not only the goals

stated in the FY 1999 solicitations (see above) but also the US

Department of Transportation and the FHWA strategic goals in making

grant selections.

Eligibility--NCPD Program

Projects eligible for funding include the following:

1. Feasibility studies.

2. Comprehensive corridor planning and design activities.

3. Location and routing studies.

4. Multistate and intrastate coordination for corridors.

5. Environmental review or construction after review by the

Secretary of a development and management plan for the corridor or

useable section of the corridor (hence called ``corridor plan'').

The FHWA considers work in the pre-feasibility stage of a project,

e.g., development of metropolitan and State plans and programs, as not

eligible for support with Federal aid under section 1118 funds

(although funds authorized by other portions of the TEA-21 are eligible

for such support), but project development planning is eligible for

support and multistate freight planning is specifically encouraged

herein.

The FHWA construes the phrase ``environmental review,'' as used

above, as being the portion of the environmental documentation e.g.,

environmental assessment/finding of non significant impact (EA/FONSI),

environmental impact statement (EIS) process requiring formal

interagency review and comment. Thus, even without review of the

corridor plan, work needed to produce the pre-draft EIS and to revise

the draft would be eligible for support with Federal aid under section

1118. However, work subsequent to FHWA signature of the draft EIS (or

equivalent) would not be eligible for such support until review of the

corridor plan. Subsequent to such a review, work on a final EIS and any

other necessary environmental work would be eligible for funding under

this section.

Eligibility for funds from the NCPD program is limited to high

priority corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the ISTEA, as

amended, and any other significant regional or multistate highway

corridors selected by the Secretary after consideration of the criteria

listed for selecting projects for NCPD funding. Fund allocation to a

corridor does not constitute designation of the corridor as a high

priority corridor. The FHWA has no statutory authority to make such a

designation.

Eligibility--CBI Program

Projects eligible for funding include the following:

1. Improvements to existing transportation and supporting

infrastructure that facilitate cross border vehicle and cargo

movements.

2. Construction of highways and related safety and safety

enforcement facilities that will facilitate vehicle and cargo movements

related to international trade.

3. Operational improvements, including improvements relating to

electronic data interchange and use of telecommunications, to expedite

cross border vehicle and cargo movement.

[[Page 47226]]

4. Modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite cross border

vehicle and cargo movements.

5. International coordination of planning, programming, and border

operation with Canada and Mexico relating to expediting cross border

vehicle and cargo movements.

6. Activities of Federal inspection agencies.

The statute requires projects to be in a border region. The FHWA

considers projects within 100km (62 miles) of the U.S./Canada or U.S./

Mexico border to be in a border region.

Selection Criteria for the NCPD Program Funding

The statute provides criteria to be used in identifying corridors,

in addition to those statutorily designated for eligibility. These

following criteria will be used for selecting projects for funding:

1. The extent to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle

traffic at the border stations or ports of entry of each State has

increased since the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA), and is projected to increase in the future.

2. The extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in each State has

increased since the date of enactment of the NAFTA, and is projected to

increase in the future.

3. The extent to which international truck-borne commodities move

through each State.

4. The reduction in commercial and other travel time through a

major international gateway or affected port of entry expected as a

result of the proposed project including the level of traffic delays at

major highway/rail grade crossings in trade corridors.

5. The extent of leveraging of Federal funds, including use of

innovative financing; combination with funding provided under other

sections of the TEA-21 and title 23 U.S.C.; and combination with other

sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding including State,

local and private matching funds.

6. The value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle traffic, to

the extent that the value of the cargo and congestion impose economic

costs on the Nation's economy.

7. Encourage or facilitate major multistate or regional mobility

and economic growth and development in areas undeserved by existing

highway infrastructure.

Specific aspects of the NCPD program require the FHWA to interpret

these criteria. Based on the goals noted above in Section I, the FHWA

intends to use a flexible interpretation. For example, while the date

of the enactment of NAFTA was December 8, 1993, traffic data which

provides an average for the calendar year 1993 could be used for the

pre-NAFTA information. For another example, since businesses use both

imported and domestically produced materials in a constantly changing

component mix to produce higher valued products, and, because

interregional trade is noted as part of the purpose of the section,

either interstate traffic or interregional traffic could be used as a

surrogate for ``international truck-borne commodities.'' Similarly,

where determining the value of cargo carried by commercial vehicle

traffic would be impossible without using proprietary information, a

reasonable surrogate could be based on the vehicle traffic multiplied

by an imputed value for various classes of cargo.

Selection Criteria for the CBI Program Funding

The selection criteria in the statute are as follows:

1. Expected reduction in commercial and other motor vehicle travel

time through an international border crossing as a result of the

project.

2. Improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security

related to motor vehicles crossing a border with Canada or Mexico.

3. Strategies to increase the use of existing, underutilized border

crossing facilities and approaches.

4. Leveraging of Federal funds, including use of innovative

financing, combination of such funds with funding provided under other

sections of the TEA-21 and combination with other sources of Federal,

State, local or private funding.

5. Degree of multinational involvement in the project and

demonstrated coordination with other Federal agencies responsible for

the inspection of vehicles, cargo, and persons crossing international

borders and their counterpart agencies in Canada and Mexico.

6. Improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security in

and through the gateway or affected port of entry concerned.

7. The extent to which the innovative and problem solving

techniques of the proposed project would be applicable to other border

stations or ports of entry.

8. Demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain

continuing comprehensive border or affected port of entry planning

processes and improvement programs.

As in the NCPD program criteria, the FHWA intends to use a flexible

interpretation of the CBI program selection criteria. For example,

because local (e.g., business association, civic, county, municipal,

utility) agencies and organizations sometimes have very small capital

improvement budgets, that local commitment for continuing planning and

improvement will be considered in the context of local program

cooperation with State projects in the border regions, as well as in

the context of local financial support for such projects.

Selection Criteria Common to Both Programs

Although all Federal-aid programs relate to the achievement of the

FHWA's strategic goals--safety, mobility, productivity, environment,

and national security--these discretionary programs apply most directly

to fulfillment of the safety, mobility, and productivity goals. In

addition, Departmental policy, related Federal directives and the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, 107

Stat. 285, emphasize the use of coordinated agency strategies and

advanced technology applications to achieve goals in a cost-effective

and environmentally sound manner. As noted in the Administrator's

message accompanying the 1998 FHWA National Strategic Plan, the

strategic goals and policies, ``guide FHWA decisions on a day-to-day

basis, and will help our partners to frame their own agendas within a

context that contributes to achieving these broad national goals.'' In

accordance with this guidance, in making selections, the Administrator

will emphasize proposals related to motor carrier safety enforcement

facilities, integrated trade transportation processing systems to

improve border crossings, multistate freight planning efforts, and

applications of operational strategies, including ITS applications.

In addition, the concept of equity was important in the development

of the TEA-21. National geographic distribution among all discretionary

programs and congressional direction or guidance will be considered by

the Administrator in the selection of projects for discretionary funds.

Evaluation Considerations for Both the NCPD and the CBI Program

To adequately evaluate the extent to which selection criteria noted

above are met by individual projects, the FHWA will consider the

following in each grant application:

1. The extent to which the project will help meet the FHWA and the

DOT strategic goals as noted above.

[[Page 47227]]

2. Likelihood of expeditious completion of a usable project or

product.

3. Size, in dollars, of the program grant request in comparison to

likely accomplishments (e.g., grant requests that exceed about 10

percent of the available NCPD and CBI program funding in a given year

would be expected to be subject to extra scrutiny to determine whether

the likely consequences would be commensurate with that level of

funding).

4. Clarity and conciseness of the grant application in submission

of the required information.

5. State priorities and endorsement of, or opposition to, projects

by other States, MPOs and other public and private agencies or

organizations, as well as the status of the project on the State

transportation improvement program (STIP) and the metropolitan

transportation improvement program (TIP).

6. The extent to which the project may be eligible under both the

NCPD and the CBI program.

Section III--Request for Comments on Program Implementation in FY

2001 and Beyond

The FHWA has, as noted above, changed the selection criteria

somewhat from what they were in the FY 1999 solicitation. In addition,

the FHWA may consider requiring the use of electronic submittals for FY

2001 for the narrative portion of the application (not maps).

Consequently, the FHWA is specifically requesting comments on these two

aspects of program implementation. In addition, although, as noted

above, comments have been made previously, agencies that wish to

reconsider their previous comment(s) or make additional or new comments

on other aspects of program implementation are invited to do so. The

docket number noted in the beginning of this notice should be

referenced.

Section IV--Solicitation of Applications for FY 2000 Grants

As noted above, applications for FY 2000 grants are to be sent to

the division office in the State where the applicant is located or to

the division office in the lead State, where a project is in more than

one State.

When sending in applications, the States and MPOs must understand

that any qualified projects may or may not be selected. It may be

necessary to supplement NCPD and CBI program funds with other Federal-

aid and/or other funds to complete a useable project or product.

Allocations of FY 2000 funds will be made considering the degree to

which proposed projects are viable and implementation schedules are

realistic.

There is no prescribed format for project submission. The FHWA has

developed, however, a sample application format and summary format

which, if used, provides all the information needed to fairly evaluate

candidate projects. The FHWA expects that, except for especially

complex or geographically extensive projects, applications (excluding

the corridor plan which is to be a separate document) should be no more

than 12 pages in length and the summary should be one page in length.

Applications that do not include all the described information may be

considered incomplete. The sample application format and summary format

are:

Format for Application for NCPD or CBI Discretionary Funds

1. State (if a multi state or multi MPO project list the lead

State/MPO and participating States/MPO);

2. Congressional high priority corridor number(s), if applicable;

3. County(ies) or Parish(es);

4. U.S. Congressional District(s) and name of U.S.

Representative(s) in the District(s);

5. Project Location, including a map or maps (no more than two,

except for extraordinarily complex projects) with U.S. State, local

numbered routes and other important facilities clearly identified;

6. Project objectives and benefits;

7. Proposed work, identifying which specific element(s) of work

corresponds to each of the list of eligible NCPD and/or CBI work types

and disaggregating the work into phases, if applicable;

8. Planning, programming, coordinating and scheduling status:

Identifying whether the project is included, or expected to be

included, in State and MPO plans and programs (e.g., STIPs and TIPs);

noting consistency with plans and programs as developed by empowerment

zone and enterprise community organizations; noting consistency with

air quality plans; noting coordination with inspection agencies and

with Canada and Mexico; and, stating the expected project initiation,

milestone and/or project component completion and overall project

completion dates;

9. Current and projected traffic (auto, heavy truck, and, if

applicable, light truck, pedestrian, bicycle, transit vehicle, railcar,

etc.) and motor carrier and highway safety information for significant

facilities integral to the project;

10. Financial information and projections, including: total

estimated cost of improvement to the overall corridor or border

facility; a listing by year and source of previous funding (if part of

a larger project, this should include previous funding for the overall

project) from all sources; and, a listing, by year, amount and source,

of other funds committed to the project or useable portions of the

project;

11. Infrastructure condition information, applicable to

infrastructure improvement projects where, at the time of the

application, the facilities to be improved are reasonably known;

12. Information regarding ownership, applicable to infrastructure

improvement projects where, at the time of the application, the

facilities to be improved are reasonably know;

13. Maintenance responsibility, applicable to infrastructure

improvement projects where, at the time of the application, the

facilities to be improved are reasonably known;

14a. Other information needed to specifically address the seven

selection criteria for NCPD program funding (e.g., increase in

commercial traffic); and/or

14b. Other information needed to specifically address the eight

selection criteria for CBI program funding (e.g., reduction in travel

time);

15. Amount of NCPD program and/or CBI program funds requested, as

well as written confirmation of the source and amount of non-Federal

funds that make up the non-Federal share of the project;

16. Willingness to accept partial funding (if not indicated, the

FHWA will construe that partial funding is acceptable);

17a. The priority within the State (or lead State) assigned to the

application, relative to other applications submitted by that State,

that is a clearly defined e.g., priority one or priority two, (not a

qualified priority such as priority one for CBI or priority one for

planning); or

17b. The reason(s) why a priority was not assigned;

18. Public endorsements of, expectations for or opposition to the

project by public and private organizations who expect to use the work

to be funded by the grant as well as those who expect to benefit or be

adversely affected, directly or indirectly, from such work (a summary

of such endorsements, delineating the oral from the written, and if

appropriate, the extent of the support, is needed; however, copies of

endorsements are not needed and should not be included in the

application);

19a. A summary of the corridor plan, for those applications for the

NCPD program where the work to be funded

[[Page 47228]]

includes environmental review or construction and where the project is

not on a corridor identified by section 1105(c) of the ISTEA, as

amended (for other NCPD applications this item is optional);

19b. Corridor plan, separate from the rest of the application, for

those applications for the NCPD program where the work to be funded

includes environmental review or construction.

20. Performance measures in support of the FHWA Strategic Plan; and

21. Summary sheet covering basic project information (see below).

Format for Summary Sheet--Application for NCPD or CBI Discretionary

Funds

Grantee: List full name of agency.

U.S. Representative/Senator(s): List full names.

Governor/Mayor(s): List full names.

Project: Short name and brief description of project (e.g., This

project provides for widening by one lane in each direction of * * *

extending from * * * in the vicinity of * * * to * * * in the vicinity

of * * * a distance of. * * * This improvement will serve * * * and * *

* will result in major safety/time savings * * * to * * *).

FHWA Funds Requested: Exclude non-Federal share.

Other Funds Committed: Specify source and amounts.

Other Support: List agencies providing substantive assistance.

Other Important Information: (e.g., improved access to Indian

Reservation, expected improvement to local economy, specify phase of

project or corridor development, specify on going projects that will be

coordinated with this one, identify environmental features,

construction scheduling--all if appropriate).

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; secs. 1118 and 1119, Pub. L. 105-178,

112 Stat. 107, at 161 (1998); and 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: August 24, 1999.

Anthony R. Kane,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 99-22473 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-M