Interim Notice in FR

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
on this proposed collection as provided
by 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d)(1).
ADDRESSES: Requests for information,
including copies of the information
collection proposed and supporting
documentation, should be directed to
the Agency Clearance Officer: Mark
Winter, Tennessee Valley Authority,
1101 Market Street (MP–3C),
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402–2801;
(423) 751–6004.
DATES: Comments should be sent to the
Agency Clearance Officer no later than
August 30, 2011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Title of Information Collection: Land
Use Survey Questionnaire—Vicinity of
Nuclear Power Plants.
Frequency of Use: Annual.
Type of Affected Public: Individuals
or households, and farms.
Small Businesses or Organizations
Affected: No.
Federal Budget Functional Category
Code: 271.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 150.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 37.5.
Estimated Average Burden Hours per
Response: .25.
Need for and Use of Information: This
survey is used to locate, for monitoring
purposes, rural residents, home gardens,
and milk animals within a five mile
radius of a nuclear power plant. The
monitoring program is a mandatory
requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission set out in the technical
specifications when the plants were
licensed.
Michael T. Tallent,
Director, Enterprise Information Security &
Policy (Acting).
[FR Doc. 2011–16564 Filed 6–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0107]

Interim Notice of Funding Availability
for the Department of Transportation’s
National Infrastructure Investments
Under the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations, 2011; 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

and requests proposals for the
Department of Transportation’s National
Infrastructure Investments, or ‘‘TIGER
Discretionary Grants.’’ In addition, this
interim notice announces selection
criteria and pre-application and
application requirements for these
grants.
On April 15, 2011, the President
signed the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations, 2011 (Div. B of the
Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(Pub. L. 112–010, Apr. 15, 2011)) (‘‘FY
2011 Continuing Appropriations Act’’).
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations
Act appropriated $526.944 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
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the
‘‘Recovery Act’’), and the National
Infrastructure Investments or ‘‘TIGER II
Discretionary Grant’’ program under the
Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for 2010 (‘‘FY 2010
Appropriations Act’’). Because of the
similarity in program structure, DOT
has referred to the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments under the FY
2010 Appropriations Act as ‘‘TIGER II
Discretionary Grants’’. Given that funds
have now been appropriated for these
similar programs in three separate
statutes, DOT is referring to the grants
for National Infrastructure Investments
under the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act simply as ‘‘TIGER
Discretionary Grants.’’ As with the
TIGER and TIGER II programs, funds for
the FY2011 TIGER 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 interim
notice, DOT is soliciting applications for
TIGER Discretionary Grants.
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. 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).

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38719

DATES: Comments must be received by
July 18, 2011, at 5 p.m. EDT. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the
extent practicable. Pre-applications
should be submitted by October 3, 2011,
at 5 p.m. EDT (the ‘‘Pre-Application
Deadline’’). Final applications must be
submitted through Grants.gov by
October 31, 2011, at 5 p.m. EDT (the
‘‘Application Deadline’’). The DOT preapplication system will open on or
before August 23, 2011 to allow
prospective applicants to submit preapplications. Subsequently, the
Grants.gov ‘‘Apply’’ function will open
on October 5, 2011, allowing applicants
to submit applications. While applicants
are encouraged to submit preapplications in advance of the PreApplication Deadline, pre-applications
will not be reviewed until after the preapplication 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.
ADDRESSES: For Comments: You must
include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary of Transportation) and the
docket number DOT–OST–2011–0107
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–2011–0107, by only
one of the following methods:
Web site: The U.S. Government
electronic docket site is http://
www.regulations.gov. Go to this Web
site and follow the instructions for
submitting comments into docket
number DOT–OST–2011–0107;
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–2011–0107 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

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38720

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

Office of the Secretary of Transportation
has received your comments, you must
include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to http://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 http://
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 VII (Pre-Application and
Application Cycle).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information concerning this
notice please contact the TIGER
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/TIGER.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice is substantially similar to the
Final notice published for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2010.
However, there are a few significant
differences that applicants should be
aware of. These differences are as
follows:
1. Unlike the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act does not provide
any funding for projects solely for the
planning, preparation, or design of
capital projects (‘‘TIGER Planning
Grants’’); however these activities may
be eligible to the extent that they are
part of an overall construction project
that receives TIGER Discretionary
Grants funding
2. As specified in section VI of this
notice, any applicant that is applying for
a TIGER TIFIA Payment must also
submit a TIFIA letter of interest along
with their application.
3. As specified in section VII (A) of
this notice, eligible applicants may
submit, as a lead applicant, no more
than three applications for
consideration. However, multistate

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

applications, will not count towards the
lead applicant’s three application limit.
Additionally, applicants may be
identified as a partnering agency on the
application of another lead applicant
and such an application will not count
towards a partnering applicant’s three
application limit as a lead applicant.
Other than these differences, and minor
edits made to conform the notice to the
factual circumstances of this round of
TIGER funding, there have been no
material changes made to the notice.
Each section of this notice contains
information and instructions relevant to
the application process for these TIGER
Discretionary Grants and prospective
applicants should read this notice in its
entirety so that they have the
information they need to submit eligible
and competitive applications.
Table of Contents
I. Background
TIGER 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 TIFIA Payments
Application Requirements
VII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
VIII. Project Benefits
IX. Questions and Clarifications
Appendix A: Additional Information on Cost
Benefit Analysis
Appendix B: Additional Information on
Applying Through Grants.gov
Appendix C: Additional Information on
Guidelines for Project Readiness

I. Background
Recovery Act TIGER and Fiscal Year
2010 TIGER II 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 has referred to these grants as
Grants for Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery or
‘‘TIGER 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 DOT received
over 1400 applications with funding
requests totaling almost $60 billion.
Funding for 51 projects totaling nearly
$1.5 billion was announced on February
17, 2010.
On December 16, 2009, the President
signed the FY 2010 Appropriations Act

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

that appropriated $600 million to DOT
for National Infrastructure Investments
using language that was similar, but not
identical, to the language in the
Recovery Act authorizing the TIGER
Discretionary Grants. DOT has referred
to those grants for National
Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II
Discretionary Grants.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act
permitted DOT to use an amount not to
exceed $35 million of the available
TIGER II funds for projects that involved
solely the planning, preparation, or
design of Eligible Projects, and not their
construction (‘‘TIGER II Planning
Grants’’). The Recovery Act did not
explicitly provide funding for similar
activities under the TIGER Discretionary
Grant program.
DOT solicited applications for TIGER
II Discretionary Grants through a notice
of funding availability published in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2010 (an
interim notice was published on April
26, 2010). Applications for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants were due on
August 23, 2010 and nearly 1700
applications were received with funding
requests totaling about $21 billion.
Funding awards for 42 capital projects
totaling nearly $557 million were
announced on October 20, 2010. Grant
announcements ranged from $1.01
million to $47.6 million for individual
capital projects, with an average award
size of approximately $13.25 million;
the median award amount was $10.5
million. Additionally, funding for 33
planning projects totaling nearly $28
million was announced on October 20,
2010. TIGER II Planning Grant
announcements ranged from $85
thousand to $2.8 million for individual
projects, with an average award size of
approximately $835 thousand; the
median award size was $720 thousand.
Fourteen TIGER II Planning Grant
recipients received HUD Sustainable
Community Challenge Grants that were
also announced on October 20, 2010.
Projects were selected for funding based
on their alignment with the selection
criteria specified in the June 1, 2010,
Federal Register notice for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program.
On April 15, 2011, the President
signed the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act. This Act
appropriated $526.944 million to DOT
for National Infrastructure Investments
using language that is similar, but not
identical to the language in the FY 2010
Appropriations Act authorizing the
TIGER II Discretionary Grants. DOT is
referring to these grants for National
Infrastructure Investments as TIGER
Discretionary Grants.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
The most significant difference
between the 2010 and 2011
appropriations is that there is no
funding available for TIGER Planning
Grants in the 2011 Act.
Section 1101 of the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, Title
I—General Provisions, states that the
appropriations are for such amounts as
may be necessary, at the level specified
and under the authority and conditions
provided in applicable appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2010, for projects or
activities for which appropriations,
funds, or other authority were made
available under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
117). Because of this general provision
in the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, DOT is applying
the authority and conditions outlined in
the following section.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

FY 2011 TIGER Discretionary Grants
Like the TIGER and TIGER II
Discretionary Grants, this year’s TIGER
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 Discretionary
Grant program are summarized below,
and material differences from the
previous TIGER Discretionary Grant
programs are highlighted.
‘‘Eligible Applicants’’ for TIGER
Discretionary Grants are State, local,
and tribal 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
Discretionary Grants under the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act
(‘‘Eligible Projects’’) 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
identical to the description of eligible

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

projects under the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program.1
However, while in the past applicants
could submit as many applications as
they wished, for the Fiscal Year 2011
TIGER Discretionary Grant Program, to
help ensure that applicants submit only
those applications that are most likely to
align well with DOT’s selection criteria,
each applicant may submit no more
than three applications for
consideration. While applications may
include requests to fund more than one
project, applicants should not bundle
together unrelated projects in the same
application for purposes of avoiding the
three application limit that applies to
each applicant. Please note that the
three application limit applies only to
applications where the applicant is the
lead applicant, and there is no limit on
applications for which an applicant can
be listed as a partnering agency. Also,
DOT will not count any application for
a multistate project against the three
application limit to the extent multiple
states are partnering to submit the
application.
The FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act requires a new
solicitation of applications and,
therefore, any unsuccessful applicant
for a TIGER or TIGER II Discretionary
Grant that wishes to be considered for
a TIGER Discretionary Grant this year
must reapply according to the
procedures in this notice. Additionally,
TIGER II planning grant recipients must
reapply to be considered for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant for capital funding,
if they meet the eligibility criteria and
schedule requirements for TIGER and
are ready to proceed to the construction
phase of the project.
The FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act specifies that TIGER
Discretionary Grants may be not less
than $10 million (except in rural areas)
and not greater than $200 million. Based
on DOT’s experience with the TIGER
and TIGER II Discretionary Grant
programs, it is unlikely that the $200
1 Consistent with the FY 2011 Continuing
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 Discretionary
Grant to pay for the surface transportation
components of a broader project that has nonsurface transportation components, and applicants
are encouraged to apply for TIGER Discretionary
Grants to pay for the surface transportation
components of these projects.

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38721

million maximum grant size for this
year’s TIGER Discretionary Grant
program will be reached for any project.
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations
Act, like the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, does not provide authority to waive
the minimum $10 million grant size for
TIGER Discretionary Grants. For
projects located in rural areas (as
defined in section V (Projects in Rural
Areas)), the minimum TIGER
Discretionary Grant size is $1 million, as
it was in the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act. The term ‘‘grant’’ in the provision
of the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act specifying a
minimum grant size does not include
TIGER TIFIA Payments, as defined
below.
Pursuant to the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, no more than 25
percent of the funds made available for
TIGER Discretionary Grants (or
$131.736 million) may be awarded to
projects in a single State. This
maximum State share is consistent with
the maximum State share under the
TIGER II Discretionary Grants program.
The comparable figure for TIGER II
Discretionary Grants was also 25
percent (or $150 million).
The FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act directs that not less
than $140 million of the funds provided
for TIGER Discretionary Grants is to be
used for projects located in rural areas.
The comparable amount set aside for
rural areas under the FY 2010
Appropriations Act was also $140
million. In awarding TIGER
Discretionary Grants pursuant to the FY
2011 Continuing 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 FY 2010
Appropriations Act included the same
provisions for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program.
TIGER 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.2 The FY 2010
2 DOT will consider any non-Federal funds for
purposes of meeting the 20 percent match
requirement, whether such funds are contributed by
the public sector (State or local) or the private
sector; however, DOT will not consider funds
already expended at the time of the award for
purposes of meeting the 20 percent match
requirement.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38722

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

Appropriations Act included the same
priority for TIGER II Discretionary
Grants. Once again for this year’s TIGER
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.
Therefore, for projects not located in
rural areas, based on the statutory
requirements of at least 20 percent nonFederal cost share and a minimum grant
size of $10 million, the minimum total
project size for an eligible project is
$12.5 million (where the minimum $10
million TIGER Discretionary Grant
request represents 80 percent of the total
project cost). The minimum total project
size for an eligible project in a rural area
is 1 million (where the entire project
cost is funded with a TIGER
Discretionary Grant). 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 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. Like the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act does not
include any similar requirements for the
TIGER Discretionary Grants, although
this year’s TIGER funds are only
available for obligation through
September 30, 2013. The limited
amount of time for which the funds will
be made available means that DOT will
consider the extent to which a project is
ready to proceed with obligation of
grant funds when evaluating
applications.
The Recovery Act emphasized the
generation of near-term economic effects
from expenditures on project costs, such
as construction job creation. However,
the FY 2010 and FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Acts do not include
explicit emphasis on job creation and
instead focus 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
Discretionary Grant applications will
need to be competitive on the merits of
the medium to long-term impacts of the
projects themselves, as demonstrated by
a project’s alignment with the LongTerm Outcomes selection criterion
described in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria) below. However, because

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

communities nationwide continue to
face difficult economic circumstances,
including high unemployment, DOT
will also continue to incorporate nearterm impacts like job creation in its
evaluation of TIGER applications, as
demonstrated by a project’s alignment
with the Job Creation & Near-Term
Economic Activity 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 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act allows for an
amount not to exceed $150 million of
the $526.944 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 Discretionary
Grant program. DOT is referring to these
payments as ‘‘TIGER TIFIA Payments.’’
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also
authorized DOT to use up to $150
million of the amount available for
TIGER II 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
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 TIFIA Payments should submit
an application pursuant to this notice
and a separate TIFIA letter of interest,
as described below in Section VI (TIGER
TIFIA Payments). Unless otherwise
noted, or the context requires otherwise,
references in this notice to TIGER
Discretionary Grants include TIGER
TIFIA Payments.
DOT reserves the right to offer a
TIGER TIFIA Payment to an applicant
that applied for a TIGER Discretionary
Grant even if DOT does not choose to
fund the requested TIGER Discretionary
Grant and the applicant did not
specifically request a TIGER TIFIA
Payment. Therefore, as described below
in Section VI (TIGER TIFIA Payments),
applicants for TIGER 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 TIFIA
Payment. To the extent an applicant
thinks that TIFIA may be a viable option

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act provides that the
Secretary of Transportation may retain
up to $25 million of the $526.944
million to fund the award and oversight
of TIGER 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 Discretionary
Grants.
TIGER 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 Discretionary Grants. The
criteria incorporate the statutory
eligibility requirements for this
program, which are specified in this
notice as relevant. This section is
divided 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 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 & Near-Term Economic
Activity. The Secondary Selection
Criteria include (1) Innovation and (2)
Partnership. The Primary Selection
Criteria are intended to capture the
primary objective of the TIGER
provisions of the FY 2011 Continuing
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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
1. Primary Selection Criteria:

2. Secondary Selection Criteria

(a) Long-Term Outcomes

(a) Innovation
DOT will give priority to projects that
use innovative strategies to pursue the
long-term outcomes outlined above.

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
gas emissions and benefitting the
environment.
(v) Safety: Improving the safety of
U.S. transportation facilities and
systems.
(b) Job Creation & Near-Term Economic
Activity

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

While the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program is not a Recovery Act program,
job creation and near-term economic
activity remain a top priority of this
Administration; therefore, DOT will
give priority (as it did for the TIGER and
TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs)
to projects that are expected to quickly
create and preserve jobs and promote
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’’).3
3 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 Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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
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 VII(D)
(Length of Application).
1. Primary Selection Criteria:
(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

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38723

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 the productivity of the American
economy. For purposes of aligning a
project with this outcome, applicants
should provide evidence of how
improvements in transportation
outcomes (such as time savings and
operating cost savings) translate into
long-term economic productivity
benefits. These long-term economic
benefits that are provided by the
completed project are different from the
near-term economic benefits of
construction that are captured in the Job
Creation & Near-Term Economic
Activity criterion. In weighing long-term
economic competitiveness benefits,
applicants should describe how the
project supports increased long-term
efficiency and productivity.
Priority consideration will be given to
projects that: (i) Improve long-term
efficiency, reliability or costcompetitiveness in the movement of
workers or goods (including, but not
limited to, projects that have a
significant effect on reducing the costs
of transporting export cargoes), 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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38724

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

For purposes of demonstrating
economic benefits, applicants should
estimate National-level or region-wide
economic benefits on productivity and
production (e.g., reduced shipping costs
or travel times for U.S. exports
originating both inside and outside of
the region), 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 benefits, 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. 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 more productive
employment opportunities for underemployed and disadvantaged
populations.
Finally, the TIGER 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
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.4 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
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
4 In full, this principle reads: ‘‘Provide more
transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and
economical transportation choices to decrease
household transportation costs, reduce our nations’
dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote
public health.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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, injuries, and fatalities
among drivers and/or non-drivers 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 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
decision-makers 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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
Therefore, applicants for TIGER
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. The level of resources
devoted to preparing the benefit-cost
analysis should be reasonably related to
the size of the overall project and the
amount of grant funds requested in the
application. Any subjective estimates of
benefits and costs should still be
quantified, and applicants are expected
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.
The lack of a useful analysis of
expected project benefits and costs may
be the basis for denying an award of a
TIGER 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 Discretionary Grant to the
project. Consistent with the broader
goals of DOT and the FY 2011
Continuing 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 2011, 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 could qualify as an

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

Eligible Project and would provide
benefits that satisfy the selection criteria
specified in this notice, as described
further in Section III(B) (Evaluation of
Eligibility) below. The results of the
benefit-cost analysis should be
summarized in the Project Narrative
section of the application itself, but the
details may be presented in an
attachment to the application.
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 Discretionary Grant.
Evaluation of Project Performance:
Each applicant selected for TIGER
Discretionary Grant funding will be
required to work with DOT on the
development and implementation of a
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 & Near-Term Economic
Activity
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

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38725

construction and once it becomes
operational.5
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
April 3, 2009 (the ‘‘OMB Guidance’’),
which were applied both to TIGER I and
TIGER II, and which DOT will continue
to apply to the TIGER Discretionary
Grants program 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 apprenticeship (including
pre-apprenticeship) programs; (2)
whether the project will provide
maximum practicable opportunities for
small businesses and disadvantaged
business enterprises, including veteranowned 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
5 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 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 & Near-Term Economic Activity
criterion. These types of expenditures include,
among other things, engineering or design work and
purchasing existing facilities or right-of-way.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38726

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

ensuring that all individuals—regardless
of race, gender, age, disability, and
national origin—benefit from TIGER
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 near-term
economic activity 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
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 Discretionary Grant,6 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
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;
To demonstrate satisfaction of this
requirement, applicants should provide
assurances with their pre-applications
and evidence with their applications
that NEPA review is complete or
substantially complete and submit
relevant draft or final NEPA
documentation—preferably by way of a
Web site link—for DOT review. DOT is
unlikely to select a project for TIGER
Discretionary Grant funding if it
involves, or potentially involves,
significant environmental impacts and
has not begun or has not substantially
completed required environmental and
6 Applicants should demonstrate that their project
can obligate grant funds no later than June 30, 2013
in order give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be obligated
in advance of the September 30, 2013 statutory
deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not
put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of
expiring before they are used.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

regulatory reviews. For such projects
that have not begun, or have not
substantially completed these reviews,
it may be difficult to complete
environmental and regulatory review as
well as all activities needed to be
complete prior to construction and meet
the obligation deadline of September 30,
2013.
DOT will consider exceptions to the
requirement that NEPA be substantially
complete upon application in
accordance with this paragraph. If an
applicant has not substantially
completed the NEPA process the
applicant should provide information
on the project’s current status in the
NEPA process and an estimate of the
latest date that the NEPA process is
reasonably expected to be completed. If
an applicant has not initiated the NEPA
process the applicant must provide a
reasonable justification for why the
NEPA process has not yet been initiated
as of the date of this notice, and an
assurance that the necessary
environmental reviews can be
completed with enough time for any
post-NEPA, pre-obligation activities to
be completed by June 30, 2013, in order
to give DOT comfort that all of the
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
likely to be obligated in advance of the
September 30, 2013 statutory deadline,
and that any unexpected delays will not
put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at
risk of expiring before they can be
obligated (see Appendix C for additional
guidance). An example of a reasonable
justification for why an applicant has
not initiated NEPA review would be if,
prior to the availability of TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds, there were
no reasonable expectations of receiving
Federal funding for the project. A
project selected for award that has not
completed the NEPA process may not be
permitted to use grant funds for
construction and related activities until
NEPA is complete and all other
necessary environmental approvals have
been received.
An applicant seeking to justify an
exception to this requirement should
submit the information listed below
with its application:
a. The information required under
Sections VII(C)(2)(V) and VII(F)–(G)
(Contents of Applications) of this notice;
b. Environmental studies or other
documents—preferably by way of a Web
site link—that describe in detail known
potential project impacts, and possible
mitigation for those impacts;
c. A description of completed, or
planned and anticipated coordination
with Federal and State regulatory
agencies for permits and approvals;

PO 00000

Frm 00128

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

d. An estimate of the time required for
completion of NEPA and all other
required Federal, State or local
environmental approvals; and
e. An identification of the proposed
NEPA class of action (i.e., Categorical
Exclusion, Environmental Assessment,
or Environmental Impact Statement).
(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
planning requirements of the operating
administration administering the TIGER
project will apply.7 Where required by
an operating administration, a project
should demonstrate that a project is
included in the relevant State,
metropolitan, and local planning
documents, or will be included. To
demonstrate satisfaction of this
requirement, applicants should provide
evidence that the project is included in
the relevant planning documents. One
way applicants may do this is by
providing a link to a Web site showing
the planning documents. If the project is
not included in the relevant planning
documents at the time the application is
submitted, applicants should submit a
certification from the appropriate
planning agency that actions are
underway at the time of the application
to include the project in the relevant
planning document. The applicant
should provide a schedule
demonstrating when the project will be
added to the relevant planning
7 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
Discretionary Grant until it is included in such
plans. Projects not currently included in these plans
can be amended in by the State and MPO. 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 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 long-range
goals.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
documents; any applicant that is
applying for a TIGER Discretionary
Grant and does not own all of the
property or right-of-way required to
complete the project should provide
evidence that the property and/or rightof-way owner whose permission is
required to complete the project
supports the application and will
cooperate in carrying out the activities
to be supported by the TIGER
Discretionary Grant;
(v) Technical Feasibility: The
technical feasibility of the project,
including completion of substantial
preliminary engineering work; and
(vi) Financial Feasibility: The viability
and completeness of the project’s
financing package (assuming the
availability of the requested TIGER
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 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
selection for award of a TIGER
Discretionary Grant each project has
before funds must be obligated
(consistent with law) and construction
started. This deadline will be specified
for each TIGER 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, but all
deadlines will reflect DOT’s preference
that pre-conditions be complete and
TIGER Discretionary Grants funds
obligated on or before June 30, 2013 in
order to give DOT comfort that all
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds will be
obligated before the statutory deadline
of September 30, 2013. For example, if
an applicant reasonably anticipates that
NEPA requirements will be completed
and a final decision made within 30 to
60 days of announcement of the award
of a TIGER 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. By statute, DOT’s ability
to obligate funds for TIGER
Discretionary Grants expires on
September 30, 2013 and DOT has no
authority to extend the deadline.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
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. Letters of commitment
and other supporting documentation
showing existing or confirmed
collaboration, partnerships, etc., should

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38727

be provided (preferably through a Web
site link) to demonstrate alignment with
this criterion
In compliance with the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, DOT
will give priority to projects for which
a TIGER Discretionary Grant will help to
complete an overall financing package.
An applicant should clearly
demonstrate in the application 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 application
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
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
TIGER Discretionary Grant
applications will be evaluated in
accordance with the below discussed

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

38728

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

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;
2. NEPA is complete or underway, as
described above in Section II(B)(2)(b)(ii)
(Environmental Approvals);
3. The project is included in the
relevant State, metropolitan, and local
planning documents, or will be
included, if applicable;
4. The project expects to be ready to
obligate all of the TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds no later than June 30,
2013; 8 and
5. Local matching funds to support 20
percent or more of the costs for the
project are identified and committed.9
DOT will consider any non-Federal
funds as a local match for purposes of
this program, whether such funds are
contributed by the public sector (State
or local) or the private sector. However,
DOT cannot consider funds already
expended as a local match.
Furthermore, the 20 percent matching
requirement for projects that are not in
rural areas is an eligibility requirement.
All projects, whether in an urban or
rural area, can increase their
competitiveness by demonstrating
significant non-Federal contributions in
excess of the required local match, and
DOT will give priority, based on the FY
2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, to
projects for which Federal funding is

required to complete an overall
financing package.
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 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
Discretionary Grants. In addition, DOT
will consider whether a project has a
negative effect on any of the selection
criteria, and any such negative effect

may reduce the likelihood that the
project will receive a TIGER
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 & NearTerm Economic Activity), which will be
weighted equally, than to the two
Secondary Selection Criteria
(Innovation and Partnership) which will
also be weighted equally. 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) (LongTerm 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 & Near-Term
Economic Activity 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 under this
criterion.
The following table summarizes the
weighting of the selection criteria, as
described in the preceding paragraphs:

Primary Selection Criteria

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Long-Term Outcomes .....................

Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity.

8 See

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.

footnote 7, above.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

9 For FHWA and FTA committed funds are
defined as: ‘‘Funds that have been dedicated or

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

obligated for transportation purposes’’ as described
in 23 CFR 450.104.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

38729

Secondary Selection Criteria
Innovation & Partnership ................

DOT will give less weight to these criteria than to the Primary Selection Criteria. These criteria will be
weighted 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 2011 Continuing
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

B. Evaluation of Eligibility
To be selected for a TIGER
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 that an application
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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

C. Distribution of Funds
As noted above in Section I
(Background), the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act prohibits the award
of more than 25 percent of the funds
made available under the TIGER
program to projects in any one State.
The FY 2011 Continuing 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 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 2011 Continuing
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 Eligible
Applicants must include an allocation
of project costs to assist DOT in making
these determinations. In addition, DOT
will use the TIFIA subsidy and
administrative cost estimate, not the
principal amount of credit assistance, to
determine any TIGER 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 and consistent with law. DOT
expects that the TIGER 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 taken, and will continue to take
steps to document its decisionmaking
process.
IV. Grant Administration
DOT expects that each TIGER
Discretionary Grant will be

PO 00000

Frm 00131

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

administered by one of the Cognizant
Modal Administration, pursuant to a
grant agreement between the TIGER
Discretionary Grant recipient and the
Cognizant Modal Administration. In
accordance with the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, the
Secretary has the discretion to delegate
such responsibilities to the appropriate
operating administration.
Applicable Federal laws, rules and
regulations of the Cognizant Modal
Administration administering the
project will apply to projects that
receive TIGER Discretionary Grants.
As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b)
(Job Creation & Near-Term Economic
Activity), how soon after selection for
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 projectspecific grant agreements. DOT reserves
the right to revoke any award of TIGER
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 Discretionary Grants
expires on September 30, 2013.
V. Projects in Rural Areas
The FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act directs that not less
than $140 million of the funds provided
for TIGER 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,10
and will consider a project to be in a
rural area if all or the majority of a
project is located in a rural area. To the
extent more than a de minimis portion
of a project is located in an Urbanized
Area, applicants should identify the
estimated percentage of project costs
that will be spent in Urbanized Areas
and the estimated percentage that will
be spent in rural areas.
For projects located in rural areas the
FY 2011 Appropriation Act does not
require matching funds (although the
10 For Census 2000, the Census Bureau defined an
Urbanized Area (UA) as an area that consists of
densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or
more people. Updated lists of UAs are available on
the Census Bureau Web site. Urban Clusters (UCs)
will be considered rural areas for purposes of the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

38730

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

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 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 Discretionary
Grants in excess of $10 million.
VI. TIGER TIFIA Payments
Up to $150 million of the $526.944
million available for TIGER
Discretionary Grants may be used for
TIGER TIFIA Payments. Based on the
average subsidy cost of the existing
TIFIA portfolio, $150 million in TIGER
TIFIA Payments could support
approximately $1.5 billion in Federal
credit assistance.
Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA
Payments should apply in accordance
with all of the criteria and guidance
specified in this notice for TIGER
Discretionary Grant applications and
will be evaluated concurrently with all
other applicants. Any applicant seeking
a TIGER TIFIA Payment is also required
to submit a TIFIA letter of interest
concurrent with the TIGER TIFIA
Payment application. If selected for a
TIGER 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 $50,000 application fee
(the TIFIA program guide can be
downloaded from http://
tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Applicants should demonstrate that
the TIFIA loan will be ready to close on
or before September 30, 2013, in
accordance with the guidance specified
above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation
& Near-Term Economic Activity). DOT’s
TIFIA Joint Program Office will assist
DOT in determining a project’s
readiness to proceed rapidly upon
receipt of a TIGER TIFIA Payment.
Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA
Payments may also apply for a TIGER
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 TIFIA Payment
must submit an application pursuant to
this notice for a TIGER TIFIA Payment
even if it does not wish to apply for a
TIGER Discretionary Grant.
DOT reserves the right to offer a
TIGER TIFIA Payment to an applicant
that applied for a TIGER Discretionary

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

Grant even if DOT does not choose to
fund the requested TIGER Discretionary
Grant request and the applicant did not
request a TIGER TIFIA Payment.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER
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 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 Discretionary Grants
pursuant to the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, this notice, or
otherwise, apply to TIGER TIFIA
Payments.
Pre-Application and Application Cycle
VII. Pre-Application and Application
Cycle
A. Two Stages of Application Cycle
The application cycle for TIGER
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.
2. Application: In Stage 2, applicants
must submit a complete application
package through Grants.gov. If an
applicant is seeking a TIGER TIFIA
payment, applicants must submit
electronically a TIFIA letter of interest
to the TIFIA office at
[email protected]. TIFIA letters of
interest must comply with all of the
program’s standard requirements (the
TIFIA program guide can be
downloaded from http://
tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Pre-applications should be submitted
to DOT by the Pre-Application
Deadline, which is October 3, 2011, at
5 p.m. EST. Final applications must be
submitted through Grants.gov by the
Application Deadline, which is October
31, 2011, at 5 p.m. EST. The Grants.gov
‘‘Apply’’ function will open on October
5, 2011, 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

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Deadline. Similarly, while applicants
are encouraged to submit applications
in advance of the Application Deadline,
applications will not be evaluated, and
selections for 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/
TIGER on August 23, 2011, together
with instructions for submitting the preapplication 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.
To help ensure that applicants submit
only those applications that are most
likely to align well with the
department’s selection criteria, each
applicant may submit no more than
three applications for consideration
under the TIGER Discretionary Grant
Program. While applications may
include requests to fund more than one
project, applicants should not bundle
together unrelated projects in the same
application for purposes of avoiding the
three application limit that applies to
each applicant. Please note that the
three application limit applies only to
applications where the applicant is the
lead applicant, and there is no limit on
applications for which an applicant can
be listed as a partnering agency. Also,
DOT will not count any application for
a multistate project against the three
application limit to the extent multiple
states are partnering to submit the
application.
B. Contents of Pre-Applications
An applicant for a TIGER
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

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
DOT electronically on or prior to the
Pre-Application Deadline, in accordance
with the instructions specified at http://
www.dot.gov/TIGER. The preapplication 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. Information about the geographic
location of the project for mapping
purposes using one of the following
methods:
1. A geographic information system
(GIS) file that indicates the location of
the project;
2. For locating point specific projects,
latitude and longitude in decimal
degrees to an accuracy of 5 decimal
places (e.g. 0.12345) using the WGS 84
datum (the default datum used by
Global Positioning System (GPS)
equipment); or
3. For linear projects on existing
roads, route number (Interstate, U.S.
Route, or State Route) or road name and
the latitude and longitude in decimal
degrees to an accuracy of 5 decimal
places (e.g. 0.12345) of the beginning
and ending points of the project;
viii. Project title (descriptive);
ix. Project type: highway, transit, rail,
port, multimodal, or bicycle and
pedestrian activity (if the project is a
multimodal project, the pre-application
form will require that applicants
provide additional information
identifying the affected modes);
x. Whether the project is requesting a
TIGER TIFIA Payment;
xi. 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’’; please do not describe the project’s
benefits, background, or alignment with
the selection criteria in this
description);
xii. Total cost of the project;
xiii. Total amount of TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds requested;

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

xiv. Contact name, phone number, email address, and physical address for
applicant;
xv. Congressional districts affected by
the project;
xvi. Type of jurisdiction where the
project is located (urban or rural, as
defined above in Section V (Projects in
Rural Areas));
xvii. Whether or not the project is in
an Economically Distressed Area, as
defined in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria);
xviii. An assurance that the NEPA
and/or environmental review process is
complete, substantially complete, or in
progress (and the expected outcome of
the process), unless an exception is
justified pursuant to Section
II(B)(1)(b)(ii) (Environmental
Approvals). Absent an acceptable
justification, DOT will not evaluate
applications for projects that have not
made substantial progress in the
environmental review process,
including all Federal, State, and local
environmental requirements, by the PreApplication Deadline;
xix. The schedule for completing
right-of-way acquisition and final
design; approval of plans,
specifications, and estimates;
xx. The date that the project is
expected to be ready for obligation of
grant funds, which should be no later
than June 30, 2013 in order to give DOT
comfort that the funds will be obligated
before they expire on September 30,
2013; and
xxi. 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 does not
apply to 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);
however, DOT will give priority to
projects that also will be funded with
non-Federal sources of funds.
To the extent the pre-application does
not provide adequate assurances for
items xvii through xxii, 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 each
requirement has been addressed.
C. Contents of Applications
An applicant for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant must 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

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38731

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 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 $50,000.00
application fee, are separately described
in the Program Guide and Application
Form found at http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/.
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/
TIGER by September 16, 2011, 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
single-spaced document, using a
standard 12-point font, such as Times
New Roman, with 1-inch margins).
A TIGER 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 must 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.
Applicants should provide concrete
evidence of project milestones, financial
capacity and commitment in order to
support project readiness. 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 benefits to the
Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
Information provided pursuant to this
paragraph should include projections
for both the build and no-build

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38732

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

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
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
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 & Near-Term
Economic Activity
c. Innovation
d. Partnership
e. Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis
V. Project Readiness and NEPA
(information about how ready the
project is to move forward quickly,
including information about the project

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

schedule, environmental approvals,
legislative approvals, state and local
planning, technical feasibility, and
financial feasibility);
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 2011 Continuing
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
through xxii regarding initiation of
NEPA, planning, 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 may 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 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 Discretionary
Grant application (although provision of
a Web site link would facilitate DOT’s
consideration of the information). 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 (including a more detailed
discussion of the benefit-cost analysis)

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
Requirement
An application for a TIGER
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
Discretionary Grant must indicate
whether the proposed project requires
actions by other agencies (e.g., permits),
indicate the status of such actions and
provide a Web site link or 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;
Magnuson-Stevens 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

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
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.
VIII. Project Benefits
DOT expects to identify and report on
the benefits of the projects that it funds
with TIGER Discretionary Grants. To
this end, DOT will request that
recipients of TIGER Discretionary
Grants cooperate in Departmental efforts
to collect and report on information
related to the benefits produced by the
projects that receive TIGER
Discretionary Grants.
The benefits that DOT reports on may
include the following: (1) Improved
condition of existing transportation
facilities and systems; (2) improved
economic competitiveness in the form
of reduced travel time, less traffic
congestion, improved trip reliability,
fewer vehicle miles traveled, or lower
vehicle operating costs; (3) long-term
growth in employment, production or
other high-value economic activity; (4)
improved livability of communities

across the United States through
expansion of transportation options,
efficiency, and reliability; (5) improved
energy efficiency, reduced dependence
on oil and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions; (6) reduced adverse impacts
of transportation on the natural
environment; (7) reduced number, rate
and consequences of surface
transportation-related crashes, injuries
and fatalities; (8) greater use of
technology and innovative approaches
to transportation funding and project
delivery; (9) greater collaboration with
state and local governments, other
public entities, private entities,
nonprofit entities, or other nontraditional partners; (10) greater
integration of transportation decision
making with decision making by other
public agencies with similar public
service objectives; or (11) any other
benefits claimed in the project’s benefitcost 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 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.
IX. Questions and Clarifications
For further information concerning
this notice please contact the TIGER
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

38733

clarifications on DOT’s Web site at
http://www.dot.gov/TIGER.
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 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
Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consequently, it is incumbent upon the
applicant to prepare a thorough benefit-cost
analysis that demonstrates clearly the
derivation of both the costs and the benefits
of the project. 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. The level of
resources devoted to preparing the benefitcost analysis should be reasonably related to
the size of the overall project and the amount
of grant funds requested in the application.
Any subjective estimates of benefits and costs
should still be quantified, and applicants are
expected 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.
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 costbenefit analysis (e.g., Mishan and Quah 11) 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

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

Marginally Useful ....

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

38734

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

TABLE 1—RATINGS OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES—Continued
Rating

Description

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

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.

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,
after 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
for a period of time at least 20 years in the
future (or the project’s useful life, whichever
is shorter), 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., an existing twolane 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; and
• A description of what types of economic
effects the project is expected to have.
If an application contains multiple separate
projects (but that are linked together in a
common objective), 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

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, as
well as expected operations and maintenance
costs, 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 longterm 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 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 a substitute for a benefit-cost
analysis.
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 and regional
impacts rather than national impacts. Some
of the impacts that are counted in an
economic impact analysis, such as diversion
of economic activity from one region of the
country to another, represent gains to one

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

part of the country but losses to another part,
so they are not gains from the standpoint of
the nation as a whole.
Moreover, economic impact analyses
estimate ‘‘impacts’’ rather than ‘‘benefits,’’
and the ‘‘impacts’’ are normally quite
different from 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. 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 higherpaying 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 and land
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 primarily 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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
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 Discretionary Grant funding. Usually,
it is reasonable 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 Discretionary
Grant funding. Or it may be likely that, in the
absence of TIGER Discretionary Grant
funding, the project would be built later
using ordinary funding sources. In these
cases, the TIGER 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
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 for the entire
project but only count as costs the costs of
the portion of the project funded by the
TIGER Discretionary Grant. Thus, it would be
incorrect to attribute all the benefits from a
new port facility to a TIGER Discretionary
Grant when the costs that are counted only
cover a portion of the project funded by the
TIGER Discretionary Grant, for example,
paving a loading area. In some cases, the
applicant may choose to allocate the benefits
of the project proportionately to the costs of
the project that would be funded by the
TIGER 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

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
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 cargo may be important (e.g.,
whether the passengers are members of a
disadvantaged group, or are spread across a
multi-state region, or whether the cargo being
shipped is predominantly export traffic).
Measures of freight traffic might include
growing levels of port calls. In some 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

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38735

likely to be moving much of this distance by
rail already.
Discounting
Applicants should discount future benefits
and costs to present values using a real
discount rate (i.e., a discount rate that reflects
the opportunity cost of money net of the rate
of inflation) 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-byyear 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 most
or all of the significant costs and benefits
resulting from the project (at least 20 years
in the future) but not to exceed the usable life
of the asset without capital improvement.12
In 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 using the
real discount rate specified above. 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
12 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
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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

38736

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

an ordinary annuity instead of showing a
year-by-year calculation.13
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.,
how it generated traffic volumes for cars and
trucks on a highway section). 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 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Costs
As noted above, the estimate of costs must
pertain to the same project as the estimate of
benefits. If the TIGER 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 Discretionary Grant ‘‘leverages’’
the financial contributions of other parties,
and therefore that all the benefits of the
project are attributable to the TIGER
Discretionary Grant, even though the TIGER
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 Discretionary Grant to an applicant. In
general, applicants should use a life-cycle
cost analysis approach in estimating the costs
13 See http://www.brighthub.com/money/
personal-finance/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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 operating costs associated with work
zones or detours. 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-single-occupancy 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.
One useful source of guidance on
measuring benefits of bicycle facilities is
Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 552, Guidelines for Analysis of
Investments in Bicycle Facilities
(Washington: TRB, 2006) (available at http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp_rpt_552.pdf.)
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

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 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 double-counting. 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 lowincome people, non-drivers, people with
disabilities, and senior citizens. Applicants
should assess the extent to which their
projects will improve transportation
opportunities and quality of life 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 some cases,

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
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 double-counting. 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. For freight
projects, economic competitiveness benefits
may be particularly significant if the project
reduces the costs of transporting freight that
will be exported.
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 and quality of life to nonbusiness travelers. 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 for both
business and non-business travelers. The
value of time saving is often among the
largest benefit components of transportation
capacity enhancement projects.14
Transportation projects may also enhance
economic competitiveness by improving the
reliability of travel times (i.e., reducing the
variation in travel times), in addition to the
benefits from a reduction in the average
travel time.
Freight-related projects that improve roads,
rails, and ports frequently generate savings to
shippers (e.g., fuel savings and other
operating cost savings) that they may pass on
in whole or in part to shippers by way of
lower freight rates. Shippers may, in turn,
pass on, in whole or in part, these savings to
consumers. If applicants are projecting these
savings as benefits, they need to carefully
demonstrate how the proposed project would
generate such benefits. However, applicants
must be careful to count the value of the fuel

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

14 There

is a growing body of academic research
that attempts to value the improved reliability of
travel time in addition to travel time savings.
Improved travel time reliability resulting from a
project can influence business inventory costs and
travel time allotted for unexpected delays.
Applicants attempting to quantify the value of
improved reliability of a transportation project as
part of a benefit-cost analysis should carefully
define how they have measured and valued it for
the project, with particular attention to its
relationship to estimates and valuations of travel
time saving.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

and other operating cost savings (however
allocated among carriers, shippers, and
consumers) only once in the benefit-cost
analysis; it cannot be re-counted in full each
time it transfers from one group to the other
as this would entail double-counting of the
same benefit.
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 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 impacts 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 lowproductivity 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
benefit-cost 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

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38737

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
(rather than from some other non-project
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.gov/DOT/
NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/
Associated%20Files/
CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf). 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. 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

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

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 (i.e. low-volume
facilities that would cost too much to
replace). 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 even if sound maintenance practices
had been pursued. Improving state of good
repair may also reduce user costs if, for
example, the roughness of a road reduces
travel speeds or increases damage to vehicles.
Improving state of good repair can also have
safety benefits. 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 life-cycle costs of
the project when making these comparisons.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Types of Benefits-Sustainability
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 congestion can reduce these

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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

emissions and produce societal benefits
given reduced idling and otherwise constant
vehicle miles travelled. Also, transportation
projects that encourage transportation users
to shift from more-polluting modes to lesspolluting 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.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/
Rules/Associated%20Files/
CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf).
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.
Transparency and Reproducibility of
Calculations
Applicants should make every effort to
make the results of their analyses as
transparent and reproducible as possible.
Applicants should clearly set out basic
assumptions, methods, and data underlying

Appendix B: Additional Information on
Applying Through Grants.gov
Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER
Discretionary Grants must be submitted
through Grants.gov. To apply for funding
through Grants.gov, applicants must be
properly registered. Complete instructions on

PO 00000

Frm 00140

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

the analysis and discuss any uncertainties
associated with the estimates.
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 general logic of the
estimates (and, in the case of spreadsheet
models, reproduce them).
Ideally, the applicant should be able to
summarize the results of 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 in spreadsheet
models 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.

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.

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

EN01JY11.005

38738

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices
Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time
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 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 sub-recipients. 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 (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 sub-recipients. 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 log in to Grants.gov to confirm you as
an AOR. Please note that there can be more
than one AOR for your organization.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on
Grants.gov. Please use the following
identifying information when searching for
the TIGER 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 e-mail
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.
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 of October 31,
2011 at 5 p.m. EDT, 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 e-mail 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.

Appendix C: Additional Information on
Project Readiness Guidelines
As applicants develop their applications,
there are some guidelines on project
readiness that they should consider. The
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
available for a limited period of time (DOT’s
ability to obligate the funds expires after

PO 00000

Frm 00141

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

38739

September 30, 2013), and DOT may be
limited as to when they may obligate the
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds to a project
if it is not far enough along in the project
development process. The application
package should provide concrete evidence of
project milestones, financial capacity and
commitment in order to support project
readiness. Each operating administration
with the responsibility for obligating the
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds has its own
regulations, policies, and procedures that
they may apply for projects that have been
selected for TIGER Discretionary Grant funds.
In some cases, an operating administration
may obligate a portion of the overall amount
of funds that an applicant has been selected
to receive so that such an applicant may use
that portion of the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds for eligible pre-construction activities,
delaying the balance of the obligation of
funds until all pre-construction requirements
have been completed.
The guidelines below provide additional
details about some of these pre-obligation
steps (including, but not limited to, planning
requirements, environmental approvals,
right-of-way acquisitions, and design
completion) and suggest milestones each
project should aim to achieve in order be able
to obligate the full amount of awarded TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds in advance of the
obligation deadline of September 30, 2013.
Applicants should demonstrate that they
can reasonably expect to complete all of
these pre-obligation requirements no later
than June 30, 2013, in order to give DOT
comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds are likely to be obligated in advance of
the September 30, 2013 statutory deadline,
and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of
expiring before they can be obligated.
Applicants that are unfamiliar with, or have
questions about, the requirements that a
proposed project or projects may need to
complete in order for the operating
administration to obligate TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds may contact
[email protected] with questions. The
below information is not an exhaustive list of
the requirements that a project may need to
comply with in order for TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds to be obligated by
the operating administration that is
administering the TIGER Discretionary Grant.
State and Local Planning: Project activities
that are focused on refining scope and
completing Federal environmental reviews
are eligible capital expenses under the TIGER
Discretionary Grants Program and are an
essential part of project development. A
project that receives TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds may be required to be approved
by the Metropolitan Planning Organization or
State in the Long Range Plans and
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/
Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). Applicants should take steps
to ensure that the project will be included in
the relevant plan, if the project is required to
be included in such planning documents
before an operating administration may
obligate funds to the project.
If the project is not included in the relevant
planning documents at the time the

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38740

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices

application is submitted, applicants should
submit a certification from the appropriate
planning agency that actions are underway at
the time of application to include the project
in the relevant planning document on or
before June 30, 2013. If the obligation of
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for
construction or other activities is contingent
on the project being included in the relevant
planning documents, applicants should
demonstrate they can reasonably expect to
have the project included in such planning
documents by March 30, 2013, in order to
give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated. The applicant
should provide a schedule demonstrating
when the project will be added to the
relevant planning documents.
Environmental Approvals: Projects should
have received all environmental approvals,
including satisfaction of all Federal, State
and local requirements and completion of the
National Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’)
process at the time the application is
submitted or should demonstrate that receipt
of all approvals can occur by June 30, 2013,
in order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated.
If the obligation of TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds for construction or other
activities is contingent on completion of
other approvals that can only take place after
the environmental approvals process, the
applicant should demonstrate that they can
reasonably expect to have all environmental
approvals by March 30, 2013, or other date
sufficiently in advance of June 30, 2013, in
order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated, because it may
be difficult to complete environmental and
regulatory review as well as any other
necessary pre-obligation activities prior to
the statutory obligation deadline of
September 30, 2013.
To demonstrate that this suggested
milestone is achievable, applicants should
provide information about the anticipated
class of action, the budget for completing
NEPA, including hiring a consultant if
necessary, and a schedule that demonstrates
when NEPA will be complete. The schedule
should show how the suggested milestones
described in this section will be complied
with, and include any anticipated
coordination with Federal and State
regulatory agencies for permits and
approvals. The budget should demonstrate
how costs to complete NEPA factor into the
overall cost to complete construction of the
project. The budget and schedule for
completing NEPA should be reasonable and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:54 Jun 30, 2011

Jkt 223001

be comparable to a budget and schedule of
a typical project of the same type. The
applicant should provide evidence of support
based on input during the NEPA process
from State and local elected officials as well
as the public. Additionally, the applicant
should provide environmental studies or
other documents (preferably by way of a Web
site link) that describe in detail known
potential project impacts and possible
mitigation for these impacts. The applicant
should supply sufficient documentation for
DOT to adequately review the project’s NEPA
status.
Right-of-Way and Design: If the obligation
of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds by an
operating administration may be contingent
on completion of right-of-way acquisition
and final design approval, applicants should
demonstrate that they reasonably expect to
have right-of-way and design completed, and
completion of any other needed pre-finalobligation approvals by June 30, 2013, in
order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated. If the obligation
of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for
construction or other activities is contingent
on the project completing right-of-way
acquisition and design, and additional
approvals contingent on completion of right
of way acquisition and design, applicants
should demonstrate they can reasonably
expect to have right-of-way acquisition and
design completed by June 1, 2013, in order
to give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated Applicants
should submit a reasonable schedule of when
right-of-way (if applicable), design, and any
other required approvals are expected to be
obtained. Applicants may expect that DOT
may obligate TIGER funds for right-of-way
and design completion only after planning
and environmental approvals are obtained.
Completion of Obligation: Applicants
should plan to have all TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds obligated by June 30, 2013, in
order to give DOT comfort that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring
before they can be obligated. In some
instances, DOT may not obligate for
construction until all planning and
environmental approvals are obtained and
right-of-way and final design are complete. If
a project is selected for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant and the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funding will be used to
complete all of these activities, DOT may
obligate the funding in phases, in accordance
with the laws, regulations, and policies of the
operating administration that is
administering the grant.

PO 00000

Frm 00142

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Issued On: June 27, 2011.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–16514 Filed 6–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Tenth Meeting: RTCA Special
Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special
Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications meeting.
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public of a meeting of
RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport
Surface Wireless Communications.
DATES: The meeting will be held August
9–10, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW.,
Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036;
telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202)
833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special
Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications meeting.

Agenda
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tuesday Morning Plenary
• Welcome, Introductions,
Administrative Remarks by Special
Committee Leadership
› Designated Federal Officer (DFO):
Mr. Brent Phillips
› Co-Chair: Mr. Aloke Roy,
Honeywell International
› Co-Chair: Mr. Ward Hall, ITT
Corporation
• Agenda Overview
• Review/Approve Prior Plenary
Meeting Summary—RTCA Paper
No. 051–11/SC223–020, and Action
Item Status
• General Presentation of Interest
› Antenna isolation and aircraft
installation issues—Honeywell
› WiMAX Forum coordination
status—WiMAX Forum

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1