[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63351-63354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-30236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4622]


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

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments; solicitation of applications for 
FY 1999 grants.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides implementation guidance on sections 
1118 and 1119 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21), Pub. L. 105-178. These sections established the National 
Corridor Planning and Development Program (NCPD program) and the 
Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI program). The NCPD 
program and the CBI program 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 
Canada and Mexico 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 metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPOs) are, under the CBI program, eligible for 
discretionary grants for: transportation and safety infrastructure 
improvements, operation and regulatory improvements and coordination 
and inspection improvements in a border region.

DATES: Grant applications should be received by FHWA Division Offices 
on January 11, 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 April 12, 1999. 
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 2000 solicitation of grant 
applications. More information on the type of comments sought by the 
FHWA is provided in Section II of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Your signed, written comments on program implementation for 
FY 2000 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. 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 10 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 1999 grants under the NCPD and CBI programs 
should be submitted to the FHWA Division Office in the State of the 
applicant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Weiss, Intermodal and Statewide 
Programs Division, HEP-10, (202) 366-5010; or Diane Mobley (for the 
NCPD program), Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1366; or 
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 can 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 modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: ``http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg'' and the Government Printing Office's database at: 
``http://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 establish the NCPD and CBI 
programs; respectively. These programs respond to substantial interest 
in both subjects dating from, at least as early as, 1991. In that year, 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) designated 
a number of high priority corridors. Subsequent legislation modified 
the corridor descriptions and designated additional corridors. Citizen 
and civic groups were formed to promote many of these corridors as, for 
example, a means to accommodate international trade. Similarly, since 
1991, a number of studies have identified infrastructure and operation 
deficiencies near the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico. Also various 
groups, some international and/or intergovernmental, were formed to 
study opportunities to improve infrastructure and operations.
    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). 
However, obligations will be 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 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for coordinated planning, 
design, and construction of corridors of national

[[Page 63352]]

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 transfers will be made outside the 
provisions of this notice, based on funding requested and supporting 
information furnished by the Administrator of General Services.
    The Federal share for these funds is 80% 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 3 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. 
For FY 1999, there will be no targets for each of the two programs 
(e.g., x% for the NCPD program and y% for the CBI program). However, 
based on the wide interest in all facets of both programs, the FHWA 
does expect to allocate substantial funding in FY 1999 for projects 
from both the NCPD and CBI programs.
    This notice includes three sections and one attachment:

Section I--Notice of program implementation
Section II--Request for comments on program implementation in FY 
2000 and beyond
Section III--Solicitation of applications for FY 1999 grants
Attachment 1--Summary sheet

Section I--Notice of Program Implementation

    The FHWA is implementing both the NCPD and CBI programs with the 
same goals: These are:
    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.

Outreach, Coordination and Cooperation

    In addition to the goals noted above, the implementation of this 
program has been based on various other sources of information. The 
first source of input, both verbal and written, were the comments made 
by elected officials and the general public during the course of the 
DOT's outreach activities following the passage of TEA-21. Written 
comments were those received by the public docket associated with the 
overall TEA-21 outreach program. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) established Docket No. OST-98-4146 for such comments. Verbal 
comments were those provided by people at three outreach sessions which 
focused specifically on the NCPD and CBI programs. These sessions were 
held: in San Diego, CA on August 25, 1998; in Detroit, MI on August 27, 
1998; and, in Houston, TX on October 8, 1998. Internet users may access 
summaries of these sessions from the home page of the TEA-21 outreach 
session at: ``http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/outreach.htm''.
    The second source of input were the comments made by a working 
group comprised of persons in various offices in the FHWA and other 
offices in the DOT.
    The third source of input was information provided during other 
discussions between FHWA staff and a variety of public sector and 
private sector officials who have contributed program related 
information and/or voiced concerns since the passage of TEA-21.

Eligibility--NCPD Program

    Projects eligible for funding include:
    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.
    The FHWA construes the phrase `environmental review', as used 
above, as being the portion of the environmental documentation (e.g., 
EA/FONSI, 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:
    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 movements.
    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

[[Page 63353]]

U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico border to be in a border region.

Selection Criteria for the NCPD Program Funding

    The statute identifies the following criteria to be used in 
identifying corridors, in addition to those statutorily designated for 
eligibility. These 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 
at-grade highway crossings of major rail lines in trade corridors.
    5. The extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided under this 
subsection, 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 underserved 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:
    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., county, municipal) agencies 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 all Discretionary Programs

    The concept of equity was very important in the development of TEA-
21. Therefore, 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 have been met by individual projects, the FHWA will consider the 
following in each grant application:
    1. Likelihood of expeditious completion of a useable project or 
product.
    2. Size, in dollars, of the program grant request in comparison to 
likely accomplishments (e.g., grant requests that exceed about 10% 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).
    3. Clarity and conciseness of the grant application in submission 
of the required information.
    4. 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).
    5. The extent to which the project may be eligible under both the 
NCPD and the CBI program.

Section II--Request for Comments on Program Implementation in FY 
2000 and Beyond

    The NCPD and the CBI programs are new. Furthermore, they represent 
a substantial public investment. Consequently, in addition to 
evaluating the overall program based on information in the grant 
applications, the FHWA is also specifically requesting comments on how 
program implementation can be improved. The Docket number noted in the 
beginning of this notice should be referenced. Comments may be on any 
aspect of the program. The FHWA is particularly interested in comments 
on discretionary determinations of the agency and in suggestions, 
consistent with the statute, that will result in more complete 
realization of the goals noted in the

[[Page 63354]]

beginning of Section I of this notice. Lastly, the FHWA requests 
comments on how applicants can develop useful performance measures to 
evaluate project implementation.

Section III--Solicitation of Applications for FY 1999 Grants

    As noted above, applications for FY 1999 grants are to be sent to 
the Division office in the State of the applicant 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 and 
allocations of FY 1999 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. However, the 
following information should be addressed in the application to 
properly evaluate the candidate projects. Applications that do not 
include the following information may be considered incomplete:
    1. State (if a multi state or multi MPO project list the lead 
State/MPO and participating States/MPO) and, if applicable, 
congressional high priority corridor number(s);
    2. County(ies) or Parish(es);
    3. U.S. Congressional District(s) and name of U.S. 
Representative(s) in the District(s);
    4. Project Location; including a map(s) with U.S., State and local 
numbered routes and other important facilities clearly identified;
    5. Project Objectives;
    6. Proposed Work; identifying which specific element(s) or work 
corresponds to each of the list of eligible items noted above is 
addressed and disaggregating the work into phases, if applicable;
    7. Planning and Coordination Status; identifying whether the 
project is included, or expected to be included, in State and MPO plans 
and programs (e.g., STIPs and TIPs); discussing consistency with plans 
and programs developed by empowerment zone and enterprise community 
organizations; discussing consistency with plans developed for 
compliance with the Clean Air Act; and, discussing coordination with 
inspection agencies and with Canada and Mexico, as applicable;
    8. Traffic/Safety Information and Projections; addressing the 
applicable statutory criteria;
    9. Financial Information and Projections; (e.g., total estimated 
cost of improvements to corridor or border facility, previous funding, 
commitment of other funds) addressing the applicable statutory 
criteria;
    10. Infrastructure Condition Information; addressing the applicable 
statutory criteria;
    11. Information Regarding Ownership; including whether it is 
private or public, operating authority and maintenance responsibility 
for all facilities to be improved as part of the project;
    12. Other Information; addressing the applicable statutory criteria 
(e.g., implementation schedule);
    13. 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. If the State 
is willing to accept partial funding, this also should be indicated;
    14. Future Funding Requests; related to the project anticipated 
under these programs or other discretionary programs;
    15. The Priority; the State (or lead State) assigns to this project 
(e.g., priority one, priority two, etc.) relative to other projects 
located in the State for which applications are being submitted based 
on this notice;
    16. Public Endorsements/expectations of the project 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;
    17. Corridor plan; for those grant applications for the NCPD 
program where the work to be funded includes environmental review or 
construction;
    18. Performance measures; which the applicant intends to use to 
evaluate implementation process in the project; and,
    19. Summary Sheet; covering basic project information (see 
Attachment 1).

Attachment 1--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 ongoing projects that will be 
coordinated with this one, identify environmental features, 
construction scheduling--all if appropriate).

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48, Sections 1118, 1119 of Pub. 
L. 105-178)

    Issued on: November 4, 1998.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-30236 Filed 11-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P