Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38719 

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 

[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 

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). 

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 

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 TIGERGrants@dot.gov, 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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38721 

1Consistent 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38723 

3While 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. 

1. Primary Selection Criteria: 

(a) Long-Term Outcomes 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

have a significant impact on desirable 

long-term outcomes for the Nation, a 

metropolitan area, or a region. 

Applications that do not demonstrate a 

likelihood of significant long-term 

benefits in this criterion will not 

proceed in the evaluation process. The 

following types of long-term outcomes 

will be given priority: 

(i) State of Good Repair: Improving 

the condition of existing transportation 

facilities and systems, with particular 

emphasis on projects that minimize lifecycle costs. 

(ii) Economic Competitiveness: 

Contributing to the economic 

competitiveness of the United States 

over the medium- to long-term. 

(iii) Livability: Fostering livable 

communities through place-based 

policies and investments that increase 

transportation choices and access to 

transportation services for people in 

communities across the United States. 

(iv) Environmental Sustainability: 

Improving energy efficiency, reducing 

dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse 

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 

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

2. Secondary Selection Criteria 

(a) Innovation 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

use innovative strategies to pursue the 

long-term outcomes outlined above. 

(b) Partnership 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

demonstrate strong collaboration among 

a broad range of participants and/or 

integration of transportation with other 

public service efforts. 

B. Additional Guidance on Selection 

Criteria 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

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.’’ 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38725 

5The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

6Applicants 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. 

7All 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. 

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 

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; 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38727 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

8See footnote 7, above. 9For FHWA and FTA committed funds are 

defined as: ‘‘Funds that have been dedicated or 

obligated for transportation purposes’’ as described 

in 23 CFR 450.104. 

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 

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

Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity.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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38729 

10For 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

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 

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 

TIFIACredit@dot.gov. 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38731 

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; 

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 

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 

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 

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 25- 

page limit are any supporting 

documents (including a more detailed 

discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38733 

11E.J. Mishan and Euston Quah, Cost-Benefit 

Analysis, 5th edition (New York: Routledge, 2007). 

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 TIGERGrants@dot.gov, or 

call Robert Mariner at 202–366–8914. A 

TDD is available for individuals who are 

deaf or hard of hearing at 202–366– 

3993. DOT will regularly post answers 

to these questions and other important 

clarifications on DOT’s Web site at 

http://www.dot.gov/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. 

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

Marginally Useful .... 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

38734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38735 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 

13See 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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38737 

14There 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6

38738 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. 

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 

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 

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. 

Most applicant analyses will be more 

complicated than this example and will 

likely include several benefit categories. 

However, the summary cost and benefit data 

should be as transparent and as easy to 

follow and replicate as the example above. 

Appendix B: Additional Information on 

Applying Through Grants.gov 

Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER 

Discretionary Grants must be submitted 

through Grants.gov. To apply for funding 

through Grants.gov, applicants must be 

properly registered. Complete instructions on 

how to register and apply can be found at 

http://www.grants.gov. If interested parties 

experience difficulties at any point during 

registration or application process, please 

call the Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline 

at 1–800–518–4726, Monday-Friday from 7 

a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6EN01JY11.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 127 / Friday, July 1, 2011 / Notices 38739 

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. 

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 

Robert.Mariner@dot.gov 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 

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 

TIGERGrants@dot.gov 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 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES6