**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Highway Administration**

**\[FHWA Docket No.** **FHWA-98-4622\]**

**Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century: Implementation
Guidance for the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and
the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program**

**AGENCY**: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

**ACTION**: Notice; request for comments; solicitation of applications
for fiscal year (FY) 2000 grants

**SUMMARY**: This document provides implementation guidance on sections
1118 and 1119 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21). These sections established the National Corridor Planning and
Development Program (NCPD program) and the Coordinated Border
Infrastructure Program (CBI program). The NCPD and the CBI programs are
funded by a single funding source. These programs provide funding for
planning, project development, construction and operation of projects
that serve border regions near Mexico and Canada and high priority
corridors throughout the United States. States and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) are, under the NCPD program, eligible for
discretionary grants for: Corridor feasibility; corridor planning;
multistate coordination; environmental review; and construction. Border
States and (MPOs) are, under the CBI program, eligible for discretionary
grants for: Transportation and safety infrastructure improvements,
operation and regulatory improvements, and coordination and safety
inspection improvements in a border region.

**DATES**: Grant applications should be received by FHWA Division
Offices on** November 29, 1999**. Specific information required in grant
applications is provided in Section III of this notice. Comments on
program implementation should be received on or before ** January 27,
2000**. The additional time is provided so that any applicants can use
the first 60 days to fully concentrate on preparing grant applications
and, subsequently, to use information developed during that time to
formulate comments in the following 90 days. The FHWA will consider
comments received in developing the FY 2001 solicitation of grant
applications. More information on the type of comments sought by the
FHWA is provided in Section II of this notice. \[there were some minor
typos in this paragraph - see end of file\]

**ADDRESSES**: Your signed, written comments on program implementation
for FY 2001 and beyond should refer to the docket number appearing at
the top of this document and you must submit the comments to the Docket
Clerk, 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 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of
receipt of comments should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard.

Applications for FY 2000 grants under the NCPD and CBI programs should
be submitted to the FHWA Division Office in the State where the
applicant is located.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**: For program issues: Mr. Martin
Weiss, Office of Intermodal and Statewide Programs, HEPS,
(202)#366-5010; or for legal issues: Mrs. Diane Mobley (for the NCPD
program), Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202)#366-1366; or Ms.
Grace Reidy (for the CBI program), Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31,
(202)#366-6226; Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington D.C. 20590.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**

**Electronic Access**

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets,
Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
[http://dms.dot.gov]{.underline}. It is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more
information and help.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a computer,
modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202)#512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
[http://www.nara.gov/fedreg]{.underline} and the Government Printing
Office's web page at: [http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara]{.underline}.

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]{.underline}.

**Background**

Sections 1118 and 1119 of the TEA-21, Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.107,
at 161, establish the NCPD and CBI programs, respectively. These
programs respond to substantial interest dating from, as early as, 1991.
In that year, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA), Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, designated a number of high
priority corridors. Subsequent legislation modified the corridor
descriptions and designated additional corridors. Citizen and civic
groups promoted many of these corridors as, for example, a means to
accommodate international trade. Similarly, since 1991, a number of
studies identified infrastructure and operation deficiencies near the
U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. Also various groups, some
international and/or intergovernmental, studied opportunities to improve
infrastructure and operations.

In 1997, the DOT's Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 was established. The
strategic goals in this plan are: Safety, mobility, economic growth and
trade, human and natural environment, and national security. In 1998,
the FHWA's National Strategic Plan was established. The strategic goals
in this plan are: Mobility, safety, productivity, human and natural
environment and national security. Both sets of goals are consistent
with the language of TEA-21, including sections 1118 and 1119.

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 are limited each year by the requirements of section 1102
(Obligation Ceiling) of the TEA-21.

Under the NCPD program, funds are available to States and MPOs for
coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national
significance, economic growth, and international or interregional trade.
Under the CBI program, funds are available to border States and MPOs for
projects to improve the safe movement of people and goods at, or across,
the border between the United States and Canada, and the border between
the United States and Mexico. In addition, the Secretary may transfer up
to a total of \$10 million of combined program funds, over the life of
the TEA-21, to the Administrator of General Services for the
construction of transportation infrastructure necessary for law
enforcement in border States. Such transfer(s) will be made, based on
funding requested and supporting information furnished by the
Administrator of General Services. Finally, the Secretary of
Transportation (the Secretary) will implement any provisions in
legislation that directs that FY 2000 NCPD/CBI funds be used for
specific projects. Based on the factors noted above (i.e., obligation
limitations, transfer of funds to GSA and legislation), the FHWA
anticipates that between \$95 million and \$130 million will be
available for allocation for projects submitted in response to this
notice.

The Federal share for these funds is set by 23 U.S.C. 120 (generally 80
percent plus the sliding scale adjustment in States with substantial
public lands). The period of availability for obligation is the fiscal
year for which the funds are authorized and the three years following.
States which receive an allocation of funds under these programs will,
at the same time, receive an increase in obligation authority equal to
the allocation. Under section 1102 of TEA-21, obligation authority for
discretionary programs that is provided during a fiscal year is
extinguished at the end of the fiscal year. Funds allocated to projects
which, under the NCPD/CBI programs, receive an obligation authority
increase for FY 2000, must therefore be obligated during FY 2000 or be
withdrawn for redistribution.

This notice includes four sections:

Section I - Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI
discretionary program in FY 1999

Section II - Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2000 grants

Section III - Request for comments on program implementation in FY 2001
and beyond

Section IV - Solicitation of applications for FY 2000 grants

**Section I \-- Program Background and Implementation of the NCPD/CBI
Discretionary Program in FY 1999**

The FHWA implemented the NCPD/CBI programs with specific goals. In
addition, the FHWA considered the following: Comments received at
outreach sessions; information received during program discussions
within the DOT; and information received during discussions between
officials of the DOT and a variety of public sector and private sector
officials. The FY 1999 implementation goals were:

1\. Respect both the letter and the intent of existing statutes.

2\. Minimize administrative additions to statutory requirements.

3\. Minimize grant application paperwork.

4\. Maximize administrative control of grants by FHWA field personnel
rather than FHWA Headquarters personnel.

5\. Encourage substantive coordination of grant applications and grant
administration by State and local officials.

6\. Encourage appropriate private/public, State/local, intermodal,
interregional, multistate and multinational coordination.

7\. Encourage grant applications that have realistic objectives and time
horizons.

**Summary of Selection Process \-- FY 1999**

The FHWA received 151 applications for NCPD/CBI funding, all of which
were at least partially eligible (e.g., some applications included work
components that were not eligible and also included work components that
were eligible) for consideration. The requests for funding totaled over
\$2.2 billion compared with \$123,620,000 available for allocation. The
FHWA established an evaluation panel comprised of officials from various
agencies within the DOT (e.g., the Federal Railroad Administration, the
Federal Transit Administration, the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, as well as the FHWA) which reviewed the applications and
tabulated summaries of applications. The evaluation panel identified
applications that were "well qualified" and those which were "qualified"
based on summary information prepared by the FHWA program office. This
information was presented to the FHWA Administrator and other DOT
management officials who together selected 55 applications for funding
totaling \$123,603,000; some for full funding of the amount requested,
some for funding of a portion of the amount requested. An announcement
of the selections was made on May 27, 1999. The list of all
applications, and well as the list of selected applications, are
available at the URL noted above. A report, for the fiscal quarter
covering the May 27, 1999, selections, containing the reasons for
selection of projects, is required by section 1311 of the TEA-21, as
amended. At the time of this notice, the report for that quarter is not
available. When completed, it will be available at URL:
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/]{.underline}

Summary of Comments to the Docket

The November 12, 1998 **Federal Register** notice (63 FR 63351)
requested comments on how the NCPD/CBI programs implementation could be
improved in FY 2000, as well as other aspects of the program. Commenters
were asked specifically for improvements that could be made at the
discretion of the FHWA that would more effectively meet the seven goals
established for the program.

The following organizations submitted letters to the docket
(FHWA-1998-4622):

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Texas Department of Transportation

Canadian National Railway

Whatcom County Council of Governments

State of Michigan, Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Washington State Department of Transportation

Illinois Department of Transportation

ITS America

Science Applications International Corporation

Although no specific comment was raised by more than one or two of the
letters, there were a number of comments that addressed similar issues
or discussed similar problems.

The most common comment, made to some extent by all but one letter, was
the suggestion that more evaluation weight be given to certain
characteristics of applications. In a number of such cases, commenters
asserted that Congress "meant" to give more weight to these
characteristics. The FHWA was unable find any statutory language to
support any of these assertions. In all cases where a suggestion was
made to give more weight to certain characteristics of applications,
these characteristics were those contained in applications submitted or
favored by the organization writing the letter. The FHWA has, however,
reconsidered the overall subject of selection in response to these
comments. Based on this reconsideration, the FHWA will emphasize, in the
selections, applications that support the DOT and the FHWA strategic
goals noted previously in the context of the statute.

A common problem, cited to some extent by four commenters, was that of
addressing criteria specifically cited in the statute, e.g.,
international truck-borne cargo, reduction in commercial and other
travel time through a port of entry, the value of the cargo and
congestion impose economic costs on the Nation's economy, and encourage
or facilitates multistate or regional mobility. While developing the FY
1999 solicitation of applications, the FHWA did not find any cost
effective, easy-to-use methodologies for quantifying the specific terms
noted above. Thus, in that solicitation, the FHWA allowed the use of
surrogates to address such requirements and will continue to allow the
use of surrogates in addressing statutory criteria in the FY 2000
solicitation. However, the FHWA and other agencies are currently
investing time and money in developing better means to measure and
predict these terms.

Another common problem, cited to some extent by four commenters, was
that of not being sure where to place particular project information in
the application. One commenter suggested that the FHWA prescribe a
consistent uniform format for applications. While the FHWA does not
believe a prescriptive approach is needed, additional consistency in
applications is desirable. Therefore, the FHWA has modified and
clarified the section containing the application format accordingly.

Four commenters mentioned performance measures. One noted that there was
no detailed direction about this for applicants and three suggested
examples of performance measures for use by applicants. The FHWA did not
provide detailed direction on this during the FY 1999 solicitation
process, because there was no clear statutory basis to develop such
direction. However, the FHWA Strategic Plan, discussed above, includes a
number of measures particularly relevant to these programs (e.g.,
reduction of delay on Federal-aid highways, reduction of delay at
international border crossings, reduction of freight costs per ton mile,
reduction of fatalities). The FHWA Strategic Plan is available at URL:
Thus, the evaluation considerations have been modified to note that
meeting the goals in the FHWA strategic plan goals will be specifically
considered in evaluating the selection criteria. Furthermore, the item
in the application format on performance measures has been similarly
modified.

Two commenters complimented certain aspects of the solicitation process.
One especially appreciated the extensive guidance posted on the
Internet; the other appreciated the flexibility to use existing planning
and project development products as constituting the corridor
development and management plan. The FHWA intends to continue the
Internet posting of guidance and is continuing the flexibility regarding
the corridor development and management plan.

The Texas Department of Transportation stated that the FHWA's
interpretation of the statutory language was too flexible in that the
FHWA allowed applicants to provide information on "interstate or
interregional traffic" as a surrogate for the term "international
truck-borne commodities." The latter term is the one which appears in
section 1118 of the TEA-21. The same letter suggested clarification on
how States and MPOs should address criteria that are difficult to
quantify and specifically noted that "international truck-borne
commodities" was one of those criteria. As noted above, the FHWA has not
found any cost effective easy-to-use methodologies for quantifying the
specific term used in the statute and will continue to allow the use of
surrogates in addressing statutory criteria for FY 2000 while the FHWA
and other agencies are investigating better measurement.

In addition, the Texas Department of Transportation stated that there is
little transportation related trade data that is complete, reliable,
comparable from State to State, easy to use, and inexpensive to obtain.
The comment was made that the DOT should ensure this data is verified
before using it to distribute program funds. The FHWA agrees with the
comment about the lack of the kind of data desired. Because of this
situation, the FHWA did not distribute FY 1999 program funds based on
formulas or fixed numerical rating methods. Since there is no reasonable
probability that this data situation will change, the FHWA does not
expect to use formulas or fixed numerical rating methods for
distributing FY 2000 program funds.

Finally, the Texas Department of Transportation commented that FHWA
should provide applicants with information on how projects were selected
and how applications could be improved. Information on selection was
provided earlier in this notice. With respect to improving future
applications, the FHWA division offices provide information to
applicants on a case-by-case basis.

The Canadian National Railway stated that corridor plans (required by
section 1118 of the TEA-21) will not indicate substantive intermodal,
particularly freight rail, improvement opportunities. Section 1118(d) of
the TEA-21, which provides the statutory reference for the corridor
plan, nowhere requires, or even mentions rail freight or intermodal
opportunities as a plan element. However, the FHWA considers intermodal
opportunities as valid in the more general context of statewide and
metropolitan planning, and intends, in updating regulations on statewide
and metropolitan planning, to assure an appropriate level of intermodal
attention.

The Whatcom County Council of Governments stated that a fixed schedule
for announcing solicitations and allocations over the life of the
program would be desirable.

The FHWA is attempting to meet this desire by making the NCPD/CBI
solicitations and allocations closer to the timetable used in other
discretionary programs (e.g., ferry boats, public lands).

The State of Michigan, Department of Transportation objected to the FHWA
division office accepting the application of a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) which had not cleared the application with the State
DOT. The statute allows grants to an MPO and, therefore, acceptance of
this application was clearly proper. It is expected that through its
involvement in the MPO, the State DOT will be consulted in the MPO
application(s). ** **

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation commented that no new
corridors be designated until substantial progress has been made on the
corridors already listed in the TEA-21. Since the FHWA does not have the
authority to designate corridors (nor does the Secretary), no response
is made to this comment.

The Washington State Department of Transportation stated that spreading
allocations to every corridor and every border crossing (referred to by
the commenter as "peanut buttering") should be avoided. The comment went
on to note that this point was made at other venues. This comment has
merit and the FHWA took this into consideration in the FY 1999
allocations and intends to do so in the FY 2000 allocations.

Finally, two commenters encouraged the DOT/FHWA to ensure that a
significant number of selected projects incorporated Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) and related technologies. As noted below,
the FHWA strategic goals will be considered in the FY 2000 selections,
specifically those involving ITS.

**Section II \-- Eligibility and Selection Criteria for FY 2000 grants**

In general, the eligibility and selection criteria for FY 2000 grants
are the same as those used for FY 1999 grants with one change; namely,
that the FHWA is, in effect, considering not only the goals stated in
the FY 1999 solicitations (see above) but also the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the FHWA strategic goals in making grant selections.

***Eligibility - NCPD Program* **

Projects eligible for funding include the following:

1\. Feasibility studies.

2\. Comprehensive corridor planning and design activities.

3\. Location and routing studies.

4\. Multistate and intrastate coordination for corridors.

5\. Environmental review or construction after review by the Secretary
of a development and management plan for the corridor or useable section
of the corridor (hence called "corridor plan").

The FHWA considers work in the pre-feasibility stage of a project, e.g.,
development of metropolitan and State plans and programs, as not
eligible for support with Federal aid under section 1118 funds (although
funds authorized by other portions of the TEA-21 are eligible for such
support), but project development planning is eligible for support and
multistate freight planning is specifically encouraged herein.

The FHWA construes the phrase "environmental review," as used above, as
being the portion of the environmental documentation e.g., environmental
assessment/finding of non significant impact (EA/FONSI), environmental
impact statement (EIS) process requiring formal interagency review and
comment. Thus, even without review of the corridor plan, work needed to
produce the pre-draft EIS and to revise the draft would be eligible for
support with Federal aid under section 1118. However, work subsequent to
FHWA signature of the draft EIS (or equivalent) would not be eligible
for such support until review of the corridor plan. Subsequent to such a
review, work on a final EIS and any other necessary environmental work
would be eligible for funding under this section.

Eligibility for funds from the NCPD program is limited to high priority
corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the ISTEA, as amended, and
any other significant regional or multistate highway corridors selected
by the Secretary after consideration of the criteria listed for
selecting projects for NCPD funding. Fund allocation to a corridor does
not constitute designation of the corridor as a high priority corridor.
The FHWA has no statutory authority to make such a designation.

***Eligibility - CBI Program ** ***

Projects eligible for funding include the following:

1\. Improvements to existing transportation and supporting
infrastructure that facilitate cross border vehicle and cargo movements.

2\. Construction of highways and related safety and safety enforcement
facilities that will facilitate vehicle and cargo movements related to
international trade.

3\. Operational improvements, including improvements relating to
electronic data interchange and use of telecommunications, to expedite
cross border vehicle and cargo movement.

4\. Modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite cross border
vehicle and cargo movements.

5\. International coordination of planning, programming, and border
operation with Canada and Mexico relating to expediting cross border
vehicle and cargo movements.

6\. Activities of Federal inspection agencies.

The statute requires projects to be in a border region. The FHWA
considers projects within 100 km (62 miles) of the U.S./Canada or
U.S./Mexico border to be in a border region.

***Selection Criteria for the NCPD Program Funding***

The statute provides criteria to be used in identifying corridors, in
addition to those statutorily designated for eligibility. These
following criteria will be used for selecting projects for funding:

1\. The extent to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle traffic
at the border stations or ports of entry of each State has increased
since the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), and is projected to increase in the future.

2\. The extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in each State has
increased since the date of enactment of the NAFTA, and is projected to
increase in the future.

3\. The extent to which international truck-borne commodities move
through each State.

4\. The reduction in commercial and other travel time through a major
international gateway or affected port of entry expected as a result of
the proposed project including the level of traffic delays at major
highway/rail grade crossings in trade corridors.

5\. The extent of leveraging of Federal funds, including use of
innovative financing; combination with funding provided under other
sections of the TEA-21 and title 23 U.S.C.; and combination with other
sources of Federal, State, local, or private funding including State,
local and private matching funds.

6\. The value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle traffic, to the
extent that the value of the cargo and congestion impose economic costs
on the Nation's economy.

7\. Encourage or facilitate major multistate or regional mobility and
economic growth and development in areas 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 as follows:

1\. Expected reduction in commercial and other motor vehicle travel time
through an international border crossing as a result of the project.

2\. Improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security
related to motor vehicles crossing a border with Canada or Mexico.

3\. Strategies to increase the use of existing, underutilized border
crossing facilities and approaches.

4\. Leveraging of Federal funds, including use of innovative financing,
combination of such funds with funding provided under other sections of
the TEA-21 and combination with other sources of Federal, State, local
or private funding.

5\. Degree of multinational involvement in the project and demonstrated
coordination with other Federal agencies responsible for the inspection
of vehicles, cargo, and persons crossing international borders and their
counterpart agencies in Canada and Mexico.

6\. Improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security in and
through the gateway or affected port of entry concerned.

7\. The extent to which the innovative and problem solving techniques of
the proposed project would be applicable to other border stations or
ports of entry.

8\. Demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain continuing
comprehensive border or affected port of entry planning processes and
improvement programs.

As in the NCPD program criteria, the FHWA intends to use a flexible
interpretation of the CBI program selection criteria. For example,
because local (e.g., business association, civic, county, municipal,
utility) agencies and organizations sometimes have very small capital
improvement budgets, that local commitment for continuing planning and
improvement will be considered in the context of local program
cooperation with State projects in the border regions, as well as in the
context of local financial support for such projects.

***Selection Criteria Common to Both Programs***

Although all Federal-aid programs relate to the achievement of the
FHWA's strategic goals \-- safety, mobility, productivity, environment,
and national security \-- these discretionary programs apply most
directly to fulfillment of the safety, mobility, and productivity goals.
In addition, Departmental policy, related Federal directives and the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, 107
Stat. 285, emphasize the use of coordinated agency strategies and
advanced technology applications to achieve goals in a cost-effective
and environmentally sound manner. As noted in the Administrator's
message accompanying the 1998 FHWA National Strategic Plan, the
strategic goals and policies, "guide FHWA decisions on a day-to-day
basis, and will help our partners to frame their own agendas within a
context that contributes to achieving these broad national goals." In
accordance with this guidance, in making selections, the Administrator
will emphasize proposals related to motor carrier safety enforcement
facilities, integrated trade transportation processing systems to
improve border crossings, multistate freight planning efforts, and
applications of operational strategies, including ITS applications.

In addition, the concept of equity was important in the development of
the TEA-21. National geographic distribution among all discretionary
programs and congressional direction or guidance will be considered by
the Administrator in the selection of projects for discretionary funds.

***Evaluation Considerations for both the NCPD and the CBI Program* **

To adequately evaluate the extent to which selection criteria noted
above are met by individual projects, the FHWA will consider the
following in each grant application:

1\. The extent to which the project will help meet the FHWA and the DOT
strategic goals as noted above.

2\. Likelihood of expeditious completion of a useable project or
product.

3\. Size, in dollars, of the program grant request in comparison to
likely

accomplishments (e.g., grant requests that exceed about 10 percent of
the available NCPD and CBI program funding in a given year would be
expected to be subject to extra scrutiny to determine whether the likely
consequences would be commensurate with that level of funding).

4\. Clarity and conciseness of the grant application in submission of
the required

information.

5\. State priorities and endorsement of, or opposition to, projects by
other States, MPOs and other public and private agencies or
organizations, as well as the status of the project on the State
transportation improvement program (STIP) and the metropolitan
transportation improvement program (TIP).

6\. The extent to which the project may be eligible under both the NCPD
and the CBI program.

**Section III \-- Request for Comments on Program Implementation in FY
2001 and Beyond**

The FHWA has, as noted above, changed the selection criteria somewhat
from what they were in the FY 1999 solicitation. In addition, the FHWA
may consider requiring the use of electronic submittals for FY 2001 for
the narrative portion of the application (not maps). Consequently, the
FHWA is specifically requesting comments on these two aspects of program
implementation. In addition, although, as noted above, comments have
been made previously, agencies that wish to reconsider their previous
comment(s) or make additional or new comments on other aspects of
program implementation are invited to do so. The docket number noted in
the beginning of this notice should be referenced.

**Section IV \-- Solicitation of Applications for FY 2000 Grants**

As noted above, applications for FY 2000 grants are to be sent to the
division office in the State where the applicant is located or to the
division office in the lead State, where a project is in more than one
State.

When sending in applications, the States and MPOs must understand that
any qualified projects may or may not be selected. It may be necessary
to supplement NCPD and CBI program funds with other Federal-aid and/or
other funds to complete a useable project or product. Allocations of FY
2000 funds will be made considering the degree to which proposed
projects are viable and implementation schedules are realistic.

There is no prescribed format for project submission. The FHWA has
developed, however, a sample application format and summary format
which, if used, provides all the information needed to fairly evaluate
candidate projects. The FHWA expects that, except for especially complex
or geographically extensive projects, applications (excluding the
corridor plan which is to be a separate document) should be no more than
12 pages in length and the summary should be one page in length.
Applications that do not include all the described information may be
considered incomplete. The sample application format and summary format
are:

**Format for Application for NCPD or CBI Discretionary Funds**

1.  State (if a multi state or multi MPO project list the lead State/MPO
    and participating States/MPO);

2.  Congressional high priority corridor number(s), if applicable;

3.  County(ies) or Parish(es);

4.  U.S. Congressional District(s) and name of U.S. Representative(s) in
    the District(s);

5\. Project Location, including a map or maps (no more than two, except
for extraordinarily complex projects) with U.S., State, local numbered
routes and other important facilities clearly identified;

6.  Project objectives and benefits;

7.  Proposed work, identifying which specific element(s) of work
    corresponds to each of the list of eligible NCPD and/or CBI work
    types and disaggregating the work into phases, if applicable;

8.  Planning, programming, coordinating and scheduling status:
    Identifying whether the project is included, or expected to be
    included, in State and MPO plans and programs (e.g., STIPs and
    TIPs); noting consistency with plans and programs as developed by
    empowerment zone and enterprise community organizations; noting
    consistency with air quality plans; noting coordination with
    inspection agencies and with Canada and Mexico; and, stating the
    expected project initiation, milestone and/or project component
    completion and overall project completion dates;

9.  Current and projected traffic (auto, heavy truck, and, if
    applicable, light truck, pedestrian, bicycle, transit vehicle,
    railcar, etc.) and motor carrier and highway safety information for
    significant facilities integral to the project;

10. Financial information and projections, including: Total estimated
    cost of improvement to the overall corridor or border facility; a
    listing by year and source of previous funding (if part of a larger
    project, this should include previous funding for the overall
    project) from all sources; and, a listing, by year, amount and
    source, of other funds committed to the project or useable portions
    of the project;

11. Infrastructure condition information, applicable to infrastructure
    improvement projects where, at the time of the application, the
    facilities to be improved are reasonably known;

12. Information regarding ownership, applicable to infrastructure
    improvement projects where, at the time of the application, the
    facilities to be improved are reasonably known;

13. Maintenance responsibility, applicable to infrastructure improvement
    projects where, at the time of the application, the facilities to be
    improved are reasonably known;

14a. Other information needed to specifically address the seven
selection criteria for NCPD program funding (e.g., increase in
commercial traffic); and/or

14b. Other information needed to specifically address the eight
selection criteria for CBI program funding (e.g., reduction in travel
time);

15. Amount of NCPD program and/or CBI program funds requested, as well
    as written confirmation of the source and amount of non-Federal
    funds that make up the non-Federal share of the project;

16. Willingness to accept partial funding (if not indicated, the FHWA
    will construe that partial funding is acceptable);

17a. The priority within the State (or lead State) assigned to the
application, relative to other applications submitted by that State,
that is a clearly defined e.g., priority one or priority two, (not a
qualified priority such as priority one for CBI or priority one for
planning); or

17b. The reason(s) why a priority was not assigned;

18. Public endorsements of, expectations for or opposition to the
    project by public and private organizations who expect to use the
    work to be funded by the grant as well as those who expect to
    benefit or be adversely affected, directly or indirectly, from such
    work (a summary of such endorsements, delineating the oral from the
    written, and if appropriate, the extent of the support, is needed;
    however, copies of endorsements are not needed and should not be
    included in the application);

19a. A summary of the corridor plan, for those applications for the NCPD
program where the work to be funded includes environmental review or
construction and where the project is not on a corridor identified by
section 1105(c) of the ISTEA, as amended (for other NCPD applications
this item is optional);

19b. Corridor plan, separate from the rest of the application, for those
applications for the NCPD program where the work to be funded includes
environmental review or construction;

20. Performance measures in support of the FHWA Strategic Plan; and

21. Summary sheet covering basic project information (see below).

**Format for SUMMARY SHEET**

Application for NCPD or CBI Discretionary Funds

**GRANTEE:** List full name of agency

**U.S. REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR(S):** List full names

**GOVERNOR/MAYOR(S):** List full names

**PROJECT:** Short name and brief description of project (e.g., This
project provides for widening by one lane in each direction of\...
extending from \... in the vicinity of\... to \... in the vicinity
of\... a distance of\... this improvement will serve \... and \... will
result in major safety/time savings\... to\... )

**FHWA FUNDS REQUESTED:** Exclude non-Federal share

**OTHER FUNDS COMMITTED:** Specify source and amounts

**OTHER SUPPORT:** List agencies providing substantive assistance

**OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:** (e.g., improved access to Indian
Reservation, expected improvement to local economy, specify phase of
project or corridor development, specify on going projects that will be
coordinated with this one, identify environmental features, construction
scheduling \-- all if appropriate)

(**Authority**: 23 U.S.C. 315; secs. 1118 and 1119, Pub. L. 105-178, 112
Stat. 107, at 161 (1998); and 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: August 24, 1999

Anthony R. Kane

Executive Director

\[FR doc. 99-22473 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am\]

The above was on pages 47222 to 47228 of FR Vol. 64, No. 167/Monday,
August 30, 1999

The paragraph on Dates should have read as follows:

**DATES**: Grant applications should be received by FHWA Division
Offices on** November 29, 1999**. Specific information required in grant
applications is provided in Section IV of this notice. Comments on
program implementation should be received on or before ** January 27,
2000**. The additional time is provided so that any applicants can use
the first 90 days to fully concentrate on preparing grant applications
and, subsequently, to use information developed during that time to
formulate comments in the following 60 days. The FHWA will consider
comments received in developing the FY 2001 solicitation of grant
applications. More information on the type of comments sought by the
FHWA is provided in Section III of this notice.