[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39625-39634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19563]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; Implementation
Guidance for Discretionary Program Funds for Bridges, Ferry Boats,
Interstate Maintenance, and Public Lands Highways
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document publishes implementation guidance on the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) enacted on June
9, 1998, for eligible candidate projects in Fiscal Year 1999 concerned
with the discretionary bridge program and in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999
concerned with the ferry boat discretionary program, the interstate
maintenance discretionary program, and the public lands highways
discretionary program. Implementation guidance materials on these
topics were issued to FHWA region and division offices on June 25,
1998. This material describes activities eligible for discretionary
funding, the application process, and criteria used to evaluate
candidate projects.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For bridge program: Mr. Robert C.
Wood, HNG-33, (202)366-4622; For ferry boat program: Mr. John C.
Wasley, HNG-12, (202)366-4658; For interstate maintenance program: Mr.
Cecilio A. Leonin, HNG-12, (202)366-4651; For public lands highway
program: Mr. Lawrence J. Beidel, HNG-12, (202)366-1564; For legal
issues: Mr. Wil Baccus, HCC-32, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202)366-
1396, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
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.
Background
The TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107) implementation guidance
published in this Federal Register notice is provided for informational
purposes. Specific questions on any of the material published in this
notice should be directed to the contact person named in the caption
For Further Information Contact for the program in which you have
interest.
(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)
Issued on: July 15, 1998.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
The text of four FHWA memoranda follows:
June 25, 1998.
[HNG-33]
ACTION: Request for Projects for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 Discretionary
Bridge Program
(Reply Due: September 1, 1998)
Associate Administrator for Program Development
Regional Administrators
Division Administrators
With passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), the Discretionary Bridge Program (DBP) has been continued
through FY 2003. Section 1109 of TEA-21 authorizes in FY 1999, $100
million for bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects with a
maximum of $25 million of that amount being available only for projects
for the seismic retrofit of bridges, including projects in the New
Madrid fault region.
With this memorandum, we are requesting submission of eligible
candidate projects for FY 1999 DBP funds. We are requesting that
candidate project submissions be received in Headquarters no later than
September 1. Candidate projects should be supported by State documents,
including a description of the proposed project(s), total project(s)
costs, anticipated letting date(s), and a one page project briefing
paper.
Eligibility
The DBP funds are available for deficient highway bridges located
on Federal-aid highways that have a replacement or rehabilitation cost
of more than $10 million, or a cost that is twice the amount
apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 144(e) to the State in which the bridge is
located. Please refer to 23 CFR 650 Subpart G for additional
eligibility criteria.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144(d), seismic retrofit projects for
non-deficient highway bridges are also eligible. Therefore, bridges
only in need of seismic retrofitting will be considered along with
deficient bridges for allocating a portion of the FY 1999 funds.
Selection Criteria
The DBP selection criteria have previously been published in the
Federal Register (48 FR 52296, November 17, 1983) and are also codified
as 23 CFR 650 Subpart G. To evaluate the submitted candidates for
selection, we will be considering several criteria. The following
statutory and regulatory criteria are found in 23 U.S.C. 144(d), 23 CFR
650 Subpart G, and Section 1223 of TEA-21:
1. The Rating Factor formula (23 CFR 650 Subpart G),
2. Special considerations including unique situations (23 CFR 650
Subpart G). The FHWA has identified the need for seismic retrofitting
as a unique situation.
3. Seismic retrofit allocations for non-deficient bridges (23
U.S.C. 144(d)).
4. Priority may be given to funding a transportation project
relating to an international quadrennial Olympic or Paralympic event,
or a Special Olympics International event if the project meets the
extraordinary needs associated with such events and is otherwise
eligible for assistance with DBP funds (Section 1223).
The following criteria are also considered in the evaluation of
candidates for the DBP:
1. Leveraging of private or other public funding--Because the
annual requests for funding far exceed the available DBP funds, a
commitment of other funding sources to complement
[[Page 39626]]
the requested DBP funding is an important factor.
2. Expeditious completion of project--Preference is also given to
requests that will expedite the completion of a viable project over
requests for initial funding of a project that will require a long-term
commitment of future DBP funding. For large-scale projects,
consideration is given to the State's total funding plan to expedite
the completion of the project.
3. National geographic distribution of the funding within the DBP--
Consideration is also given to providing funding to States to provide
some geographic balance for the program. The project selection process
may also consider national geographic distribution among all of the
discretionary programs, as well as congressional direction or guidance
provided on specific projects or programs.
Submission Requirements
Attached is an application form for providing project information.
The form should be completed by the State and submitted along with
supporting documents that describe the project.
Preliminary engineering is not an eligible item for DBP funding,
but the State could elect to use other eligible Federal-aid funding
sources. Submissions requesting right-of-way acquisition with DBP funds
will be given low priority. States should be encouraged to seek other
sources of funding for perennial ready-for-construction DBP candidates,
which are unlikely to be selected because of high rating factors.
The DBP funds will not be allocated to a State that has, in FY
1998, transferred HBRRP funds to other categories. This is in
accordance with our November 3, 1992, memorandum on the subject of
Transfer of Funds/Discretionary Allocations (copy attached).
For bridge candidates, the Total Project Cost Estimate (TPCE) for
the project is to include preliminary engineering, right-of-way and
construction costs associated with eligible bridge (including seismic
retrofitting costs if applicable), and bridge approach work. The TPCE
of the bridge and bridge approaches is used in determining project
eligibility and then in the rating factor computation. Therefore,
particular care should be taken to ensure that estimates near the
minimum $10 million project cost limit are accurate.
For seismic retrofit candidates only, the TPCE will be the total
cost of the seismic retrofit construction.
Division Office Responsibilities
In order to ensure that the submitted candidates are complete and
properly prepared, it is requested that the field offices:
1. Provide this information regarding project eligibility,
selection criteria and submission requirements to the State
transportation agency, and
2. Review all candidate applications submitted by the State prior
to sending them to this office to ensure that they are complete and
meet the above requirements.
If there are questions, please contact the Bridge Division at (202)
366-4617.
Henry H. Rentz for Thomas J. Ptak
2 Attachments
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
[[Page 39627]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JY98.002
[[Page 39628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JY98.003
[[Page 39629]]
Attachment No. 2
Nov. 3, 1992.
[HNG-13]
INFORMATION: Transfer of Funds/Discretionary Allocations
Director, Office of Engineering
Regional Federal Highway Administrators
Federal Lands Highway Programs Administrator
The purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware of a
consideration utilized in the allocation of Interstate 4R discretionary
funds and Bridge discretionary funds.
Interstate 4R Discretionary Allocations
Discretionary funds will not be allocated to a State that has, in
the preceding fiscal year, transferred either National Highway System
or Interstate Maintenance funds to the STP apportionments.
Bridge Discretionary Allocations
Discretionary funds will not be allocated to a State that has, in
the preceding fiscal year, transferred Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation funds.
We recognize Congress provided flexibility to States by allowing
the transfer of these apportionments to other programs. There are,
however, tremendous Interstate System and bridge needs across the
country and we believe the congressional intent is to give priority
consideration to high cost projects in States where available
apportionments are insufficient to allow such projects to proceed on a
timely basis.
Please take the necessary steps to make sure States are aware of
this consideration.
Thomas O. Willett
June 25, 1998.
[HNG-12]
ACTION: Ferry Boat Discretionary (FBD) Program Request for Projects for
FYs 1998 and 1999 Funding
(Reply Due: September 1, 1998)
Associate Administrator for Program Development
Regional Administrators
Division Administrators
Section 1207 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) reauthorized the funding category for the construction of
ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities created by Section 1064 of
the 1991 ISTEA. For FY 1998, $30 million is authorized from the Highway
Trust Fund for the FBD program. Subsequent funding of $38 million is
authorized for each of FYs 1999 through 2003. The TEA-21 also includes
a new requirement that $20 million from each of FYs 1999 through 2003
be set aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National
Highway System for use by the States of Alaska, New Jersey, and
Washington. As a result, for each of FYs 1999 through 2003, the amount
of FBD funding available for open competition among all States is $18
million with a non-competitive amount of $20 million set aside for
Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington..
The FBD funds, including both the competitive amount available to
all States and the set-aside for the three States, are not subject to
lapse; however, they are subject to obligation limitation. A
proportional share of obligation authority will accompany allocated
funds. The Federal share is 80 percent.
The purpose of this memorandum is to solicit candidate projects for
the competitive portion of the FBD funds. Implementation of the non-
competitive portion involving Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington will
be handled by separate memorandum at the beginning of FY 1999 when the
set-aside FBD funds are first available to these three States.
For the competitive portion of the FBD funds, we are combining into
one call (solicitation) the submissions of candidate projects for FYs
1998 and 1999 funds. A total of $48 million for the two fiscal years
combined ($30 million and $18 million) will be available to fund FBD
projects. The ``open competition'' portion of the discretionary funds
is available to all States (including the three designated States that
also receive set-asides) for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities serving as a link on any highway route, other than
an Interstate highway, and for passenger ferries and ferry terminals.
With this memorandum, we are requesting the States to submit
candidate projects for our consideration for funding in FYs 1998 and
1999. Please work with the States to identify viable projects to assure
high quality candidates for this program. The three States designated
for the set-aside funding should not submit projects that they plan to
fund from their individual State set-aside.
Eligibility
As specified in Section 1064 of the 1991 ISTEA, this program is for
the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 129. Proposals should meet the basic
eligibility criteria in 23 U.S.C. 129(c). The TEA-21 contains
amendments to 23 U.S.C. 129 that expand the eligibility criteria for
FBD funding to include ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities that
are publicly ``operated,'' and those with the public authority having a
``majority ownership interest'' provided the operation provides
substantial public benefits.
Discretionary funds are available for improvements to ferry boats
or ferry boat terminals where:
The ferry facility is providing a link on a public road
(other than Interstate) or the ferry facility is providing passenger
only ferry service.
The ferry and/or ferry terminal to be constructed or
improved is either publicly owned, publicly operated, or a public
authority has majority ownership interest where it is demonstrated that
the ferry operation provides substantial public benefits.
The ferry does not operate in international water except
for Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska and for ferries between a State and
Canada.
Selection Criteria
To evaluate the submitted candidates for selection, we will be
considering several criteria. Although there are no statutory or
regulatory criteria for selection of FBD projects, the following
criteria are considered in the evaluation of candidates for this
program:
1. Expeditious completion of project--Consideration is given to
requests that will expedite the completion of a viable project. This is
a project's ability to expeditiously complete usable facilities within
the limited funding amounts available.
2. Leveraging of private or other public funding--Because the
annual requests for funding far exceed the available FBD funds,
commitment of other funding sources to complement the requested FBD
funding is an important factor.
3. Amount of FBD funding--The requested amount of funding is a
consideration. Realizing the historically high demand of funding under
this program, we are looking for modest sized requests for funding
(generally less than $2 million) to allow more States to receive
funding under this program.
4. State priorities--For States submitting more than one project,
we will consider the individual States priorities if specified.
5. National geographic distribution of funding within the FBD
program--Consideration is given to selecting projects over time among
all the States competing for funding.
In addition to the above criteria, project selection will also
consider national geographic distribution among
[[Page 39630]]
all the discretionary programs as well as congressional direction or
guidance provided on specific projects or programs.
Submission Requirements
Although there is no prescribed format for a project submission,
the following information must be included to properly evaluate the
candidate projects. With the exception of the project area map, all of
the following must be included to consider the application complete.
The information does not have to be lengthy. Do not include reports but
rather provide simple concise statements. Incomplete applications will
be returned unprocessed.
1. State(s) in which the project is located.
2. County(ies) in which the project is located.
3. U.S. Congressional District No.(s) in which the project is
located.
4. U.S. Congressional Member's Name(s) for each District.
5. Facility or Project Name commonly used to describe the facility
or project.
6. Service Termini and Ports for the ferry boat operation including
the name of water crossing. A statement must be included for ferry boat
operations carrying motorized vehicles, describing the link in the
roadway system. Please clearly identify any ``passenger only'' ferry
service, and explain how the ferry service is linked to public
transportation or is part of a transit system. Also, for each project
please indicate if the project is part of an existing link or service
or if it is new service. Also identify if the ferry operates in
domestic, foreign or international waters.
7. Ownership/Operation must be specified. Please indicate which of
the following apply:
The boat or terminal is publicly owned. The term
``publicly owned'' means that the title for the boat or terminal must
be vested in a Federal, State, county, town, or township, Indian tribe,
municipal or other local government or instrumentality.
The boat or terminal is publicly operated. The term
``publicly operated'' means that a public entity operates the boat or
terminal.
The boat or terminal is ``majority publicly owned'' (as
opposed to public owned). This means that more than 50 percent of the
ownership is vested in a public entity. If so, does it provide
substantial public benefits? Documentation of substantial public
benefits, concurred in by the division office, is required for ferry
facilities that are in majority public ownership.
8. Current and Future Traffic including the functional
classification of the route that the project is located on along with a
general description of the type and nature of traffic, both current and
design year average daily traffic or average daily passenger volumes,
on the route if available. The general description could include
information on year round or seasonal service; commuter, recreational
or visitor ridership; traffic generators and attractions.
9. Proposed Work should describe the project work to be completed
under this particular request, and whether this is a complete project
or part of a larger project.
10. Amount of Federal FBD Discretionary Funds Requested for the
proposed work. The total cost for the proposed work should be shown
along with the requested amount of FBD funding (this should reflect
that the maximum Federal share for this program is 80 percent). A
State's willingness to accept partial funding should be indicated.
11. Commitment of Other Funds--Indicate the amounts and sources of
any private or other public funding being provided as part of this
project. Only indicate those amounts of funding that are firm and
documented commitments. The submission must include written
confirmation of these commitments from the entity controlling the
funds.
12. Previous FBD Discretionary Funding--Indicate the amount and
fiscal year of any previous FBD discretionary funds received for this
project, terminals or ferry boats operating on this route or transit
system.
13. Future Funding Needs--Indicate the estimated future funding
needs for the project or facility if known. Also, provide estimated
time schedules for implementing future projects. This information will
be used to identify funding commitments beyond the presently proposed
project and in outlying years.
14. Talking Points Briefing--Each State's request for ferry boat
discretionary funds must be accompanied by a talking points paper for
use by the Office of the Secretary for the congressional notification
process should a project be selected for funding. A sample paper is
attached to this memorandum.
15. Project Area Map--A readable location/vicinity map showing the
ferry route and terminal connections would be helpful if available.
Division Office Responsibilities
In order to ensure that the submitted candidates are complete and
properly prepared, the division office must:
1. Provide this information regarding project eligibility,
selection criteria and submission requirements to the State
transportation agency, and
2. Review all candidate applications submitted by the State prior
to sending them to this office to ensure that they are complete and
meet the above requirements.
When sending in candidate projects, the States must understand that
any qualified project may or may not be selected, and it may be
necessary to supplement FBD funds with other Federal-aid and/or State
funds.
Any allocations in FY 1999 will be made on the assumption that
proposed projects are viable and implementation schedules are
realistic. Any unobligated balances remaining on September 15, 1999,
will be withdrawn and used for funding future fiscal year requests.
Because of the compressed time period available, candidate projects
should be submitted to us no later than September 1, 1998. Projects
received after this date may not receive full consideration. Questions
on this memorandum may be directed to Mr. Jack Wasley of the Federal-
Aid and Design Division at 202-366-4658.
Henry H. Rentz for Thomas J. Ptak
Attachment
Sample Talking Points Briefing for Secretary's Office
Note: These talking points will be used by the Office of the
Secretary in making congressional notification contacts. Since some
of the recipients of the calls may not be closely familiar with the
highway program, layman's language should be used to the extent
possible. Information contained in the talking points may be used by
a member of Congress in issuing a press release announcing the
discretionary allocation.
Ferry Boat Discretionary (FBD) Funds
GRANTEE:
REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR:
PROJECT:
Example: Northport to Fort Bischer/Build a 180' Ferry
FHWA FUNDS:
Example: $1,200,000
Will the Project be advanced with State funds even if FBD funds are
not received? If so, what year?
Were we asked to consider an overmatch (i.e. more than 20%)
[[Page 39631]]
Examples:
This project is needed to replace the MV Good Times which
is currently running at the Northport Operation. This operation
provides service across the Little Pike River and is a link between SR
21 and U.S. 52, both of which are classified as principal arterials.
Limited roadway access has created intolerable congestion
on the existing approaches to the city. The project will relieve
congestion on the local system which is presently operating at capacity
during peak hour. (If there is anything innovative about the project be
sure and mention in layman's terms.)
Project is in Congressional district .
This project is part of the State's ferry boat program.
Annually the State spends $19 million to operate seven ferry routes,
and receives an average of $1.5 million annually in tolls from three of
these routes.
The project will be advertised for construction in and is scheduled for completion in .
June 25, 1998
[HNG-12]
ACTION: Request for Projects for Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Interstate
Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) Funds
(Reply Due: September 1, 1998)
Associate Administrator for Program Development
Regional Administrators
Division Administrators
Section 1107(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) amended Section 118 (c), of Title 23, United States
Code (23 U.S.C.) and provides that before any apportionment of
Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds is made under Section 104(b)(4) of 23
U.S.C., the Secretary shall set aside $50,000,000 in fiscal year (FY)
1998 and $100,000,000 in each of FYs 1999 through 2003 for obligation
by the Secretary for IMD projects for resurfacing, restoring,
rehabilitating and reconstructing (4R) any route or portion thereof on
the Interstate System with certain exceptions (see below).
In order to facilitate the orderly development and review of
candidate projects, we intend to combine the $150 million authorized in
total for FY 1998 and FY 1999 IMD funding into one solicitation. Please
work with the States to identify viable projects to assure high quality
candidates for this program.
Eligibility
The eligibility criteria for IMD projects is provided in Section
118(c) of 23 U.S.C.
1. IMD funds are available for 4R work (including added lanes) on
the Interstate System. However, not eligible for allocation of IMD
funds are projects on any highway designated as a part of the
Interstate System under Section 139 of 23 U.S.C., as in effect before
the enactment of TEA-21 and any toll road on the Interstate System not
subject to an agreement under Section 119(e) of 23 U.S.C., as in effect
on December 17, 1991.
2. A State is eligible to receive an allocation of IMD funds if it
has obligated or demonstrates that it will obligate in FY 1999 all of
its IM funds apportioned under Section 104(b)(4) of 23 U.S.C., other
than an amount which by itself, is insufficient to pay the Federal
share of the cost of a project for resurfacing, restoring,
rehabilitating, and reconstructing the Interstate System which has been
submitted by the State to the Secretary for approval.
3. The applicant must be willing and able to obligate the IMD funds
within 1 year of the date the funds are made available, apply them to a
ready-to-commence project, and in the case of construction work, begin
work within 90 days of obligation.
Selection Criteria
To evaluate the submitted candidates for selection, we will be
considering several criteria. The following statutory criteria for
priority consideration are found in 23 U.S.C. 118(c)(3) and Section1223
of TEA-21:
1. Any project the cost of which exceeds $10 million [Section 118].
2. A project on any high volume route in an urban area or high
truck-volume route in a rural area. [Section 118].
3. Priority may be given to funding a transportation project
relating to an international quadrennial Olympic or Paralympic event,
or a Special Olympics International event if the project meets the
extraordinary needs associated with such events and is otherwise
eligible for assistance with IMD funds [Section 1223].
Although there are no regulatory criteria for selection of IMD
projects, the following criteria are also considered in the evaluation
of candidates for this program:
1. Leveraging of private or other public funding--Because the
annual requests for funding far exceed the available IMD funds,
commitment of other funding sources to complement the requested IMD
funds is an important factor.
2. State priorities--For States that submit more than one project,
we give consideration to the individual State's priorities if
specified.
3. Expeditious completion of project--Preference is also given to
requests that will expedite the completion of a viable project over
requests for initial funding of a project that will require a long-term
commitment of future IMD funding. For large-scale projects
consideration is given to the State's total funding plan to expedite
the completion of the project.
In addition to the above criteria, project selection will also
consider national geographic distribution among all of the
discretionary programs as well as congressional direction or guidance
provided on specific projects or programs.
Submission Requirements
Although there is not a prescribed format for a project submission,
the following information must be included in the application to
properly evaluate the candidate projects. Those applications that do
not include these items will be considered incomplete and returned.
1. State.
2. Federal-Aid Project Number.
3. Description of Project--Describe the project work to be
completed under this request. If the project is related to one of the
Olympic events listed in Section 1223 of TEA-21, that relationship
should be described.
4. Project Location--Describe the specific location of the project,
including route number and mileposts, if applicable.
5. County or Counties in which the project is located.
6. U.S. Congressional District No.(s) in which the project is
located.
7. U.S. Congressional District Member's Name(s).
8. Current 2-Way Average Daily Traffic including percentage of
trucks.
9. Name of Urban Area or indicate if located in a rural area.
10. Number of lanes before and after construction of the project.
The number of lanes and current ADT are used to gauge the degree of
congestion on the route.
11. Project Plan Status--PS&E status.
12. Estimated Authorization Date (month/year).
13. Total Project Cost.
14. Amount of IMD funds requested--Indicate amount of IMD funds
being requested. If a State is willing to accept partial funding of
this amount, that should be indicated. Sometimes, partial funding of
requests is utilized to provide funding for more projects since
[[Page 39632]]
the requests far exceed the available funds.
15. An Obligation Schedule--Demonstrate how the State will obligate
all of its IM apportionments before the end of FY 1999.
16. Commitment of Other Funds--Indicate the amounts and sources of
any private or other public funding being provided as part of this
project. Only indicate those amounts of funding that are firm with
documented commitments. The submission must include written
confirmation of these commitments from the entity controlling the
funds.
17. Previous Interstate 4R Discretionary (IDR) Funding--Indicate
the amount and fiscal year of any previous IDR funds received for the
project.
18. Future Funding Needs--Indicate the estimated future funding
needs for the project, including anticipated requests for additional
IMD funding, the items of work to be completed and projected
scheduling.
19. Talking Points Briefing--A one-page talking points paper
covering basic project information for each candidate project submitted
for IMD funding is needed for use by the Office of the Secretary for
the congressional notification process in the event a project is
selected for funding. For your guidance a sample paper is attached to
this memorandum.
Division Office Responsibilities
In order to ensure that the submitted candidate projects are
complete and properly prepared, the Division Office must:
1. Provide the information regarding project eligibility, selection
criteria and submission requirements to the State transportation
agency, and
2. Review all candidate project applications submitted by the State
prior to sending them to this office to ensure that they are complete
and meet the above requirements.
We are requesting that candidate project submissions be forwarded
to the Chief, Federal-Aid and Design Division, HNG-12, not later than
September 1, 1998. Projects received after this date may not receive
full consideration.
When sending in candidate projects, the States must understand that
any qualified project may or may not be selected and it may be
necessary to supplement allocated IMD funds with other Federal-aid and/
or State funds to construct a section of highway which will be usable
to the traveling public in as short a period of time as possible.
Allocations of IMD funds shall remain available until expended.
Obligation limitation will be distributed with each allocation of
funds.
As a reminder, any requests to adjust the amount of IMD funds
allocated to a specific project must be forwarded in writing to the
Chief, Federal-Aid and Design Division, HNG-12, for approval.
Furthermore, funds from unobligated allocations or project underruns
cannot be used for another IMD project without the written approval of
the Chief, Federal-Aid and Design Division.
Questions concerning preparation of applications and other matters
may be directed to Mr. Cecilio Leonin of the Federal-Aid and Design
Division, HNG-12, telephone (202) 366-4651.
Henry H. Rentz for Thomas J. Ptak
Attachment
Sample Talking Points Briefing for Secretary Slater
Note: These talking points will be used by the Office of the
Secretary in making congressional notification contacts. Since some
of the recipients of the calls may not be closely familiar with the
highway program, layman's language should be used to the extent
possible. Information contained in the talking points may be used by
a member of Congress in issuing a press release announcing the
discretionary allocation.
Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) Funds
GRANTEE:
PROJECT NO: IMD-xxx-x(xxx)
< fhwa="" funds:="" $xx,xxx,xxx.=""><> This project provides for resurfacing ____.____ miles of
the two northbound lanes of I-xx in __________ county, extending from
the U.S. Route 1 interchange at Hometown to the State Road 2 overpass
in the vicinity of Smallville.
The project provides for a 2-inch overlay of the existing
bituminous concrete pavement which is badly deteriorated and rutted.
(If there is anything innovative about the project be sure and mention
in layman's terms.)
Project IMD-xxx-x(xxx) is in Congressional district .
This project is part of the second phase of a 5-year
program to resurface a 25-mile section of I-xx between Town-A and Town-
B. In 1998, the southbound lanes at this same location are being
resurfaced using State funds.
In addition to State matching funds, a portion of the
total project cost will be financed by $__________ in funds provided by
________________.
The project includes improvements to several safety
features within the project limits including upgrading of guardrail and
traffic signs.
The project will be advertised for construction in and is scheduled for completion in .
June 25, 1998
[HNG-12]
ACTION: Request for Projects for Fiscal Year, (FY) 1999 Public Lands
Highways (PLH) Discretionary Funds (Reply Due: September 1, 1998)
Associate Administrator for
Program Development
Regional Administrators
Division Administrators
Federal Lands Highway Program Administrator
With passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), the PLH discretionary program has been continued through FY
2003. As you are aware, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
1997 provided the initial FY 1998 funding for the PLH program, and we
allocated those available PLH discretionary funds to 10 projects
earlier this year.
There is approximately $30 million of additional FY 1998 funds
provided by TEA-21. We had originally intended to allocate these
additional FY 1998 funds to additional projects selected from the
previously submitted FY 1998 candidates. Because we are nearing the
last quarter of FY 1998, we have instead decided to combine the
available FY 1998 and FY 1999 funds in one solicitation.
With this memorandum, we are requesting submission of eligible
candidate projects for FY 1999 PLH discretionary funds. It appears that
approximately $80 million will be available for allocation in FY 1999.
Combined with the $30 million FY 1998 funds, the total available
funding for FY 1999 candidates is approximately $110 million. Please
work with the States to identify viable projects to assure high quality
candidates for this program.
Eligibility
The PLH funds are available for any kind of transportation project
eligible for assistance under Title 23, United States Code, that is
within, adjacent to, or provides access to the areas served by the
public lands highway. The PLH funds are available for planning,
research, engineering, and construction of the highways or of transit
facilities within public lands. In addition, eligible projects under
the PLH program may include the following:
[[Page 39633]]
1. Transportation planning for tourism and recreational travel,
including the National Forest Scenic Byways Program, Bureau of Land
Management Back Country Byways Program, National Trail System Program,
and other similar Federal programs that benefit recreational
development.
2. Adjacent vehicular parking areas.
3. Interpretive signage.
4. Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic
sites.
5. Provision for pedestrians and bicycles.
6. Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas,
including sanitary and water facilities.
7. Other appropriate public road facilities such as visitor
centers.
8. A project to build a replacement of the federally owned bridge
over the Hoover Dam in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area between
Nevada and Arizona (added by Section 1115 of TEA-21).
The term ``public lands highway'' means a forest road under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public
travel or any highway through unappropriated or unreserved public
lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other Federal reservations under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public
travel. Federal reservations are considered to include lands owned by
the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department
of Defense and other Federal Agencies.
In addition, Section 1203 of TEA-21 provides that up to ``1 percent
of the funds allocated under 23 U.S.C. 202 may be used to carry out the
transportation planning process for the Lake Tahoe region,'' and that
highway projects included in these transportation plans ``may be funded
using funds allocated under 23 U.S.C. 202.'' Applications for these
activities, therefore, could also be submitted requesting PLH
discretionary funding.
Selection Criteria
To evaluate the submitted candidates for selection, we will be
considering several criteria. The following statutory criteria are
found in 23 U.S.C. 202(b):
1. The funds shall be allocated ``among those States having
unappropriated or unreserved public lands, nontaxable Indian lands or
other Federal reservations, on the basis of need in such States,'' and
2. We are required to ``give preference to those projects which are
significantly impacted by Federal land and resource management
activities which are proposed by a State which contains at least 3
percent of the total public lands in the Nation.''
Although there are no regulatory criteria for selection of PLH
discretionary projects, the following criteria are also considered in
the evaluation of candidates for this program:
1. Equitable distribution of funding among the States--In applying
this criterion, we look at PLH discretionary funding distributed over
the past 20 years and consider two factors in determining a State's
fair share of this distribution. These factors are the State's share of
the Nation's Federal public lands and the percentage of an individual
State's area that is comprised of Federal public lands. Preference is
given to those States that are ``behind'' in their fair share of the
funding.
2. Leveraging of private or other public funding--Because the
annual requests for funding far exceed the available PLH discretionary
funds, commitment of other funding sources to complement the requested
PLH discretionary funding is an important factor.
3. Expeditious completion of project--Preference is also given to
requests that will expedite the completion of a viable project over
requests for initial funding of a project that will require a long-term
commitment of future PLH funding. For large-scale projects
consideration is given to the State's total funding plan to expedite
the completion of the project.
4. Amount of PLH funding--The requested amount of funding is
another consideration. For States that have a relatively small amount
of Federal public lands, more moderately sized (< $500,000)="" project="" requests="" are="" given="" more="" favorable="" consideration.="" 5.="" state="" priorities--for="" states="" that="" submit="" more="" than="" one="" project,="" we="" give="" consideration="" to="" the="" individual="" state's="" priorities="" if="" specified.="" 6.="" national="" geographic="" distribution="" of="" the="" funding="" within="" the="" plh="" program--although="" preference="" is="" to="" be="" given="" to="" the="" states="" with="" at="" least="" 3="" percent="" of="" the="" nation's="" public="" lands,="" consideration="" is="" also="" given="" to="" providing="" funding="" to="" states="" in="" the="" eastern="" part="" of="" the="" country="" to="" provide="" some="" geographic="" balance="" for="" the="" program.="" 7.="" program="" emphasis="" area--priority="" will="" be="" given="" to="" projects="" for="" the="" construction="" or="" restoration="" of="" nationally="" significant="" trails.="" this="" reflects="" the="" on-going="" development="" of="" a="" millennium="" trails="" program="" to="" commemorate="" the="" heritage="" of="" trails="" important="" to="" our="" past="" and="" celebrate="" the="" legacy="" of="" new="" and="" restored="" trails="" for="" our="" future.="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" above="" criteria,="" project="" selection="" will="" also="" consider="" national="" geographic="" distribution="" among="" all="" of="" the="" discretionary="" programs="" as="" well="" as="" congressional="" direction="" or="" guidance="" provided="" on="" specific="" projects="" or="" programs.="" submission="" requirements="" although="" there="" is="" not="" a="" prescribed="" format="" for="" a="" project="" submission,="" the="" following="" information="" must="" be="" included="" to="" properly="" evaluate="" the="" candidate="" projects.="" with="" the="" exception="" of="" the="" project="" area="" map,="" all="" of="" the="" following="" must="" be="" included="" to="" consider="" the="" application="" complete.="" those="" applications="" that="" do="" not="" include="" these="" items="" will="" be="" considered="" incomplete="" and="" returned.="" 1.="" state="" in="" which="" the="" project="" is="" located.="" 2.="" county="" in="" which="" the="" project="" is="" located.="" 3.="" u.s.="" congressional="" district="" no.(s)="" in="" which="" the="" project="" is="" located.="" 4.="" u.s.="" congressional="" district="" member's="" name(s).="" 5.="" project="" location--describe="" the="" specific="" location="" of="" the="" project,="" including="" route="" number="" and="" mileposts,="" if="" applicable.="" 6.="" public="" lands="" category--specify="" what="" federal="" public="" lands="" are="" being="" served="" by="" the="" project="" and="" whether="" the="" project="" is="" within,="" adjacent="" to,="" or="" provides="" access="" to="" the="" public="" lands.="" 7.="" proposed="" work--describe="" the="" project="" work="" to="" be="" completed="" under="" this="" particular="" request,="" and="" whether="" this="" is="" a="" complete="" project="" or="" part="" of="" a="" larger="" project.="" 8.="" project="" purpose--the="" states'="" submission="" should="" show="" how="" the="" proposed="" project="" and/or="" the="" highway="" route="" of="" which="" it="" is="" a="" part="" meet="" the="" federal="" land="" and="" resource="" management="" needs="" in="" the="" state.="" this="" should="" include="" status="" and="" adequacy="" of="" the="" existing="" route="" with="" regard="" to="" route="" continuity,="" capacity="" and="" safety="" and="" the="" benefits="" anticipated="" from="" completion="" of="" the="" proposed="" project.="" 9.="" planning="" and="" coordination--for="" the="" proposed="" project,="" describe="" the="" coordination="" with="" and="" input="" from="" the="" various="" federal="" land="" management,="" state,="" and="" metropolitan="" planning="" agencies="" involved.="" section="" 204(a)="" of="" title="" 23,="" united="" states="" code,="" as="" amended,="" requires="" all="" regionally="" significant="" federal="" lands="" highways="" program="" projects="" to="" be="" developed="" in="" cooperation="" with="" states="" and="" metropolitan="" planning="" organizations,="" and="" included="" in="" appropriate="" federal="" lands="" highways="" program,="" state,="" and="" metropolitan="" plans="" and="" transportation="" improvement="" programs.="" [[page="" 39634]]="" 10.="" current="" and="" future="" traffic--for="" highway="" projects="" provide="" the="" current="" and="" design="" year="" average="" daily="" traffic.="" for="" other="" facilities,="" such="" as="" visitor="" centers,="" it="" may="" be="" desirable="" to="" describe="" the="" number="" of="" visitors="" accommodated="" by="" the="" facility.="" 11.="" project="" administration--indicate="" whether="" the="" federal="" funds="" for="" this="" project="" will="" be="" administered="" by="" the="" state="" transportation="" agency="" or="" a="" federal="" lands="" highway="" division="" (flhd)="" of="" fhwa.="" if="" the="" flhd="" or="" other="" federal="" agencies="" are="" involved,="" the="" type="" of="" involvement,="" whether="" it="" is="" preliminary="" engineering="" or="" contract="" administration,="" or="" other,="" should="" be="" specified.="" also,="" the="" flhd="" is="" available="" to="" assist="" you="" with="" federal="" agency="" coordination="" and="" should="" provide="" you="" with="" any="" data="" and="" information="" requested.="" 12.="" amount="" of="" federal="" plh="" discretionary="" funds="" requested--indicate="" the="" amount="" of="" federal="" plh="" funds="" being="" requested="" for="" fy="" 1999.="" if="" a="" state="" is="" willing="" to="" accept="" partial="" funding="" of="" the="" request,="" that="" should="" also="" be="" indicated.="" sometimes="" partial="" funding="" of="" requests="" is="" utilized="" to="" provide="" funding="" to="" more="" projects,="" since="" the="" requests="" far="" exceed="" the="" funding="" available.="" 13.="" commitment="" of="" other="" funds--indicate="" the="" amounts="" and="" sources="" of="" any="" private="" or="" other="" public="" funding="" being="" provided="" as="" part="" of="" this="" project.="" only="" indicate="" those="" amounts="" of="" funding="" that="" are="" firm="" and="" documented="" commitments.="" the="" submission="" must="" include="" written="" confirmation="" of="" these="" commitments="" from="" the="" entity="" controlling="" the="" funds.="" 14.="" previous="" plh="" discretionary="" funding--indicate="" the="" amount="" and="" fiscal="" year="" of="" any="" previous="" plh="" discretionary="" funds="" received="" for="" this="" project="" or="" route.="" 15.="" future="" funding="" needs--indicate="" the="" estimated="" future="" funding="" needs="" for="" the="" project,="" including="" anticipated="" requests="" for="" additional="" plh="" discretionary="" funding,="" the="" items="" of="" work="" to="" be="" completed="" and="" projected="" scheduling.="" 16.="" project="" area="" map--it="" is="" suggested="" that="" a="" readable="" map,="" clearly="" showing="" the="" proposed="" project="" and="" its="" relationship="" to="" the="" overall="" development="" of="" a="" highway="" route,="" as="" well="" as="" its="" relationship="" to="" the="" federal="" public="" lands,="" be="" included.="" the="" map="" should="" also="" show="" any="" previously="" completed="" work="" on="" this="" highway="" route,="" if="" any,="" plus="" additional="" work="" being="" planned="" beyond="" the="" proposed="" project.="" 17.="" talking="" points="" briefing--a="" one="" page="" talking="" points="" paper="" covering="" basic="" project="" information="" is="" also="" needed="" for="" use="" by="" the="" office="" of="" the="" secretary="" for="" the="" congressional="" notification="" process="" should="" a="" project="" be="" selected="" for="" funding.="" each="" state's="" request="" for="" fy="" 1999="" plh="" discretionary="" funds="" must="" include="" a="" talking="" points="" paper.="" a="" sample="" paper="" is="" attached="" to="" this="" memorandum.="" division="" office="" responsibilities="" in="" order="" to="" ensure="" that="" the="" submitted="" candidates="" are="" complete="" and="" properly="" prepared,="" the="" division="" office="" must:="" 1.="" provide="" this="" information="" regarding="" project="" eligibility,="" selection="" criteria="" and="" submission="" requirements="" to="" the="" state="" transportation="" agency,="" and="" 2.="" review="" all="" candidate="" applications="" submitted="" by="" the="" state="" prior="" to="" sending="" them="" to="" this="" office="" to="" ensure="" that="" they="" are="" complete="" and="" meet="" the="" above="" requirements.="" we="" are="" requesting="" that="" candidate="" project="" submissions="" be="" received="" in="" headquarters="" no="" later="" than="" september="" 1,="" 1998.="" projects="" received="" after="" this="" date="" may="" not="" receive="" full="" consideration.="" when="" sending="" in="" candidate="" projects,="" the="" states="" must="" understand="" that="" any="" qualified="" project="" may="" or="" may="" not="" be="" selected,="" and="" it="" may="" be="" necessary="" to="" supplement="" plh="" funds="" with="" other="" federal-aid="" and/or="" state="" funds="" to="" construct="" a="" section="" of="" highway="" which="" will="" be="" usable="" to="" the="" traveling="" public="" in="" as="" short="" a="" period="" as="" possible.="" any="" allocations="" in="" fy="" 1999="" will="" be="" made="" on="" the="" assumption="" that="" proposed="" projects="" are="" viable="" and="" implementation="" schedules="" are="" realistic.="" any="" unobligated="" balances="" remaining="" on="" september="" 15,="" 1999,="" will="" be="" withdrawn="" and="" used="" for="" funding="" future="" fiscal="" year="" requests.="" if="" there="" are="" questions,="" please="" contact="" mr.="" larry="" beidel="" (202-366-="" 1564)="" of="" our="" federal-aid="" and="" design="" division.="" henry="" h.="" rentz="" for="" thomas="" j.="" ptak="" attachment="" sample="" talking="" points="" briefing="" for="" sec.="" slater="" note:="" these="" talking="" points="" will="" be="" used="" by="" the="" office="" of="" the="" secretary="" in="" making="" congressional="" notification="" contacts.="" since="" some="" of="" the="" recipients="" of="" the="" calls="" may="" not="" be="" closely="" familiar="" with="" the="" highway="" program,="" layman's="" language="" should="" be="" used="" to="" the="" extent="" possible.="" information="" contained="" in="" the="" talking="" points="" may="" be="" used="" by="" a="" member="" of="" congress="" in="" issuing="" a="" press="" release="" announcing="" the="" discretionary="" allocation.="" public="" lands="" highways="" (plh)="" discretionary="" funds="" grantee:="">
REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR:
PROJECT:
This project provides for reconstructing ____ miles of US 1 in
__________ County extending from State Route 2 intersection in Hometown
to the County Road 3 in the vicinity of Smallville. Widening 2 feet on
either side with improvements on horizontal alignment and installation
of 1000 feet of guard rail are included in the project.
FHWA FUNDS: $xx,xxx,xxx.
Specify other source of funds (for ex: State, local, Forest
highways, etc, if any, to supplement Federal funds
This project will improve access to Navajo Indian
Reservation and improve the local economy.
This project is in Congressional district .
This project is part of the second phase of a 5-year
program to reconstruct a 30-mile section of Forest Road 11 (State Route
201) between Town A and Town B.
The project will be advertised for construction in and is scheduled for completion in .
[FR Doc. 98-19563 Filed 7-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
