Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23073

open their market to textile and apparel

products.

The United States has continuing concerns

about treatment of foreign, research-based

pharmaceuticals under the reimbursement

pricing systems in place in Korea and

Taiwan. These reimbursement pricing

systems lack transparency and appear

arbitrary, raising questions about whether

they are being implemented in a fair and

non-discriminatory manner. These systems

also create an uncertain business

environment for pharmaceutical

manufacturers. In addition, burdensome and

non-science-based regulatory requirements

are applied to pharmaceutical products in

Korea and Taiwan, including requirements

relating to the acceptance of foreign clinical

test data, testing, and approval of new drugs.

Korea and Taiwan need to undertake

significant improvements in their systems to

make them fair, non-discriminatory and

transparent. Finally, while the Korean

Government has been responsive to some

U.S. concerns in the pharmaceutical sector,

serious questions remain regarding the lack

of IPR protection for these products. In

particular, the lack of coordination between

the Korea Food and Drug Administration and

the Korea Intellectual Property Office

concerning marketing approval for

pharmaceuticals and inadequate data

protection, discourage the introduction of

innovative drugs. The U.S. Government will

continue to pursue these issues with the

Korean Government to ensure that foreign

pharmaceuticals are provided fair and nondiscriminatory treatment in the Korean

market.

Finally, the U.S. flat glass industry

continues to experience serious market

access problems in Japan, owing mainly to

the continued domination of the Japanese flat

glass market by domestic flat glass

manufacturers. Over the past year, U.S.

industry has strengthened its business and

marketing activities in Japan. However,

despite better quality, technology and

competitive prices, U.S. flat glass

manufacturers have failed to gain access to

the Japanese market commensurate with their

level of access in the rest of the world. The

domination by Japanese flat glass

manufacturers of distributors is a key

problem for U.S. firms. The leading Japanese

flat glass producers exert tight control over

flat glass distribution by majority ownership,

equity and financing ties, employee

exchanges, and purchasing quotas. The U.S.

Government remains very concerned about

the closed distribution channels in the

oligopolistic flat glass sector. To address

these concerns, the U.S. Government has

proposed, under the bilateral Enhanced

Initiative on Deregulation and Competition

Policy, that the Japanese Government take

further steps to promote competition in

wholesale and retail distribution channels for

a range of products, including flat glass. The

U.S. Government will continue to monitor

closely the flat glass industry and urges the

Japanese Government to promote

competition and eliminate unhealthy

oligopolistic behavior in the flat glass sector.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 01–11355 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2000–7392]

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

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 intent to apply for fiscal

year (FY) 2002 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

discretionary grant programs 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: Intentions to make grant

applications should be received by

FHWA Division Offices no later than

July 6, 2001. Specific information

required for intentions to make grant

applications is provided in Section IV of

this notice. Comments on program

implementation should be sent as soon

as appropriate. The FHWA will consider

comments received in developing the

FY 2002 and FY 2003 solicitations of

grant applications as well as the

implementation of the NCPD/CBI

program. More information on the type

of comments sought by the FHWA is

provided in Section III of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments on program implementation

for fiscal year FY 2003 to FHWA Docket

No. FHWA–2000–7392, the Docket

Clerk, U.S. 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.

Intent to make applications for FY

2002 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–10, (202) 366–5010; or

for legal issues: Mr. Robert Black, Office

of the Chief Counsel, HCC–30, (202)

366–1359; Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington D.C. 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Internet users can access all

comments received by the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the

universal resource locator (URL): http:/

/dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours

each day, 365 days each year. Please

follow the instructions online for more

information and help.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a 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 and the

Government Printing Office’s web page

at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. In

addition, a number of documents and

links concerning the NCPD and the CBI

programs are available through the

home page of the Corridor/Border

Programs: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

hep10/corbor/corbor.html.

23074 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

Background

Sections 1118 and 1119 of the TEA–

21, Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 107,

at 161, established the NCPD and CBI

programs, respectively. These programs

respond to substantial interest dating

from 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 operational

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.

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). Program funds are

limited by the requirements of section

1102 (Obligation Ceiling) of the TEA–

21. Further, projects selected for

funding have been and may again be

affected by legislative language,

colloquially called ‘earmarks’, placed in

Federal law or related reports. This

latter situation was the case in both FY

2000 and FY 2001. In these situations,

the solicitation was made in August

1999 and June 2000 respectively and, in

both cases, Congressional direction a

few months later established project

specific language. As a matter of long

standing general policy, the FHWA

opposes project specific legislative

language. However, subsequent to the

inclusion of such language in law or

related reports, the FHWA makes

program administration decisions

respecting the authority Congress has to

develop such language.

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. Based on the

factors noted above (i.e., obligation

limitations and legislative language), the

FHWA anticipates that between $20

million and $130 million will be

available for allocation for projects.

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 for FY 2002, must

therefore be obligated during FY 2002 or

have the FY 2002 obligation authority

withdrawn for redistribution.

This notice includes four sections:

Section I—Program Background and

Implementation of the NCPD/CBI

discretionary program in FY 2001

Section II—Eligibility and Selection

Criteria for FY 2002 grants

Section III—Request for comments on

program implementation in FY 2002,

FY 2003

Section IV—Solicitation of applicants

for FY 2002 grants

Section I—Program Background,

Implementation of the NCPD/CBI

Discretionary Program in FY 2001 and

changes for FY 2002

The FHWA implements the NCPD/

CBI programs with specific goals. In

developing the FY 2002 solicitation, the

FHWA will consider the following:

Comments received at outreach

sessions; information received during

program discussions within the DOT;

and information received during

discussions between officials. In FY

1999, the FHWA established program

implementation goals. They 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.

In FY 2000 and FY 2001, the FHWA

retained these program implementation

goals. However, overarching these

program goals were FHWA and DOT

strategic goals established in those years

which resulted in a program emphasis

on four specific areas (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 FY 2002,

as noted below in Section II, Evaluation

Considerations for both the NCPD and

the CBI Program, there may be a goal(s)

added regarding the safety of

commercial vehicles in the region near

the U.S. border with Mexico. Emphasis

areas are not available for this

solicitation of intent to submit full

applications for FY 2002. Emphasis

areas may be established for the

solicitation of full applications.

Summary of Selection Process—FY

2001

The FHWA received approximately

150 applications for NCPD/CBI funding,

all of which were at least partially

eligible for consideration (e.g., some

applications included work components

that were not eligible and also included

work components that were eligible).

The requests for funding totaled

approximately $2 billion. Both the

number of applications and requested

funding were about the same as in FY

1999 and FY 2000. Approximately 66

percent of the total funds awarded and

61 percent of the projects funded for FY

2001 were for projects cited in

Congressional language. The legislative

language containing these citations for

FY 2001 is available at URL: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/

fy01earmark.html.

As in FY 1999 and FY 2000, the

FHWA established an evaluation panel

comprised of officials from various

agencies within the DOT (e.g., the

Federal Railroad Administration, the

Maritime Administration, the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the

Office of the Secretary of

Transportation, as well as the FHWA).

This panel reviewed the FY 2001

applications and tabulated summaries of

applications. The evaluation panel

identified individual applications that

were ‘‘well qualified’’ and those which

were ‘‘qualified’’ based on summary

information prepared by the FHWA

program office (e.g., positive aspects and

other aspects of each application). We

expect to follow a similar process with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23075

the FY 2002 full grant applications for

funds available after legislative language

is considered.

On November 3, 2000, then U.S.

Transportation Secretary Rodney E.

Slater announced that $123 million in

grants would be provided to 32 states

for 50 projects and to the General

Services Administration for four other

projects as part of the NCPD/CBI

programs for FY 2001. The FY 2001

NCPD/CBI program grant recipients, by

state, project and total allocation, are

listed at the URL: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/corbor/

fy01awards.html. These include both

projects cited in legislative language and

projects not cited in legislative

language. In addition, section 1311 of

the TEA–21, as amended, requires a

report for the fiscal quarter covering the

FY 2001 selections, containing the

reasons for selection of projects. At the

time of this notice, the report is not

available. When completed, it will also

be available on FHWA’s website: http:/

/www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/

quarterly.html.

Summary of Comments to Docket No.

FHWA–2000–7392

On June 16, 2000, at 65 FR 37819, the

FHWA published a notice, requesting

comments on how the NCPD/CBI

programs implementation could be

improved in FY 2002, 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

implementation goals established for the

program.

One comment was posted. This was a

letter from Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona

expressing his support for an

application for funding for the Hoover

Dam bypass. The FHWA considered

Senator Kyl’s support in the FY 2001

award process.

Other Program Evaluation Information

Received

The FHWA has received information

on program implementation through a

number of instruments. One is by

reading and analyzing the applications

themselves. Another is through postaward feedback from applicants who

have, through the FHWA field division

offices, requested a debriefing from the

FHWA program office regarding how

their application was evaluated. Still

another is through NCPD/CBI related

discussions between applicants and

other grant seeking interests, FHWA

division offices and the FHWA program

office at a wide variety of meetings that

take place during the year on project,

program, or policy matters. A

substantial amount of the information

was received from coordinators,

evaluators, preparers, reviewers and/or

supporters of specific grant applications

or groups of grant applications. Many

such persons felt time and effort had

been wasted, or partially wasted,

because projects selected which were

cited in legislative language effectively

reduced the consideration provided to

the applications in which they were

directly involved.

Changes in the FY 2002 Process from

Previous Years

Based on consideration of the above,

the FHWA is proposing to change the

solicitation process for FY 2002. A full

solicitation for FY 2002 will not occur

until after Congress has passed and the

President has signed an Appropriations

Act for the Department of

Transportation. Instead, at this time, the

FHWA is soliciting only statements of

intent to submit an application. Several

factors contributed to this decision.

First, as noted previously, a substantial

number of projects were cited in

legislative language in FY 2000 and FY

2001, restricting the Department’s

discretion in making selections and

there is a substantial possibility that this

will occur in FY 2002. Second, without

a realistic idea of the funds available to

support applications State and MPOs

unnecessarily expend resources

developing and coordinating detailed

applications. Third, by soliciting intent

at this time and deferring submission of

the complete applications, the

immediate paperwork burden on States

and MPOs will likely be reduced while

allowing additional time for

coordination of projects for which an

application is ultimately made. Fourth,

by soliciting intent at this time, the

FHWA will, if Congress requests

information on interest in the program,

be able to provide such information to

Congress contemporaneously with

development of Appropriations

legislation and related reports. Finally,

as noted below in Section IV, States and

MPOs that do not send in a statement

of intent may subsequently respond to

any solicitation for full applications,

assuming there is a reasonable basis for

doing so, i.e., an explanation which sets

forth the reasons why a statement of

intent was not submitted.

Section II—Eligibility and Selection

Criteria for FY 2002 Grants

In general, the eligibility and selection

criteria for FY 2002 grants are expected

to be the same as those used for FY 2001

grants with only minor modifications

(e.g., possibly different emphasis areas).

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’’).

Work in the pre-feasibility stage of a

project, e.g., development of

metropolitan and State plans and

programs, is not considered eligible for

support with Federal aid under section

1118 funds. Project development

planning and multistate planning

coordination are eligible for such

support.

The FHWA construes the phrase

‘‘environmental review,’’ as used above,

as being the portion of the

environmental documentation requiring

formal interagency review. Examples of

such documentation are the

environmental assessment/finding of no

significant impact (EA/FONSI) and the

environmental impact statement (EIS).

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 the

FHWA approval of the draft EIS (or

equivalent) would not be eligible for

such support until review of the

corridor plan. Subsequent to review of

the corridor plan, 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.

23076 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

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 TEA–21 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 TEA–21 provides criteria to be

used in identifying corridors, in

addition to those statutorily designated

for eligibility. The 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 TEA–21

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

improvements 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 agencies and organizations (e.g.,

business association, civic, county,

municipal, utility) 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

In addition to the statutory criteria for

each program, there are some

considerations that apply to both

programs since both are funded by a

single funding source. One such

consideration is that during the

evaluation process, applications for both

programs are evaluated by a single

evaluation panel comprised of officials

from various offices within the DOT, not

just the FHWA (this process is described

above in more detail in the Summary of

Selection Process). The use of nonFHWA personnel in evaluating

applications should be understood by

applicants as a statement by the FHWA

that non-highway issues are an

important project selection

consideration. Another consideration is

that, as the concept of equity and

congressional priority were important in

the development of the TEA–21,

national geographic distribution among

all discretionary programs and

congressional direction or guidance will

be considered 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

expects to consider the following in

each grant application:

1. Likelihood of expeditious

completion of a useable project or

product.

2. Amount of the program grant

request in comparison to likely

accomplishments (e.g., grant requests

that exceed about 10 percent of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23077

available NCPD and CBI program

funding in a given year would be

expected to be subject to extra scrutiny

to determine whether the likely

consequences would be commensurate

with that level of funding).

3. Clarity and conciseness of the grant

application in submission of the

required information, especially

regarding the work to be accomplished

and the source and amount of the non

federal share of funds.

4. State priorities and endorsement of,

or opposition to, projects by other

States, MPOs, and other public and

private agencies or organizations, as

well as the status of the project on the

State transportation improvement

program (STIP) and the metropolitan

transportation improvement program

(TIP).

5. The extent to which the project

may be eligible under both the NCPD

and the CBI program.

6. Other quantitative information that

relates to the strategic goals of the

FHWA, the other DOT modal agencies

and the DOT as a whole at the time of

the full solicitation. At the time of this

notice, the FHWA anticipates that a

goal(s) related to the safety of

commercial vehicles in the region near

the U.S. border with Mexico will be

important at the time full applications

are evaluated and selected.

Section III—Request for Comments on

Program Implementation in FY 2002, FY

2003.

The FHWA is specifically requesting

comments NCPD/CBI program

implementation. In addition, agencies

that wish to reconsider their previous

comment(s) or make additional

comments on other aspects of program

implementation are invited to do so.

Commenters should reference the

docket number noted in the beginning

of this notice.

Section IV—Solicitation of Intent to

submit Applications for FY 2002 Grants

As explained earlier, the FHWA is

requesting only statements of intent to

submit grant applications at this time.

Send such statements of intent to

submit applications for grants to the

division office in the State where the

applicant is located. If a project is

located in more than one State, send the

application to the division office in the

lead State. The FHWA will not penalize

a State or MPO that, subsequent to the

Appropriations Act and subsequent

solicitation for full applications,

chooses not to apply for funding or

submits an application that is close to

but not the same as the submittal of

intent or where priorities are

reestablished between the submittal of

intent and the submittal of the

application. In fact, the FHWA expects

project definitions and priorities to

evolve in complex and/or multistate

projects. Future applications will not be

precluded if the State or MPO did not

submit their intent in response to this

request. However, those States or MPOs

must demonstrate a reasonable basis for

failing to submit their intent as

requested. The FHWA anticipates that

the actual format for full applications

will be very similar to that of FY 2001

with a decrease in the amount of

narrative requested on some points and

some additional clarification of

financial information. However, the

suggested format for the intent to submit

is as follows:

Format for Intention to Submit an

Application for NCPD or CBI

Discretionary Funds

1. State (if a multistate or multi MPO

project, list the lead State/MPO and

participating States/MPO);

2. Work to be funded and location of

work to be funded.

3. Amount of federal funds to be

requested.

4. State priority, as of time the intent

is established.

Note 1: Please provide 2 copies of intention

to submit a grant application.

Note 2: Assuming that funds are available

for discretionary allocation, the FHWA

would solicit full applications for such

funds. Awards for the funds available for

discretionary allocation should be expected

to be announced by late spring calendar

2002.

(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: April 27, 2001.

Vincent F. Schimmoller,

Deputy Executive Director, Federal Highway

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11402 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

[FHWA Docket FHWA–98–4300]

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century; Implementation for

Participation in the Value Pricing Pilot

Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; solicitation for

participation.

SUMMARY: This notice invites State or

local governments or other public

authorities to make applications for

participation in the Value Pricing Pilot

Program (Pilot Program) authorized by

section 1012(b) of the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991 (ISTEA) (Public Law 102–240, 105

Stat. 1914), as amended by 1216(a) of

the Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA–21) (Public Law No.

105–178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998)) and

presents guidelines for program

applications. This notice updates an

October 5, 1998, notice by providing

revised procedures, processes and

timelines. This document also describes

the statutory basis for the Pilot Program

and procedures that will be used to

implement the program. The FHWA

will accept comments on these

administrative guidelines throughout

the life of the Pilot Program and, as

necessary, will issue additional

guidance in response to public

comments and program experience.

DATES: The solicitation for participation

in the Pilot Program will continue to be

held open until further notice. To

ensure that all projects receive fair

consideration, the FHWA encourages all

potential grant applicants to submit

their proposals no later than October 1,

2001, for fiscal year (FY) 2002 funds and

October 1, 2002, for FY 2003 funds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Highway Pricing

and System Analysis Team (202) 366–

4076; or Mr. Steven Rochlis, Office of

the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1395;

FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are

from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

You may submit or retrieve comments

online through the Document

Management System (DMS) at: http://

dms.dot.gov/submit. Acceptable formats

include: MS Word (versions 95 to 97),

MS Word for Mac (versions 6 to 8), Rich

Text File (RTF), American Standard

Code Information Interchange

(ASCII)(TXT), Portable Document

Format (PDF), and WordPerfect

(versions 7 to 8). The DMS is available

24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

Electronic submission and retrieval help

and guidelines are available under the

help section of the web site.

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the Government Printing Office’s

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