Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices 39625

Previous Meeting; (5) Review Papers/

Comments Received Since the Release

of DO–160D; (6) Identify Next Steps and

Develop a Plan to Accomplish Them; (7)

Review Section 20 Working Group

Activities; (8) New/Unfinished

Business; (10) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral

statements at the meeting. Persons

wishing to present statements or obtain

information should contact the RTCA

Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,

NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC

20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)

833–9434 (fax); http://www.rtca.org

(web site). Members of the public may

present a written statement to the

committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17,

1998.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 98–19667 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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 nondeficient 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 nondeficient 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
39626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices

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-forconstruction 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices 39627
39628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices 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 noncompetitive 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
39630 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices

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: <List full name of State

Highway Agency>

REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR: <List

full names>

PROJECT: <short name/description of

project>

Example: Northport to Fort Bischer/

Build a 180′ Ferry

FHWA FUNDS: <requested 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%)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices 39631

<List talking points with little o bullets,

note italicized items are requested

bullets>

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

<add number and member’s name>.

• 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 <month/year> and is

scheduled for completion in <month/

year>.

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-tocommence 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
39632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices

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 onepage 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: <List full name of State

Highway Agency>

PROJECT NO: IMD-xxx-x(xxx)

<List each project number in this

format<

FHWA FUNDS: $xx,xxx,xxx. <If more

than one project, also show cost for

each<

• This project provides for

resurfacing ll.ll miles of the two

northbound lanes of I-xx in lllll

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 <add number and

member’s name>.

• This project is part of the second

phase of a 5-year program to resurface

a 25-mile section of I-xx between TownA 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 $lllll in funds

provided by llllllll.

• 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 <month/year> and is

scheduled for completion in <month/

year>.

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:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices 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 ongoing 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.
39634 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Notices

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: <List full name of State

Highway Agency>

REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR: <List

full names>

PROJECT: <short name/description of

project>

This project provides for

reconstructing ll miles of US 1 in

lllll 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. <requested

funds>

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 <add number and member’s

name>.

• 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 <month/year> and is

scheduled for completion in <month/

year>.

[FR Doc. 98–19563 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. MC–F–20923]

Coach USA, Inc.—Control—Kansas

City Executive Coach, Inc. and Le Bus,

Inc.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice tentatively approving

finance transaction.

SUMMARY: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach), a

noncarrier, filed an application under

49 U.S.C. 14303 to acquire control of

Kansas City Executive Coach, Inc.

(Executive) and Le Bus, Inc. (Le Bus)

(collectively, the Acquired Carriers),

both motor carriers of passengers.

Persons wishing to oppose the

application must follow the rules under

49 CFR part 1182, subparts B and C. The

Board has tentatively approved the

transaction, and, if no opposing

comments are timely filed, this notice

will be the final Board action.

DATES: Comments are due by September

8, 1998. Applicant may reply by

September 22, 1998. If no comments are

received by September 8, 1998, this

notice is effective on that date.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of any comments referring to STB

No. MC–F–20923 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–