Interim Solicitation Notice

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
JetBlue maintains in its petition and
the other petitioning carriers appear to
agree that granting relief from 14 CFR
259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) is critical so that
the purpose of the tarmac delay rule—
enhancing passenger protections—is not
undermined by unforeseen
circumstances. JetBlue argues that a
rigid and inflexible application of the
rule will cause carriers to cancel flights
rather than risk substantial penalties to
the detriment of passengers who want to
reach their destinations.
We find this argument flawed and
unpersuasive. JetBlue’s argument
suggests that it would better serve the
public interest to hobble the very
protections that the tarmac delay rule
affords consumers by permitting carriers
to force passengers to remain on an
aircraft for more than three hours (as
opposed to giving consumers the option
to deplane after three hours, or
permitting them to choose some other
form of transportation, or not to travel
at all). We strongly disagree. We cannot
lose sight of the fact that passengers on
flights delayed on the tarmac have a
right to know that they will not be ‘‘held
hostage’’ for an unreasonable length of
time on the tarmac.
It is also important to note that the
Department’s Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) predicts that the
delays resulting from the runway
closure at JFK will be workable, i.e.,
similar to those seen during peak
summer months. The FAA expects that
flights can be rerouted or rescheduled in
a way that will allow the other three
runways to absorb the extra traffic.
Airlines have already taken steps to
adjust their schedules and operations to
help mitigate the expected delays and
they should further adjust them, if
necessary. We believe that the concerns
raised by the petitioning carriers can be
resolved through further adjustment of
schedules as appropriate, and that the
public interest would be better served
by keeping the full protections of the
tarmac delay rule in place. In addition,
we note that since 14 CFR 259.4(b)(2)
permits U.S. carriers to establish any
tarmac delay limit for their international
flights that they choose, we believe
there is no substantial reason to grant an
exemption from this provision of the
rule. Moreover, while in the event of a
violation, as always, the Department’s
Aviation Enforcement Office will
consider a number of factors including,
for example, the harm to consumers
caused by the violation and the specific
impact of the runway closure in
determining whether to pursue an
enforcement case and the civil penalty
it would seek in such an enforcement
proceeding, it is incumbent on carriers

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

to adjust their schedules to reflect the
reality of the runway construction.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we
find that granting the requested
exemption from the tarmac delay rule is
not in the public interest, and we deny
the requests of JetBlue, Delta, American,
Continental, and US Airways, for an
exemption from the requirements of 14
CFR 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) for their
operations at JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL
airports, during the period of time that
work affecting JFK’s Runway 13R/31L is
scheduled to take place, or until work
on that runway is complete.
Issued this April 22, 2010, at Washington,
DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010–9716 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0076]

Interim Notice of Funding Availability
for the Department of Transportation’s
National Infrastructure Investments
Under the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010;
and Request for Comments
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, DOT.
ACTION: Interim notice of funding
availability, request for comments.
SUMMARY: This interim notice
announces the availability of funding
and requests proposals for the
Department of Transportation’s National
Infrastructure Investments. In addition,
this interim notice announces selection
criteria and pre-application and
application requirements for the
National Infrastructure Investments.
On December 16, 2009, the President
signed the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010
(Div. A of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
117, Dec. 16, 2009)) (‘‘FY 2010
Appropriations Act’’). The FY 2010
Appropriations Act appropriated $600
million to be awarded by the
Department of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’)
for National Infrastructure Investments.
This appropriation is similar, but not
identical to the appropriation for the
Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery, or ‘‘TIGER
Discretionary Grant’’, program
authorized and implemented pursuant
to the American Recovery and

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21695

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the
‘‘Recovery Act’’). Because of the
similarity in program structure, DOT is
referring to the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments under the FY
2010 Appropriations Act as ‘‘TIGER II
Discretionary Grants’’. As with the
TIGER program, funds for the TIGER II
program are to be awarded on a
competitive basis for projects that will
have a significant impact on the Nation,
a metropolitan area or a region. Through
this notice, DOT is soliciting
applications for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants. Because the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program is a new
program, this interim notice requests
comments on the proposed selection
criteria and guidance for awarding
funds. DOT will take all comments into
consideration and may publish a
supplemental notice revising some
elements of this notice. If substantive
changes to this notice are necessary,
DOT will publish a supplemental
Federal Register notice by no later than
May 28, 2010. In the event that this
solicitation does not result in the award
and obligation of all available funds,
DOT may decide to publish an
additional solicitation(s). DOT is
particularly interested in receiving
comments on its intention to conduct a
multi-agency evaluation and award
process with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (‘‘HUD’’) for
DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants (as
defined below in Section VII (TIGER II
Planning Grants)), and HUD’s
Community Challenge Planning Grants,
which were also authorized under the
FY 2010 Appropriations Act. HUD is
authorized to use $40 million for
‘‘Community Challenge Planning
Grants’’ to foster reform and reduce
barriers to achieve affordable,
economically vital, and sustainable
communities. This multi-agency
approach for planning awards would be
consistent with DOT and HUD’s
participation in the ‘‘Partnership for
Sustainable Communities’’ with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’) to help American families in all
communities—rural, suburban and
urban—gain better access to affordable
housing, more transportation options,
lower transportation costs, and a cleaner
environment.
DOT and HUD believe there is great
value in issuing a joint solicitation for
the two planning grant programs in
order to better align transportation,
housing, economic development, and
land use planning and to improve
linkages between the three Partnership
agencies’ programs. DOT and HUD also
believe this proposal has the potential to

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

21696

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

encourage and reward more holistic
planning efforts and result in better
projects being built with Federal dollars.
While the DOT and HUD planning
grant programs have similar, related
purposes, there are differences in the
activities that the two programs can
fund. DOT’s program can fund planning
activities that relate directly to a future
transportation capital investment, while
HUD’s program can fund local planning
activities that could support future
transportation investment.
Transportation planning activities
that may be funded under the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program include
efforts related to individual
transportation projects, transportation
corridors, or regional transportation
systems or networks. Activities eligible
for funding under HUD’s program
include, but are not limited to, the
development of master plans, zoning
and building code reform initiatives,
including the development of
inclusionary zoning ordinances,
corridor and district plans, and other
strategies, including land acquisition,
designed to create walkable, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and affordable
communities for persons of all incomes,
especially those of low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income persons and
families.
Additionally, the two programs can
provide funding to different applicants.
DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants are
available to any Eligible Applicant, as
defined below in Section I (Background)
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The
HUD Community Challenge Grants are
potentially available to a broader range
of applicants, including nonprofit
organizations. DOT and HUD would like
to invite comments about whether the
differences in eligibility should be
maintained and, if so, how it might be
managed in a joint selection process.
DOT and HUD would like to receive
comments on the evaluation method
that should be used for a combined
planning grant process, in terms of
selection criteria and goals. Also,
feedback is invited on funding
categories and where the overlap
between DOT and HUD’s program might
be applied most effectively. To the
extent DOT and HUD determine that a
joint solicitation is feasible and
advisable, it would be published no
later than May 28, 2010, with the final
notice of funding availability for the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant program.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 7, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the
extent practicable. Pre-applications
must be submitted by July 16, 2010, at

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

5 p.m. EST (the ‘‘Pre-Application
Deadline’’). Final applications must be
submitted through Grants.gov by August
23, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST (the
‘‘Application Deadline’’). The DOT preapplication system will open no later
than June 15, 2010 to allow prospective
applicants to submit pre-applications.
Subsequently, the Grants.gov ‘‘Apply’’
function will open on July 30, 2010,
allowing applicants to submit
applications. While applicants are
encouraged to submit pre-applications
in advance of the Pre-Application
Deadline, pre-applications will not be
reviewed until after the pre-application
deadline. Similarly, while applicants
are encouraged to submit applications
in advance of the Application Deadline,
applications will not be evaluated, and
awards will not be made, until after the
Application Deadline. Pursuant to the
FY 2010 Appropriations Act, DOT will
evaluate all applications and announce
the projects that have been selected to
receive TIGER II Discretionary Grants no
sooner than September 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: For Comments: You must
include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary of Transportation) and the
docket number DOT–OST–2010–0076
with your comments. To ensure that
your comments are not entered into the
docket more than once, please submit
comments, identified by the docket
number DOT–OST–2010–0076, by only
one of the following methods:
Web site: The U.S. Government
electronic docket site is
www.regulations.gov. Go to this Web
site and follow the instructions for
submitting comments into docket
number DOT–OST–2010–0076;
Fax: Telefax comments to 202–493–
2251;
Mail: Mail your comments to U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket
Operations, M–30, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590; or
Hand Delivery: Bring your comments
to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M–30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions for submitting comments:
You must include the agency name
(Office of the Secretary of
Transportation) and Docket number
DOT–OST–2010–0076 for this notice at
the beginning of your comments. You
should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail
or courier. For confirmation that the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

has received your comments, you must
include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, and will
be available to Internet users. You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477),
or you may visit www.regulations.gov.
For Pre-Applications and
Applications: Pre-applications must be
submitted electronically to DOT and
applications must be submitted
electronically through Grants.gov. Only
pre-applications received by DOT and
applications received through
Grants.gov will be deemed properly
filed. Instructions for submitting preapplications to DOT and applications
through Grants.gov are included in
Section IX (Pre-Application and
Application Cycle).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information concerning this
notice please contact the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program manager
via e-mail at [email protected], or
call Robert Mariner at 202–366–8914. A
TDD is available for individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing at 202–366–
3993. In addition, DOT will regularly
post answers to questions and requests
for clarifications on DOT’s Web site at
http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/
TIGERII.
Table of Contents
I. Background
Tiger II Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on
Application of Selection Criteria
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
IV. Grant Administration
V. Projects in Rural Areas
VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments
VII. TIGER II Planning Grants
Application Requirements
VIII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
IX. Project Benefits
X. Questions and Clarifications
Appendix A: Additional Information on Cost
Benefit Analysis
Appendix B: Additional Information on
Applying Through Grants.gov

I. Background
Recovery Act TIGER Discretionary
Grants
On February 17, 2009, the President
of the United States signed the Recovery
Act, which appropriated $1.5 billion of
discretionary grant funds to be awarded
by DOT for capital investments in
surface transportation infrastructure.
DOT refers to these grants as Grants for
Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery or ‘‘TIGER

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Discretionary Grants’’. DOT solicited
applications for TIGER Discretionary
Grants through a notice of funding
availability published in the Federal
Register on June 17, 2009 (an interim
notice was published on May 18, 2009).
Applications for TIGER Discretionary
Grants were due on September 15, 2009
and over 1400 applications were
received with funding requests totaling
almost $60 billion. Funding for 51
projects totaling nearly $1.5 billion was
announced on February 17, 2010. Grant
announcements ranged from $3.15
million to $105 million for individual
projects, with an average award size of
approximately $30 million and the
median project amount being $22
million. Less than three percent of the
applications (by dollar value) received
any funding. Projects were selected for
funding based on their alignment with
the selection criteria specified in the
June 17, 2009, Federal Register notice
for the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program.
On December 16, 2009, the President
signed the FY 2010 Appropriations Act.
This Act appropriated $600 million to
DOT for National Infrastructure
Investments using language that is
similar, but not identical to the language
in the Recovery Act authorizing the
TIGER Discretionary Grants. DOT is
referring to the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II
Discretionary Grants.
TIGER II Discretionary Grants
Like the TIGER Discretionary Grants,
TIGER II Discretionary Grants are for
capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure and are to
be awarded on a competitive basis for
projects that will have a significant
impact on the Nation, a metropolitan
area, or a region. Key requirements of
the TIGER II Discretionary Grant
program are summarized below, and
material differences from the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program are
highlighted.
‘‘Eligible Applicants’’ for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants are State and local
governments, including U.S. territories,
tribal governments, transit agencies,
port authorities, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), other political
subdivisions of State or local
governments, and multi-State or multijurisdictional groups applying through a
single lead applicant (for multijurisdictional groups, each member of
the group, including the lead applicant,
must be an otherwise eligible applicant
as defined in this paragraph).
Projects that are eligible for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants under the FY 2010
Appropriations Act (‘‘Eligible Projects’’)

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

include, but are not limited to: (1)
Highway or bridge projects eligible
under title 23, United States Code; (2)
public transportation projects eligible
under chapter 53 of title 49, United
States Code; (3) passenger and freight
rail transportation projects; and (4) port
infrastructure investments. Federal
wage rate requirements included in
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code, apply to all projects
receiving funds. This description of
Eligible Projects is, in practice, identical
to the description of eligible projects
under the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program. (The Recovery Act provided
further details elaborating on project
eligibility under categories (1), (2), and
(4), as listed above, for TIGER
Discretionary Grants).1
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
requires a new solicitation of
applications and, therefore, any
unsuccessful applicant for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant that wishes to be
considered for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant must reapply according to the
procedures laid out in this notice.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
specifies that TIGER II Discretionary
Grants may be not less than $10 million
and not greater than $200 million. The
comparable figures for TIGER
Discretionary Grants funded under the
Recovery Act were $20 million and
$300 million, although the largest grant
announced under the TIGER program
was $105 million. Based on DOT’s
experience with the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program, it is
unlikely that the $200 million
maximum grant size for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program will be
reached for any project. The Recovery
Act gave DOT discretion to waive the
minimum grant size for significant
projects in smaller cities, regions, or
States. The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
does not provide similar authority to
waive the minimum $10 million grant
size for TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
However, for projects located in rural
1 Consistent with the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, DOT will apply the following principles in
determining whether a project is eligible as a capital
investment in surface transportation: (1) Surface
transportation facilities generally include roads,
highways and bridges, ports, freight and passenger
railroads, transit systems, and projects that connect
transportation facilities to other modes of
transportation; and (2) surface transportation
facilities also include any highway or bridge project
eligible under title 23, U.S.C., or public
transportation project eligible under chapter 53 of
title 49, U.S.C. Please note that the Department may
use a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to pay for the
surface transportation components of a broader
project that has non-surface transportation
components, and applicants are encouraged to
apply for TIGER II Discretionary Grants to pay for
the surface transportation components of these
projects.

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21697

areas (as defined in section V (Projects
in Rural Areas)), the minimum TIGER II
Discretionary Grant size is $1 million.
The term ‘‘grant’’ in the provision of the
FY 2010 Appropriations Act specifying
a minimum grant size does not include
TIGER II TIFIA Payments, as defined
below.
Pursuant to the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, no more than 25
percent of the funds made available for
TIGER II Discretionary Grants (or $150
million) may be awarded to projects in
a single State. The comparable figure for
TIGER Discretionary Grants was 20
percent (or $300 million).
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
directs that not less than $140 million
of the funds provided for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants is to be used for
projects located in rural areas. There
was no comparable amount set aside for
rural areas under the Recovery Act for
TIGER Discretionary Grants. In
awarding TIGER II Discretionary Grants
pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, DOT must take measures to ensure
an equitable geographic distribution of
grant funds, an appropriate balance in
addressing the needs of urban and rural
areas and the investment in a variety of
transportation modes. The Recovery Act
provided a similar provision for the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program, but
with no language on ensuring
investments in a variety of
transportation modes.
TIGER II Discretionary Grants may be
used for up to 80 percent of the costs of
a project, but priority must be given to
projects for which Federal funding is
required to complete an overall
financing package and projects can
increase their competitiveness by
demonstrating significant non-Federal
contributions. The Recovery Act
included a similar priority for TIGER
Discretionary Grants, but allowed DOT
to fund up to 100 percent of the costs
of a project. For TIGER II Discretionary
Grants, DOT may increase the Federal
share above 80 percent only for projects
located in rural areas, in which case
DOT may fund up to 100 percent of the
costs of a project. However, the statutory
requirement to give priority to projects
that use Federal funds to complete an
overall financing package applies to
projects located in rural areas as well,
and projects located in rural areas can
increase their competitiveness for
purposes of the TIGER II program by
demonstrating significant non-Federal
financial contributions.
The Recovery Act required DOT to
give priority to projects that were
expected to be completed by February
17, 2012. The FY 2010 Appropriations
Act does not include any similar

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

21698

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

requirements for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, although TIGER II
funds are only available for obligation
through September 30, 2012.
The Recovery Act emphasizes the
generation of near-term economic effects
from expenditures on project costs, such
as construction job creation, as a
fundamental goal of the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program. However,
the FY 2010 Appropriations Act does
not include explicit emphasis on job
creation and instead focuses more
broadly on the impact of projects on the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region
including the medium and long-term
benefits that would accrue post-project
completion. Therefore, in all cases,
TIGER II Discretionary Grant
applications will need to be competitive
on the merits of the medium to longterm impacts of the projects themselves,
as demonstrated by a project’s
alignment with the Long-Term
Outcomes selection criterion described
in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria)
below. However, because communities
nationwide continue to face difficult
economic times, the Department will
also continue to incorporate near term
impacts like job creation in its
evaluation of TIGER II applications, as
demonstrated by a project’s alignment
with the Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus selection criterion described
in Section II(A) below. Consideration of
near-term benefits will apply
particularly in the case of projects that
will employ people in Economically
Distressed Areas as discussed in more
detail in Section II(A) below.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
allows for an amount not to exceed $150
million of the $600 million to be used
to pay the subsidy and administrative
costs of the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act of 1998 (‘‘TIFIA’’) program, a Federal
credit assistance program, if it would
further the purposes of the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program. DOT is
referring to these payments as ‘‘TIGER II
TIFIA Payments.’’ The Recovery Act
authorized DOT to use up to $200
million of the amount available for
TIGER Discretionary Grants for similar
purposes.
Based on the subsidy amounts
required for projects in the TIFIA
program’s existing portfolio, DOT
estimates that $150 million of TIGER II
TIFIA Payments could support
approximately $1.5 billion in TIFIA
credit assistance. The amount of budget
authority required to support TIFIA
credit assistance is calculated on a
project-by-project basis. Applicants for
TIGER II TIFIA Payments should submit
an application pursuant to this notice

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

and a separate TIFIA letter of interest,
as described below in Section VI (TIGER
II TIFIA Payments). Unless otherwise
noted, or the context requires otherwise,
references in this notice to TIGER II
Discretionary Grants include TIGER II
TIFIA Payments.
DOT reserves the right to offer a
TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an applicant
that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant even if DOT does not choose to
fund the requested TIGER II
Discretionary Grant and the applicant
did not specifically request a TIGER II
TIFIA Payment. Therefore, as described
below in Section VI (TIGER II TIFIA
Payments), applicants for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, particularly
applicants that require a substantial
amount of funds to complete a financing
package, should indicate whether or not
they have considered applying for a
TIGER II TIFIA Payment. To the extent
an applicant thinks that TIFIA may be
a viable option for the project,
applicants should provide a brief
description of a project finance plan that
includes TIFIA credit assistance and
identifies a source of revenue which
may be available to support the TIFIA
credit assistance.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also
permits DOT to use an amount not to
exceed $35 million of the available
TIGER II funds for the planning,
preparation, or design of Eligible
Projects (‘‘TIGER II Planning Grants’’).
TIGER II Planning Grants may be
awarded to Eligible Applicants. The
Recovery Act did not explicitly provide
funding for similar activities under the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
Unless otherwise noted, or the context
requires otherwise, references in this
notice to TIGER II Discretionary Grants
includes TIGER II Planning Grants.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
provides that the Secretary of
Transportation may retain up to $25
million of the $600 million to fund the
award and oversight of TIGER II
Discretionary Grants. Portions of the $25
million may be transferred for these
purposes to the Administrators of the
Federal Highway Administration, the
Federal Transit Administration, the
Federal Railroad Administration, and
the Federal Maritime Administration.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit
applications for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants.
Tiger II Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on
Application of Selection Criteria
This section specifies the criteria that
DOT will use to evaluate applications
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

criteria incorporate the statutory
eligibility requirements for this
program, which are specified in this
notice as relevant. This section is split
into two parts. Part A (Selection
Criteria) specifies the criteria that DOT
will use to rate projects. Additional
guidance about how DOT will apply
these criteria, including illustrative
metrics and examples, is provided in
Part B (Additional Guidance on
Selection Criteria).
A. Selection Criteria
TIGER II Discretionary Grants will be
awarded based on the selection criteria
as outlined below. There are two
categories of selection criteria, ‘‘Primary
Selection Criteria’’ and ‘‘Secondary
Selection Criteria.’’
The Primary Selection Criteria
include (1) Long-Term Outcomes and
(2) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus.
The Secondary Selection Criteria
include (1) Innovation and (2)
Partnership. The Primary Selection
Criteria are intended to capture the
primary objective of the TIGER II
provisions of the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, which is to invest
in infrastructure projects that will have
a significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region. The
Secondary Selection Criteria are
intended to capture the benefits of new
and/or innovative approaches to
achieving this programmatic objective.
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long-Term Outcomes
DOT will give priority to projects that
have a significant impact on desirable
long-term outcomes for the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region.
Applications that do not demonstrate a
likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in this criterion will not
proceed in the evaluation process. The
following types of long-term outcomes
will be given priority:
(i) State of Good Repair: Improving
the condition of existing transportation
facilities and systems, with particular
emphasis on projects that minimize lifecycle costs.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness:
Contributing to the economic
competitiveness of the United States
over the medium- to long-term.
(iii) Livability: Fostering livable
communities through place-based
policies and investments that increase
transportation choices and access to
transportation services for people in
communities across the United States.
(iv) Environmental Sustainability:
Improving energy efficiency, reducing
dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
1. Primary Selection Criteria

gas emissions and benefitting the
environment.
(v) Safety: Improving the safety of
U.S. transportation facilities and
systems.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
While the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant program is not a Recovery Act
program, job creation and economic
stimulus remain a top priority of this
Administration; therefore, DOT will
give priority (as it did for the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program) to projects
that are expected to quickly create and
preserve jobs and stimulate rapid
increases in economic activity,
particularly jobs and activity that
benefit economically distressed areas as
defined by section 301 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3161)
(‘‘Economically Distressed Areas’’). 2
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
DOT will give priority to projects that
use innovative strategies to pursue the
long-term outcomes outlined above.
(b) Partnership
DOT will give priority to projects that
demonstrate strong collaboration among
a broad range of participants and/or
integration of transportation with other
public service efforts.
B. Additional Guidance on Selection
Criteria

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

The following additional guidance
explains how DOT will evaluate each of
the selection criteria identified above in
Section II(A) (Selection Criteria).
Applicants are encouraged to
demonstrate the responsiveness of a
project to any and all of the selection
criteria with the most relevant
information that applicants can provide,
regardless of whether such information
has been specifically requested, or
identified, in this notice. Any such
information shall be considered part of
the application, not supplemental, for
purposes of the application size limits
specified below in Section IX(D) (Length
of Application).
2 While Economically Distressed Areas are
typically identified under the Public Works and
Economic Development Act at the county level, for
the purposes of this program DOT will consider
regions, municipalities, smaller areas within larger
communities, or other geographic areas to be
Economically Distressed Areas if an applicant can
demonstrate that any such area otherwise meets the
requirements of an Economically Distressed Area as
defined in section 301 of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

(a) Long-Term Outcomes
In order to measure a project’s
alignment with this criterion, DOT will
assess the public benefits generated by
the project, as measured by the extent to
which a project produces one or more
of the following outcomes.
(i) State of Good Repair: In order to
determine whether the project will
improve the condition of existing
transportation facilities or systems,
including whether life-cycle costs will
be minimized, DOT will assess (i)
whether the project is part of, or
consistent with, relevant State, local or
regional efforts and plans to maintain
transportation facilities or systems in a
state of good repair, (ii) whether an
important aim of the project is to
rehabilitate, reconstruct or upgrade
surface transportation assets that, if left
unimproved, threaten future
transportation network efficiency,
mobility of goods or people, or
economic growth due to their poor
condition, (iii) whether the project is
appropriately capitalized up front and
uses asset management approaches that
optimize its long-term cost structure,
and (iv) the extent to which a
sustainable source of revenue is
available for long-term operations and
maintenance of the project. The
application should include any
quantifiable metrics of the facility or
system’s current condition and
performance and, to the extent possible,
projected condition and performance,
with an explanation of how the project
will improve the facility or system’s
condition, performance and/or longterm cost structure, including
calculations of avoided operations and
maintenance costs and associated
delays.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: In
order to determine whether a project
promotes the economic competitiveness
of the United States, DOT will assess
whether the project will measurably
contribute over the long-term to growth
in employment, production or other
high value economic activity, including
the efficient movement of both workers
and goods. For purposes of aligning a
project with this outcome, applicants
should provide evidence of the longterm economic benefits that are
provided by the completed project, not
the near-term economic benefits of
construction that are captured in the Job
Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion.
In weighing long-term employment
benefits, applicants should describe
how the project’s mobility benefits
support long-term efficiency and growth
in employment including a description

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21699

of the quality of jobs and number of
workers likely to be supported as well
as whether these jobs are expected to
provide employment in Economically
Distressed Areas.
Priority consideration will be given to
projects that: (i) Improve long-term
efficiency, reliability or costcompetitiveness in the movement of
workers or goods, or (ii) make
improvements that increase the
economic productivity of land, capital
or labor at specific locations,
particularly Economically Distressed
Areas. Applicants may propose other
methods of demonstrating a project’s
contribution to the economic
competitiveness of the country and such
methods will be reviewed on a case-bycase basis.
Economic competitiveness may be
demonstrated by the project’s ability to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of the transportation system through
integration or better use of all existing
transportation infrastructure (which
may be evidenced by the project’s
involvement with or benefits to more
than one mode and/or its compatibility
with and preferably augmentation of the
capacities of connecting modes and
facilities), but only to the extent that
these enhancements lead to the
economic benefits that are identified in
the opening paragraph of this section.
For purposes of demonstrating
economic impacts, applicants should
estimate National-level or region-wide
economic impacts on productivity and
production, and should net out those
benefits most likely to result in transfers
of economic activity from one localized
area to another. Therefore, in estimating
local and regional impacts, applicants
should consider net increases in
economic productivity and benefits, and
should take care not to include
economic benefits that are being shifted
from one location in the United States
to another location. Applicants may also
estimate economic impacts that an
investment will have at a concentrated
local or regional level but should
distinguish such benefits from those
that enhance National or regional
productivity as described above. Highly
localized benefits will receive the most
consideration under circumstances
where such benefits are most likely to
improve an Economically Distressed
Area (as defined herein) or otherwise
improve access to employment
opportunities for under-employed and
disadvantaged populations.
Finally, the TIGER II program strives
to promote long-term economic growth
in a manner that will be sustainable for
generations to come. Therefore, for
projects designed to enhance economic

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

21700

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

competitiveness, applicants should also
provide evidence that the project will
achieve the goals of this outcome in an
environmentally sustainable manner. To
satisfy this condition, applicants should
reference the fourth criterion in this
Section II(B) ‘‘Environmental
Sustainability’’ for more information on
what features promote sustainable
growth and be sure to address the extent
to which sustainability features are
incorporated into the proposed project’s
economic impact.
(iii) Livability: Livability investments
are projects that not only deliver
transportation benefits, but are also
designed and planned in such a way
that they have a positive impact on
qualitative measures of community life.
This element of long-term outcomes
delivers benefits that are inherently
difficult to measure. However, it is
implicit to livability that its benefits are
shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected
community. Therefore, descriptions of
how projects enhance livability should
include a description of the affected
community and the scale of the project’s
impact as measured in person-miles
traveled or number of trips affected. In
order to determine whether a project
improves the quality of the living and
working environment of a community,
DOT will consider whether the project
furthers the six livability principles
developed by DOT with HUD and EPA
as part of the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities, which are
listed fully at http://www.dot.gov/
affairs/2009/dot8009.htm. For this
criterion, the Department will give
particular consideration to the first
principle, which prioritizes the creation
of affordable and convenient
transportation choices.3 Specifically,
DOT will qualitatively assess whether
the project:
(1) Will significantly enhance or
reduce the average cost of user mobility
through the creation of more convenient
transportation options for travelers;
(2) will improve existing
transportation choices by enhancing
points of modal connectivity, increasing
the number of modes accommodated on
existing assets, or reducing congestion
on existing modal assets;
(3) will improve accessibility and
transport services for economically
disadvantaged populations, non-drivers,
senior citizens, and persons with
3 In full, this principle reads: ‘‘Provide more
transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and
economical transportation choices to decrease
household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s
dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote
public health.’’

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

disabilities, or will make goods,
commodities, and services more readily
available to these groups; and/or
(4) is the result of a planning process
which coordinated transportation and
land-use planning decisions and
encouraged community participation in
the process.
Livability improvements may include
projects for new or improved biking and
walking infrastructure. Particular
attention will be paid to the degree to
which such projects contribute
significantly to broader traveler mobility
through intermodal connections,
enhanced job commuting options, or
improved connections between
residential and commercial areas.
Projects that appear designed primarily
as isolated recreational facilities and do
not enhance traveler mobility as
described above will not be funded.
(iv) Environmental Sustainability: In
order to determine whether a project
promotes a more environmentally
sustainable transportation system, DOT
will assess the project’s ability to:
(1) Improve energy efficiency, reduce
dependence on oil and/or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; applicants
are encouraged to provide quantitative
information regarding expected
reductions in emissions of CO2 or fuel
consumption as a result of the project,
or expected use of clean or alternative
sources of energy; projects that
demonstrate a projected decrease in the
movement of people or goods by less
energy-efficient vehicles or systems will
be given priority under this factor; and
(2) Maintain, protect or enhance the
environment, as evidenced by its
avoidance of adverse environmental
impacts (for example, adverse impacts
related to air or water quality, wetlands,
and endangered species) and/or by its
environmental benefits (for example,
improved air quality, wetlands creation
or improved habitat connectivity).
Applicants are encouraged to provide
quantitative information that validates
the existence of substantial
transportation-related costs related to
energy consumption and adverse
environmental effects and evidence of
the extent to which the project will
reduce or mitigate those costs.
(v) Safety: In order to determine
whether the project improves safety,
DOT will assess the project’s ability to
reduce the number, rate and
consequences of surface transportationrelated crashes, and injuries and
fatalities among drivers and/or nondrivers in the United States or in the
affected metropolitan area or region,
and/or the project’s contribution to the
elimination of highway/rail grade
crossings, the protection of pipelines, or

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

the prevention of unintended release of
hazardous materials.
Evaluation of Expected Project Costs
and Benefits: DOT believes that benefitcost analysis (‘‘BCA’’), including the
monetization and discounting of costs
and benefits in a common unit of
measurement in present-day dollars, is
an important discipline. For BCA to
yield useful results, full consideration of
costs and benefits is necessary. These
include traditionally quantified fuel and
travel time savings as well as reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions, water
quality impacts, public health effects,
and other costs and benefits that are
more indirectly related to vehicle-miles
or that are harder to measure. In
addition, BCA should attempt to
measure the indirect effects of
transportation investments on land use
and on the portions of household
budgets spent on transportation. The
systematic process of comparing
expected benefits and costs helps
decisionmakers organize information
about, and evaluate trade-offs between,
alternative transportation investments.
DOT has a responsibility under
Executive Order 12893, Principles for
Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59
FR 4233, to base infrastructure
investments on systematic analysis of
expected benefits and costs, including
both quantitative and qualitative
measures.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants are generally
required to identify, quantify, and
compare expected benefits and costs,
subject to the following qualifications:
All applicants will be expected to
prepare an analysis of benefits and
costs; however, DOT understands that
the level of expense that can be
expected in these analyses for surveys,
travel demand forecasts, market
forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on
will be less for smaller projects than for
larger projects. Smaller projects will
therefore be given greater latitude to
estimate benefits subjectively. However,
even smaller projects will be expected
to quantify these subjective estimates of
benefits and costs, and to provide
whatever evidence they have available
to lend credence to their subjective
estimates. Estimates of benefits should
be presented in monetary terms
whenever possible; if a monetary
estimate is not possible, then at least a
quantitative estimate (in physical, nonmonetary terms, such as ridership
estimates, emissions levels, etc.) should
be provided.
The requirement to conduct an
economic analysis is not applicable to
applicants seeking TIGER II Planning
Grants; however, such applicants

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
should describe the expected benefits of
the underlying project(s) that the
planning activities will help advance.
The lack of a useful analysis of
expected project benefits and costs may
be the basis for denying an award of a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant to an
applicant. If it is clear to DOT that the
total benefits of a project are not
reasonably likely to outweigh the
project’s costs, DOT will not award a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant to the
project. Consistent with the broader
goals of DOT and the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, DOT can consider
some factors that do not readily lend
themselves to quantification or
monetization, including equitable
geographic distribution of grant funds
and an appropriate balance in
addressing the needs of urban and rural
areas and investment in a variety of
transportation modes.
Detailed guidance for the preparation
of benefit-cost analyses is provided in
Appendix A. Benefits should be
presented, whenever possible, in a
tabular form showing benefits and costs
in each year for the useful life of the
project. Benefits and costs should both
be discounted to the year 2010 and
present discounted values of both the
stream of benefits and the stream of
costs should be calculated. If the project
has multiple parts, each of which has
independent utility, the benefits and
costs of each part should be estimated
and presented separately. A project
component has independent utility if
the component itself is an Eligible
Project and provides benefits that satisfy
the selection criteria specified in this
notice, as described further in Section
III(B) (Evaluation of Eligibility) below.
DOT recognizes that some categories
of costs and benefits are more difficult
to quantify or monetize than others. In
presenting benefit-cost analyses,
applicants should include qualitative
discussion of the categories of benefits
and costs that they were not able to
quantify, noting that these benefits and
costs are in addition to other benefits
and costs that were quantified.
However, in the event of an
unreasonable absence of data and
analysis, or poor applicant effort to put
forth a robust quantification of benefits
and costs, the application is unlikely to
receive further consideration. In general,
the lack of a useful analysis comparing
benefits and costs for any such project
is ground for denying the award of a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant.
Evaluation of Project Performance:
Each project selected for TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding will be
required to work with DOT on the
development and implementation of a

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

plan to collect information and report
on the project’s performance with
respect to the relevant long-term
outcomes that are expected to be
achieved through construction of the
project.
(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
In order to measure a project’s
alignment with this criterion, DOT will
assess whether the project promotes the
short- or long-term creation or
preservation of jobs and whether the
project rapidly promotes new or
expanded business opportunities during
construction of the project or thereafter.
Demonstration of a project’s rapid
economic impact is critical to a project’s
alignment with this criterion.
Applicants are encouraged to provide
information to assist DOT in making
these assessments, including the total
amount of funds that will be expended
on construction and constructionrelated activities by all of the entities
participating in the project and, to the
extent measurable, the number and type
of jobs to be created and/or preserved by
the project by calendar quarters during
construction and annually thereafter.
Applicants should also identify any
business enterprises to be created or
benefited by the project during its
construction and once it becomes
operational.4
Consistent with the Recovery Act, the
Updated Implementing Guidance for the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 issued by the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) on
4 The Executive Office of the President, Council
of Economic Advisers, issued a memorandum in
May 2009 on ‘‘Estimates of Job Creation from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.’’
The memorandum is available at: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/
Estimate-of-Job-Creation/. Table 5 of this
memorandum provides a simple rule for estimating
job-years created by government spending, which is
that $92,000 of government spending creates one
job-year. Of this, 64% of the job-year estimate
represents direct and indirect effects and 36% of
the job-year estimate represents induced effects.
Applicants can use this estimate as an appropriate
indicator of direct, indirect and induced job-years
created by TIGER II Discretionary Grant spending,
but are encouraged to supplement or modify this
estimate to the extent they can demonstrate that
such modifications are justified. However, since the
May 2009 memorandum makes job creation purely
a function of the level of expenditure, applicants
should also demonstrate how quickly jobs will be
created under the proposed project. Projects that
generate a given number of jobs more quickly will
have a more favorable impact on economic
recovery. A quarter-by-quarter projection of the
number of direct job-hours expected to be created
by the project is useful in assessing the impacts of
a project on economic recovery. Furthermore,
applicants should be aware that certain types of
expenditures are less likely to align well with the
Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion. These
types of expenditures include, among other things,
engineering or design work and purchasing existing
facilities or right-of-way.

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21701

April 3, 2009 (the ‘‘OMB Guidance’’),
each of which DOT is applying as a
matter of policy, and consistent with
applicable Federal laws, applicants are
encouraged to provide information to
assist DOT in assessing (1) whether the
project will promote the creation of job
opportunities for low-income workers
through the use of best practice hiring
programs and utilization of
apprenticeship (including preapprenticeship) programs; (2) whether
the project will provide maximum
practicable opportunities for small
businesses and disadvantaged business
enterprises, including veteran-owned
small businesses and service disabled
veteran-owned small businesses; (3)
whether the project will make effective
use of community-based organizations
in connecting disadvantaged workers
with economic opportunities; (4)
whether the project will support entities
that have a sound track record on labor
practices and compliance with Federal
laws ensuring that American workers
are safe and treated fairly; and (5)
whether the project implements best
practices, consistent with our Nation’s
civil rights and equal opportunity laws,
for ensuring that all individuals—
regardless of race, gender, age,
disability, and national origin—benefit
from TIGER II grant funding.
To the extent possible, applicants
should indicate whether the
populations most likely to benefit from
the creation or preservation of jobs or
new or expanded business opportunities
are from Economically Distressed Areas.
In addition, to the extent possible,
applicants should indicate whether the
project’s procurement plan is likely to
create follow-on jobs and economic
stimulus for manufacturers and
suppliers that support the construction
industry. A key consideration in
assessing projects under this criterion
will be how quickly jobs are created.
In evaluating a project’s alignment
with this criterion, DOT will assess
whether a project is ready to proceed
rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant, as evidenced by:
(i) Project Schedule: A feasible and
sufficiently detailed project schedule
demonstrating that the project can begin
construction quickly upon receipt of a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant and that
the grant funds will be spent steadily
and expeditiously once construction
starts; the schedule should show how
many direct, on-project jobs are
expected to be created or sustained
during each calendar quarter after the
project is underway;
(ii) Environmental Approvals: Receipt
(or reasonably anticipated receipt) of all
environmental approvals necessary for

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21702

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

the project to proceed to construction on
the timeline specified in the project
schedule, including satisfaction of all
Federal, State and local requirements
and completion of the National
Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’)
process; DOT will not evaluate
applications from applicants that have
not initiated the NEPA process for their
project by the Pre-Application Deadline,
as evidenced by the identification of
and engagement with the appropriate
Federal/State lead agency for the NEPA
review and preparation of draft NEPA
documentation; relevant NEPA
documentation must be provided with
the application—preferably by way of a
Web site link—for Departmental review;
(iii) Legislative Approvals: Receipt of
all necessary legislative approvals (for
example, legislative authority to charge
user fees or set toll rates), and evidence
of support from State and local elected
officials; evidence of support from all
relevant State and local officials is not
required, however, the evidence should
demonstrate that the project is broadly
supported;
(iv) State and Local Planning: The
inclusion of the project in the relevant
State, metropolitan, and local planning
documents, or a certification from the
appropriate agency that the project will
be included in the relevant planning
document prior to award of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant;5 any MPO that is
applying for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant should provide evidence that the
owner of the project supports the
application and will cooperate in
carrying out the activities to be
supported by the TIGER II Discretionary
Grant;
(v) Technical Feasibility: The
technical feasibility of the project,
including completion of substantial
preliminary engineering work; and
5 All regionally significant projects requiring an
action by the FHWA or the FTA must be in the
metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and STIP.
Further, in air quality non-attainment and
maintenance areas, all regionally significant
projects, regardless of the funding source, must be
included in the conforming metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP. To the extent a project
is required to be on a metropolitan transportation
plan, TIP and/or STIP it will not receive a TIGER
II Discretionary Grant until it is included in such
plans. Projects that are not required to be in long
range transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs will not
need to be included in such plans in order to
receive a TIGER II Discretionary Grant. Freight and
passenger rail projects are not required to be on the
State Rail Plans called for in the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. This is
consistent with the exemption for high speed and
intercity passenger rail projects under the Recovery
Act. However, applicants seeking funding for
freight and passenger rail projects are encouraged
to demonstrate that they have done sufficient
planning to ensure that projects fit into a prioritized
list of capital needs and are consistent with longrange goals.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

(vi) Financial Feasibility: The viability
and completeness of the project’s
financing package (assuming the
availability of the requested TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds), including
evidence of stable and reliable financial
commitments and contingency reserves,
as appropriate, and evidence of the
grant recipient’s ability to manage
grants.
DOT reserves the right to revoke any
award of TIGER II Discretionary Grant
funds and to award such funds to
another project to the extent that such
funds are not timely expended and/or
construction does not begin in
accordance with the project schedule.
Because projects have different
schedules DOT will consider on a caseby-case basis how much time after
award of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant
each project has before funds must be
obligated and construction started. This
deadline will be specified for each
TIGER II Discretionary Grant in the
project-specific grant agreements signed
by the grant recipients and will be based
on critical path items identified by
applicants in response to items (i)
through (vi) above. For example, if an
applicant reasonably anticipates that
NEPA requirements will be completed
and final documentation received
within 30 to 60 days of award of a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant, this
timeframe will be taken into account in
evaluating the application, but also in
establishing a deadline for obligation of
funds and commencement of
construction. DOT’s ability to obligate
funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants
expires on September 30, 2012.
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
In order to measure a project’s
alignment with this criterion, DOT will
assess the extent to which the project
uses innovative technology (including,
for example, intelligent transportation
systems, dynamic pricing, rail wayside
or on-board energy recovery, smart
cards, real-time dispatching, active
traffic management, radio frequency
identification (RFID), or others) to
pursue one or more of the long-term
outcomes outlined above and/or to
significantly enhance the operational
performance of the transportation
system. DOT will also assess the extent
to which the project incorporates
innovations that demonstrate the value
of new approaches to, among other
things, transportation funding and
finance, contracting, project delivery,
congestion management, safety
management, asset management, or
long-term operations and maintenance.

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

The applicant should clearly
demonstrate that the innovation is
designed to pursue one or more of the
long-term outcomes outlined above and/
or significantly enhance the
transportation system.
Innovative, multi-modal projects are
often difficult to fund under traditional
transportation programs. DOT will
consider the extent to which innovative
projects might be difficult to fund under
other programs and will give priority to
projects that align well with the Primary
Selection Criteria but are unlikely to
receive funding under traditional
programs.
(b) Partnership
(i) Jurisdictional & Stakeholder
Collaboration: In order to measure a
project’s alignment with this criterion,
DOT will assess the project’s
involvement of non-Federal entities and
the use of non-Federal funds, including
the scope of involvement and share of
total funding. DOT will give priority to
projects that receive financial
commitments from, or otherwise
involve, State and local governments,
other public entities, or private or
nonprofit entities, including projects
that engage parties that are not
traditionally involved in transportation
projects, such as nonprofit community
groups. Pursuant to the OMB Guidance,
DOT will give priority to projects that
make effective use of community-based
organizations in connecting
disadvantaged people with economic
opportunities.
In compliance with the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, DOT will give
priority to projects for which a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant will help to
complete an overall financing package.
An applicant should clearly
demonstrate the extent to which the
project cannot be readily and efficiently
completed without Federal assistance,
and the extent to which other sources of
Federal assistance are or are not readily
available for the project. DOT will
assess the amount of private debt and
equity to be invested in the project or
the amount of co-investment from State,
local or other non-profit sources.
DOT will also assess the extent to
which the project demonstrates
collaboration among neighboring or
regional jurisdictions to achieve
National, regional or metropolitan
benefits. Multiple States or jurisdictions
may submit a joint application and
should identify a lead State or
jurisdiction as the primary point of
contact. Where multiple States or
jurisdictions are submitting a joint
application, the application should
demonstrate how the project costs are

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
apportioned between the States or
jurisdictions to assist DOT in making
the distributional determinations
described below in Section III(C)
(Distribution of Funds).
(ii) Disciplinary Integration: In order
to demonstrate the value of partnerships
across government agencies that serve
various public service missions and to
promote collaboration on the objectives
outlined in this notice, DOT will give
priority to projects that are supported,
financially or otherwise, by nontransportation public agencies that are
pursuing similar objectives. For
example, DOT will give priority to
transportation projects that create more
livable communities and are supported
by relevant public housing agencies or
are consistent with State or local efforts
or plans to promote economic
development, revitalize communities, or
protect historic or cultural assets;
similarly, DOT will give priority to
transportation projects that encourage
energy efficiency or improve the
environment and are supported by
relevant public agencies with energy or
environmental missions.
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
A. Evaluation Process

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

TIGER II Discretionary Grant
applications will be evaluated in
accordance with the below discussed
evaluation process. DOT will establish a
pre-application evaluation team to
review each pre-application that is
received by DOT on or prior to the PreApplication Deadline. This evaluation
team will be organized and led by the
Office of the Secretary and will include
members from the relevant modal
administrations in DOT with the most
experience and/or expertise in the
relevant project areas (the ‘‘Cognizant
Modal Administrations’’). These
representatives will include technical
and professional staff with relevant
experience and/or expertise. This
evaluation team will be responsible for
analyzing whether the pre-application
satisfies the following key threshold
requirements:
1. The project is an Eligible Project or
a DOT Eligible Planning Activity;
2. NEPA has been initiated, as
described above in Section II(B)(2)(b)(ii)
(Environmental Approvals); and
Long-Term Outcomes ..........

Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

3. Local matching funds to support 20
percent or more of the costs for the
project are identified and committed;
this requirement is not applicable to
projects located in rural areas, however,
applications for projects in rural areas
will be more competitive to the extent
they include non-Federal financial
contributions.
To the extent the pre-application
evaluation team determines that a preapplication does not satisfy these key
threshold requirements, DOT will
inform the project sponsor that an
application for the project will not be
reviewed unless the application
submitted on or prior to the Application
Deadline can demonstrate that the
requirement has been addressed.
DOT will establish application
evaluation teams to review each
application that is received by DOT
prior to the Application Deadline. These
evaluation teams will be organized and
led by the Office of the Secretary and
will include members from each of the
Cognizant Modal Administrations.
These representatives will include
technical and professional staff with
relevant experience and/or expertise.
The evaluation teams will be
responsible for evaluating and rating all
of the projects and making funding
recommendations to the Secretary. The
evaluation process will require team
members to evaluate and rate
applications individually before
convening with other members to
discuss ratings. The composition of the
evaluation teams will be finalized after
the Pre-Application Deadline, based on
the number and nature of preapplications received.
DOT will not assign specific
numerical scores to projects based on
the selection criteria outlined above in
Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). Rather,
ratings of ‘‘highly recommended,’’
‘‘recommended,’’ ‘‘not recommended’’, or
‘‘negative’’ will be assigned to projects
for each of the selection criteria. DOT
will award TIGER II Discretionary
Grants to projects that are well-aligned
with one or more of the selection
criteria, with projects that are wellaligned with multiple selection criteria
being more likely to receive TIGER II
Discretionary Grants. In addition, DOT
will consider whether a project has a
negative effect on any of the selection

21703

criteria, and any such negative effect
may reduce the likelihood that the
project will receive a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant. To the extent the
initial evaluation process does not
sufficiently differentiate among highly
rated projects, DOT will use a similar
rating process to re-assess the projects
that were highly rated and identify
those that should be most highly rated.
DOT will give more weight to the two
Primary Selection Criteria (Long-Term
Outcomes and Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus) than to the two Secondary
Selection Criteria (Innovation and
Partnership). Projects that are unable to
demonstrate a likelihood of significant
long-term benefits in any of the five
long-term outcomes identified in
Section II(A)(1)(a) (Long-Term
Outcomes) will not proceed in the
evaluation process. A project need not
be well aligned with each of the longterm outcomes in order to be successful
in the long-term outcomes criterion
overall. However, projects that are
strongly aligned with multiple longterm outcomes will be the most
successful in this criterion.
Furthermore, a project that has a
negative effect on safety or
environmental sustainability will need
to demonstrate significant merits in
other long-term outcomes in order to be
selected for funding.
For the Job Creation & Economic
Stimulus criterion, projects need not
receive a rating of ‘‘highly
recommended’’ in order to be
recommended for funding, although a
project that is not ready to proceed
quickly, as evidenced by the items
requested in Section II(B)(1)(b)(i)–(vi)
(Project Schedule, Environmental
Approvals, Legislative Approvals, State
and Local Planning, Technical
Feasibility, and Financial Feasibility), is
less likely to be successful in this
criterion.
DOT will give less weight to the two
Secondary Selection Criteria
(Innovation and Partnership) than to the
two Primary Selection Criteria (LongTerm Outcomes and Job Creation &
Economic Stimulus). The two
Secondary Selection Criteria will be
rated equally.
The following table summarizes the
weighting of the selection criteria, as
described in the preceding paragraphs:

DOT will give more weight to this criterion than to either of the Secondary Selection Criteria. In addition,
this criterion has a minimum threshold requirement. Projects that are unable to demonstrate a likelihood
of significant long-term benefits in any of the five long-term outcomes identified in this criterion will not
proceed in the evaluation process.
DOT will give more weight to this criterion than to either of the Secondary Selection Criteria. This criterion
will be considered after it is determined that a project demonstrates a likelihood of significant long-term
benefits in at least one of the five long-term outcomes identified in the long-term outcomes criterion.

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21704

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

Innovation & Partnership ....

DOT will give less weight to these criteria than to the Primary Selection Criteria. These criteria will be rated
equally.

As noted below in Section III(C)
(Distribution of Funds), upon
completion of this competitive rating
process DOT will analyze the
preliminary list and determine whether
the purely competitive ratings are
consistent with the distributional
requirements of the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT
will adjust the list of recommended
projects to satisfy the statutory
distributional requirements while
remaining as consistent as possible with
the competitive ratings.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

B. Evaluation of Eligibility
To be selected for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant, a project must be
an Eligible Project and the applicant
must be an Eligible Applicant. DOT may
consider one or more components of a
large project to be an Eligible Project,
but only to the extent that the
components have independent utility,
meaning the components themselves,
not the project of which they are a part,
are Eligible Projects and satisfy the
selection criteria identified above in
Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). For
these projects, the benefits described in
an application must be related to the
components of the project for which
funding is requested, not the full project
of which they are a part. DOT will not
fund individual phases of a project if
the benefits of completing only these
phases would not align well with the
selection criteria specified in the Notice
because the overall project would still
be incomplete.
To the extent an applicant requests a
substantial amount of grant funds for a
larger project or a group of related
projects, DOT reserves the right to
award funds for a part of the project, not
the full project, if a part of the project
has independent utility and aligns well
with the selection criteria specified in
this notice. To the extent applicants
expect that DOT may wish to consider
funding one or more parts of a project
and not the full project that is the
subject of the application, then
applicants should clearly identify in
their applications the separate parts of
the project and the benefits that each
part of the project provides, and how
these benefits align with the selection
criteria. Similarly, if a project is not
viable unless DOT funds the full project,
this should be stated in the application.
C. Distribution of Funds
As noted above in Section I
(Background), the FY 2010

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

Appropriations Act prohibits the award
of more than 25 percent of the funds
made available under the TIGER II
program to projects in any one State.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also
requires that DOT take measures to
ensure an equitable geographic
distribution of funds, an appropriate
balance in addressing the needs of
urban and rural areas, and the
investment in a variety of transportation
modes. DOT will apply an initial
unconstrained competitive rating
process based on the selection criteria
identified above in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria) to determine a
preliminary list of projects
recommended for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants. DOT will then
analyze the preliminary list and
determine whether the purely
competitive ratings are consistent with
the distributional requirements of the
FY 2010 Appropriations Act. If
necessary, DOT will adjust the list of
recommended projects to satisfy the
statutory distributional requirements
while remaining as consistent as
possible with the competitive ratings.
As noted above in Section
II(B)(2)(b)(i) (Jurisdictional &
Stakeholder Collaboration), applications
submitted jointly by multiple States
should include an allocation of project
costs to assist DOT in making these
determinations. In addition, DOT will
use the subsidy and administrative cost
estimate, not the principal amount of
credit assistance, to determine any
TIGER II TIFIA Payment’s effect on
these distributional requirements.
D. Transparency of Process
In the interest of transparency, DOT
will disclose as much of the information
related to its evaluation process as is
practical. DOT expects that the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program may be
reviewed and/or audited by Congress,
the U.S. Government Accountability
Office, DOT’s Inspector General, or
others, and has and will continue to
take steps to document its decisionmaking process.
IV. Grant Administration
DOT expects that each TIGER II
Discretionary Grant will be
administered by one of the Cognizant
Modal Administration, pursuant to a
grant agreement between the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant recipient and the
Cognizant Modal Administration. In
accordance with the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, the Secretary has

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

the discretion to delegate such
responsibilities.
Applicable Federal laws, rules and
regulations will apply to projects that
receive TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b)
(Job Creation & Economic Stimulus),
how soon after award a project is
expected to obligate grant funds and
start construction will be considered on
a case-by-case basis and will be
specified in the project-specific grant
agreements. DOT reserves the right to
revoke any award of TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds and to award
such funds to another project to the
extent that such funds are not timely
expended and/or construction does not
begin in accordance with the project
schedule. DOT’s ability to obligate
funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants
expires on September 30, 2012.
V. Projects in Rural Areas
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
directs that not less than $140 million
of the funds provided for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants are to be used for
projects in rural areas. For purposes of
this notice, DOT is generally defining
‘‘rural area’’ as any area not in an
Urbanized Area, as such term is defined
by the Census Bureau,6 and will
6 For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classified
as urban all territory, population, and housing units
located within urbanized areas (UAs) and urban
clusters (UCs), both defined using the same criteria.
The Census Bureau delineates UA and UC
boundaries to encompass densely settled territory,
which generally consists of:
• A cluster of one or more block groups or census
blocks, each of which has a population density of
at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time.
• Surrounding block groups and census blocks,
each of which has a population density of at least
500 people per square mile at the time.
• Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves
or indentations, or are used to connect
discontiguous areas with qualifying densities.
Rural consists of all territory, population, and
housing units located outside of UAs and UCs.
For Census 2000, the urban and rural
classification was applied to the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Urbanized Areas (UAs)—An urbanized area
consists of densely settled territory that contains
50,000 or more people. The Census Bureau
delineates UAs to provide a better separation of
urban and rural territory, population, and housing
in the vicinity of large places. For Census 2000, the
UA criteria were extensively revised and all areas
were reexamined and redefined, rather than
building from the previous decade’s UA boundary
as had been the practice in previous censuses
(territory that was part of a 1990 UA was not
automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA).
Because of changes in criteria, some territory that
was classified as urbanized for the 1990 census was
reclassified as rural. In addition, some areas that

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
consider a project to be in a rural area
if all or a material portion of a project
is located in a rural area. For projects
located in rural areas the FY 2010
Appropriation Act does not require
matching funds (although the statute
does direct DOT to give priority to
projects, including projects located in
rural areas, for which Federal funding is
required to complete an overall
financing package that includes nonFederal sources of funds) and the
minimum grant size is $1 million.
Applicants for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants of between $1 million and $10
million for projects located in rural
areas are encouraged to apply and
should address the same criteria as
applicants for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants in excess of $10 million.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments
Up to $150 million of the $600
million available for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants may be used for
TIGER II TIFIA Payments. Based on the
average subsidy cost of the existing
TIFIA portfolio, $150 million in TIGER
II TIFIA Payments could support
approximately $1.5 billion in Federal
credit assistance.
Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA
Payments should apply in accordance
with all of the criteria and guidance
specified in this notice for TIGER II
Discretionary Grant applications and
will be evaluated concurrently with all
other applicants. Any applicant seeking
a TIGER II TIFIA Payment is also
required to submit a TIFIA letter of
interest concurrent with the TIGER II
TIFIA Payment application. If selected
for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment, the
applicant must comply with all of the
TIFIA program’s standard application
and approval requirements including
submission of a complete TIFIA
application and $30,000 application fee
(the TIFIA program guide can be
were identified as being within UAs for the 1990
census were reclassified as within urban clusters.
Urban Clusters (UCs)—An urban cluster consists
of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500
people but fewer than 50,000 people. The Census
Bureau introduced the UC concept for Census 2000
to provide a more consistent and accurate measure
of urban population, housing, and territory
throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
Island Areas. Prior to Census 2000, urban places of
2,500 or more population were identified outside
UAs without regard to population density. In
addition, densely settled populations located
outside places and outside UAs were classified as
rural prior to Census 2000. Because of the adoption
of the UC concept for Census 2000, some territory
that was classified as rural for the 1990 census was
reclassified as urban. Note: All urban areas defined
within Guam based on the results of Census 2000
are designated as urban clusters regardless of their
total population.
Updated lists of UAs and UCs are available on the
Census Bureau Web site.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

downloaded from http://
tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Applicants should demonstrate that
they are ready to proceed rapidly upon
receipt of a TIGER II TIFIA Payment in
accordance with the guidance specified
above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation
& Economic Stimulus). DOT’s TIFIA
Joint Program Office will assist DOT in
determining a project’s readiness to
proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER
II TIFIA Payment.
Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA
Payments may also apply for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant for the same project
and must indicate the type(s) of funding
for which they are applying clearly on
the face of their applications. An
applicant for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment
must submit an application pursuant to
this notice for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment
even if it does not wish to apply for a
TIGER II Discretionary Grant.
DOT reserves the right to offer a
TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an applicant
that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant even if DOT does not choose to
fund the requested TIGER II
Discretionary Grant request and the
applicant did not request a TIGER II
TIFIA Payment. Therefore, applicants
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants,
particularly applicants that require a
substantial amount of funds to complete
a financing package, should indicate
whether or not they have considered
applying for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment.
To the extent an applicant thinks that
TIFIA may be a viable option for the
project, applicants should provide a
brief description of a project finance
plan that includes TIFIA credit
assistance and identifies a source of
revenue which may be available to
support the TIFIA credit assistance.
Unless otherwise expressly noted
herein, any and all requirements that
apply to TIGER II Discretionary Grants
pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, this notice, or otherwise, apply to
TIGER II TIFIA Payments. TIFIA
applicants that do not receive TIGER II
TIFIA Payments will not be required to
comply with any of these requirements.
VII. TIGER II Planning Grants
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
permits DOT to use up to $35 million
of the amount available for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants for TIGER II
Planning Grants.
TIGER II Planning Grants may be
awarded, like TIGER II Discretionary
Grants, to Eligible Applicants, and may
be used for activities related to the
planning, preparation or design of
Eligible Projects, including
transportation corridors or regional
transportation systems (‘‘DOT Eligible

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21705

Planning Activities’’). Applications for
planning assistance may be made alone
or as part of a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant application.
Applicants seeking TIGER II Planning
Grants should apply in accordance with
all of the application requirements
specified in this notice for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, unless specified
otherwise. This includes responding to
each of the selection criteria specified
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants and
submission of a pre-application and
application in accordance with the
requirements specified in Section IX
(Pre-Application and Application Cycle)
below.
DOT reserves the right to offer a
TIGER II Planning Grant to an applicant
that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary
Grant even if DOT does not choose to
fund the requested TIGER II
Discretionary Grant request and the
applicant did not request a TIGER II
Planning Grant.
For purposes of this interim notice,
DOT is seeking comments on its
intention to conduct a multi-agency
evaluation and award process with HUD
for DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants and
HUD’s Community Challenge Planning
Grants, which were also authorized
under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act.
HUD is authorized to use $40 million
for Community Challenge Planning
Grants to foster reform and reduce
barriers to achieve affordable,
economically vital, and sustainable
communities. This multi-agency
approach for the planning grants would
be consistent with DOT and HUD’s
participation in the ‘‘Partnership for
Sustainable Communities’’ with EPA to
help American families in all
communities—rural, suburban and
urban—gain better access to affordable
housing, more transportation options,
lower transportation costs, and a cleaner
environment.
DOT and HUD believe there is great
value in issuing a joint solicitation for
the two planning grant programs in
order to better align transportation,
housing, economic development, and
land use planning and to improve
linkages between the three Partnership
agencies’ programs. DOT and HUD also
believe this proposal has the potential to
encourage and reward more holistic
planning efforts and result in better
projects being built with Federal dollars.
While the DOT and HUD planning
grant programs have similar, related
purposes, there are differences in the
activities that the two programs can
fund. DOT’s program can fund planning
activities that relate directly to a future
transportation capital investment, while
HUD’s program can fund local planning

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21706

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

activities that could support future
transportation investment.
Transportation planning activities
that may be funded through the TIGER
II Discretionary Grant program include
efforts related to individual
transportation projects, transportation
corridors, or regional transportation
systems or networks. Activities eligible
for funding under HUD’s program
include, but are not limited to, the
development of master plans, zoning
and building code reform initiatives,
including the development of
inclusionary zoning ordinances,
corridor and district plans, and other
strategies, including land acquisition,
designed to create walkable, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and affordable
communities for persons of all incomes,
especially those of low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income persons and
families.
Additionally, the two programs can
provide funding to different applicants.
DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants are
available to any Eligible Applicant. The
HUD Community Challenge Grants are
potentially available to a broader range
of applicants, including nonprofit
organizations. DOT and HUD would like
to invite comments about whether the
differences in eligibility should be
maintained and, if so, how it might be
managed in a joint selection process.
DOT and HUD would like to receive
comments on the evaluation method
that should be used for a combined
planning grant process, in terms of
selection criteria and goals. Also,
feedback is invited on funding
categories and where the overlap
between DOT and HUD’s program might
be applied most effectively. To the
extent DOT and HUD determine that a
joint solicitation is feasible and
advisable, it would be published no
later than May 28, 2010, with the final
notice of funding availability for the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant program.

2. Application: In Stage 2, applicants
must submit a complete application
package through Grants.gov.
Pre-applications must be submitted to
DOT by the Pre-Application Deadline,
which is July 16, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST.
Final applications must be submitted
through Grants.gov by the Application
Deadline, which is August 23, 2010, at
5 p.m. EST. The Grants.gov ‘‘Apply’’
function will open on July 30, 2010,
allowing applicants to submit
applications. While applicants are
encouraged to submit pre-applications
in advance of the Pre-Application
Deadline, pre-applications will not be
reviewed until after the Pre-Application
Deadline. Similarly, while applicants
are encouraged to submit applications
in advance of the Application Deadline,
applications will not be evaluated, and
awards will not be made, until after the
Application Deadline.
Pre-applications (stage 1) must be
submitted to the DOT. The preapplication form will be available on the
DOT Web site at http://www.dot.gov/
recovery/ost/TIGERII on June 15, 2010,
together with instructions for submitting
the pre-application form electronically
to DOT.
Applications (Stage 2) must be
submitted through Grants.gov. To apply
for funding through Grants.gov,
applicants must be properly registered.
Complete instructions on how to
register and submit applications can be
found at http://www.grants.gov. Please
be aware that the registration process
usually takes 2–4 weeks and must be
completed before an application can be
submitted. If interested parties
experience difficulties at any point
during the registration or application
process, please call the Grants.gov
Customer Support Hotline at 1–800–
518–4726, Monday–Friday from 7 a.m.
to 9 p.m. EST. Additional information
on applying through Grants.gov is
available in Appendix B, attached
hereto.

Pre-Application and Application Cycle

B. Contents of Pre-Applications

VIII. Pre-Application and Application
Cycle

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

A. Two Stages of Application Cycle
The application cycle for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants has two stages:
1. Pre-Application: In Stage 1,
applicants must submit a preapplication form to the DOT. This step
qualifies applicants to submit an
application in Stage 2. No application
submitted during Stage 2 that does not
correlate with a properly completed
Stage 1 pre-application will be
considered.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

An applicant for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant should provide all
of the information requested below in
its pre-application form. DOT reserves
the right to ask any applicant to
supplement the data in its preapplication, but expects preapplications to be complete upon
submission. Applicants must complete
the pre-application form and send it to
DOT electronically on or prior to the
Pre-Application Deadline, in accordance
with the instructions specified at http://
www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII. The

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

pre-application form must include the
following information:
i. Name of applicant (if the
application is to be submitted by more
than one entity, a lead applicant must
be identified);
ii. Applicant’s DUNS (Data Universal
Numbering System) number;
iii. Type of applicant (State
government, local government, U.S.
territory, Tribal government, transit
agency, port authority, metropolitan
planning organization, or other unit of
government;);
iv. State(s) where the project is
located;
v. County(s) where the project is
located;
vi. City(s) where the project is located;
vii. Project title (descriptive);
viii. Project type: Highway, transit,
rail, port, multimodal, bicycle and
pedestrian, or planning activity (if the
project is a multimodal project, the preapplication form will require that
applicants provide additional
information identifying the affected
modes);
ix. Whether the project is requesting
a TIGER II TIFIA Payment;
x. Project description (describe the
project in plain English terms that
would be generally understood by the
public, using no more than 50 words
(e.g. ‘‘the project will replace the
existing bridge over the W river on
interstate-X between the cities of Y and
Z’’ or ‘‘the TIGER II Planning Grant will
fund planning activities for streetcar
service from location X to location Y’’;
please do not describe the project’s
benefits, background, or alignment with
the selection criteria in this
description);
xi. Total cost of the project;
xii. Total amount of TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds requested;
xiii. Contact name, phone number, email address, and physical address for
applicant;
xiv. Congressional districts affected
by the project;
xv. Type of jurisdiction where the
project is located (urban or rural, as
defined above in Section V (Projects in
Rural Areas));
xvi. Whether or not the project is in
an Economically Distressed Area, as
defined in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria);
xvii. An assurance that the NEPA
process has been initiated, as evidenced
by the identification of and engagement
with the appropriate Federal/State lead
agency for the NEPA review and
preparation of draft NEPA
documentation (while not required for
the pre-application, relevant NEPA
documentation must be provided with

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
the application—preferably by way of a
website link—for Departmental review);
applicants for TIGER II Planning Grants
do not need to demonstrate that the
NEPA process has been initiated; and
xviii. An assurance that local
matching funds to support 20 percent or
more of the costs of the project are
identified and committed (as noted in
Section I (Background), this requirement
is waived for projects located in rural
areas (as defined above in Section V
(Projects in Rural Areas)), and these
projects do not need to provide this
assurance).
To the extent the pre-application does
not provide adequate assurances for
items xvii or xviii, DOT will inform the
project sponsor that an application for
the project will not be reviewed unless
the application submitted on or prior to
the Application Deadline can
demonstrate that the requirement has
been addressed.
C. Contents of Applications
An applicant for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant should include all
of the information requested below in
its application. DOT reserves the right to
ask any applicant to supplement the
data in its application, but expects
applications to be complete upon
submission. To the extent practical,
DOT encourages applicants to provide
data and evidence of project merits in a
form that is publicly available or
verifiable. For TIGER II TIFIA Payments,
these requirements apply only to the
applications required under this notice;
the standard TIFIA letter of interest and
loan application requirements,
including the standard $30,000.00
application fee, are separately described
in the Program Guide and Application
Form found at http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

1. Standard Form 424, Application for
Federal Assistance
Please see http://www07.grants.gov/
assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for
instructions on how to complete the SF
424, which is part of the standard
Grants.gov submission. Additional
clarifying guidance and FAQs to assist
applicants in completing the SF–424
will be available at http://www.dot.gov/
recovery/ost/TIGERII by July 30, 2010,
when the ‘‘Apply’’ function within
Grants.gov opens to accept applications
under this notice.
2. Project Narrative (Attachment to SF
424)
The project narrative must respond to
the application requirements outlined
below. DOT recommends that the
project narrative be prepared with
standard formatting preferences (e.g. a

VerDate Nov<24>2008

18:05 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

single-spaced document, using a
standard 12-point font, such as Times
New Roman, with 1-inch margins).
A TIGER II Discretionary Grant
application must include information
required for DOT to assess each of the
criteria specified in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria), as such criteria are
explained in Section II(B) (Additional
Guidance on Selection Criteria).
Applicants are encouraged to
demonstrate the responsiveness of a
project to any and all of the selection
criteria with the most relevant
information that applicants can provide,
regardless of whether such information
has been specifically requested, or
identified, in this notice. Any such
information shall be considered part of
the application, not supplemental, for
purposes of the application size limits
identified below in Part D (Length of
Applications). Information provided
pursuant to this paragraph must be
quantified, to the extent possible, to
describe the project’s impacts on the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
Information provided pursuant to this
paragraph should include projections
for both the build and no-build
scenarios for the project for a point in
time at least 20 years beyond the
project’s completion date or the lifespan
of the project, whichever is closest to
the present.
All applications should include a
detailed description of the proposed
project and geospatial data for the
project, including a map of the project’s
location and its connections to existing
transportation infrastructure. An
application should also include a
description of how the project addresses
the needs of an urban and/or rural area.
An application should clearly describe
the transportation challenges that the
project aims to address, and how the
project will address these challenges.
The description should include relevant
data such as, for example, passenger or
freight volumes, congestion levels,
infrastructure condition, or safety
experience.
DOT recommends that the project
narrative generally adhere to the
following basic outline, and include a
table of contents, maps and graphics
that make the information easier to
review:
I. Project Description (including a
description of the transportation
challenges that the project aims to
address, and how the project will
address these challenges);
II. Project Parties (information about
the grant recipient and other project
parties);
III. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of
Project Funds (information about the

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21707

amount of grant funding requested,
availability/commitment of funds
sources and uses of all project funds,
total project costs, percentage of project
costs that would be paid for with TIGER
II Discretionary Grant funds, and the
identity and percentage shares of all
parties providing funds for the project
(including Federal funds provided
under other programs));
IV. Selection Criteria (information
about how the project aligns with each
of the primary and secondary selection
criteria and a description of the results
of the benefit-cost analysis):
a. Long-Term Outcomes:
i. State of Good Repair;
ii. Economic Competitiveness;
iii. Livability;
iv. Sustainability;
v. Safety;
b. Job Creation and Economic
Stimulus;
c. Innovation;
d. Partnership;
V. Project Readiness and NEPA
(information about how ready the
project is to move forward quickly,
including information about the project
schedule, environmental approvals,
legislative approvals, state and local
planning, technical feasibility, and
financial feasibility); applications for
TIGER II Planning Grants do not need to
address project readiness and NEPA;
VI. Federal Wage Rate Certification
(an application must include a
certification, signed by the applicant,
stating that it will comply with the
requirements of subchapter IV of
chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code (Federal wage rate requirements),
as required by the FY 2010
Appropriations Act); and
VII. To the extent relevant, the final
page of the application should describe
(in one page or less) any material
changes that need to be made to the preapplication form, including changes to
the assurances provided in items xvii
and xviii regarding initiation of NEPA
and required cost sharing.
The purpose of this recommended
format is to ensure that applications are
provided in a format that clearly
addresses the application requirements
and makes critical information readily
apparent and easy to locate.
D. Length of Applications
The project narrative should not
exceed 25 pages in length.
Documentation supporting the
assertions made in the narrative portion
may also be provided, but should be
limited to relevant information. If
possible, Web site links to supporting
documentation (including a more
detailed discussion of the benefit-cost

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21708

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

analysis) should be provided rather than
copies of these materials. At the
applicant’s discretion, relevant
materials provided previously to a
Cognizant Modal Administration in
support of a different DOT discretionary
program (for example, New Starts or
TIFIA) may be referenced and described
as unchanged. To the extent referenced,
this information need not be
resubmitted for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant application. DOT
recommends use of appropriately
descriptive file names (e.g., ‘‘Project
Narrative,’’ ‘‘Maps,’’ ‘‘Memoranda of
Understanding and Letters of Support,’’
etc.) for all attachments. Cover pages
and tables of contents do not count
towards the 25-page limit for the
narrative portion of the application, and
the Federal wage rate certification and
one-page update of the pre-application
form (if necessary) may also be outside
of the 25-page narrative. Otherwise, the
only substantive portions of the
application that should exceed the 25page limit are any supporting
documents provided to support
assertions or conclusions made in the
25-page narrative section.
E. Contact Information
Contact information is requested as
part of the SF–424. DOT will use this
information to inform parties of DOT’s
decision regarding selection of projects,
as well as to contact parties in the event
that DOT needs additional information
about an application.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

F. National Environmental Policy Act
Requirement
An application for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant must detail whether
the project will significantly impact the
natural, social and/or economic
environment. If the NEPA process is
completed, an applicant must indicate
the date of, and provide a Web site link
or other reference to, the final
Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No
Significant Impact or Record of
Decision. If the NEPA process is
underway but not complete, the
application must detail where the
project is in the process, indicate the
anticipated date of completion and
provide a Web site link or other
reference to copies of any NEPA
documents prepared.
G. Environmentally Related Federal,
State and Local Actions
An application for a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant must indicate
whether the proposed project is likely to
require actions by other agencies (e.g.,
permits), indicate the status of such
actions and provide a Web site link or

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

other reference to materials submitted to
the other agencies, and/or demonstrate
compliance with other Federal, State
and local regulations as applicable,
including, but not limited to, Section
4(f) Parklands, Recreation Areas,
Refuges, & Historic Properties; Section
106 Historic and Culturally Significant
Properties; Clean Water Act Wetlands
and Water; Executive Orders Wetlands,
Floodplains, Environmental Justice;
Clean Air Act Air Quality (specifically
note if the project is located in a
nonattainment area); Endangered
Species Act Threatened and Endangered
Biological Resources; MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Essential Fish Habitat;
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act; and/or any State and local
requirements.
H. Protection of Confidential Business
Information
All information submitted as part of
or in support of any application shall
use publicly available data or data that
can be made public and methodologies
that are accepted by industry practice
and standards, to the extent possible. If
the application includes information
that the applicant considers to be a trade
secret or confidential commercial or
financial information, the applicant
should do the following: (1) Note on the
front cover that the submission
‘‘Contains Confidential Business
Information (CBI);’’ (2) mark each
affected page ‘‘CBI;’’ and (3) highlight or
otherwise denote the CBI portions. DOT
protects such information from
disclosure to the extent allowed under
applicable law. In the event DOT
receives a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request for the information, DOT
will follow the procedures described in
its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR § 7.17.
Only information that is ultimately
determined to be confidential under that
procedure will be exempt from
disclosure under FOIA.
IX. Project Benefits
DOT expects to identify and report on
the benefits of the projects that it funds
with TIGER II Discretionary Grants. To
this end, DOT will request that
recipients of TIGER II Discretionary
Grants cooperate in Departmental efforts
to collect and report on information
related to the benefits produced by the
projects that receive TIGER II
Discretionary Grants.
The benefits that DOT reports on may
include the following: (1) Improved
condition of existing transportation
facilities and systems; (2) long-term
growth in employment, production or
other high-value economic activity; (3)

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

improved livability of communities
across the United States; (4) improved
energy efficiency, reduced dependence
on oil and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions; (5) reduced adverse impacts
of transportation on the natural
environment; (6) reduced number, rate
and consequences of surface
transportation-related crashes, injuries
and fatalities; (7) greater use of
innovative technology and innovative
approaches to transportation funding
and project delivery; (8) greater
collaboration with state and local
governments, other public entities,
private entities, nonprofit entities, or
other non-traditional partners; (9)
greater integration of transportation
decision making with decision making
by other public agencies with similar
public service objectives; or (10) any
other benefits claimed in the project’s
benefit-cost analysis.
Because of the limited nature of this
program, these benefits are likely to be
reported on a project-by-project basis
and trends across projects that were
selected for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants may not be readily available. In
addition, because many of these benefits
are long-term outcomes, it may be years
before the value of the investments can
be quantified and fully reported. DOT is
considering the most appropriate way to
collect and report information about
these potential project benefits.
X. Questions and Clarifications
For further information concerning
this notice please contact the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program manager
via e-mail at [email protected], or
call Robert Mariner at 202–366–8914. A
TDD is available for individuals who are
deaf or hard of hearing at 202–366–
3993. DOT will regularly post answers
to these questions and other important
clarifications on DOT’s Web site at
http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/
TIGERII.
Appendix A: Additional Information on
Benefit-Cost Analysis
As previously discussed in the Notice,
the lack of a useful analysis of expected
project benefits and costs may be a basis
for denying an award of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant to any applicant.
Additionally, if it is clear that the total
benefits of a project are not reasonably
likely to outweigh the project’s costs,
the Department will not award a TIGER
II Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the
applicant to prepare a thorough benefitcost analysis that demonstrates clearly
the derivation of both the costs and the
benefits of the project. However, DOT
understands that the level of expense

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
that can be expected in these analyses
for surveys, travel demand forecasts,
market forecasts, statistical analyses,
and so on will be less for smaller
projects than for larger projects. Smaller
projects will therefore be given greater
latitude to estimate benefits
subjectively. However, even smaller
projects will be expected to quantify
these subjective estimates of benefits
and costs, and to provide whatever
evidence they have available to lend
credence to their subjective estimates.

Estimates of benefits should be
presented in monetary terms whenever
possible; if a monetary estimate is not
possible, then at least a quantitative
estimate (in physical, non-monetary
terms, such as ridership estimates,
emissions levels, etc.) should be
provided. A benefit-cost analysis is not
necessary for TIGER II Planning Grant
applicants; however, such applicants
should describe the expected benefits of
the underlying project(s) that the
planning activities will help advance.

21709

This appendix provides general
information and guidance on
conducting an analysis. In addition to
this guidance, applicants should also
refer to OMB Circulars A–4 and A–94 in
preparing their analysis (http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/).
Circular A–4 also cites textbooks on
cost-benefit analysis (e.g., Mishan and
Quah 7) if an applicant wants to review
additional background material. The
Department will rate all analyses as
indicated below.

TABLE 1—RATINGS OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES
Rating

Description

Very Useful ................

The economic analysis (i) is comprehensive (quantifying and monetizing the full range of costs and benefits, including
the likely timing of such costs and benefits, for which such measures are reasonably available), (ii) attempts to describe the indirect effects of transportation investments on land use (when applicable), (iii) helps the Department organize information about, and evaluate trade-offs between, alternative transportation investments, (iv) provides a high
degree of confidence as to the extent to which the benefits of the project will exceed the project’s costs on a net
present value basis, and (v) provides sensitivity analysis to show how changes in key assumptions affect the outcome
of the analysis.
The economic analysis (i) identifies, quantifies, monetizes, and compares the project’s expected benefits and costs, but
has minor gaps in coverage of benefits and costs or the precise timing of benefits and costs, or fails in some cases to
quantify or monetize benefits and costs for which such measures are reasonably available, and (ii) provides a sufficient degree of confidence that the benefits of the project will exceed the project’s costs on a net present value basis.
The economic analysis (i) identifies, quantifies, monetizes, and compares the project’s expected benefits and costs, but
has significant gaps in coverage, quantification, monetization, or timing of benefits and costs, or significant errors in its
measurement of benefits or costs, and (ii) the Department is uncertain whether the benefits of the project will exceed
the project’s costs on a net present value basis.
The economic analysis (i) does not adequately identify, quantify, monetize, and compare the project’s expected benefits
and costs or timing of benefits and costs, (ii) provides little basis for concluding that the benefits of the project will exceed the project’s costs on a net present value basis, and (iii) demonstrates an unreasonable absence of data and
analysis or poor applicant effort to put forth a robust quantification of net benefits.

Useful ........................

Marginally Useful .......

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Not Useful ..................

A benefit-cost analysis attempts to
measure the dollar value of the benefits
and the costs to all the members of
society (in this context, ‘‘society’’ means
all residents of the United States) on a
net present value basis. The benefits
represent a dollar measure of the extent
to which people are made better off by
the project—that is, the benefits
represent the amount that all the people
in the society would jointly be willing
to pay to carry out the project, and feel
as if they had generated enough benefits
to justify the project’s costs accounting
for the relative timing of those benefits
and costs. In some cases, benefits may
be difficult to measure in dollar terms.
Applicants must at least describe the
nature of each of the major types of
benefits described in this guidance. To
the extent possible, applicants must also
quantify each of those types of benefits
(e.g., in terms of the number of users
making use of a transportation facility).
Finally, applicants must attempt to
measure those benefits in dollar terms
(i.e., ‘‘monetize’’ them). These benefits
must then be compared with a dollar

measure of the costs of the project. Both
benefits and costs must be estimated for
each year after work on the project is
begun, and these streams of annual
benefits and costs must be discounted to
the present using an appropriate
discount rate, so that a present value of
the stream of benefits and a present
value of the stream of costs is
calculated.
As a starting point for any analysis,
applicants should provide a Project
Summary describing the project and
what it changes. The Project Summary
should provide:
• A description of the current
infrastructure baseline (e.g., two-lane
road).
• A description of what the proposed
project is and how it would change the
current infrastructure baseline (e.g.,
extension of a trolley line).
• A general justification for the
project and how it affects the long-term
outcomes relative to the current
baseline.
• A description of who would be the
users of the project or what groups of
people would benefit from it.

• A description of what types of
economic effects the project is expected
to have.
If an application contains multiple
separate projects, each of which has
independent utility, the applicant
should provide a separate summary
(and analysis) for each project. The
summary should also identify the types
of societal benefits the project might
generate. The applicant should list the
types of benefits here and then clearly
demonstrate in the analysis how it
estimated benefits for each category.
The summary should also include the
full cost of a project, including Federal,
State, local, and private funding, and
not simply the requested grant amount
or the local amount.
Each application must include in its
analysis estimates of the project’s
expected benefits with respect to each of
the five long-term outcomes specified in
Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). We
recognize that it may in some cases be
unclear in which of these categories of
outcomes a benefit should be listed. In
these cases, it is less important in which
category a benefit is listed than to make

7 E.J. Mishan and Euston Quah, Cost-Benefit
Analysis, 5th edition (New York: Routledge, 2007).

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21710

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

sure that the benefit is listed and
measured (but only once). Applicants
must demonstrate that the proposed
project has independent utility as
defined in this Notice. It cannot be a
component of a larger project such that,
if the larger project were not built, this
project would have little or no
transportation value (or, if it is part of
a larger project, the application must
demonstrate that funding for the larger
project is committed). If the applicant
provides a benefit-cost analysis for a
larger project, then it must estimate
what portion of the benefits and costs of
the larger project apply to the smaller
project for which funding is being
sought. The following sections describe
baselines, affected population,
discounting, forecasting, costs, and
benefit categories in more detail. The
Department expects a thorough
discussion of these items in the body of
the analysis.
Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic
Impact Analysis
First, it is important to recognize that
a benefit-cost analysis is not an
economic impact analysis. Applicants
are required to provide a benefit-cost
analysis in support of their proposed
projects. An economic impact analysis
is not acceptable.
A benefit-cost analysis attempts to
measure the dollar value of the benefits
and the costs to all the members of
society (in this context, ‘‘society’’ means
all residents of the United States). The
benefits represent a dollar measure of
the extent to which people are made
better off by the project—that is, the
benefits represent the amount that all
the people in the society would jointly
be willing to pay to carry out the
project, and feel as if they had generated
enough benefits to justify the project’s
costs.
An economic impact analysis, on the
other hand, typically focuses on local
benefits rather than national benefits.
Some of the benefits that are counted in
an economic impact analysis, such as
diversion of economic activity from one
region of the country to another,
represent benefits to one part of the
country but costs to another part, so
they are not benefits from the
standpoint of the nation as a whole.
Moreover, economic impact analyses
estimate ‘‘impacts’’ rather than
‘‘benefits,’’ and the ‘‘impacts’’ are
normally much larger than the
‘‘benefits.’’ For example, the total payroll
of workers on a project is usually
considered one of the ‘‘impacts’’ in an
economic impact analysis. The total
payroll is not a measure of the ‘‘benefits’’
of the project, however, for two reasons.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

First, a payroll is a cost to whoever pays
the employees, at the same time that it
is a benefit to the employees, so it is not
a net benefit. Second, even for the
employees, the employees have to work
for their wages, so the amount they are
paid is not a net benefit to them—it is
a benefit only to the extent that they
value their wages more than the cost to
them of having to be at work every day.
Economic impact analyses also often
treat real estate investments induced by
a project as one of the economic
‘‘impacts.’’ The full value of such an
investment is not a ‘‘benefit,’’ however,
because the benefit of those investments
to the community in which they are
made is balanced by the cost of the
investment to the investor. Because
these investments are a cost as well as
a benefit, they are not a net benefit for
purposes of a benefit-cost analysis.
There is often an element of benefit in
these ‘‘impacts.’’ A worker who gets a
higher-paying job as a result of a
transportation investment project
benefits if he or she works just as hard
as he or she did at his or her previous
job but is paid more. Such projects
produce benefits by increasing the
productivity of labor. A transportation
investment project that increases the
value and productivity of land and thus
induces real estate investment can also
provide a benefit, but the benefit must
be measured net of the cost of making
the real estate investment. Measuring
these labor productivity effects requires
a careful analysis of the local labor
market and how that market is changed
by the transportation investment.
Similarly, measuring the effects of
transportation projects on the
productivity of land requires a careful
netting out of increases in land values
that are compensated by costs of real
estate investment and increases in land
values that in effect capitalize other
types of benefits that have already been
counted, such as time savings.
In summary, applicants must be
careful to measure only the net benefits
of a project, and should avoid using
software packages that are designed to
produce economic impact analyses. An
application containing only an
economic impact analysis does not meet
the program’s requirements and may be
denied an award for that reason.
Baselines and Alternatives
Applicants should measure costs and
benefits of a proposed project against a
baseline (also called a ‘‘base case’’ or a
‘‘no build’’ case). The baseline should be
an assessment of the way the world
would look if the project did not receive
the requested TIGER II Discretionary
Grant funding. Usually, it is reasonable

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

to forecast that that baseline world
resembles the present state. However, it
is important to factor in any projected
changes (e.g., baseline economic growth,
increased traffic volumes, or completion
of already planned and funded projects)
that would occur even if the proposed
project were not funded. In some cases
the proposed project already has a
financing plan that would allow it to be
built, but that involves a slower
construction schedule than would occur
if it received TIGER II Discretionary
Grant funding. Or it may be likely that,
in the absence of TIGER II Discretionary
Grant funding, the project would be
built later using ordinary funding
sources. In these cases, the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funding may
accelerate completion of the project, but
it does not allow a project to be built
that would never otherwise have been
built. The benefits and costs in this case
should thus be limited to the marginal
benefits (and marginal costs) of having
the project completed in a shorter
period of time and including the cost of
expending resources on the project
sooner than otherwise planned.
Many projects have multiple parts or
multiple phases, only one or two of
which would actually receive funding
from a TIGER II Discretionary Grant. It
is important in these cases that both the
costs and the benefits pertain to the
same portion of the project. If the part
or phase of the project funded by a
TIGER Discretionary Grant has
independent utility, then the analysis
should compare the costs and the
benefits of just that part or phase. If the
part or phase of the project funded by
a TIGER Discretionary Grant does not
have independent utility, then the
applicant must first demonstrate that
funding is committed for the entire
project (or for an entire portion of the
project, including the TIGER
Discretionary Grant-funded portion, that
has independent utility). In this case,
the applicant should compare the
benefits and costs of the entire project
(or the entire portion of the project that
has independent utility). The applicant
must make clear exactly what portions
of the project form the basis of the
estimates of benefits and costs.
It is incorrect to claim benefits from
time savings accruing from a 100-mile
highway when the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant will only fund 10
miles. Similarly, it would be incorrect to
attribute all the benefits from a new port
facility to a TIGER II Discretionary Grant
when the TIGER Discretionary Grantgrant-funded portion only pays for
pavement. In some cases, the applicant
may choose to allocate the benefits of
the project proportionately to the costs

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

of the project that would be funded by
the TIGER II Discretionary Grant, but
this should generally be done only if (1)
the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
commingled with non-TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds for a single,
non-divisible structure that has
independent utility) and (2) the project
has sufficient funding in place to be
completed as a whole unit. If a project
is being funded by multiple Federal,
State, and local sources, it would be
inappropriate to attribute the full benefit
of the project to only one source of
funding (such as the local share or the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant itself).
All costs and benefits of the project
should be evaluated, including benefits
and costs that fall outside of the
jurisdiction sponsoring the project. It is
also important that the applicant
assume the continuation of reasonable
and sound management practices in
establishing a baseline. Assuming a
baseline scenario in which the owner of
the facility does no maintenance on the
facility and ignores traffic problems and
maintenance is not realistic and will
lead to the overstatement of project
benefits.
In addition to the baseline, the
applicant should present and consider
reasonable alternatives in the analysis.
Smaller-scale and more focused projects
should be evaluated for comparison
purposes. For example, if an applicant
is requesting funds to replace a pier, it
should also analyze the alternative of
rehabilitating the current pier.
Similarly, if an applicant seeks funds to
establish a relatively large streetcar
project, it should also evaluate a more
focused project serving only the more
densely populated corridors or an area.
Affected Population
Applicants should clearly identify the
population that the project will affect
and measure the number of passengers
(for a passenger project) and the amount
of freight (for a freight project) affected
by the project. If possible, passenger and
freight traffic should be measured in
passenger-miles and freight ton-miles
(and possibly value of freight). If, as is
often the case (e.g., projected growth in
highway traffic), the forecasted traffic
volume is not the same for all years,
then the applicant needs to break out
the forecasted traffic annually. In some
cases, the characteristics of the
passenger population or of the freight
shipper population may be important
(e.g., whether the passengers or shippers
are members of a disadvantaged group,
or whether the passengers or shippers
are spread across a multi-state region.
Measures of freight traffic might include
growing levels of port calls. In some

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

cases, the relevant population is the
volume of traffic that is diverted from
one mode to another. Applicants must
clearly identify which population will
be affected by any particular benefit. For
example, the affected population that
will enjoy travel time savings may be
different from the affected population
benefiting from reduced shipping costs.
Further, the applicant should be
realistic as to how the project affects
these populations. For example,
improving rail access to a wholesale
distribution center near an urban area
may take some trucks off the road that
had been carrying freight from a truck/
rail intermodal yard to the wholesale
distribution center. However, it is
unrealistic to claim benefits from
reduced truck traffic all the way from
the shipping origin point hundreds or
thousands of miles away to the truck/
rail intermodal yard, if that traffic
would be likely to be moving by rail
already.
Discounting
Applicants should discount future
benefits and costs to present values
using a real discount rate of 7 percent,
following guidance provided by OMB in
Circulars A–4 and A–94 (http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars_default/). Applicants may also
provide an alternative analysis using a
real discount rate of 3 percent. The
latter approach should be used when
the alternative use of funds currently
dedicated to the project would be other
public expenditures, rather than private
investment.
As a first step, applicants should
present the year-by-year stream of
benefits and costs from the project.
Applicants should clearly identify when
they expect costs and benefits to occur.
The beginning point for the year-by-year
stream of benefits should be the first
year in which the project will start
generating costs or benefits. The ending
point should be far enough in the future
to encompass all of the significant costs
and benefits resulting from the project
but not to exceed the usable life of the
asset without capital improvement.8 In
8 In some cases the application may use a fixed
term of years to analyze benefits and costs (e.g., 20
years), even though the applicant knows that the
project will last longer than that and continue to
have benefits and costs in later years. In these cases,
the project will retain a ‘‘residual value’’ at the end
of the analysis period. For instance, a new bridge
may be expected to have a 100-year life but the
analysis period for the benefit-cost analysis might
cover only 40 years. In such cases, a residual value
can be claimed as a benefit (or cost offset) for the
asset at the end of the analysis period. One method
to estimate the residual value is to calculate the
percentage of the project that will not be
depreciated or used up at the end of the analysis
period and to multiply this percentage by the

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21711

presenting these year-by-year streams,
applicants should measure them in
constant (or ‘‘real’’) dollars prior to
discounting. Applicants should not add
in the effects of inflation to the
estimates of future benefits and costs
prior to discounting. Once an applicant
has generated the stream of costs and
benefits in constant dollars, it should
then discount these estimates to arrive
at a present value of costs and benefits.
The standard formula for the discount
factor in any given year is 1/(1 + r) t,
where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate and ‘‘t’’
measures the number of years in the
future that the costs or benefits will
occur. Infrequently, benefits or costs
will be the same in constant dollars for
all years. In these limited cases, an
applicant can calculate the formula for
the present value of an ordinary annuity
instead of showing a year-by-year
calculation.9
Forecasting
Benefit-cost analyses of transportation
projects almost always depend on
forecasts of projected levels of usage
(road traffic, port calls, etc.). When an
applicant is using such forecasts to
generate benefit estimates, it must assess
the reliability of these forecasts. If the
applicant is using outside forecasts, it
must provide a citation and an
appropriate page number for the
forecasts. An applicant should carefully
review any outside forecasts for
reliability before using them in its
analyses. In cases where an applicant is
using its own estimates, it should
clearly demonstrate in the analysis the
methodology it used to forecast affected
population (e.g., traffic). The number of
individuals who enjoy the benefits of a
project will partly determine the net
benefits of the project. Consequently,
accurate forecasts are essential to
conducting a quality benefit-cost
analysis. Applicants should incorporate
indirect effects into their forecasts
original cost of the project. Different components of
the project may have different depreciation rates—
land typically does not depreciate. The estimated
residual value is assigned to the end of the analysis
period and should then be discounted to its present
value as would any other cost or benefit occurring
at that time. Note that a residual value of a project
can only be claimed if the project will be kept in
operation beyond the end of the analysis period. If
the project will be retired at that time, a salvage
value (reflecting revenues raised from the
decommissioning of the project) can be claimed.
9 See http://www.brighthub.com/money/personalfinance/articles/17948.aspx. For example, 10.594 is
the discount factor that would be multiplied by an
annual benefit to get the present value of a constant
benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of
seven percent. If the constant annual benefit is
$500,000, then the present value of the benefits is
$5.297 million. In these limited cases, the applicant
must show the calculation of the discount factor of
the ordinary annuity formula.

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21712

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

where possible (e.g. induced demand).
Applicants should also take great care to
match forecasts of affected population to
the corresponding year. For example,
using projected traffic levels for 2030 to
generate benefits for all the earlier years
is incorrect. For more information on
forecasting, applicants can refer to the
forecasting section of FHWA’s
Economic Analysis Primer (http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/
asstmgmt/primer06.cfm). While
produced for analysis of highway
projects, the primer is a good source of
information on issues related to all
transportation forecasting.
Costs
As noted above, the estimate of costs
must pertain to the same project as the
estimate of benefits. If the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant is to pay for only
part of the project, but the project is
indivisible (i.e., no one part of the
project would have independent utility),
then the benefits of the whole project
should be compared to the costs of the
whole project, including costs paid for
by State, local, and private partners
other than the Federal government.
Applicants may not claim that the
TIGER II Discretionary Grant ‘‘leverages’’
the financial contributions of other
parties, and therefore that all the
benefits of the project are attributable to
the TIGER II Discretionary Grant, even
though the TIGER II Discretionary Grant
only pays for part of the project.
The analysis of costs should be
equally as rigorous as the analysis of
benefits. The lack of a useful analysis of
expected project costs may be a basis for
denying the award of a TIGER II
Discretionary Grant to an applicant. In
general, applicants should use a lifecycle cost analysis approach in
estimating the costs of the project. The
Department expects applicants to
include operating, maintenance, and
other life-cycle costs of the project,
along with capital costs. In addition to
construction costs, other direct costs
may include design and land
acquisition. If the time period
considered in the analysis is long
enough to require the rehabilitation of
the facility during the period of
analysis, then the costs of that
rehabilitation should be included.
External costs, such as noise, increased
congestion, and environmental
pollutants resulting from the use of the
facility or related changes in usage on
other facilities in the same network,
should be considered as costs in the
analysis. Additionally, applicants
should include, to the extent possible,
costs to users during construction, such
as delays and increased vehicle

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

operating costs. The applicant should
correctly discount annual costs to arrive
at a present value of the project’s cost.
Types of Benefits—Livability
There are several potential benefits
that a project could generate that affect
livability. The most important aspect of
livability is accessibility to non-singleoccupancy vehicle modes of
transportation, such as transit, bicycle
paths, and sidewalks. Measuring the
benefits of increased accessibility
should start with a quantitative measure
of the increase in accessibility—how
many people will have access to these
alternative modes who did not have
access before? The analysis should go
on to estimate how many people are
actually likely to use these newly
available transportation modes and how
much of their existing single-occupancy
vehicle travel are those people likely to
divert to these alternative modes.
Finally, the analysis should attempt to
estimate the monetary value that people
place on access to these newly available
transportation modes. In some cases,
monetary values may be estimated
based on existing market transactions—
e.g., bicycle rentals. In others,
differentials in the market values of land
or rents between residences and
businesses that are already easily
accessible (e.g. < 0.5 miles) to these
modes and those that are in the same
areas but not easily accessible (e.g. > 0.5
miles) can be used as a proxy estimate
of the value of this access. In other
cases, no objective market values are
available, and the applicant should
make the best subjective estimate it can
of the average value that this
accessibility has to those who now have
access to these alternative modes.
Transit and bicycle paths may provide
greater accessibility to alternative
transportation modes, but they will not
actually enhance livability unless
people actually want to use them, and
the desire to use them will depend in
part on where these modes go and on
the amenities provided with them. An
important part of accessibility is making
sure not only that people’s residences
are accessible to these modes, but that
the modes connect to workplaces,
schools, shopping, and other desired
destinations. Assessments of enhanced
accessibility should describe where
these alternative modes go as well as
where they start.
Land use changes are also an
important aspect of livability. When
people live closer to their workplaces,
their schools, and shopping, they will
be more likely to use these alternative
transportation modes. Transportation
changes that encourage more mixed-use

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

land development (where residences are
intermixed with workplaces and
shopping) will shorten the length of
travel and encourage more use of nonhighway modes. The analysis should
evaluate the extent to which the
proposed transportation project will
encourage these changes in land use and
be coordinated with zoning changes and
other public and private investments.
Changes in land use that result in
shorter travel distances can result in
long-term travel time savings, and the
quantitative extent of these time savings
can be estimated. Values of time can
then be used to estimate the monetary
value of these time savings. The
applicant should propose a subjective
estimate of the monetary value of land
use changes. Land use changes can also
reduce the total cost of transportation
for the affected population, so
applicants should attempt to measure
the effects of the project and associated
land use changes on average household
transportation expenditures.
In using differentials in property
values or rents to measure the value of
changes in accessibility, applicants
must identify other factors that might
have caused property values and/or
rents to change and isolate the portion
of the change that is attributable to the
change in accessibility. Applicants must
also be careful to avoid doublecounting. If the applicant has already
counted reductions in travel time as a
benefit, the value of those reductions in
travel time may get capitalized in
changes in property values or rents, and
the applicant must be careful not to
count those benefits again as part of the
change in property values.
Finally, an important aspect of
livability is the availability of
transportation to disadvantaged
communities, such as low-income
people, non-drivers, people with
disabilities, and senior citizens.
Applicants should assess the extent to
which their projects will improve
transportation opportunities for
members of these disadvantaged
communities. While there may not be
well-defined methodologies for
assigning monetary values to these
enhancements to accessibility,
applicants should attempt to measure
the size of the disadvantaged
community affected and make
subjective judgments of the monetary
values that should be assigned to these
improvements.
Types of Benefits—Economic
Competitiveness
Economic competitiveness benefits
might include reduced operating costs
due to infrastructure improvements. In

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices
some cases, a project produces
economic competitiveness benefits
because the existing users of the facility
will have lower operating costs after the
improvement is completed. In other
cases, the economic competitiveness
benefits result from modal diversion—
users shifting from a higher-cost
transportation mode to a lower-cost
transportation mode when the quality of
service on the lower-cost mode becomes
more competitive. In this case, the
applicant should demonstrate clearly
what the basis is of any estimated modal
diversion. In estimating operating cost
savings, it is important to avoid doublecounting. For example, applicants must
not count both the reductions in fuel
costs and the overall reductions in
operating costs, because fuel costs are
part of operating costs.
One particular form of reduced
operating costs is travel time savings.
Road improvements or other projects
whose purpose is to relieve congestion
frequently generate travel time savings
for travelers and shippers that
contribute to economic competitiveness.
Where this is the case, applicants
should clearly demonstrate how the
travel time savings are calculated and
should account for induced travel
demand to the extent practical or
applicable. If travel time savings vary
over time, the applicant must clearly
show savings by year. Once the
applicant generates its estimate of hours
saved, it should apply the Department’s
guidance on the value of time to those
estimates (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/
policy/reports.htm) to monetize them.
Freight-related projects that improve
roads, rails, and ports frequently
generate savings to shippers that they
pass on to consumers (e.g., fuel savings
and other operating cost savings). If
applicants are projecting these savings
as benefits, they need to carefully
demonstrate how the proposed project
would generate such benefits. However,
savings to freight carriers can not be
counted along with savings to shippers
that are passed along from the carrier to
the shipper.
Applicants should also guard against
analysis that double-counts other kinds
of benefits. Analysis should distinguish
between real benefits and transfer
payments. Benefits reflect real resource
usage and overall benefits to society,
while transfers represent payments by
one group to another and do not
represent a net increase in societal
benefits. Employment or output
multipliers that purport to measure
secondary effects should not be
included as societal benefits because
these secondary effects are generally the

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

same (per dollar spent) regardless of
what kind of project is funded.
As noted earlier in this Appendix (see
Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic
Impact Analysis), applicants must be
extremely cautious about including job
creation and economic development
benefits as societal benefits in the
benefit-cost analysis. In the case of job
creation, for example, every job
represents both a cost to the employer
(paying a wage) and a benefit to the
employee (receiving a wage), so it is a
transfer payment, rather than a net
benefit. However, if a project increases
the productivity of labor, then the
applicant can count the increased
productivity as a benefit. For example,
if the project allows workers working at
low-productivity jobs to switch to highproductivity jobs, then the increase in
their productivity can be counted as a
benefit. But the applicant needs to
demonstrate rigorously how such
productivity benefits are estimated and
the exact time period over which the
productivity benefits occur. Simply
asserting these gains is inadequate.
With respect to economic
development, estimates of capital
investments or property tax revenues
are not legitimate benefits in a benefitcost analysis. A property tax is a benefit
to the tax assessor, but it is a cost to the
taxpayer. An applicant can potentially
claim an increase in the value of land
as a benefit if the transportation project
increases the value and productivity of
the land. However, the applicant needs
to count the increase in the value of the
land carefully to avoid double counting
and transfer payments. For example, if
the property value goes up by the exact
same value as the developer’s
investment, then this is not a benefit.
Property value increases over and above
the developer’s investment may
potentially be a benefit from the project.
However, if this property value increase
is due to improved travel times that the
applicant has already included as a
benefit then there is no additional
benefit here. The analysis should also
consider to what extent an increase in
land values induced by the project in
one area causes a reduction in land
values in some other area. Only the net
increase in land value can be counted as
a benefit.
Applicants must carefully net out any
embedded time savings in the property
value increase before claiming any
benefits. Simply asserting that there is a
property tax increase net of time savings
is inadequate. The Department expects
any applicant claiming these types of
benefits to provide a rigorous
justification of the benefit that shows
how it is derived from the project

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21713

(rather than from some other nonproject investment) and that shows how
increases in property values attributable
to other benefits (such as travel time
savings) have been deducted.
Applicants should note that any
claimed societal benefit from a property
value increase is only a one-time stock
benefit. Applicants can not treat it as a
stream of benefits accruing annually.
Types of Benefits—Safety
Road projects can also improve the
safety of transportation. A well-designed
project can reduce fatalities and injuries
as well as reduce other crash costs, such
as hazardous materials releases. The
applicant should clearly demonstrate
how the project will improve safety. For
example, to claim a reduction in
fatalities, an applicant must clearly
demonstrate how the existence of the
project would have prevented the types
of fatalities that commonly occur in that
area. Applicants should use crash
causation factors or similar analyses of
causes of crashes to show the extent to
which the type of improvements
proposed would actually reduce the
likelihood of the kinds of crashes that
actually had occurred. Alternatively,
when only a few cases are involved, the
applicant should provide a description
of the incidents and demonstrate the
linkage between the proposed project
and crash reduction. In some cases,
safety benefits may occur because of
modal diversion from a less safe mode
to a more safe mode. When this type of
benefit is claimed, the applicant should
provide a clear analysis of why the
forecasted modal diversion will take
place. Once the applicant has
established a reasonable count of the
incidents that are likely to be prevented
by the project, it should apply the
Department’s guidance on value of life
and injuries (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/
policy/reports.htm) to monetize them.
Sources of information on the social
benefits of reducing crash costs are
discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s rulemaking on
Corporate Average Fuel Economy for
MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45
b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/). The
economic values of various benefits are
summarized in Table VIII–5 on page
VIII–60.
Types of Benefits—State of Good Repair
Many infrastructure projects that
improve the state of good repair of
transportation infrastructure can reduce
long-term maintenance and repair costs.

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

21714

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

These benefits are in addition to the
benefits of reductions in travel time,
shipping costs, and crashes which the
applicant should account for separately.
Applicants should include these
maintenance and repair savings as
benefits. Improving state of good repair
may also reduce operating costs and
congestion by reducing the amount of
time that the infrastructure is out of
service due to maintenance and repairs,
or may prevent a facility (such as a
bridge) from being removed from service
entirely. In the latter case, the analysis
should include a reasonable assessment
of the cost that closing the facility
would have on system users who would
be required to take longer and more
circuitous routes, as well as the
probability (and likely time in the
future) when the bridge would need to
be closed. The application should also
consider differences in maintenance and
repair costs when comparing different
project alternatives. For example, an
applicant can compare the maintenance
costs that would be required after
rehabilitating an existing pier with those
that would be required after building a
new one. As part of the data that go into
estimating the benefits of improving the
state of good repair, applicants should
provide accepted metrics for assessing
an asset’s current condition. For
example, applicants can use Present
Serviceability Ratings (PSR) to discuss
pavement condition and bridge
sufficiency ratings to discuss the
condition of a bridge. As discussed in
the section on costs, the Department
expects applicants to consider the lifecycle costs of the project when making
these comparisons.

congestion can reduce these emissions
and produce societal benefits given
reduced idling and otherwise constant
vehicle miles travelled. Also,
transportation projects that encourage
transportation users to shift from morepolluting modes to less-polluting modes
can similarly reduce emissions.
Applicants claiming these types of
benefits must clearly demonstrate and
quantify how the project will reduce
emissions. Once an applicant has
adequately quantified levels of emission
reductions, it should estimate the dollar
value of these benefits. Sources of
information on the social benefits of
reducing criteria pollutant emissions are
discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s rulemaking on
Corporate Average Fuel Economy for
MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55
bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/).
The Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Carbon has recently
issued its guidance on ‘‘Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866’’ (http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/
sem_finalrule_appendix15a.pdf). This
guidance lays out a range of values to
use for monetizing the social cost of
carbon at various years in the future and
at various discount rates. Applicants
should clearly indicate how and to what
degree calculations of benefits in their
analyses are based on these assumed
values of CO2 emissions reduction.

Types of Benefits—Sustainability

Transparency and Reproducibility of
Calculations

Transportation can generate
environmental costs in the form of
emissions of ‘‘criteria pollutants’’ (e.g.,
SOX, NOX, and particulates) and from
the emission of greenhouse gases, such
as carbon dioxide (CO2). Increased
traffic congestion results in increased
levels of these emissions.
Transportation projects that reduce

Applicants must ensure that the
results of their analyses are transparent
and easily reproduced. Applicants
should clearly set out basic
assumptions, methods, and data
underlying the analysis and discuss any
uncertainties associated with the
estimates. Applicants should describe
factors that could cause estimates to be

incorrect, such as failure of traffic to
materialize or actual costs turning out to
exceed estimates. Applicants should
also explain how likely these events are
to occur and what actions that might
take to mitigate these risks.
A Department reviewer reading the
analysis should be able to understand
the basic elements of the analysis and
the way in which the applicant derived
the estimates. If the application refers
the reader to more detailed
documentation to explain how the
calculations were done, that
documentation must go beyond merely
providing spreadsheets. It must include
a thorough verbal description of how
the calculation was done, including
references to tabs and cells in the
spreadsheet. This verbal description
should include specific sources for all
the numbers in the spreadsheet that are
not calculated from the spreadsheet
itself.
If an applicant uses a ‘‘pre-packaged’’
economic model to calculate net
benefits, the applicant should provide
annual benefits and costs by benefit and
cost type for the entire analysis period.
In any case, applicants must provide a
detailed explanation of the assumptions
used to run the model (e.g., peak traffic
hours and traffic volume during peak
hours, mix of traffic by cars, buses, and
trucks, etc.). The applicant must provide
enough information so that a
Department reviewer can follow the
derivation of the estimates and
reproduce them if need be.
Ideally, the applicant should be able
to summarize all pertinent data and cost
and benefit calculations in a single
spreadsheet tab (or table in Word). A
Department reviewer should be able to
understand the calculations of the
spreadsheet both from directions in the
spreadsheet and any accompanying text.
The following provides a simplified
example for expository purposes of
discounted costs and benefits from a
road project providing travel time
savings only to local travelers over the
course of five years following a one-year
period of construction.

Calendar year

Project
year

Affected
drivers

Travel time
saved
(hours) 1

Total value of
time saved
($2008) 2

Initial costs
($2008)

Operations &
maintenance
costs ($2008) 3

Undiscounted
net benefits

Discounted at
7%

2011 .................
2012 .................
2013 .................
2014 .................
2015 .................
2016 .................
NPV ..................

1
2
3
4
5
6
................

80,000
95,000
100,000
102,000
109,000
................

1,040,000
1,235,000
1,300,000
1,326,000
1,417,000
........................

$14,248,000
16,919,500
17,810,000
18,166,200
19,412,900
........................

$38,500,000
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................

$6,000,000
700,000
700,000
700,000
700,000
700,000
........................

¥$44,500,000
13,548,000
16,219,500
17,110,000
17,466,200
18,712,900
........................

¥$41,588,785
11,833,348
13,239,943
13,053,137
12,453,159
12,469,195
21,459,998

1 Number

of drivers times three minutes a day (3/60 hours) over 260 workdays.
at $13.70 per hour ($2008).
3 Includes costs from delays to users during construction.
2 Hours

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Most applicant analyses will be more
complicated than this example and will
likely include several benefit categories.
However, the summary cost and benefit
data should be as transparent and as
easy to follow and replicate as the
example above.
Appendix B: Additional Information on
Applying Through Grants.gov
Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants must be submitted
through Grants.gov. To apply for
funding through Grants.gov, applicants
must be properly registered. Complete
instructions on how to register and
apply can be found at http://
www.grants.gov. If interested parties
experience difficulties at any point
during registration or application
process, please call the Grants.gov
Customer Support Hotline at 1–800–
518–4726, Monday–Friday from 7 a.m.
to 9 p.m. EST.
Registering with Grants.gov is a onetime process; however, processing
delays may occur and it can take up to
several weeks for first-time registrants to
receive confirmation and a user
password. It is highly recommended
that applicants start the registration
process as early as possible to prevent
delays that may preclude submitting an
application by the deadlines specified.
Applications will not be accepted after
the relevant due date; delayed
registration is not an acceptable reason
for extensions. In order to apply for
TIGER II Discretionary Grant funding
under this announcement and to apply
for funding through Grants.gov, all
applicants are required to complete the
following:
1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS
number is required for Grants.gov
registration. The Office of Management
and Budget requires that all businesses
and nonprofit applicants for Federal
funds include a DUNS (Data Universal
Numbering System) number in their
applications for a new award or renewal
of an existing award. A DUNS number
is a unique nine-digit sequence
recognized as the universal standard for
identifying and keeping track of entities
receiving Federal funds. The identifier
is used for tracking purposes and to
validate address and point of contact
information for Federal assistance
applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. The DUNS number will be
used throughout the grant life cycle.
Obtaining a DUNS number is a free,
one-time activity. Obtain a DUNS
number by calling 1–866–705–5711 or
by applying online at http://
www.dunandbradstreet.com.
2. Acquire or Renew Registration with
the Central Contractor Registration

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:56 Apr 23, 2010

Jkt 220001

(CCR) Database. All applicants for
Federal financial assistance maintain
current registrations in the Central
Contractor Registration (CCR) database.
An applicant must be registered in the
CCR to successfully register in
Grants.gov. The CCR database is the
repository for standard information
about Federal financial assistance
applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. Organizations that have
previously submitted applications via
Grants.gov are already registered with
CCR, as it is a requirement for
Grants.gov registration. Please note,
however, that applicants must update or
renew their CCR registration at least
once per year to maintain an active
status, so it is critical to check
registration status well in advance of
relevant application deadlines.
Information about CCR registration
procedures can be accessed at http://
www.ccr.gov.
3. Acquire an Authorized
Organization Representative (AOR) and
a Grants.gov Username and Password.
Complete your AOR profile on
Grants.gov and create your username
and password. You will need to use
your organization’s DUNS Number to
complete this step. For more
information about the registration
process, go to http://www.grants.gov/
applicants/get_registered.jsp.
4. Acquire Authorization for your
AOR from the E-Business Point of
Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at
your organization must login to
Grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR.
Please note that there can be more than
one AOR for your organization.
5. Search for the Funding Opportunity
on Grants.gov. Please use the following
identifying information when searching
for the TIGER II funding opportunity on
Grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for
this solicitation is 20.933, titled Surface
Transportation Infrastructure
Discretionary Grants for Capital
Investments II.
6. Submit an Application Addressing
All of the Requirements Outlined in this
Funding Availability Announcement.
Within 24–48 hours after submitting
your electronic application, you should
receive an email validation message
from Grants.gov. The validation message
will tell you whether the application
has been received and validated or
rejected, with an explanation. You are
urged to submit your application at least
72 hours prior to the due date of the
application to allow time to receive the
validation message and to correct any
problems that may have caused a
rejection notification.

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21715

Note: When uploading attachments please
use generally accepted formats such as .pdf,
.doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture
files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files,
please do not save and submit the attachment
in these formats. Additionally, the following
formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe,
.vbs, .cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora,
.sys, and .zip.

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov
Technical Issues
If you experience unforeseen
Grants.gov technical issues beyond your
control that prevent you from
submitting your application by the
deadline, you must contact Robert
Mariner at 202–366–8914 or
[email protected] within 24 hours
after the deadline and request approval
to submit your application. At that time,
DOT staff will require you to email the
complete grant application, your DUNS
number, and provide a Grants.gov Help
Desk tracking number(s). After DOT
staff review all of the information
submitted as well as contacts the
Grants.gov Help Desk to validate the
technical issues you reported, DOT staff
will contact you to either approve or
deny your request to submit a late
application. If the technical issues you
reported cannot be validated, your
application will be rejected as untimely.
To ensure a fair competition for
limited discretionary funds, the
following conditions are not valid
reasons to permit late submissions: (1)
Failure to complete the registration
process before the deadline date; (2)
failure to follow Grants.gov instructions
on how to register and apply as posted
on its Web site; (3) failure to follow all
of the instructions in the funding
availability notice; and (4) technical
issues experienced with the applicant’s
computer or information technology (IT)
environment.
Issued on: April 21, 2010.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–9591 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping
Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:

SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice

E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM

26APN1