[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37819-37826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15320]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2000-7392]
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) 2001 grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides implementation guidance on sections
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 August 15, 2000. Specific information required in grant applications
is provided in Section IV of this notice. Comments on program
implementation should be sent as soon as reasonably possible. However,
in recognition of the fact that legislative language may materially
change the program implementation at any time, the FHWA will leave the
docket open indefinitely. The FHWA will consider comments received in
developing the FY 2002 solicitation of grant applications. More
information on the type of comments sought by the FHWA is provided in
Section III of this notice.
ADDRESSES: Your signed, written comments on program implementation
[[Page 37820]]
for FY 2002 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, U.S. 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 2001 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, DC
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 Board Service at (202)
512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's
home page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing
Office's web page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
In addition, a number of documents and links concerning the NCPD
and the CBI programs are available through 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, established 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), Public Law 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, studied 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, and the FHWA emphasized these goals in selection of applications
for allocations.
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 to FY 2003 (a total of $700 million). The
President's FY 2001 budget includes a proposal to increase funding for
the NCPD and CBI programs to $280 million and to eliminate application
of the obligation limitation from the programs. Until the congressional
action on this proposal is completed, we will assume $140 million is
available for obligation in FY 2001 and that these will be limited by
the requirements of section 1102 (Obligation Ceiling) of the TEA-21.
Furthermore, projects selected for funding may be affected by earmark
language placed in Federal law. This was the case in FY 2000, as
explained more completely in the subsection below entitled, ``Summary
of Selection Process.''
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,
through FY 2001, 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 2001 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 $30 million and $130 million will be available
for allocation for projects submitted in response to this notice.
Should the current request in the President's FY 2001 budget be
approved by the Congress, the amount available will approximately
double.
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
authority 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 for FY 2001, must therefore be obligated during FY
2001 or be withdrawn for redistribution.
This notice includes four sections:
Section I--Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI
discretionary program in FY 2000
Section II--Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2001 grants
Section III--Request for comments on program implementation in FY
2002 and beyond
Section IV--Solicitation of applicants for FY 2001 grants
Section I--Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI
Discretionary Program in FY 2000
The FHWA has been implementing the NCPD/CBI programs with specific
goals. In developing the FY 1999 solicitation, the FHWA considered the
following: Comments received at outreach sessions; information received
during program discussions within the
[[Page 37821]]
DOT; and information received during discussions between 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,
interregional, multistate and multinational coordination.
7. Encourage grant applications that have realistic objectives and
time horizons.
In FY 2001, no additional goals are being added; however, as stated
in the subsection below entitled, ``Selection Criteria Common to Both
Programs,'' the Administrator is encouraging submission of certain
types of proposals.
Summary of Selection Process--FY 2000
In July 1999, a two-year action plan to target the DOT's efforts
for 1999 and 2000 was developed. This action plan includes a list of
key activities for each Strategic Goal and Corporate Management
Strategy for the DOT, which is drawn from the Department's Strategic
Plan, Performance Plans, and other existing planning documents. These
key activities are called ``Flagship Initiatives.'' The corridor and
border programs were designated as a flagship initiative in the spring
of 1999. The members of the flagship team are listed at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/flagteam.html. The strategic plan of the
flagship is stated at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/flagplan.html. This team has been put together to coordinate and focus
the U.S. DOT's efforts, identify current issues, and to develop a work
plan. One of the Flagship's efforts was to sponsor a series of
workshops to publicize the Corridors and Borders program and highlight
this year's application process. The FHWA held a series of workshops in
the autumn of 1999 in Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta,
Georgia; Seattle, Washington; and Phoenix, Arizona. The workshops were
announced in the Federal Register on September 29, 1999. Invitees
included Federal, State, and local government employees; MPO staff; and
representatives from a number of trade and citizen groups. In
announcing the workshops, Secretary Slater said, ``The corridors and
borders program is a key part in President Clinton's goal to support
the North American Free Trade Agreement by providing safe highways for
moving people and goods between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
These workshops were designed to benefit States and communities that
want to take advantage of the program.''
There were two subjects on which comment was pervasive during these
workshops. The first subject was opposition to earmarks (most attendees
were working on applications that did not have earmarks). The second
was a desire to have the awards announced earlier in the fiscal year to
allow more time for obligation within that fiscal year. Both of these
comments were made to the docket and FHWA's response will be given
there.
There were no other comments that were pervasive. The following is
a sampling of comments from each of the workshops:
Baltimore: Unless there is some closure from these meetings,
participants are right back where they started. Protecting the
environment should also be made a key strategic goal for the program.
Delays at borders cause a lot of air pollution.
Chicago: In the list of important project criteria, connectivity of
system was not listed. Not many projects are being funded that are
intermodal in nature. The FHWA should put together a session with some
of the workshop attendees and congressional staff. More sites close to
borders should be selected for project funding.
Atlanta: Several participants noted the STIP/TIP conundrum: They
need to get projects listed on the STIP or TIP to receive the Corridors
and Borders grants, but it is difficult to get projects listed ahead of
time.
Seattle: The Corridors and Borders program is like manna from
heaven in that attention is being paid to freight mobility. These
programs allow us to walk before we run.
Phoenix: States should be able to sign on to multistate projects
without displacing their own prioritized projects.
The workshops were also designed to solicit input from participants
on evaluation measures for the program, as well as the program's future
direction. Again, many suggestions were made, but no pervasive theme
emerged. Additionally, at each workshop representatives of projects
receiving FY 1999 funding made presentations. Finally, at each
workshop, a number of opportunities were provided to ask specific
questions about the application process. Answers were provided
consistent with those on the website at URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/qa2k.html.
Of the $122 million available for the program in FY 2000,
approximately $60 million had been designated by the Congress to
specific projects by the time of the workshops. The legislative
language containing the projects earmarked for FY 2000 is available at
URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/earmark.html and URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/cb99y.html. Both pieces of legislative
language were developed during the FY 2000 appropriations process. As
has been discussed, there was much opposition to this decision, along
with a concern that the process of earmarking projects under a program
like the NCPD/CBI ultimately defeats the purpose of the TEA-21. In
spite of the earmarks, the FHWA received over 150 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 approximately $2 billion.
The FHWA established an evaluation panel comprised of officials
from various agencies within the DOT (e.g., the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Maritime Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety 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 (e.g.,
coordination status, positive aspects and other aspects of each
application). We expect to follow a similar process with the FY 2001
grant applications.
On June 9, 2000, U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater
announced that $121.8 million in grants will be provided to 29 states
for 65 projects as part of the NCPD/CBI programs for FY 2000. The FY
2000 NCPD/CBI program grant recipients, by state, project and total
allocation, are listed at the URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/recip00.html. In addition, a report, for the fiscal quarter
covering the FY 2000 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 is not available. When completed,
it will also be available on FHWA's
[[Page 37822]]
website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/quarterly.html.
Summary of Comments to Docket No. FHWA-98-4622
The August 30, 1999, Federal Register notice (64 FR 47222)
requested comments on how the NCPD/CBI programs implementation could be
improved in FY 2001, 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-
98-4622):
North America's Superhighway Coalition, Inc. (NASCO)
CAN/AM Border Trade Alliance
Eastern Border Transportation Coalition
Puget Sound Regional Council
Border Trade Alliance
The Honorable Henry Bonilla, 23rd District, Texas
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
Freeport Business Centre
Members of Congress: The Honorable Henry Bonilla, Charles A. Gonzalez,
Ciro D.
Rodriguez and Lamar S. Smith
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
New York Department of Transportation
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. There was general concern and
disappointment in the earmarking of corridors and borders funds. The
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (the Commission) stated that the
efforts of the FHWA to provide information at the corridors and borders
workshops and through widespread notice of the solicitation was
misleading due to the earmarks. It is the Commission's opinion that
based on the number and size of fiscal year 1999 requests and fiscal
year 2000 earmarks, the corridors and borders programs should be
separated and given increased funding. The New York State DOT suggested
that if, for FY 2001, the Congress earmarks corridor and border
projects, consideration should be given to balancing the distribution
of program funding to ensure that both corridor and border needs are
addressed.
With respect to earmarks, the FHWA acknowledges the fact that those
applicants who feel their application has a reduced funding potential
because of the earmarks will be unhappy about this situation. The
FHWA's longstanding agency position is to oppose earmarks. However,
notwithstanding the above, the FHWA has, in the past, faithfully
administered earmark legislation and congressional direction, and will
do so in the future.
With respect to separation of the funding into ``corridor only''
and ``border only'' components, the FHWA notes that the report
``Listening to America,'' which summarized the outreach sessions
preceding the FY 1999 solicitation, stated that ``there was widespread
agreement that funding for the two programs should be kept together,
rather than identifying separate amounts for each.'' Although some
commenters felt otherwise then, and feel otherwise now, the FHWA does
not believe that the prior noted consensus has changed substantially.
The use of electronic submittals in FY 2001 for the narrative
portion of the application received mixed responses. Many commenters
noted the difficulty that the FHWA may encounter when transferring
information such as graphics and visual aids. The Wisconsin DOT stated
that, although the preparation of a grant proposal is a significant
part of any grant process, the graphics and visual aids that generally
accompany a proposal are also an important component. Furthermore, it
was suggested that if the FHWA intends to include this requirement in
future processes, the processes to ensure that the grant proposals will
be reviewed in their entirety must first be put in place.
To provide substantial flexibility to applicants, the FHWA will
allow electronic submittals for FY 2001 as an option as well as
allowing hard copy submittals. Based on the reviewed result of this
process, the FHWA will make a decision on electronic submittals on
future solicitations.
With regard to the timetable for the NCPD/CBI grant process, most
of the commenters requested that the timetable be advanced. To allow
States adequate time to obligate funds, the FHWA should adhere to the
time frames in the announcements and award projects no later than the
month of March. This will allow the States adequate time to obligate
funds before the end of the fiscal year.
The FHWA is making every effort to adhere to advanced timeframes.
North America's Superhighway Coalition (NASCO) requested that
Federal transportation officials allow incorporated, certified trade
corridor coalitions to apply for funding through the corridors and
borders programs. Currently, only States and metropolitan planning
organizations can submit applications. The NASCO believes that the
current application rule works well if project applications are
contained geographically. However, it does not work well for project
applications that are multistate or even multinational in nature.
Funding should not be appropriated based on an individual project's
meeting of requirements in both the borders and corridor criteria.
The FHWA appreciates the comments provided by the NASCO. However,
the changes requested by NASCO cannot be made except by the Congress
through a change in the statutory language.
The CAN/AM Border Trade Alliance (the Alliance) stated that the
competition between the two programs for the same funds and between
individual project proposals brings about excessive funding of corridor
projects at the expense of border projects. The policy of providing
additional funds in successive years for completing projects selected
in previous years should be determined and clearly articulated. It is
strongly suggested that a procedure be formalized by the U.S. DOT to
assist all projects that were deemed viable and needed, although not
selected for funding, so that alternative approaches for making them a
reality can be formally determined.
Technical assistance is available through the FHWA Division
offices. Due to the fact that conditions (physical, financial,
environmental, etc.) change each year, a new application must be
submitted each year. The FHWA will not re-review an old application and
does not guarantee that a recipient in any year will continue to
receive funding in future years.
The Eastern Border Transportation Coalition (EBTC) stated that
while section 1119 is TEA-21's only border program, corridor projects
have access to four programs and 120 times as much money each year from
other TEA-21 programs. For this reason, the EBTC urged the allocation
of the largest proportion of its corridor and border grants be awarded
to the border program.
Legislation provides no means for the FHWA to administratively
determine a ``more border, fewer corridor projects'' rulemaking
provision. In addition, the statement that ``section 1119 is TEA-21's
only border program'' is somewhat misleading. The FHWA's review of
project applications showed substantial use of State, Federal formula
and other Federal discretionary funds on border projects, where State
DOT's have determined to focus their own efforts.
The Border Trade Alliance (BTA) suggested that the $140 million
each year be spent in a way that is
[[Page 37823]]
compatible and complimentary with the regular annual allocations to the
States. Also, a scoring system should be developed that would assign
higher priority for border transportation projects that provide
connectivity to the identified national trade corridors. The BTA
believes that the best and most productive way to allocate corridor and
border funds is to place the primary emphasis on design and development
of border connectivity and national corridor projects. Bricks and
mortar funding should be focused on very high impact border
connectivity projects, including those that serve multiple ports, and
to resolving select physical bottlenecks at the border. In the
development and application of a scoring or formula system, State
projects that connect various parts of existing identified national
trade corridors should be rated higher than those that serve only
regional interests. Emphasis must be attached to all border ports-of-
entry (and egress) and their complimentary trade corridors that
demonstrate significant increases in traffic.
The FHWA believes that the intent of this comment is already
addressed by the sixth evaluation consideration: ``To adequately
evaluate the extent to which selection criteria noted above are met by
individual projects, the FHWA will consider the following in each
application: The extent to which the project may be eligible under both
the NCPD and the CBI program.''
Congressman Henry Bonilla of Texas expressed his support for the
proposal for a revision of ramps providing safe and efficient access to
the Freeport Business Center off Loop 410 South near I-35. This
proposal will help alleviate overcrowding of existing highway
infrastructure.
The FHWA appreciates the comments made by Congressman Bonilla and
will give his comments and the proposal proper consideration.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission endorses the introduction of
the FHWA/DOT strategic goals into the project evaluation process. The
Commission urged the continued acceptance of hard copy applications
citing the difficulty the FHWA may encounter if information is
transferred electronically.
The Freeport Business Centre (the Centre) provided comments
regarding its application to the NCPD program for new access ramps off
Loop 410 South, located in Bexar County, Texas. The Centre stated that
this project ties in with future development of vehicular
infrastructure planned by the Texas DOT to safely and efficiently
provide for the more than three fold increase in traffic to and from
the Mexico border.
The FHWA appreciates the comments and proposal submitted by the
Centre and will give appropriate consideration to this project and its
application.
The Honorable Henry Bonilla, Charles A. Gonzalez, Ciro D. Rodriguez
and Lamar S. Smith, members of the U.S. Congress representing San
Antonio, Texas, expressed their support for a proposal to move existing
entrance and exit ramps to the previously mentioned Freeport Business
Centre. The congressmen stated that this project will reduce congestion
in a heavily traveled international trade corridor and will remove the
dependence on border infrastructure to facilitate the growth and
expansion currently experienced by increased trade with Mexico.
The FHWA appreciates the comments by the congressmen and will give
appropriate consideration to this project and its application.
The Wisconsin DOT strongly encourages the FHWA to consider
expanding the field office's role to include a review of the
applications, with an opportunity to identify and propose
recommendations for the U.S. DOT evaluation panel's review and possible
approval. It is also suggested that grant recipients be allowed to
carry over funds into the next fiscal year. If electronic processing
will be a future requirement for submitting grant proposals, it was
suggested that a process be put in place to ensure grant proposals are
reviewed in their entirety.
The FHWA field offices are already involved in the process of
reviewing applications. The FHWA will consider an expansion of this
involvement.
The New York State DOT stated that the benefits of the corridors
and borders programs should be maximized; FHWA guidance and criteria
should be clear that projects awarded funds must use the funding to
complete a funding package rather than a substitute for other funds
currently in place.
The FHWA believes the intent of the comment is effectively covered
by the ``leveraging'' criterion (#5 for NCPD, #4 for CBI) combined with
the ``likelihood of completion of a useable project or project''
evaluation consideration.
Section II--Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2001 Grants
In general, the eligibility and selection criteria for FY 2001
grants are the same as those used for FY 2000 grants.
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
[[Page 37824]]
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.
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 100 km (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 improvements 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 Administrator encourages comprehensive proposals
to develop, implement, and evaluate model border crossings. Such
proposals may, for example, combine operational, institutional, and
infrastructure elements to improve efficiency and safety and integrate
with operations strategies along major trade corridors, and may include
shared facilities or other mechanisms to harmonize international border
clearance.
[[Page 37825]]
Finally, 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, including where possible a
description of the anticipated benefits of the project, and where
appropriate estimated levels of such benefits.
2. Likelihood of expeditious completion of a useable 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
2002 and Beyond
As noted, the FHWA is allowing, as an option, the use of electronic
submittals for FY 2002 for the narrative portion of the application
(not maps). Consequently, the FHWA is specifically requesting comments
on this aspect of program implementation. In addition, agencies that
wish to reconsider their previous comment(s) or make additional
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 2001 Grants
As in previous years, applications for FY 2001 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.
Note: Please provide 3 copies of grant applications.
When sending in applications, the States and MPOs must understand
that a qualified project 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 2001 funds will be made considering the degree to
which proposed projects are viable and implementation schedules are
realistic.
While there is no prescribed format for project submission, the
FHWA has provided a sample application format. If used, this format
provides all the information needed to fairly evaluate candidate
projects. The summary section is a particularly important piece of the
submittal package, since the information in the summary is to be used
for congressional notification in case the project is selected for
allocation. The FHWA expects that, except for especially complex or
geographically extensive projects, applications (excluding the corridor
plan which is to be a separate document) would not exceed 12 pages in
length and the summary would 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 multistate 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 known;
13. Maintenance responsibility applicable to infrastructure
improvement projects where, at the time of 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 including, if applicable,
the minimum amount of discretionary funding that will result in a
useable product or project (If not unambiguously indicated, the FHWA
[[Page 37826]]
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. If applicable, the reason(s) why a priority was not assigned
or why an ambiguous priority was 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 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 to be used for
congressional notification if the project is selected for funding (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: June 13, 2000.
Cynthia J. Burbank,
Program Manager, Environment and Planning.
[FR Doc. 00-15320 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P