[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47222-47228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22473]


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

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