98-30236. National Corridor Planning and Development Program and Coordinated Border Infrastructure ProgramImplementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century  

  • [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