Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21695 

JetBlue maintains in its petition and 

the other petitioning carriers appear to 

agree that granting relief from 14 CFR 

259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) is critical so that 

the purpose of the tarmac delay rule— 

enhancing passenger protections—is not 

undermined by unforeseen 

circumstances. JetBlue argues that a 

rigid and inflexible application of the 

rule will cause carriers to cancel flights 

rather than risk substantial penalties to 

the detriment of passengers who want to 

reach their destinations. 

We find this argument flawed and 

unpersuasive. JetBlue’s argument 

suggests that it would better serve the 

public interest to hobble the very 

protections that the tarmac delay rule 

affords consumers by permitting carriers 

to force passengers to remain on an 

aircraft for more than three hours (as 

opposed to giving consumers the option 

to deplane after three hours, or 

permitting them to choose some other 

form of transportation, or not to travel 

at all). We strongly disagree. We cannot 

lose sight of the fact that passengers on 

flights delayed on the tarmac have a 

right to know that they will not be ‘‘held 

hostage’’ for an unreasonable length of 

time on the tarmac. 

It is also important to note that the 

Department’s Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) predicts that the 

delays resulting from the runway 

closure at JFK will be workable, i.e., 

similar to those seen during peak 

summer months. The FAA expects that 

flights can be rerouted or rescheduled in 

a way that will allow the other three 

runways to absorb the extra traffic. 

Airlines have already taken steps to 

adjust their schedules and operations to 

help mitigate the expected delays and 

they should further adjust them, if 

necessary. We believe that the concerns 

raised by the petitioning carriers can be 

resolved through further adjustment of 

schedules as appropriate, and that the 

public interest would be better served 

by keeping the full protections of the 

tarmac delay rule in place. In addition, 

we note that since 14 CFR 259.4(b)(2) 

permits U.S. carriers to establish any 

tarmac delay limit for their international 

flights that they choose, we believe 

there is no substantial reason to grant an 

exemption from this provision of the 

rule. Moreover, while in the event of a 

violation, as always, the Department’s 

Aviation Enforcement Office will 

consider a number of factors including, 

for example, the harm to consumers 

caused by the violation and the specific 

impact of the runway closure in 

determining whether to pursue an 

enforcement case and the civil penalty 

it would seek in such an enforcement 

proceeding, it is incumbent on carriers 

to adjust their schedules to reflect the 

reality of the runway construction. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing, we 

find that granting the requested 

exemption from the tarmac delay rule is 

not in the public interest, and we deny 

the requests of JetBlue, Delta, American, 

Continental, and US Airways, for an 

exemption from the requirements of 14 

CFR 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) for their 

operations at JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL 

airports, during the period of time that 

work affecting JFK’s Runway 13R/31L is 

scheduled to take place, or until work 

on that runway is complete. 

Issued this April 22, 2010, at Washington, 

DC. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9716 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0076] 

Interim Notice of Funding Availability 

for the Department of Transportation’s 

National Infrastructure Investments 

Under the Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010; 

and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, DOT. 

ACTION: Interim notice of funding 

availability, request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This interim notice 

announces the availability of funding 

and requests proposals for the 

Department of Transportation’s National 

Infrastructure Investments. In addition, 

this interim notice announces selection 

criteria and pre-application and 

application requirements for the 

National Infrastructure Investments. 

On December 16, 2009, the President 

signed the Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 

(Div. A of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

117, Dec. 16, 2009)) (‘‘FY 2010 

Appropriations Act’’). The FY 2010 

Appropriations Act appropriated $600 

million to be awarded by the 

Department of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) 

for National Infrastructure Investments. 

This appropriation is similar, but not 

identical to the appropriation for the 

Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery, or ‘‘TIGER 

Discretionary Grant’’, program 

authorized and implemented pursuant 

to the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the 

‘‘Recovery Act’’). Because of the 

similarity in program structure, DOT is 

referring to the grants for National 

Infrastructure Investments under the FY 

2010 Appropriations Act as ‘‘TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants’’. As with the 

TIGER program, funds for the TIGER II 

program are to be awarded on a 

competitive basis for projects that will 

have a significant impact on the Nation, 

a metropolitan area or a region. Through 

this notice, DOT is soliciting 

applications for TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants. Because the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program is a new 

program, this interim notice requests 

comments on the proposed selection 

criteria and guidance for awarding 

funds. DOT will take all comments into 

consideration and may publish a 

supplemental notice revising some 

elements of this notice. If substantive 

changes to this notice are necessary, 

DOT will publish a supplemental 

Federal Register notice by no later than 

May 28, 2010. In the event that this 

solicitation does not result in the award 

and obligation of all available funds, 

DOT may decide to publish an 

additional solicitation(s). DOT is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments on its intention to conduct a 

multi-agency evaluation and award 

process with the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (‘‘HUD’’) for 

DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants (as 

defined below in Section VII (TIGER II 

Planning Grants)), and HUD’s 

Community Challenge Planning Grants, 

which were also authorized under the 

FY 2010 Appropriations Act. HUD is 

authorized to use $40 million for 

‘‘Community Challenge Planning 

Grants’’ to foster reform and reduce 

barriers to achieve affordable, 

economically vital, and sustainable 

communities. This multi-agency 

approach for planning awards would be 

consistent with DOT and HUD’s 

participation in the ‘‘Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities’’ with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) to help American families in all 

communities—rural, suburban and 

urban—gain better access to affordable 

housing, more transportation options, 

lower transportation costs, and a cleaner 

environment. 

DOT and HUD believe there is great 

value in issuing a joint solicitation for 

the two planning grant programs in 

order to better align transportation, 

housing, economic development, and 

land use planning and to improve 

linkages between the three Partnership 

agencies’ programs. DOT and HUD also 

believe this proposal has the potential to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

encourage and reward more holistic 

planning efforts and result in better 

projects being built with Federal dollars. 

While the DOT and HUD planning 

grant programs have similar, related 

purposes, there are differences in the 

activities that the two programs can 

fund. DOT’s program can fund planning 

activities that relate directly to a future 

transportation capital investment, while 

HUD’s program can fund local planning 

activities that could support future 

transportation investment. 

Transportation planning activities 

that may be funded under the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program include 

efforts related to individual 

transportation projects, transportation 

corridors, or regional transportation 

systems or networks. Activities eligible 

for funding under HUD’s program 

include, but are not limited to, the 

development of master plans, zoning 

and building code reform initiatives, 

including the development of 

inclusionary zoning ordinances, 

corridor and district plans, and other 

strategies, including land acquisition, 

designed to create walkable, mixed-use, 

transit-oriented, and affordable 

communities for persons of all incomes, 

especially those of low-, very low-, and 

extremely low-income persons and 

families. 

Additionally, the two programs can 

provide funding to different applicants. 

DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants are 

available to any Eligible Applicant, as 

defined below in Section I (Background) 

for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The 

HUD Community Challenge Grants are 

potentially available to a broader range 

of applicants, including nonprofit 

organizations. DOT and HUD would like 

to invite comments about whether the 

differences in eligibility should be 

maintained and, if so, how it might be 

managed in a joint selection process. 

DOT and HUD would like to receive 

comments on the evaluation method 

that should be used for a combined 

planning grant process, in terms of 

selection criteria and goals. Also, 

feedback is invited on funding 

categories and where the overlap 

between DOT and HUD’s program might 

be applied most effectively. To the 

extent DOT and HUD determine that a 

joint solicitation is feasible and 

advisable, it would be published no 

later than May 28, 2010, with the final 

notice of funding availability for the 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant program. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 7, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. Pre-applications 

must be submitted by July 16, 2010, at 

5 p.m. EST (the ‘‘Pre-Application 

Deadline’’). Final applications must be 

submitted through Grants.gov by August 

23, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST (the 

‘‘Application Deadline’’). The DOT preapplication system will open no later 

than June 15, 2010 to allow prospective 

applicants to submit pre-applications. 

Subsequently, the Grants.gov ‘‘Apply’’ 

function will open on July 30, 2010, 

allowing applicants to submit 

applications. While applicants are 

encouraged to submit pre-applications 

in advance of the Pre-Application 

Deadline, pre-applications will not be 

reviewed until after the pre-application 

deadline. Similarly, while applicants 

are encouraged to submit applications 

in advance of the Application Deadline, 

applications will not be evaluated, and 

awards will not be made, until after the 

Application Deadline. Pursuant to the 

FY 2010 Appropriations Act, DOT will 

evaluate all applications and announce 

the projects that have been selected to 

receive TIGER II Discretionary Grants no 

sooner than September 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For Comments: You must 

include the agency name (Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation) and the 

docket number DOT–OST–2010–0076 

with your comments. To ensure that 

your comments are not entered into the 

docket more than once, please submit 

comments, identified by the docket 

number DOT–OST–2010–0076, by only 

one of the following methods: 

Web site: The U.S. Government 

electronic docket site is 

www.regulations.gov. Go to this Web 

site and follow the instructions for 

submitting comments into docket 

number DOT–OST–2010–0076; 

Fax: Telefax comments to 202–493– 

2251; 

Mail: Mail your comments to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket 

Operations, M–30, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590; or 

Hand Delivery: Bring your comments 

to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions for submitting comments: 

You must include the agency name 

(Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation) and Docket number 

DOT–OST–2010–0076 for this notice at 

the beginning of your comments. You 

should submit two copies of your 

comments if you submit them by mail 

or courier. For confirmation that the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

has received your comments, you must 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, and will 

be available to Internet users. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), 

or you may visit www.regulations.gov. 

For Pre-Applications and 

Applications: Pre-applications must be 

submitted electronically to DOT and 

applications must be submitted 

electronically through Grants.gov. Only 

pre-applications received by DOT and 

applications received through 

Grants.gov will be deemed properly 

filed. Instructions for submitting preapplications to DOT and applications 

through Grants.gov are included in 

Section IX (Pre-Application and 

Application Cycle). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning this 

notice please contact the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program manager 

via e-mail at TIGERIIGrants@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/recovery/ost/ 

TIGERII. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

Tiger II Discretionary Grants 

II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on 

Application of Selection Criteria 

III. Evaluation and Selection Process 

IV. Grant Administration 

V. Projects in Rural Areas 

VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments 

VII. TIGER II Planning Grants 

Application Requirements 

VIII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle 

IX. Project Benefits 

X. Questions and Clarifications 

Appendix A: Additional Information on Cost 

Benefit Analysis 

Appendix B: Additional Information on 

Applying Through Grants.gov 

I. Background 

Recovery Act TIGER Discretionary 

Grants 

On February 17, 2009, the President 

of the United States signed the Recovery 

Act, which appropriated $1.5 billion of 

discretionary grant funds to be awarded 

by DOT for capital investments in 

surface transportation infrastructure. 

DOT refers to these grants as Grants for 

Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery or ‘‘TIGER 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21697 

1Consistent with the FY 2010 Appropriations 

Act, DOT will apply the following principles in 

determining whether a project is eligible as a capital 

investment in surface transportation: (1) Surface 

transportation facilities generally include roads, 

highways and bridges, ports, freight and passenger 

railroads, transit systems, and projects that connect 

transportation facilities to other modes of 

transportation; and (2) surface transportation 

facilities also include any highway or bridge project 

eligible under title 23, U.S.C., or public 

transportation project eligible under chapter 53 of 

title 49, U.S.C. Please note that the Department may 

use a TIGER II Discretionary Grant to pay for the 

surface transportation components of a broader 

project that has non-surface transportation 

components, and applicants are encouraged to 

apply for TIGER II Discretionary Grants to pay for 

the surface transportation components of these 

projects. 

Discretionary Grants’’. DOT solicited 

applications for TIGER Discretionary 

Grants through a notice of funding 

availability published in the Federal 

Register on June 17, 2009 (an interim 

notice was published on May 18, 2009). 

Applications for TIGER Discretionary 

Grants were due on September 15, 2009 

and over 1400 applications were 

received with funding requests totaling 

almost $60 billion. Funding for 51 

projects totaling nearly $1.5 billion was 

announced on February 17, 2010. Grant 

announcements ranged from $3.15 

million to $105 million for individual 

projects, with an average award size of 

approximately $30 million and the 

median project amount being $22 

million. Less than three percent of the 

applications (by dollar value) received 

any funding. Projects were selected for 

funding based on their alignment with 

the selection criteria specified in the 

June 17, 2009, Federal Register notice 

for the TIGER Discretionary Grant 

program. 

On December 16, 2009, the President 

signed the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. 

This Act appropriated $600 million to 

DOT for National Infrastructure 

Investments using language that is 

similar, but not identical to the language 

in the Recovery Act authorizing the 

TIGER Discretionary Grants. DOT is 

referring to the grants for National 

Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants. 

TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

Like the TIGER Discretionary Grants, 

TIGER II Discretionary Grants are for 

capital investments in surface 

transportation infrastructure and are to 

be awarded on a competitive basis for 

projects that will have a significant 

impact on the Nation, a metropolitan 

area, or a region. Key requirements of 

the TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

program are summarized below, and 

material differences from the TIGER 

Discretionary Grant program are 

highlighted. 

‘‘Eligible Applicants’’ for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants are State and local 

governments, including U.S. territories, 

tribal governments, transit agencies, 

port authorities, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs), other political 

subdivisions of State or local 

governments, and multi-State or multijurisdictional groups applying through a 

single lead applicant (for multijurisdictional groups, each member of 

the group, including the lead applicant, 

must be an otherwise eligible applicant 

as defined in this paragraph). 

Projects that are eligible for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants under the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act (‘‘Eligible Projects’’) 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 

Highway or bridge projects eligible 

under title 23, United States Code; (2) 

public transportation projects eligible 

under chapter 53 of title 49, United 

States Code; (3) passenger and freight 

rail transportation projects; and (4) port 

infrastructure investments. Federal 

wage rate requirements included in 

subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 

United States Code, apply to all projects 

receiving funds. This description of 

Eligible Projects is, in practice, identical 

to the description of eligible projects 

under the TIGER Discretionary Grant 

program. (The Recovery Act provided 

further details elaborating on project 

eligibility under categories (1), (2), and 

(4), as listed above, for TIGER 

Discretionary Grants).1

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

requires a new solicitation of 

applications and, therefore, any 

unsuccessful applicant for a TIGER 

Discretionary Grant that wishes to be 

considered for a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant must reapply according to the 

procedures laid out in this notice. 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

specifies that TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants may be not less than $10 million 

and not greater than $200 million. The 

comparable figures for TIGER 

Discretionary Grants funded under the 

Recovery Act were $20 million and 

$300 million, although the largest grant 

announced under the TIGER program 

was $105 million. Based on DOT’s 

experience with the TIGER 

Discretionary Grant program, it is 

unlikely that the $200 million 

maximum grant size for the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program will be 

reached for any project. The Recovery 

Act gave DOT discretion to waive the 

minimum grant size for significant 

projects in smaller cities, regions, or 

States. The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

does not provide similar authority to 

waive the minimum $10 million grant 

size for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. 

However, for projects located in rural 

areas (as defined in section V (Projects 

in Rural Areas)), the minimum TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant size is $1 million. 

The term ‘‘grant’’ in the provision of the 

FY 2010 Appropriations Act specifying 

a minimum grant size does not include 

TIGER II TIFIA Payments, as defined 

below. 

Pursuant to the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, no more than 25 

percent of the funds made available for 

TIGER II Discretionary Grants (or $150 

million) may be awarded to projects in 

a single State. The comparable figure for 

TIGER Discretionary Grants was 20 

percent (or $300 million). 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

directs that not less than $140 million 

of the funds provided for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants is to be used for 

projects located in rural areas. There 

was no comparable amount set aside for 

rural areas under the Recovery Act for 

TIGER Discretionary Grants. In 

awarding TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations 

Act, DOT must take measures to ensure 

an equitable geographic distribution of 

grant funds, an appropriate balance in 

addressing the needs of urban and rural 

areas and the investment in a variety of 

transportation modes. The Recovery Act 

provided a similar provision for the 

TIGER Discretionary Grant program, but 

with no language on ensuring 

investments in a variety of 

transportation modes. 

TIGER II Discretionary Grants may be 

used for up to 80 percent of the costs of 

a project, but priority must be given to 

projects for which Federal funding is 

required to complete an overall 

financing package and projects can 

increase their competitiveness by 

demonstrating significant non-Federal 

contributions. The Recovery Act 

included a similar priority for TIGER 

Discretionary Grants, but allowed DOT 

to fund up to 100 percent of the costs 

of a project. For TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants, DOT may increase the Federal 

share above 80 percent only for projects 

located in rural areas, in which case 

DOT may fund up to 100 percent of the 

costs of a project. However, the statutory 

requirement to give priority to projects 

that use Federal funds to complete an 

overall financing package applies to 

projects located in rural areas as well, 

and projects located in rural areas can 

increase their competitiveness for 

purposes of the TIGER II program by 

demonstrating significant non-Federal 

financial contributions. 

The Recovery Act required DOT to 

give priority to projects that were 

expected to be completed by February 

17, 2012. The FY 2010 Appropriations 

Act does not include any similar 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

requirements for the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants, although TIGER II 

funds are only available for obligation 

through September 30, 2012. 

The Recovery Act emphasizes the 

generation of near-term economic effects 

from expenditures on project costs, such 

as construction job creation, as a 

fundamental goal of the TIGER 

Discretionary Grant program. However, 

the FY 2010 Appropriations Act does 

not include explicit emphasis on job 

creation and instead focuses more 

broadly on the impact of projects on the 

Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region 

including the medium and long-term 

benefits that would accrue post-project 

completion. Therefore, in all cases, 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

applications will need to be competitive 

on the merits of the medium to longterm impacts of the projects themselves, 

as demonstrated by a project’s 

alignment with the Long-Term 

Outcomes selection criterion described 

in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria) 

below. However, because communities 

nationwide continue to face difficult 

economic times, the Department will 

also continue to incorporate near term 

impacts like job creation in its 

evaluation of TIGER II applications, as 

demonstrated by a project’s alignment 

with the Job Creation & Economic 

Stimulus selection criterion described 

in Section II(A) below. Consideration of 

near-term benefits will apply 

particularly in the case of projects that 

will employ people in Economically 

Distressed Areas as discussed in more 

detail in Section II(A) below. 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

allows for an amount not to exceed $150 

million of the $600 million to be used 

to pay the subsidy and administrative 

costs of the Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act of 1998 (‘‘TIFIA’’) program, a Federal 

credit assistance program, if it would 

further the purposes of the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program. DOT is 

referring to these payments as ‘‘TIGER II 

TIFIA Payments.’’ The Recovery Act 

authorized DOT to use up to $200 

million of the amount available for 

TIGER Discretionary Grants for similar 

purposes. 

Based on the subsidy amounts 

required for projects in the TIFIA 

program’s existing portfolio, DOT 

estimates that $150 million of TIGER II 

TIFIA Payments could support 

approximately $1.5 billion in TIFIA 

credit assistance. The amount of budget 

authority required to support TIFIA 

credit assistance is calculated on a 

project-by-project basis. Applicants for 

TIGER II TIFIA Payments should submit 

an application pursuant to this notice 

and a separate TIFIA letter of interest, 

as described below in Section VI (TIGER 

II TIFIA Payments). Unless otherwise 

noted, or the context requires otherwise, 

references in this notice to TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants include TIGER II 

TIFIA Payments. 

DOT reserves the right to offer a 

TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an applicant 

that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant even if DOT does not choose to 

fund the requested TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant and the applicant 

did not specifically request a TIGER II 

TIFIA Payment. Therefore, as described 

below in Section VI (TIGER II TIFIA 

Payments), applicants for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants, particularly 

applicants that require a substantial 

amount of funds to complete a financing 

package, should indicate whether or not 

they have considered applying for a 

TIGER II TIFIA Payment. To the extent 

an applicant thinks that TIFIA may be 

a viable option for the project, 

applicants should provide a brief 

description of a project finance plan that 

includes TIFIA credit assistance and 

identifies a source of revenue which 

may be available to support the TIFIA 

credit assistance. 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also 

permits DOT to use an amount not to 

exceed $35 million of the available 

TIGER II funds for the planning, 

preparation, or design of Eligible 

Projects (‘‘TIGER II Planning Grants’’). 

TIGER II Planning Grants may be 

awarded to Eligible Applicants. The 

Recovery Act did not explicitly provide 

funding for similar activities under the 

TIGER Discretionary Grant program. 

Unless otherwise noted, or the context 

requires otherwise, references in this 

notice to TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

includes TIGER II Planning Grants. 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

provides that the Secretary of 

Transportation may retain up to $25 

million of the $600 million to fund the 

award and oversight of TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants. Portions of the $25 

million may be transferred for these 

purposes to the Administrators of the 

Federal Highway Administration, the 

Federal Transit Administration, the 

Federal Railroad Administration, and 

the Federal Maritime Administration. 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

applications for TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants. 

Tiger II Discretionary Grants 

II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on 

Application of Selection Criteria 

This section specifies the criteria that 

DOT will use to evaluate applications 

for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. The 

criteria incorporate the statutory 

eligibility requirements for this 

program, which are specified in this 

notice as relevant. This section is split 

into two parts. Part A (Selection 

Criteria) specifies the criteria that DOT 

will use to rate projects. Additional 

guidance about how DOT will apply 

these criteria, including illustrative 

metrics and examples, is provided in 

Part B (Additional Guidance on 

Selection Criteria). 

A. Selection Criteria 

TIGER II Discretionary Grants will be 

awarded based on the selection criteria 

as outlined below. There are two 

categories of selection criteria, ‘‘Primary 

Selection Criteria’’ and ‘‘Secondary 

Selection Criteria.’’ 

The Primary Selection Criteria 

include (1) Long-Term Outcomes and 

(2) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus. 

The Secondary Selection Criteria 

include (1) Innovation and (2) 

Partnership. The Primary Selection 

Criteria are intended to capture the 

primary objective of the TIGER II 

provisions of the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, which is to invest 

in infrastructure projects that will have 

a significant impact on the Nation, a 

metropolitan area, or a region. The 

Secondary Selection Criteria are 

intended to capture the benefits of new 

and/or innovative approaches to 

achieving this programmatic objective. 

1. Primary Selection Criteria 

(a) Long-Term Outcomes 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

have a significant impact on desirable 

long-term outcomes for the Nation, a 

metropolitan area, or a region. 

Applications that do not demonstrate a 

likelihood of significant long-term 

benefits in this criterion will not 

proceed in the evaluation process. The 

following types of long-term outcomes 

will be given priority: 

(i) State of Good Repair: Improving 

the condition of existing transportation 

facilities and systems, with particular 

emphasis on projects that minimize lifecycle costs. 

(ii) Economic Competitiveness: 

Contributing to the economic 

competitiveness of the United States 

over the medium- to long-term. 

(iii) Livability: Fostering livable 

communities through place-based 

policies and investments that increase 

transportation choices and access to 

transportation services for people in 

communities across the United States. 

(iv) Environmental Sustainability: 

Improving energy efficiency, reducing 

dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21699 

2While 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. 

gas emissions and benefitting the 

environment. 

(v) Safety: Improving the safety of 

U.S. transportation facilities and 

systems. 

(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus 

While the TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant program is not a Recovery Act 

program, job creation and economic 

stimulus remain a top priority of this 

Administration; therefore, DOT will 

give priority (as it did for the TIGER 

Discretionary Grant program) to projects 

that are expected to quickly create and 

preserve jobs and stimulate rapid 

increases in economic activity, 

particularly jobs and activity that 

benefit economically distressed areas as 

defined by section 301 of the Public 

Works and Economic Development Act 

of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3161) 

(‘‘Economically Distressed Areas’’). 2

2. Secondary Selection Criteria 

(a) Innovation 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

use innovative strategies to pursue the 

long-term outcomes outlined above. 

(b) Partnership 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

demonstrate strong collaboration among 

a broad range of participants and/or 

integration of transportation with other 

public service efforts. 

B. Additional Guidance on Selection 

Criteria 

The following additional guidance 

explains how DOT will evaluate each of 

the selection criteria identified above in 

Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). 

Applicants are encouraged to 

demonstrate the responsiveness of a 

project to any and all of the selection 

criteria with the most relevant 

information that applicants can provide, 

regardless of whether such information 

has been specifically requested, or 

identified, in this notice. Any such 

information shall be considered part of 

the application, not supplemental, for 

purposes of the application size limits 

specified below in Section IX(D) (Length 

of Application). 

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 employment, production or other 

high value economic activity, including 

the efficient movement of both workers 

and goods. For purposes of aligning a 

project with this outcome, applicants 

should provide evidence of the longterm economic benefits that are 

provided by the completed project, not 

the near-term economic benefits of 

construction that are captured in the Job 

Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion. 

In weighing long-term employment 

benefits, applicants should describe 

how the project’s mobility benefits 

support long-term efficiency and growth 

in employment including a description 

of the quality of jobs and number of 

workers likely to be supported as well 

as whether these jobs are expected to 

provide employment in Economically 

Distressed Areas. 

Priority consideration will be given to 

projects that: (i) Improve long-term 

efficiency, reliability or costcompetitiveness in the movement of 

workers or goods, or (ii) make 

improvements that increase the 

economic productivity of land, capital 

or labor at specific locations, 

particularly Economically Distressed 

Areas. Applicants may propose other 

methods of demonstrating a project’s 

contribution to the economic 

competitiveness of the country and such 

methods will be reviewed on a case-bycase basis. 

Economic competitiveness may be 

demonstrated by the project’s ability to 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness 

of the transportation system through 

integration or better use of all existing 

transportation infrastructure (which 

may be evidenced by the project’s 

involvement with or benefits to more 

than one mode and/or its compatibility 

with and preferably augmentation of the 

capacities of connecting modes and 

facilities), but only to the extent that 

these enhancements lead to the 

economic benefits that are identified in 

the opening paragraph of this section. 

For purposes of demonstrating 

economic impacts, applicants should 

estimate National-level or region-wide 

economic impacts on productivity and 

production, and should net out those 

benefits most likely to result in transfers 

of economic activity from one localized 

area to another. Therefore, in estimating 

local and regional impacts, applicants 

should consider net increases in 

economic productivity and benefits, and 

should take care not to include 

economic benefits that are being shifted 

from one location in the United States 

to another location. Applicants may also 

estimate economic impacts that an 

investment will have at a concentrated 

local or regional level but should 

distinguish such benefits from those 

that enhance National or regional 

productivity as described above. Highly 

localized benefits will receive the most 

consideration under circumstances 

where such benefits are most likely to 

improve an Economically Distressed 

Area (as defined herein) or otherwise 

improve access to employment 

opportunities for under-employed and 

disadvantaged populations. 

Finally, the TIGER II program strives 

to promote long-term economic growth 

in a manner that will be sustainable for 

generations to come. Therefore, for 

projects designed to enhance economic 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

3 In full, this principle reads: ‘‘Provide more 

transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and 

economical transportation choices to decrease 

household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s 

dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote 

public health.’’ 

competitiveness, applicants should also 

provide evidence that the project will 

achieve the goals of this outcome in an 

environmentally sustainable manner. To 

satisfy this condition, applicants should 

reference the fourth criterion in this 

Section II(B) ‘‘Environmental 

Sustainability’’ for more information on 

what features promote sustainable 

growth and be sure to address the extent 

to which sustainability features are 

incorporated into the proposed project’s 

economic impact. 

(iii) Livability: Livability investments 

are projects that not only deliver 

transportation benefits, but are also 

designed and planned in such a way 

that they have a positive impact on 

qualitative measures of community life. 

This element of long-term outcomes 

delivers benefits that are inherently 

difficult to measure. However, it is 

implicit to livability that its benefits are 

shared and therefore magnified by the 

number of potential users in the affected 

community. Therefore, descriptions of 

how projects enhance livability should 

include a description of the affected 

community and the scale of the project’s 

impact as measured in person-miles 

traveled or number of trips affected. In 

order to determine whether a project 

improves the quality of the living and 

working environment of a community, 

DOT will consider whether the project 

furthers the six livability principles 

developed by DOT with HUD and EPA 

as part of the Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities, which are 

listed fully at http://www.dot.gov/ 

affairs/2009/dot8009.htm. For this 

criterion, the Department will give 

particular consideration to the first 

principle, which prioritizes the creation 

of affordable and convenient 

transportation choices.3 Specifically, 

DOT will qualitatively assess whether 

the project: 

(1) Will significantly enhance or 

reduce the average cost of user mobility 

through the creation of more convenient 

transportation options for travelers; 

(2) will improve existing 

transportation choices by enhancing 

points of modal connectivity, increasing 

the number of modes accommodated on 

existing assets, or reducing congestion 

on existing modal assets; 

(3) will improve accessibility and 

transport services for economically 

disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, 

senior citizens, and persons with 

disabilities, or will make goods, 

commodities, and services more readily 

available to these groups; and/or 

(4) is the result of a planning process 

which coordinated transportation and 

land-use planning decisions and 

encouraged community participation in 

the process. 

Livability improvements may include 

projects for new or improved biking and 

walking infrastructure. Particular 

attention will be paid to the degree to 

which such projects contribute 

significantly to broader traveler mobility 

through intermodal connections, 

enhanced job commuting options, or 

improved connections between 

residential and commercial areas. 

Projects that appear designed primarily 

as isolated recreational facilities and do 

not enhance traveler mobility as 

described above will not be funded. 

(iv) Environmental Sustainability: In 

order to determine whether a project 

promotes a more environmentally 

sustainable transportation system, DOT 

will assess the project’s ability to: 

(1) Improve energy efficiency, reduce 

dependence on oil and/or reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions; applicants 

are encouraged to provide quantitative 

information regarding expected 

reductions in emissions of CO2 or fuel 

consumption as a result of the project, 

or expected use of clean or alternative 

sources of energy; projects that 

demonstrate a projected decrease in the 

movement of people or goods by less 

energy-efficient vehicles or systems will 

be given priority under this factor; and 

(2) Maintain, protect or enhance the 

environment, as evidenced by its 

avoidance of adverse environmental 

impacts (for example, adverse impacts 

related to air or water quality, wetlands, 

and endangered species) and/or by its 

environmental benefits (for example, 

improved air quality, wetlands creation 

or improved habitat connectivity). 

Applicants are encouraged to provide 

quantitative information that validates 

the existence of substantial 

transportation-related costs related to 

energy consumption and adverse 

environmental effects and evidence of 

the extent to which the project will 

reduce or mitigate those costs. 

(v) Safety: In order to determine 

whether the project improves safety, 

DOT will assess the project’s ability to 

reduce the number, rate and 

consequences of surface transportationrelated crashes, and injuries and 

fatalities among drivers and/or nondrivers in the United States or in the 

affected metropolitan area or region, 

and/or the project’s contribution to the 

elimination of highway/rail grade 

crossings, the protection of pipelines, or 

the prevention of unintended release of 

hazardous materials. 

Evaluation of Expected Project Costs 

and Benefits: DOT believes that benefitcost analysis (‘‘BCA’’), including the 

monetization and discounting of costs 

and benefits in a common unit of 

measurement in present-day dollars, is 

an important discipline. For BCA to 

yield useful results, full consideration of 

costs and benefits is necessary. These 

include traditionally quantified fuel and 

travel time savings as well as reductions 

in greenhouse gas emissions, water 

quality impacts, public health effects, 

and other costs and benefits that are 

more indirectly related to vehicle-miles 

or that are harder to measure. In 

addition, BCA should attempt to 

measure the indirect effects of 

transportation investments on land use 

and on the portions of household 

budgets spent on transportation. The 

systematic process of comparing 

expected benefits and costs helps 

decisionmakers organize information 

about, and evaluate trade-offs between, 

alternative transportation investments. 

DOT has a responsibility under 

Executive Order 12893, Principles for 

Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59 

FR 4233, to base infrastructure 

investments on systematic analysis of 

expected benefits and costs, including 

both quantitative and qualitative 

measures. 

Therefore, applicants for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants are generally 

required to identify, quantify, and 

compare expected benefits and costs, 

subject to the following qualifications: 

All applicants will be expected to 

prepare an analysis of benefits and 

costs; however, DOT understands that 

the level of expense that can be 

expected in these analyses for surveys, 

travel demand forecasts, market 

forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on 

will be less for smaller projects than for 

larger projects. Smaller projects will 

therefore be given greater latitude to 

estimate benefits subjectively. However, 

even smaller projects will be expected 

to quantify these subjective estimates of 

benefits and costs, and to provide 

whatever evidence they have available 

to lend credence to their subjective 

estimates. Estimates of benefits should 

be presented in monetary terms 

whenever possible; if a monetary 

estimate is not possible, then at least a 

quantitative estimate (in physical, nonmonetary terms, such as ridership 

estimates, emissions levels, etc.) should 

be provided. 

The requirement to conduct an 

economic analysis is not applicable to 

applicants seeking TIGER II Planning 

Grants; however, such applicants 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21701 

4The Executive Office of the President, Council 

of Economic Advisers, issued a memorandum in 

May 2009 on ‘‘Estimates of Job Creation from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.’’ 

The memorandum is available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/ 

Estimate-of-Job-Creation/. Table 5 of this 

memorandum provides a simple rule for estimating 

job-years created by government spending, which is 

that $92,000 of government spending creates one 

job-year. Of this, 64% of the job-year estimate 

represents direct and indirect effects and 36% of 

the job-year estimate represents induced effects. 

Applicants can use this estimate as an appropriate 

indicator of direct, indirect and induced job-years 

created by TIGER II Discretionary Grant spending, 

but are encouraged to supplement or modify this 

estimate to the extent they can demonstrate that 

such modifications are justified. However, since the 

May 2009 memorandum makes job creation purely 

a function of the level of expenditure, applicants 

should also demonstrate how quickly jobs will be 

created under the proposed project. Projects that 

generate a given number of jobs more quickly will 

have a more favorable impact on economic 

recovery. A quarter-by-quarter projection of the 

number of direct job-hours expected to be created 

by the project is useful in assessing the impacts of 

a project on economic recovery. Furthermore, 

applicants should be aware that certain types of 

expenditures are less likely to align well with the 

Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion. These 

types of expenditures include, among other things, 

engineering or design work and purchasing existing 

facilities or right-of-way. 

should describe the expected benefits of 

the underlying project(s) that the 

planning activities will help advance. 

The lack of a useful analysis of 

expected project benefits and costs may 

be the basis for denying an award of a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant to an 

applicant. If it is clear to DOT that the 

total benefits of a project are not 

reasonably likely to outweigh the 

project’s costs, DOT will not award a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant to the 

project. Consistent with the broader 

goals of DOT and the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, DOT can consider 

some factors that do not readily lend 

themselves to quantification or 

monetization, including equitable 

geographic distribution of grant funds 

and an appropriate balance in 

addressing the needs of urban and rural 

areas and investment in a variety of 

transportation modes. 

Detailed guidance for the preparation 

of benefit-cost analyses is provided in 

Appendix A. Benefits should be 

presented, whenever possible, in a 

tabular form showing benefits and costs 

in each year for the useful life of the 

project. Benefits and costs should both 

be discounted to the year 2010 and 

present discounted values of both the 

stream of benefits and the stream of 

costs should be calculated. If the project 

has multiple parts, each of which has 

independent utility, the benefits and 

costs of each part should be estimated 

and presented separately. A project 

component has independent utility if 

the component itself is an Eligible 

Project and provides benefits that satisfy 

the selection criteria specified in this 

notice, as described further in Section 

III(B) (Evaluation of Eligibility) below. 

DOT recognizes that some categories 

of costs and benefits are more difficult 

to quantify or monetize than others. In 

presenting benefit-cost analyses, 

applicants should include qualitative 

discussion of the categories of benefits 

and costs that they were not able to 

quantify, noting that these benefits and 

costs are in addition to other benefits 

and costs that were quantified. 

However, in the event of an 

unreasonable absence of data and 

analysis, or poor applicant effort to put 

forth a robust quantification of benefits 

and costs, the application is unlikely to 

receive further consideration. In general, 

the lack of a useful analysis comparing 

benefits and costs for any such project 

is ground for denying the award of a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant. 

Evaluation of Project Performance: 

Each project selected for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant funding will be 

required to work with DOT on the 

development and implementation of a 

plan to collect information and report 

on the project’s performance with 

respect to the relevant long-term 

outcomes that are expected to be 

achieved through construction of the 

project. 

(b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus 

In order to measure a project’s 

alignment with this criterion, DOT will 

assess whether the project promotes the 

short- or long-term creation or 

preservation of jobs and whether the 

project rapidly promotes new or 

expanded business opportunities during 

construction of the project or thereafter. 

Demonstration of a project’s rapid 

economic impact is critical to a project’s 

alignment with this criterion. 

Applicants are encouraged to provide 

information to assist DOT in making 

these assessments, including the total 

amount of funds that will be expended 

on construction and constructionrelated activities by all of the entities 

participating in the project and, to the 

extent measurable, the number and type 

of jobs to be created and/or preserved by 

the project by calendar quarters during 

construction and annually thereafter. 

Applicants should also identify any 

business enterprises to be created or 

benefited by the project during its 

construction and once it becomes 

operational.4

Consistent with the Recovery Act, the 

Updated Implementing Guidance for the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) on 

April 3, 2009 (the ‘‘OMB Guidance’’), 

each of which DOT is applying as a 

matter of policy, and consistent with 

applicable Federal laws, applicants are 

encouraged to provide information to 

assist DOT in assessing (1) whether the 

project will promote the creation of job 

opportunities for low-income workers 

through the use of best practice hiring 

programs and utilization of 

apprenticeship (including preapprenticeship) programs; (2) whether 

the project will provide maximum 

practicable opportunities for small 

businesses and disadvantaged business 

enterprises, including veteran-owned 

small businesses and service disabled 

veteran-owned small businesses; (3) 

whether the project will make effective 

use of community-based organizations 

in connecting disadvantaged workers 

with economic opportunities; (4) 

whether the project will support entities 

that have a sound track record on labor 

practices and compliance with Federal 

laws ensuring that American workers 

are safe and treated fairly; and (5) 

whether the project implements best 

practices, consistent with our Nation’s 

civil rights and equal opportunity laws, 

for ensuring that all individuals— 

regardless of race, gender, age, 

disability, and national origin—benefit 

from TIGER II grant funding. 

To the extent possible, applicants 

should indicate whether the 

populations most likely to benefit from 

the creation or preservation of jobs or 

new or expanded business opportunities 

are from Economically Distressed Areas. 

In addition, to the extent possible, 

applicants should indicate whether the 

project’s procurement plan is likely to 

create follow-on jobs and economic 

stimulus for manufacturers and 

suppliers that support the construction 

industry. A key consideration in 

assessing projects under this criterion 

will be how quickly jobs are created. 

In evaluating a project’s alignment 

with this criterion, DOT will assess 

whether a project is ready to proceed 

rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant, as evidenced by: 

(i) Project Schedule: A feasible and 

sufficiently detailed project schedule 

demonstrating that the project can begin 

construction quickly upon receipt of a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant and that 

the grant funds will be spent steadily 

and expeditiously once construction 

starts; the schedule should show how 

many direct, on-project jobs are 

expected to be created or sustained 

during each calendar quarter after the 

project is underway; 

(ii) Environmental Approvals: Receipt 

(or reasonably anticipated receipt) of all 

environmental approvals necessary for 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

5All regionally significant projects requiring an 

action by the FHWA or the FTA must be in the 

metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and STIP. 

Further, in air quality non-attainment and 

maintenance areas, all regionally significant 

projects, regardless of the funding source, must be 

included in the conforming metropolitan 

transportation plan and TIP. To the extent a project 

is required to be on a metropolitan transportation 

plan, TIP and/or STIP it will not receive a TIGER 

II Discretionary Grant until it is included in such 

plans. Projects that are not required to be in long 

range transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs will not 

need to be included in such plans in order to 

receive a TIGER II Discretionary Grant. Freight and 

passenger rail projects are not required to be on the 

State Rail Plans called for in the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. This is 

consistent with the exemption for high speed and 

intercity passenger rail projects under the Recovery 

Act. However, applicants seeking funding for 

freight and passenger rail projects are encouraged 

to demonstrate that they have done sufficient 

planning to ensure that projects fit into a prioritized 

list of capital needs and are consistent with longrange goals. 

the project to proceed to construction on 

the timeline specified in the project 

schedule, including satisfaction of all 

Federal, State and local requirements 

and completion of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’) 

process; DOT will not evaluate 

applications from applicants that have 

not initiated the NEPA process for their 

project by the Pre-Application Deadline, 

as evidenced by the identification of 

and engagement with the appropriate 

Federal/State lead agency for the NEPA 

review and preparation of draft NEPA 

documentation; relevant NEPA 

documentation must be provided with 

the application—preferably by way of a 

Web site link—for Departmental review; 

(iii) Legislative Approvals: Receipt of 

all necessary legislative approvals (for 

example, legislative authority to charge 

user fees or set toll rates), and evidence 

of support from State and local elected 

officials; evidence of support from all 

relevant State and local officials is not 

required, however, the evidence should 

demonstrate that the project is broadly 

supported; 

(iv) State and Local Planning: The 

inclusion of the project in the relevant 

State, metropolitan, and local planning 

documents, or a certification from the 

appropriate agency that the project will 

be included in the relevant planning 

document prior to award of a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant;5 any MPO that is 

applying for a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant should provide evidence that the 

owner of the project supports the 

application and will cooperate in 

carrying out the activities to be 

supported by the TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant; 

(v) Technical Feasibility: The 

technical feasibility of the project, 

including completion of substantial 

preliminary engineering work; and 

(vi) Financial Feasibility: The viability 

and completeness of the project’s 

financing package (assuming the 

availability of the requested TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant funds), including 

evidence of stable and reliable financial 

commitments and contingency reserves, 

as appropriate, and evidence of the 

grant recipient’s ability to manage 

grants. 

DOT reserves the right to revoke any 

award of TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

funds and to award such funds to 

another project to the extent that such 

funds are not timely expended and/or 

construction does not begin in 

accordance with the project schedule. 

Because projects have different 

schedules DOT will consider on a caseby-case basis how much time after 

award of a TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

each project has before funds must be 

obligated and construction started. This 

deadline will be specified for each 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant in the 

project-specific grant agreements signed 

by the grant recipients and will be based 

on critical path items identified by 

applicants in response to items (i) 

through (vi) above. For example, if an 

applicant reasonably anticipates that 

NEPA requirements will be completed 

and final documentation received 

within 30 to 60 days of award of a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant, this 

timeframe will be taken into account in 

evaluating the application, but also in 

establishing a deadline for obligation of 

funds and commencement of 

construction. DOT’s ability to obligate 

funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

expires on September 30, 2012. 

2. Secondary Selection Criteria 

(a) Innovation 

In order to measure a project’s 

alignment with this criterion, DOT will 

assess the extent to which the project 

uses innovative technology (including, 

for example, intelligent transportation 

systems, dynamic pricing, rail wayside 

or on-board energy recovery, smart 

cards, real-time dispatching, active 

traffic management, radio frequency 

identification (RFID), or others) to 

pursue one or more of the long-term 

outcomes outlined above and/or to 

significantly enhance the operational 

performance of the transportation 

system. DOT will also assess the extent 

to which the project incorporates 

innovations that demonstrate the value 

of new approaches to, among other 

things, transportation funding and 

finance, contracting, project delivery, 

congestion management, safety 

management, asset management, or 

long-term operations and maintenance. 

The applicant should clearly 

demonstrate that the innovation is 

designed to pursue one or more of the 

long-term outcomes outlined above and/ 

or significantly enhance the 

transportation system. 

Innovative, multi-modal projects are 

often difficult to fund under traditional 

transportation programs. DOT will 

consider the extent to which innovative 

projects might be difficult to fund under 

other programs and will give priority to 

projects that align well with the Primary 

Selection Criteria but are unlikely to 

receive funding under traditional 

programs. 

(b) Partnership 

(i) Jurisdictional & Stakeholder 

Collaboration: In order to measure a 

project’s alignment with this criterion, 

DOT will assess the project’s 

involvement of non-Federal entities and 

the use of non-Federal funds, including 

the scope of involvement and share of 

total funding. DOT will give priority to 

projects that receive financial 

commitments from, or otherwise 

involve, State and local governments, 

other public entities, or private or 

nonprofit entities, including projects 

that engage parties that are not 

traditionally involved in transportation 

projects, such as nonprofit community 

groups. Pursuant to the OMB Guidance, 

DOT will give priority to projects that 

make effective use of community-based 

organizations in connecting 

disadvantaged people with economic 

opportunities. 

In compliance with the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, DOT will give 

priority to projects for which a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant will help to 

complete an overall financing package. 

An applicant should clearly 

demonstrate the extent to which the 

project cannot be readily and efficiently 

completed without Federal assistance, 

and the extent to which other sources of 

Federal assistance are or are not readily 

available for the project. DOT will 

assess the amount of private debt and 

equity to be invested in the project or 

the amount of co-investment from State, 

local or other non-profit sources. 

DOT will also assess the extent to 

which the project demonstrates 

collaboration among neighboring or 

regional jurisdictions to achieve 

National, regional or metropolitan 

benefits. Multiple States or jurisdictions 

may submit a joint application and 

should identify a lead State or 

jurisdiction as the primary point of 

contact. Where multiple States or 

jurisdictions are submitting a joint 

application, the application should 

demonstrate how the project costs are 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21703 

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 II Discretionary Grant 

applications will be evaluated in 

accordance with the below discussed 

evaluation process. DOT will establish a 

pre-application evaluation team to 

review each pre-application that is 

received by DOT on or prior to the PreApplication Deadline. This evaluation 

team will be organized and led by the 

Office of the Secretary and will include 

members from the relevant modal 

administrations in DOT with the most 

experience and/or expertise in the 

relevant project areas (the ‘‘Cognizant 

Modal Administrations’’). These 

representatives will include technical 

and professional staff with relevant 

experience and/or expertise. This 

evaluation team will be responsible for 

analyzing whether the pre-application 

satisfies the following key threshold 

requirements: 

1. The project is an Eligible Project or 

a DOT Eligible Planning Activity; 

2. NEPA has been initiated, as 

described above in Section II(B)(2)(b)(ii) 

(Environmental Approvals); and 

3. Local matching funds to support 20 

percent or more of the costs for the 

project are identified and committed; 

this requirement is not applicable to 

projects located in rural areas, however, 

applications for projects in rural areas 

will be more competitive to the extent 

they include non-Federal financial 

contributions. 

To the extent the pre-application 

evaluation team determines that a preapplication does not satisfy these key 

threshold requirements, DOT will 

inform the project sponsor that an 

application for the project will not be 

reviewed unless the application 

submitted on or prior to the Application 

Deadline can demonstrate that the 

requirement has been addressed. 

DOT will establish application 

evaluation teams to review each 

application that is received by DOT 

prior to the Application Deadline. These 

evaluation teams will be organized and 

led by the Office of the Secretary and 

will include members from each of the 

Cognizant Modal Administrations. 

These representatives will include 

technical and professional staff with 

relevant experience and/or expertise. 

The evaluation teams will be 

responsible for evaluating and rating all 

of the projects and making funding 

recommendations to the Secretary. The 

evaluation process will require team 

members to evaluate and rate 

applications individually before 

convening with other members to 

discuss ratings. The composition of the 

evaluation teams will be finalized after 

the Pre-Application Deadline, based on 

the number and nature of preapplications received. 

DOT will not assign specific 

numerical scores to projects based on 

the selection criteria outlined above in 

Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). Rather, 

ratings of ‘‘highly recommended,’’ 

‘‘recommended,’’ ‘‘not recommended’’, or 

‘‘negative’’ will be assigned to projects 

for each of the selection criteria. DOT 

will award TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants to projects that are well-aligned 

with one or more of the selection 

criteria, with projects that are wellaligned with multiple selection criteria 

being more likely to receive TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants. In addition, DOT 

will consider whether a project has a 

negative effect on any of the selection 

criteria, and any such negative effect 

may reduce the likelihood that the 

project will receive a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant. To the extent the 

initial evaluation process does not 

sufficiently differentiate among highly 

rated projects, DOT will use a similar 

rating process to re-assess the projects 

that were highly rated and identify 

those that should be most highly rated. 

DOT will give more weight to the two 

Primary Selection Criteria (Long-Term 

Outcomes and Job Creation & Economic 

Stimulus) than to the two Secondary 

Selection Criteria (Innovation and 

Partnership). Projects that are unable to 

demonstrate a likelihood of significant 

long-term benefits in any of the five 

long-term outcomes identified in 

Section II(A)(1)(a) (Long-Term 

Outcomes) will not proceed in the 

evaluation process. A project need not 

be well aligned with each of the longterm outcomes in order to be successful 

in the long-term outcomes criterion 

overall. However, projects that are 

strongly aligned with multiple longterm outcomes will be the most 

successful in this criterion. 

Furthermore, a project that has a 

negative effect on safety or 

environmental sustainability will need 

to demonstrate significant merits in 

other long-term outcomes in order to be 

selected for funding. 

For the Job Creation & Economic 

Stimulus criterion, projects need not 

receive a rating of ‘‘highly 

recommended’’ in order to be 

recommended for funding, although a 

project that is not ready to proceed 

quickly, as evidenced by the items 

requested in Section II(B)(1)(b)(i)–(vi) 

(Project Schedule, Environmental 

Approvals, Legislative Approvals, State 

and Local Planning, Technical 

Feasibility, and Financial Feasibility), is 

less likely to be successful in this 

criterion. 

DOT will give less weight to the two 

Secondary Selection Criteria 

(Innovation and Partnership) than to the 

two Primary Selection Criteria (LongTerm Outcomes and Job Creation & 

Economic Stimulus). The two 

Secondary Selection Criteria will be 

rated equally. 

The following table summarizes the 

weighting of the selection criteria, as 

described in the preceding paragraphs: 

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 & Economic 

Stimulus.

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

6For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classified 

as urban all territory, population, and housing units 

located within urbanized areas (UAs) and urban 

clusters (UCs), both defined using the same criteria. 

The Census Bureau delineates UA and UC 

boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, 

which generally consists of: 

• A cluster of one or more block groups or census 

blocks, each of which has a population density of 

at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time. 

• Surrounding block groups and census blocks, 

each of which has a population density of at least 

500 people per square mile at the time. 

• Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves 

or indentations, or are used to connect 

discontiguous areas with qualifying densities. 

Rural consists of all territory, population, and 

housing units located outside of UAs and UCs. 

For Census 2000, the urban and rural 

classification was applied to the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Urbanized Areas (UAs)—An urbanized area 

consists of densely settled territory that contains 

50,000 or more people. The Census Bureau 

delineates UAs to provide a better separation of 

urban and rural territory, population, and housing 

in the vicinity of large places. For Census 2000, the 

UA criteria were extensively revised and all areas 

were reexamined and redefined, rather than 

building from the previous decade’s UA boundary 

as had been the practice in previous censuses 

(territory that was part of a 1990 UA was not 

automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA). 

Because of changes in criteria, some territory that 

was classified as urbanized for the 1990 census was 

reclassified as rural. In addition, some areas that 

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

equally. 

As noted below in Section III(C) 

(Distribution of Funds), upon 

completion of this competitive rating 

process DOT will analyze the 

preliminary list and determine whether 

the purely competitive ratings are 

consistent with the distributional 

requirements of the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT 

will adjust the list of recommended 

projects to satisfy the statutory 

distributional requirements while 

remaining as consistent as possible with 

the competitive ratings. 

B. Evaluation of Eligibility 

To be selected for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant, a project must be 

an Eligible Project and the applicant 

must be an Eligible Applicant. DOT may 

consider one or more components of a 

large project to be an Eligible Project, 

but only to the extent that the 

components have independent utility, 

meaning the components themselves, 

not the project of which they are a part, 

are Eligible Projects and satisfy the 

selection criteria identified above in 

Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). For 

these projects, the benefits described in 

an application must be related to the 

components of the project for which 

funding is requested, not the full project 

of which they are a part. DOT will not 

fund individual phases of a project if 

the benefits of completing only these 

phases would not align well with the 

selection criteria specified in the Notice 

because the overall project would still 

be incomplete. 

To the extent an applicant requests a 

substantial amount of grant funds for a 

larger project or a group of related 

projects, DOT reserves the right to 

award funds for a part of the project, not 

the full project, if a part of the project 

has independent utility and aligns well 

with the selection criteria specified in 

this notice. To the extent applicants 

expect that DOT may wish to consider 

funding one or more parts of a project 

and not the full project that is the 

subject of the application, then 

applicants should clearly identify in 

their applications the separate parts of 

the project and the benefits that each 

part of the project provides, and how 

these benefits align with the selection 

criteria. Similarly, if a project is not 

viable unless DOT funds the full project, 

this should be stated in the application. 

C. Distribution of Funds 

As noted above in Section I 

(Background), the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act prohibits the award 

of more than 25 percent of the funds 

made available under the TIGER II 

program to projects in any one State. 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also 

requires that DOT take measures to 

ensure an equitable geographic 

distribution of funds, an appropriate 

balance in addressing the needs of 

urban and rural areas, and the 

investment in a variety of transportation 

modes. DOT will apply an initial 

unconstrained competitive rating 

process based on the selection criteria 

identified above in Section II(A) 

(Selection Criteria) to determine a 

preliminary list of projects 

recommended for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants. DOT will then 

analyze the preliminary list and 

determine whether the purely 

competitive ratings are consistent with 

the distributional requirements of the 

FY 2010 Appropriations Act. If 

necessary, DOT will adjust the list of 

recommended projects to satisfy the 

statutory distributional requirements 

while remaining as consistent as 

possible with the competitive ratings. 

As noted above in Section 

II(B)(2)(b)(i) (Jurisdictional & 

Stakeholder Collaboration), applications 

submitted jointly by multiple States 

should include an allocation of project 

costs to assist DOT in making these 

determinations. In addition, DOT will 

use the subsidy and administrative cost 

estimate, not the principal amount of 

credit assistance, to determine any 

TIGER II TIFIA Payment’s effect on 

these distributional requirements. 

D. Transparency of Process 

In the interest of transparency, DOT 

will disclose as much of the information 

related to its evaluation process as is 

practical. DOT expects that the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program may be 

reviewed and/or audited by Congress, 

the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office, DOT’s Inspector General, or 

others, and has and will continue to 

take steps to document its decisionmaking process. 

IV. Grant Administration 

DOT expects that each TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant will be 

administered by one of the Cognizant 

Modal Administration, pursuant to a 

grant agreement between the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant recipient and the 

Cognizant Modal Administration. In 

accordance with the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, the Secretary has 

the discretion to delegate such 

responsibilities. 

Applicable Federal laws, rules and 

regulations will apply to projects that 

receive TIGER II Discretionary Grants. 

As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b) 

(Job Creation & Economic Stimulus), 

how soon after award a project is 

expected to obligate grant funds and 

start construction will be considered on 

a case-by-case basis and will be 

specified in the project-specific grant 

agreements. DOT reserves the right to 

revoke any award of TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant funds and to award 

such funds to another project to the 

extent that such funds are not timely 

expended and/or construction does not 

begin in accordance with the project 

schedule. DOT’s ability to obligate 

funds for TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

expires on September 30, 2012. 

V. Projects in Rural Areas 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

directs that not less than $140 million 

of the funds provided for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants are to be used for 

projects in rural areas. For purposes of 

this notice, DOT is generally defining 

‘‘rural area’’ as any area not in an 

Urbanized Area, as such term is defined 

by the Census Bureau,6 and will 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21705 

were identified as being within UAs for the 1990 

census were reclassified as within urban clusters. 

Urban Clusters (UCs)—An urban cluster consists 

of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 

people but fewer than 50,000 people. The Census 

Bureau introduced the UC concept for Census 2000 

to provide a more consistent and accurate measure 

of urban population, housing, and territory 

throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the 

Island Areas. Prior to Census 2000, urban places of 

2,500 or more population were identified outside 

UAs without regard to population density. In 

addition, densely settled populations located 

outside places and outside UAs were classified as 

rural prior to Census 2000. Because of the adoption 

of the UC concept for Census 2000, some territory 

that was classified as rural for the 1990 census was 

reclassified as urban. Note: All urban areas defined 

within Guam based on the results of Census 2000 

are designated as urban clusters regardless of their 

total population. 

Updated lists of UAs and UCs are available on the 

Census Bureau Web site. 

consider a project to be in a rural area 

if all or a material portion of a project 

is located in a rural area. For projects 

located in rural areas the FY 2010 

Appropriation Act does not require 

matching funds (although the statute 

does direct DOT to give priority to 

projects, including projects located in 

rural areas, for which Federal funding is 

required to complete an overall 

financing package that includes nonFederal sources of funds) and the 

minimum grant size is $1 million. 

Applicants for TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants of between $1 million and $10 

million for projects located in rural 

areas are encouraged to apply and 

should address the same criteria as 

applicants for TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants in excess of $10 million. 

VI. TIGER II TIFIA Payments 

Up to $150 million of the $600 

million available for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants may be used for 

TIGER II TIFIA Payments. Based on the 

average subsidy cost of the existing 

TIFIA portfolio, $150 million in TIGER 

II TIFIA Payments could support 

approximately $1.5 billion in Federal 

credit assistance. 

Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA 

Payments should apply in accordance 

with all of the criteria and guidance 

specified in this notice for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant applications and 

will be evaluated concurrently with all 

other applicants. Any applicant seeking 

a TIGER II TIFIA Payment is also 

required to submit a TIFIA letter of 

interest concurrent with the TIGER II 

TIFIA Payment application. If selected 

for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment, the 

applicant must comply with all of the 

TIFIA program’s standard application 

and approval requirements including 

submission of a complete TIFIA 

application and $30,000 application fee 

(the TIFIA program guide can be 

downloaded from http:// 

tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/). 

Applicants should demonstrate that 

they are ready to proceed rapidly upon 

receipt of a TIGER II TIFIA Payment in 

accordance with the guidance specified 

above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation 

& Economic Stimulus). DOT’s TIFIA 

Joint Program Office will assist DOT in 

determining a project’s readiness to 

proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER 

II TIFIA Payment. 

Applicants seeking TIGER II TIFIA 

Payments may also apply for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant for the same project 

and must indicate the type(s) of funding 

for which they are applying clearly on 

the face of their applications. An 

applicant for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment 

must submit an application pursuant to 

this notice for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment 

even if it does not wish to apply for a 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant. 

DOT reserves the right to offer a 

TIGER II TIFIA Payment to an applicant 

that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant even if DOT does not choose to 

fund the requested TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant request and the 

applicant did not request a TIGER II 

TIFIA Payment. Therefore, applicants 

for TIGER II Discretionary Grants, 

particularly applicants that require a 

substantial amount of funds to complete 

a financing package, should indicate 

whether or not they have considered 

applying for a TIGER II TIFIA Payment. 

To the extent an applicant thinks that 

TIFIA may be a viable option for the 

project, applicants should provide a 

brief description of a project finance 

plan that includes TIFIA credit 

assistance and identifies a source of 

revenue which may be available to 

support the TIFIA credit assistance. 

Unless otherwise expressly noted 

herein, any and all requirements that 

apply to TIGER II Discretionary Grants 

pursuant to the FY 2010 Appropriations 

Act, this notice, or otherwise, apply to 

TIGER II TIFIA Payments. TIFIA 

applicants that do not receive TIGER II 

TIFIA Payments will not be required to 

comply with any of these requirements. 

VII. TIGER II Planning Grants 

The FY 2010 Appropriations Act 

permits DOT to use up to $35 million 

of the amount available for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants for TIGER II 

Planning Grants. 

TIGER II Planning Grants may be 

awarded, like TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants, to Eligible Applicants, and may 

be used for activities related to the 

planning, preparation or design of 

Eligible Projects, including 

transportation corridors or regional 

transportation systems (‘‘DOT Eligible 

Planning Activities’’). Applications for 

planning assistance may be made alone 

or as part of a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant application. 

Applicants seeking TIGER II Planning 

Grants should apply in accordance with 

all of the application requirements 

specified in this notice for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants, unless specified 

otherwise. This includes responding to 

each of the selection criteria specified 

for TIGER II Discretionary Grants and 

submission of a pre-application and 

application in accordance with the 

requirements specified in Section IX 

(Pre-Application and Application Cycle) 

below. 

DOT reserves the right to offer a 

TIGER II Planning Grant to an applicant 

that applied for a TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant even if DOT does not choose to 

fund the requested TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant request and the 

applicant did not request a TIGER II 

Planning Grant. 

For purposes of this interim notice, 

DOT is seeking comments on its 

intention to conduct a multi-agency 

evaluation and award process with HUD 

for DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants and 

HUD’s Community Challenge Planning 

Grants, which were also authorized 

under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. 

HUD is authorized to use $40 million 

for Community Challenge Planning 

Grants to foster reform and reduce 

barriers to achieve affordable, 

economically vital, and sustainable 

communities. This multi-agency 

approach for the planning grants would 

be consistent with DOT and HUD’s 

participation in the ‘‘Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities’’ with EPA to 

help American families in all 

communities—rural, suburban and 

urban—gain better access to affordable 

housing, more transportation options, 

lower transportation costs, and a cleaner 

environment. 

DOT and HUD believe there is great 

value in issuing a joint solicitation for 

the two planning grant programs in 

order to better align transportation, 

housing, economic development, and 

land use planning and to improve 

linkages between the three Partnership 

agencies’ programs. DOT and HUD also 

believe this proposal has the potential to 

encourage and reward more holistic 

planning efforts and result in better 

projects being built with Federal dollars. 

While the DOT and HUD planning 

grant programs have similar, related 

purposes, there are differences in the 

activities that the two programs can 

fund. DOT’s program can fund planning 

activities that relate directly to a future 

transportation capital investment, while 

HUD’s program can fund local planning 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

activities that could support future 

transportation investment. 

Transportation planning activities 

that may be funded through the TIGER 

II Discretionary Grant program include 

efforts related to individual 

transportation projects, transportation 

corridors, or regional transportation 

systems or networks. Activities eligible 

for funding under HUD’s program 

include, but are not limited to, the 

development of master plans, zoning 

and building code reform initiatives, 

including the development of 

inclusionary zoning ordinances, 

corridor and district plans, and other 

strategies, including land acquisition, 

designed to create walkable, mixed-use, 

transit-oriented, and affordable 

communities for persons of all incomes, 

especially those of low-, very low-, and 

extremely low-income persons and 

families. 

Additionally, the two programs can 

provide funding to different applicants. 

DOT’s TIGER II Planning Grants are 

available to any Eligible Applicant. The 

HUD Community Challenge Grants are 

potentially available to a broader range 

of applicants, including nonprofit 

organizations. DOT and HUD would like 

to invite comments about whether the 

differences in eligibility should be 

maintained and, if so, how it might be 

managed in a joint selection process. 

DOT and HUD would like to receive 

comments on the evaluation method 

that should be used for a combined 

planning grant process, in terms of 

selection criteria and goals. Also, 

feedback is invited on funding 

categories and where the overlap 

between DOT and HUD’s program might 

be applied most effectively. To the 

extent DOT and HUD determine that a 

joint solicitation is feasible and 

advisable, it would be published no 

later than May 28, 2010, with the final 

notice of funding availability for the 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant program. 

Pre-Application and Application Cycle 

VIII. Pre-Application and Application 

Cycle 

A. Two Stages of Application Cycle 

The application cycle for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants has two stages: 

1. Pre-Application: In Stage 1, 

applicants must submit a preapplication form to the DOT. This step 

qualifies applicants to submit an 

application in Stage 2. No application 

submitted during Stage 2 that does not 

correlate with a properly completed 

Stage 1 pre-application will be 

considered. 

2. Application: In Stage 2, applicants 

must submit a complete application 

package through Grants.gov. 

Pre-applications must be submitted to 

DOT by the Pre-Application Deadline, 

which is July 16, 2010, at 5 p.m. EST. 

Final applications must be submitted 

through Grants.gov by the Application 

Deadline, which is August 23, 2010, at 

5 p.m. EST. The Grants.gov ‘‘Apply’’ 

function will open on July 30, 2010, 

allowing applicants to submit 

applications. While applicants are 

encouraged to submit pre-applications 

in advance of the Pre-Application 

Deadline, pre-applications will not be 

reviewed until after the Pre-Application 

Deadline. Similarly, while applicants 

are encouraged to submit applications 

in advance of the Application Deadline, 

applications will not be evaluated, and 

awards will not be made, until after the 

Application Deadline. 

Pre-applications (stage 1) must be 

submitted to the DOT. The preapplication form will be available on the 

DOT Web site at http://www.dot.gov/ 

recovery/ost/TIGERII on June 15, 2010, 

together with instructions for submitting 

the pre-application form electronically 

to DOT. 

Applications (Stage 2) must be 

submitted through Grants.gov. To apply 

for funding through Grants.gov, 

applicants must be properly registered. 

Complete instructions on how to 

register and submit applications can be 

found at http://www.grants.gov. Please 

be aware that the registration process 

usually takes 2–4 weeks and must be 

completed before an application can be 

submitted. If interested parties 

experience difficulties at any point 

during the registration or application 

process, please call the Grants.gov 

Customer Support Hotline at 1–800– 

518–4726, Monday–Friday from 7 a.m. 

to 9 p.m. EST. Additional information 

on applying through Grants.gov is 

available in Appendix B, attached 

hereto. 

B. Contents of Pre-Applications 

An applicant for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant should provide all 

of the information requested below in 

its pre-application form. DOT reserves 

the right to ask any applicant to 

supplement the data in its preapplication, but expects preapplications to be complete upon 

submission. Applicants must complete 

the pre-application form and send it to 

DOT electronically on or prior to the 

Pre-Application Deadline, in accordance 

with the instructions specified at http:// 

www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/TIGERII. The 

pre-application form must include the 

following information: 

i. Name of applicant (if the 

application is to be submitted by more 

than one entity, a lead applicant must 

be identified); 

ii. Applicant’s DUNS (Data Universal 

Numbering System) number; 

iii. Type of applicant (State 

government, local government, U.S. 

territory, Tribal government, transit 

agency, port authority, metropolitan 

planning organization, or other unit of 

government;); 

iv. State(s) where the project is 

located; 

v. County(s) where the project is 

located; 

vi. City(s) where the project is located; 

vii. Project title (descriptive); 

viii. Project type: Highway, transit, 

rail, port, multimodal, bicycle and 

pedestrian, or planning activity (if the 

project is a multimodal project, the preapplication form will require that 

applicants provide additional 

information identifying the affected 

modes); 

ix. Whether the project is requesting 

a TIGER II TIFIA Payment; 

x. Project description (describe the 

project in plain English terms that 

would be generally understood by the 

public, using no more than 50 words 

(e.g. ‘‘the project will replace the 

existing bridge over the W river on 

interstate-X between the cities of Y and 

Z’’ or ‘‘the TIGER II Planning Grant will 

fund planning activities for streetcar 

service from location X to location Y’’; 

please do not describe the project’s 

benefits, background, or alignment with 

the selection criteria in this 

description); 

xi. Total cost of the project; 

xii. Total amount of TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant funds requested; 

xiii. Contact name, phone number, email address, and physical address for 

applicant; 

xiv. Congressional districts affected 

by the project; 

xv. Type of jurisdiction where the 

project is located (urban or rural, as 

defined above in Section V (Projects in 

Rural Areas)); 

xvi. Whether or not the project is in 

an Economically Distressed Area, as 

defined in Section II(A) (Selection 

Criteria); 

xvii. An assurance that the NEPA 

process has been initiated, as evidenced 

by the identification of and engagement 

with the appropriate Federal/State lead 

agency for the NEPA review and 

preparation of draft NEPA 

documentation (while not required for 

the pre-application, relevant NEPA 

documentation must be provided with 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21707 

the application—preferably by way of a 

website link—for Departmental review); 

applicants for TIGER II Planning Grants 

do not need to demonstrate that the 

NEPA process has been initiated; and 

xviii. An assurance that local 

matching funds to support 20 percent or 

more of the costs of the project are 

identified and committed (as noted in 

Section I (Background), this requirement 

is waived for projects located in rural 

areas (as defined above in Section V 

(Projects in Rural Areas)), and these 

projects do not need to provide this 

assurance). 

To the extent the pre-application does 

not provide adequate assurances for 

items xvii or xviii, DOT will inform the 

project sponsor that an application for 

the project will not be reviewed unless 

the application submitted on or prior to 

the Application Deadline can 

demonstrate that the requirement has 

been addressed. 

C. Contents of Applications 

An applicant for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant should include all 

of the information requested below in 

its application. DOT reserves the right to 

ask any applicant to supplement the 

data in its application, but expects 

applications to be complete upon 

submission. To the extent practical, 

DOT encourages applicants to provide 

data and evidence of project merits in a 

form that is publicly available or 

verifiable. For TIGER II TIFIA Payments, 

these requirements apply only to the 

applications required under this notice; 

the standard TIFIA letter of interest and 

loan application requirements, 

including the standard $30,000.00 

application fee, are separately described 

in the Program Guide and Application 

Form found at http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov. 

1. Standard Form 424, Application for 

Federal Assistance 

Please see http://www07.grants.gov/ 

assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for 

instructions on how to complete the SF 

424, which is part of the standard 

Grants.gov submission. Additional 

clarifying guidance and FAQs to assist 

applicants in completing the SF–424 

will be available at http://www.dot.gov/ 

recovery/ost/TIGERII by July 30, 2010, 

when the ‘‘Apply’’ function within 

Grants.gov opens to accept applications 

under this notice. 

2. Project Narrative (Attachment to SF 

424) 

The project narrative must respond to 

the application requirements outlined 

below. DOT recommends that the 

project narrative be prepared with 

standard formatting preferences (e.g. a 

single-spaced document, using a 

standard 12-point font, such as Times 

New Roman, with 1-inch margins). 

A TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

application must include information 

required for DOT to assess each of the 

criteria specified in Section II(A) 

(Selection Criteria), as such criteria are 

explained in Section II(B) (Additional 

Guidance on Selection Criteria). 

Applicants are encouraged to 

demonstrate the responsiveness of a 

project to any and all of the selection 

criteria with the most relevant 

information that applicants can provide, 

regardless of whether such information 

has been specifically requested, or 

identified, in this notice. Any such 

information shall be considered part of 

the application, not supplemental, for 

purposes of the application size limits 

identified below in Part D (Length of 

Applications). Information provided 

pursuant to this paragraph must be 

quantified, to the extent possible, to 

describe the project’s impacts on the 

Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. 

Information provided pursuant to this 

paragraph should include projections 

for both the build and no-build 

scenarios for the project for a point in 

time at least 20 years beyond the 

project’s completion date or the lifespan 

of the project, whichever is closest to 

the present. 

All applications should include a 

detailed description of the proposed 

project and geospatial data for the 

project, including a map of the project’s 

location and its connections to existing 

transportation infrastructure. An 

application should also include a 

description of how the project addresses 

the needs of an urban and/or rural area. 

An application should clearly describe 

the transportation challenges that the 

project aims to address, and how the 

project will address these challenges. 

The description should include relevant 

data such as, for example, passenger or 

freight volumes, congestion levels, 

infrastructure condition, or safety 

experience. 

DOT recommends that the project 

narrative generally adhere to the 

following basic outline, and include a 

table of contents, maps and graphics 

that make the information easier to 

review: 

I. Project Description (including a 

description of the transportation 

challenges that the project aims to 

address, and how the project will 

address these challenges); 

II. Project Parties (information about 

the grant recipient and other project 

parties); 

III. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of 

Project Funds (information about the 

amount of grant funding requested, 

availability/commitment of funds 

sources and uses of all project funds, 

total project costs, percentage of project 

costs that would be paid for with TIGER 

II Discretionary Grant funds, and the 

identity and percentage shares of all 

parties providing funds for the project 

(including Federal funds provided 

under other programs)); 

IV. Selection Criteria (information 

about how the project aligns with each 

of the primary and secondary selection 

criteria and a description of the results 

of the benefit-cost analysis): 

a. Long-Term Outcomes: 

i. State of Good Repair; 

ii. Economic Competitiveness; 

iii. Livability; 

iv. Sustainability; 

v. Safety; 

b. Job Creation and Economic 

Stimulus; 

c. Innovation; 

d. Partnership; 

V. Project Readiness and NEPA 

(information about how ready the 

project is to move forward quickly, 

including information about the project 

schedule, environmental approvals, 

legislative approvals, state and local 

planning, technical feasibility, and 

financial feasibility); applications for 

TIGER II Planning Grants do not need to 

address project readiness and NEPA; 

VI. Federal Wage Rate Certification 

(an application must include a 

certification, signed by the applicant, 

stating that it will comply with the 

requirements of subchapter IV of 

chapter 31 of title 40, United States 

Code (Federal wage rate requirements), 

as required by the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act); and 

VII. To the extent relevant, the final 

page of the application should describe 

(in one page or less) any material 

changes that need to be made to the preapplication form, including changes to 

the assurances provided in items xvii 

and xviii regarding initiation of NEPA 

and required cost sharing. 

The purpose of this recommended 

format is to ensure that applications are 

provided in a format that clearly 

addresses the application requirements 

and makes critical information readily 

apparent and easy to locate. 

D. Length of Applications 

The project narrative should not 

exceed 25 pages in length. 

Documentation supporting the 

assertions made in the narrative portion 

may also be provided, but should be 

limited to relevant information. If 

possible, Web site links to supporting 

documentation (including a more 

detailed discussion of the benefit-cost 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

analysis) should be provided rather than 

copies of these materials. At the 

applicant’s discretion, relevant 

materials provided previously to a 

Cognizant Modal Administration in 

support of a different DOT discretionary 

program (for example, New Starts or 

TIFIA) may be referenced and described 

as unchanged. To the extent referenced, 

this information need not be 

resubmitted for the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant application. DOT 

recommends use of appropriately 

descriptive file names (e.g., ‘‘Project 

Narrative,’’ ‘‘Maps,’’ ‘‘Memoranda of 

Understanding and Letters of Support,’’ 

etc.) for all attachments. Cover pages 

and tables of contents do not count 

towards the 25-page limit for the 

narrative portion of the application, and 

the Federal wage rate certification and 

one-page update of the pre-application 

form (if necessary) may also be outside 

of the 25-page narrative. Otherwise, the 

only substantive portions of the 

application that should exceed the 25- 

page limit are any supporting 

documents provided to support 

assertions or conclusions made in the 

25-page narrative section. 

E. Contact Information 

Contact information is requested as 

part of the SF–424. DOT will use this 

information to inform parties of DOT’s 

decision regarding selection of projects, 

as well as to contact parties in the event 

that DOT needs additional information 

about an application. 

F. National Environmental Policy Act 

Requirement 

An application for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant must detail whether 

the project will significantly impact the 

natural, social and/or economic 

environment. If the NEPA process is 

completed, an applicant must indicate 

the date of, and provide a Web site link 

or other reference to, the final 

Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No 

Significant Impact or Record of 

Decision. If the NEPA process is 

underway but not complete, the 

application must detail where the 

project is in the process, indicate the 

anticipated date of completion and 

provide a Web site link or other 

reference to copies of any NEPA 

documents prepared. 

G. Environmentally Related Federal, 

State and Local Actions 

An application for a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant must indicate 

whether the proposed project is likely to 

require actions by other agencies (e.g., 

permits), indicate the status of such 

actions and provide a Web site link or 

other reference to materials submitted to 

the other agencies, and/or demonstrate 

compliance with other Federal, State 

and local regulations as applicable, 

including, but not limited to, Section 

4(f) Parklands, Recreation Areas, 

Refuges, & Historic Properties; Section 

106 Historic and Culturally Significant 

Properties; Clean Water Act Wetlands 

and Water; Executive Orders Wetlands, 

Floodplains, Environmental Justice; 

Clean Air Act Air Quality (specifically 

note if the project is located in a 

nonattainment area); Endangered 

Species Act Threatened and Endangered 

Biological Resources; MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act Essential Fish Habitat; 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act; and/or any State and local 

requirements. 

H. Protection of Confidential Business 

Information 

All information submitted as part of 

or in support of any application shall 

use publicly available data or data that 

can be made public and methodologies 

that are accepted by industry practice 

and standards, to the extent possible. If 

the application includes information 

that the applicant considers to be a trade 

secret or confidential commercial or 

financial information, the applicant 

should do the following: (1) Note on the 

front cover that the submission 

‘‘Contains Confidential Business 

Information (CBI);’’ (2) mark each 

affected page ‘‘CBI;’’ and (3) highlight or 

otherwise denote the CBI portions. DOT 

protects such information from 

disclosure to the extent allowed under 

applicable law. In the event DOT 

receives a Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) request for the information, DOT 

will follow the procedures described in 

its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR § 7.17. 

Only information that is ultimately 

determined to be confidential under that 

procedure will be exempt from 

disclosure under FOIA. 

IX. Project Benefits 

DOT expects to identify and report on 

the benefits of the projects that it funds 

with TIGER II Discretionary Grants. To 

this end, DOT will request that 

recipients of TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants cooperate in Departmental efforts 

to collect and report on information 

related to the benefits produced by the 

projects that receive TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants. 

The benefits that DOT reports on may 

include the following: (1) Improved 

condition of existing transportation 

facilities and systems; (2) long-term 

growth in employment, production or 

other high-value economic activity; (3) 

improved livability of communities 

across the United States; (4) improved 

energy efficiency, reduced dependence 

on oil and reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions; (5) reduced adverse impacts 

of transportation on the natural 

environment; (6) reduced number, rate 

and consequences of surface 

transportation-related crashes, injuries 

and fatalities; (7) greater use of 

innovative technology and innovative 

approaches to transportation funding 

and project delivery; (8) greater 

collaboration with state and local 

governments, other public entities, 

private entities, nonprofit entities, or 

other non-traditional partners; (9) 

greater integration of transportation 

decision making with decision making 

by other public agencies with similar 

public service objectives; or (10) any 

other benefits claimed in the project’s 

benefit-cost analysis. 

Because of the limited nature of this 

program, these benefits are likely to be 

reported on a project-by-project basis 

and trends across projects that were 

selected for TIGER II Discretionary 

Grants may not be readily available. In 

addition, because many of these benefits 

are long-term outcomes, it may be years 

before the value of the investments can 

be quantified and fully reported. DOT is 

considering the most appropriate way to 

collect and report information about 

these potential project benefits. 

X. Questions and Clarifications 

For further information concerning 

this notice please contact the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant program manager 

via e-mail at TIGERIIGrants@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/recovery/ost/ 

TIGERII. 

Appendix A: Additional Information on 

Benefit-Cost Analysis 

As previously discussed in the Notice, 

the lack of a useful analysis of expected 

project benefits and costs may be a basis 

for denying an award of a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant to any applicant. 

Additionally, if it is clear that the total 

benefits of a project are not reasonably 

likely to outweigh the project’s costs, 

the Department will not award a TIGER 

II Discretionary Grant to the project. 

Consequently, it is incumbent upon the 

applicant to prepare a thorough benefitcost analysis that demonstrates clearly 

the derivation of both the costs and the 

benefits of the project. However, DOT 

understands that the level of expense 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21709 

7E.J. Mishan and Euston Quah, Cost-Benefit 

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

that can be expected in these analyses 

for surveys, travel demand forecasts, 

market forecasts, statistical analyses, 

and so on will be less for smaller 

projects than for larger projects. Smaller 

projects will therefore be given greater 

latitude to estimate benefits 

subjectively. However, even smaller 

projects will be expected to quantify 

these subjective estimates of benefits 

and costs, and to provide whatever 

evidence they have available to lend 

credence to their subjective estimates. 

Estimates of benefits should be 

presented in monetary terms whenever 

possible; if a monetary estimate is not 

possible, then at least a quantitative 

estimate (in physical, non-monetary 

terms, such as ridership estimates, 

emissions levels, etc.) should be 

provided. A benefit-cost analysis is not 

necessary for TIGER II Planning Grant 

applicants; however, such applicants 

should describe the expected benefits of 

the underlying project(s) that the 

planning activities will help advance. 

This appendix provides general 

information and guidance on 

conducting an analysis. In addition to 

this guidance, applicants should also 

refer to OMB Circulars A–4 and A–94 in 

preparing their analysis (http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/). 

Circular A–4 also cites textbooks on 

cost-benefit analysis (e.g., Mishan and 

Quah 7) if an applicant wants to review 

additional background material. The 

Department will rate all analyses as 

indicated below. 

TABLE 1—RATINGS OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSES

Rating Description 

Very Useful ................ The economic analysis (i) is comprehensive (quantifying and monetizing the full range of costs and benefits, including 

the likely timing of such costs and benefits, for which such measures are reasonably available), (ii) attempts to describe the indirect effects of transportation investments on land use (when applicable), (iii) helps the Department organize information about, and evaluate trade-offs between, alternative transportation investments, (iv) provides a high 

degree of confidence as to the extent to which the benefits of the project will exceed the project’s costs on a net 

present value basis, and (v) provides sensitivity analysis to show how changes in key assumptions affect the outcome 

of the analysis. 

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. 

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 accounting 

for the relative timing of those benefits 

and costs. In some cases, benefits may 

be difficult to measure in dollar terms. 

Applicants must at least describe the 

nature of each of the major types of 

benefits described in this guidance. To 

the extent possible, applicants must also 

quantify each of those types of benefits 

(e.g., in terms of the number of users 

making use of a transportation facility). 

Finally, applicants must attempt to 

measure those benefits in dollar terms 

(i.e., ‘‘monetize’’ them). These benefits 

must then be compared with a dollar 

measure of the costs of the project. Both 

benefits and costs must be estimated for 

each year after work on the project is 

begun, and these streams of annual 

benefits and costs must be discounted to 

the present using an appropriate 

discount rate, so that a present value of 

the stream of benefits and a present 

value of the stream of costs is 

calculated. 

As a starting point for any analysis, 

applicants should provide a Project 

Summary describing the project and 

what it changes. The Project Summary 

should provide: 

• A description of the current 

infrastructure baseline (e.g., two-lane 

road). 

• A description of what the proposed 

project is and how it would change the 

current infrastructure baseline (e.g., 

extension of a trolley line). 

• A general justification for the 

project and how it affects the long-term 

outcomes relative to the current 

baseline. 

• A description of who would be the 

users of the project or what groups of 

people would benefit from it. 

• A description of what types of 

economic effects the project is expected 

to have. 

If an application contains multiple 

separate projects, each of which has 

independent utility, the applicant 

should provide a separate summary 

(and analysis) for each project. The 

summary should also identify the types 

of societal benefits the project might 

generate. The applicant should list the 

types of benefits here and then clearly 

demonstrate in the analysis how it 

estimated benefits for each category. 

The summary should also include the 

full cost of a project, including Federal, 

State, local, and private funding, and 

not simply the requested grant amount 

or the local amount. 

Each application must include in its 

analysis estimates of the project’s 

expected benefits with respect to each of 

the five long-term outcomes specified in 

Section II(A) (Selection Criteria). We 

recognize that it may in some cases be 

unclear in which of these categories of 

outcomes a benefit should be listed. In 

these cases, it is less important in which 

category a benefit is listed than to make 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21710 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

sure that the benefit is listed and 

measured (but only once). Applicants 

must demonstrate that the proposed 

project has independent utility as 

defined in this Notice. It cannot be a 

component of a larger project such that, 

if the larger project were not built, this 

project would have little or no 

transportation value (or, if it is part of 

a larger project, the application must 

demonstrate that funding for the larger 

project is committed). If the applicant 

provides a benefit-cost analysis for a 

larger project, then it must estimate 

what portion of the benefits and costs of 

the larger project apply to the smaller 

project for which funding is being 

sought. The following sections describe 

baselines, affected population, 

discounting, forecasting, costs, and 

benefit categories in more detail. The 

Department expects a thorough 

discussion of these items in the body of 

the analysis. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic 

Impact Analysis 

First, it is important to recognize that 

a benefit-cost analysis is not an 

economic impact analysis. Applicants 

are required to provide a benefit-cost 

analysis in support of their proposed 

projects. An economic impact analysis 

is not acceptable. 

A benefit-cost analysis attempts to 

measure the dollar value of the benefits 

and the costs to all the members of 

society (in this context, ‘‘society’’ means 

all residents of the United States). The 

benefits represent a dollar measure of 

the extent to which people are made 

better off by the project—that is, the 

benefits represent the amount that all 

the people in the society would jointly 

be willing to pay to carry out the 

project, and feel as if they had generated 

enough benefits to justify the project’s 

costs. 

An economic impact analysis, on the 

other hand, typically focuses on local 

benefits rather than national benefits. 

Some of the benefits that are counted in 

an economic impact analysis, such as 

diversion of economic activity from one 

region of the country to another, 

represent benefits to one part of the 

country but costs to another part, so 

they are not benefits from the 

standpoint of the nation as a whole. 

Moreover, economic impact analyses 

estimate ‘‘impacts’’ rather than 

‘‘benefits,’’ and the ‘‘impacts’’ are 

normally much larger than the 

‘‘benefits.’’ For example, the total payroll 

of workers on a project is usually 

considered one of the ‘‘impacts’’ in an 

economic impact analysis. The total 

payroll is not a measure of the ‘‘benefits’’ 

of the project, however, for two reasons. 

First, a payroll is a cost to whoever pays 

the employees, at the same time that it 

is a benefit to the employees, so it is not 

a net benefit. Second, even for the 

employees, the employees have to work 

for their wages, so the amount they are 

paid is not a net benefit to them—it is 

a benefit only to the extent that they 

value their wages more than the cost to 

them of having to be at work every day. 

Economic impact analyses also often 

treat real estate investments induced by 

a project as one of the economic 

‘‘impacts.’’ The full value of such an 

investment is not a ‘‘benefit,’’ however, 

because the benefit of those investments 

to the community in which they are 

made is balanced by the cost of the 

investment to the investor. Because 

these investments are a cost as well as 

a benefit, they are not a net benefit for 

purposes of a benefit-cost analysis. 

There is often an element of benefit in 

these ‘‘impacts.’’ A worker who gets a 

higher-paying job as a result of a 

transportation investment project 

benefits if he or she works just as hard 

as he or she did at his or her previous 

job but is paid more. Such projects 

produce benefits by increasing the 

productivity of labor. A transportation 

investment project that increases the 

value and productivity of land and thus 

induces real estate investment can also 

provide a benefit, but the benefit must 

be measured net of the cost of making 

the real estate investment. Measuring 

these labor productivity effects requires 

a careful analysis of the local labor 

market and how that market is changed 

by the transportation investment. 

Similarly, measuring the effects of 

transportation projects on the 

productivity of land requires a careful 

netting out of increases in land values 

that are compensated by costs of real 

estate investment and increases in land 

values that in effect capitalize other 

types of benefits that have already been 

counted, such as time savings. 

In summary, applicants must be 

careful to measure only the net benefits 

of a project, and should avoid using 

software packages that are designed to 

produce economic impact analyses. An 

application containing only an 

economic impact analysis does not meet 

the program’s requirements and may be 

denied an award for that reason. 

Baselines and Alternatives 

Applicants should measure costs and 

benefits of a proposed project against a 

baseline (also called a ‘‘base case’’ or a 

‘‘no build’’ case). The baseline should be 

an assessment of the way the world 

would look if the project did not receive 

the requested TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant funding. Usually, it is reasonable 

to forecast that that baseline world 

resembles the present state. However, it 

is important to factor in any projected 

changes (e.g., baseline economic growth, 

increased traffic volumes, or completion 

of already planned and funded projects) 

that would occur even if the proposed 

project were not funded. In some cases 

the proposed project already has a 

financing plan that would allow it to be 

built, but that involves a slower 

construction schedule than would occur 

if it received TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant funding. Or it may be likely that, 

in the absence of TIGER II Discretionary 

Grant funding, the project would be 

built later using ordinary funding 

sources. In these cases, the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant funding may 

accelerate completion of the project, but 

it does not allow a project to be built 

that would never otherwise have been 

built. The benefits and costs in this case 

should thus be limited to the marginal 

benefits (and marginal costs) of having 

the project completed in a shorter 

period of time and including the cost of 

expending resources on the project 

sooner than otherwise planned. 

Many projects have multiple parts or 

multiple phases, only one or two of 

which would actually receive funding 

from a TIGER II Discretionary Grant. It 

is important in these cases that both the 

costs and the benefits pertain to the 

same portion of the project. If the part 

or phase of the project funded by a 

TIGER Discretionary Grant has 

independent utility, then the analysis 

should compare the costs and the 

benefits of just that part or phase. If the 

part or phase of the project funded by 

a TIGER Discretionary Grant does not 

have independent utility, then the 

applicant must first demonstrate that 

funding is committed for the entire 

project (or for an entire portion of the 

project, including the TIGER 

Discretionary Grant-funded portion, that 

has independent utility). In this case, 

the applicant should compare the 

benefits and costs of the entire project 

(or the entire portion of the project that 

has independent utility). The applicant 

must make clear exactly what portions 

of the project form the basis of the 

estimates of benefits and costs. 

It is incorrect to claim benefits from 

time savings accruing from a 100-mile 

highway when the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant will only fund 10 

miles. Similarly, it would be incorrect to 

attribute all the benefits from a new port 

facility to a TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

when the TIGER Discretionary Grantgrant-funded portion only pays for 

pavement. In some cases, the applicant 

may choose to allocate the benefits of 

the project proportionately to the costs 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21711 

8 In some cases the application may use a fixed 

term of years to analyze benefits and costs (e.g., 20 

years), even though the applicant knows that the 

project will last longer than that and continue to 

have benefits and costs in later years. In these cases, 

the project will retain a ‘‘residual value’’ at the end 

of the analysis period. For instance, a new bridge 

may be expected to have a 100-year life but the 

analysis period for the benefit-cost analysis might 

cover only 40 years. In such cases, a residual value 

can be claimed as a benefit (or cost offset) for the 

asset at the end of the analysis period. One method 

to estimate the residual value is to calculate the 

percentage of the project that will not be 

depreciated or used up at the end of the analysis 

period and to multiply this percentage by the 

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. 

9See http://www.brighthub.com/money/personalfinance/articles/17948.aspx. For example, 10.594 is 

the discount factor that would be multiplied by an 

annual benefit to get the present value of a constant 

benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of 

seven percent. If the constant annual benefit is 

$500,000, then the present value of the benefits is 

$5.297 million. In these limited cases, the applicant 

must show the calculation of the discount factor of 

the ordinary annuity formula. 

of the project that would be funded by 

the TIGER II Discretionary Grant, but 

this should generally be done only if (1) 

the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are 

commingled with non-TIGER 

Discretionary Grant funds for a single, 

non-divisible structure that has 

independent utility) and (2) the project 

has sufficient funding in place to be 

completed as a whole unit. If a project 

is being funded by multiple Federal, 

State, and local sources, it would be 

inappropriate to attribute the full benefit 

of the project to only one source of 

funding (such as the local share or the 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant itself). 

All costs and benefits of the project 

should be evaluated, including benefits 

and costs that fall outside of the 

jurisdiction sponsoring the project. It is 

also important that the applicant 

assume the continuation of reasonable 

and sound management practices in 

establishing a baseline. Assuming a 

baseline scenario in which the owner of 

the facility does no maintenance on the 

facility and ignores traffic problems and 

maintenance is not realistic and will 

lead to the overstatement of project 

benefits. 

In addition to the baseline, the 

applicant should present and consider 

reasonable alternatives in the analysis. 

Smaller-scale and more focused projects 

should be evaluated for comparison 

purposes. For example, if an applicant 

is requesting funds to replace a pier, it 

should also analyze the alternative of 

rehabilitating the current pier. 

Similarly, if an applicant seeks funds to 

establish a relatively large streetcar 

project, it should also evaluate a more 

focused project serving only the more 

densely populated corridors or an area. 

Affected Population 

Applicants should clearly identify the 

population that the project will affect 

and measure the number of passengers 

(for a passenger project) and the amount 

of freight (for a freight project) affected 

by the project. If possible, passenger and 

freight traffic should be measured in 

passenger-miles and freight ton-miles 

(and possibly value of freight). If, as is 

often the case (e.g., projected growth in 

highway traffic), the forecasted traffic 

volume is not the same for all years, 

then the applicant needs to break out 

the forecasted traffic annually. In some 

cases, the characteristics of the 

passenger population or of the freight 

shipper population may be important 

(e.g., whether the passengers or shippers 

are members of a disadvantaged group, 

or whether the passengers or shippers 

are spread across a multi-state region. 

Measures of freight traffic might include 

growing levels of port calls. In some 

cases, the relevant population is the 

volume of traffic that is diverted from 

one mode to another. Applicants must 

clearly identify which population will 

be affected by any particular benefit. For 

example, the affected population that 

will enjoy travel time savings may be 

different from the affected population 

benefiting from reduced shipping costs. 

Further, the applicant should be 

realistic as to how the project affects 

these populations. For example, 

improving rail access to a wholesale 

distribution center near an urban area 

may take some trucks off the road that 

had been carrying freight from a truck/ 

rail intermodal yard to the wholesale 

distribution center. However, it is 

unrealistic to claim benefits from 

reduced truck traffic all the way from 

the shipping origin point hundreds or 

thousands of miles away to the truck/ 

rail intermodal yard, if that traffic 

would be likely to be moving by rail 

already. 

Discounting 

Applicants should discount future 

benefits and costs to present values 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent, 

following guidance provided by OMB in 

Circulars A–4 and A–94 (http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars_default/). Applicants may also 

provide an alternative analysis using a 

real discount rate of 3 percent. The 

latter approach should be used when 

the alternative use of funds currently 

dedicated to the project would be other 

public expenditures, rather than private 

investment. 

As a first step, applicants should 

present the year-by-year stream of 

benefits and costs from the project. 

Applicants should clearly identify when 

they expect costs and benefits to occur. 

The beginning point for the year-by-year 

stream of benefits should be the first 

year in which the project will start 

generating costs or benefits. The ending 

point should be far enough in the future 

to encompass all of the significant costs 

and benefits resulting from the project 

but not to exceed the usable life of the 

asset without capital improvement.8 In 

presenting these year-by-year streams, 

applicants should measure them in 

constant (or ‘‘real’’) dollars prior to 

discounting. Applicants should not add 

in the effects of inflation to the 

estimates of future benefits and costs 

prior to discounting. Once an applicant 

has generated the stream of costs and 

benefits in constant dollars, it should 

then discount these estimates to arrive 

at a present value of costs and benefits. 

The standard formula for the discount 

factor in any given year is 1/(1 + r)t

, 

where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate and ‘‘t’’ 

measures the number of years in the 

future that the costs or benefits will 

occur. Infrequently, benefits or costs 

will be the same in constant dollars for 

all years. In these limited cases, an 

applicant can calculate the formula for 

the present value of an ordinary annuity 

instead of showing a year-by-year 

calculation.9

Forecasting 

Benefit-cost analyses of transportation 

projects almost always depend on 

forecasts of projected levels of usage 

(road traffic, port calls, etc.). When an 

applicant is using such forecasts to 

generate benefit estimates, it must assess 

the reliability of these forecasts. If the 

applicant is using outside forecasts, it 

must provide a citation and an 

appropriate page number for the 

forecasts. An applicant should carefully 

review any outside forecasts for 

reliability before using them in its 

analyses. In cases where an applicant is 

using its own estimates, it should 

clearly demonstrate in the analysis the 

methodology it used to forecast affected 

population (e.g., traffic). The number of 

individuals who enjoy the benefits of a 

project will partly determine the net 

benefits of the project. Consequently, 

accurate forecasts are essential to 

conducting a quality benefit-cost 

analysis. Applicants should incorporate 

indirect effects into their forecasts 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21712 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

where possible (e.g. induced demand). 

Applicants should also take great care to 

match forecasts of affected population to 

the corresponding year. For example, 

using projected traffic levels for 2030 to 

generate benefits for all the earlier years 

is incorrect. For more information on 

forecasting, applicants can refer to the 

forecasting section of FHWA’s 

Economic Analysis Primer (http:// 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/ 

asstmgmt/primer06.cfm). While 

produced for analysis of highway 

projects, the primer is a good source of 

information on issues related to all 

transportation forecasting. 

Costs 

As noted above, the estimate of costs 

must pertain to the same project as the 

estimate of benefits. If the TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant is to pay for only 

part of the project, but the project is 

indivisible (i.e., no one part of the 

project would have independent utility), 

then the benefits of the whole project 

should be compared to the costs of the 

whole project, including costs paid for 

by State, local, and private partners 

other than the Federal government. 

Applicants may not claim that the 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant ‘‘leverages’’ 

the financial contributions of other 

parties, and therefore that all the 

benefits of the project are attributable to 

the TIGER II Discretionary Grant, even 

though the TIGER II Discretionary Grant 

only pays for part of the project. 

The analysis of costs should be 

equally as rigorous as the analysis of 

benefits. The lack of a useful analysis of 

expected project costs may be a basis for 

denying the award of a TIGER II 

Discretionary Grant to an applicant. In 

general, applicants should use a lifecycle cost analysis approach in 

estimating the costs of the project. The 

Department expects applicants to 

include operating, maintenance, and 

other life-cycle costs of the project, 

along with capital costs. In addition to 

construction costs, other direct costs 

may include design and land 

acquisition. If the time period 

considered in the analysis is long 

enough to require the rehabilitation of 

the facility during the period of 

analysis, then the costs of that 

rehabilitation should be included. 

External costs, such as noise, increased 

congestion, and environmental 

pollutants resulting from the use of the 

facility or related changes in usage on 

other facilities in the same network, 

should be considered as costs in the 

analysis. Additionally, applicants 

should include, to the extent possible, 

costs to users during construction, such 

as delays and increased vehicle 

operating costs. The applicant should 

correctly discount annual costs to arrive 

at a present value of the project’s cost. 

Types of Benefits—Livability 

There are several potential benefits 

that a project could generate that affect 

livability. The most important aspect of 

livability is accessibility to non-singleoccupancy vehicle modes of 

transportation, such as transit, bicycle 

paths, and sidewalks. Measuring the 

benefits of increased accessibility 

should start with a quantitative measure 

of the increase in accessibility—how 

many people will have access to these 

alternative modes who did not have 

access before? The analysis should go 

on to estimate how many people are 

actually likely to use these newly 

available transportation modes and how 

much of their existing single-occupancy 

vehicle travel are those people likely to 

divert to these alternative modes. 

Finally, the analysis should attempt to 

estimate the monetary value that people 

place on access to these newly available 

transportation modes. In some cases, 

monetary values may be estimated 

based on existing market transactions— 

e.g., bicycle rentals. In others, 

differentials in the market values of land 

or rents between residences and 

businesses that are already easily 

accessible (e.g. < 0.5 miles) to these 

modes and those that are in the same 

areas but not easily accessible (e.g. > 0.5 

miles) can be used as a proxy estimate 

of the value of this access. In other 

cases, no objective market values are 

available, and the applicant should 

make the best subjective estimate it can 

of the average value that this 

accessibility has to those who now have 

access to these alternative modes. 

Transit and bicycle paths may provide 

greater accessibility to alternative 

transportation modes, but they will not 

actually enhance livability unless 

people actually want to use them, and 

the desire to use them will depend in 

part on where these modes go and on 

the amenities provided with them. An 

important part of accessibility is making 

sure not only that people’s residences 

are accessible to these modes, but that 

the modes connect to workplaces, 

schools, shopping, and other desired 

destinations. Assessments of enhanced 

accessibility should describe where 

these alternative modes go as well as 

where they start. 

Land use changes are also an 

important aspect of livability. When 

people live closer to their workplaces, 

their schools, and shopping, they will 

be more likely to use these alternative 

transportation modes. Transportation 

changes that encourage more mixed-use 

land development (where residences are 

intermixed with workplaces and 

shopping) will shorten the length of 

travel and encourage more use of nonhighway modes. The analysis should 

evaluate the extent to which the 

proposed transportation project will 

encourage these changes in land use and 

be coordinated with zoning changes and 

other public and private investments. 

Changes in land use that result in 

shorter travel distances can result in 

long-term travel time savings, and the 

quantitative extent of these time savings 

can be estimated. Values of time can 

then be used to estimate the monetary 

value of these time savings. The 

applicant should propose a subjective 

estimate of the monetary value of land 

use changes. Land use changes can also 

reduce the total cost of transportation 

for the affected population, so 

applicants should attempt to measure 

the effects of the project and associated 

land use changes on average household 

transportation expenditures. 

In using differentials in property 

values or rents to measure the value of 

changes in accessibility, applicants 

must identify other factors that might 

have caused property values and/or 

rents to change and isolate the portion 

of the change that is attributable to the 

change in accessibility. Applicants must 

also be careful to avoid doublecounting. If the applicant has already 

counted reductions in travel time as a 

benefit, the value of those reductions in 

travel time may get capitalized in 

changes in property values or rents, and 

the applicant must be careful not to 

count those benefits again as part of the 

change in property values. 

Finally, an important aspect of 

livability is the availability of 

transportation to disadvantaged 

communities, such as low-income 

people, non-drivers, people with 

disabilities, and senior citizens. 

Applicants should assess the extent to 

which their projects will improve 

transportation opportunities for 

members of these disadvantaged 

communities. While there may not be 

well-defined methodologies for 

assigning monetary values to these 

enhancements to accessibility, 

applicants should attempt to measure 

the size of the disadvantaged 

community affected and make 

subjective judgments of the monetary 

values that should be assigned to these 

improvements. 

Types of Benefits—Economic 

Competitiveness 

Economic competitiveness benefits 

might include reduced operating costs 

due to infrastructure improvements. In 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21713 

some cases, a project produces 

economic competitiveness benefits 

because the existing users of the facility 

will have lower operating costs after the 

improvement is completed. In other 

cases, the economic competitiveness 

benefits result from modal diversion— 

users shifting from a higher-cost 

transportation mode to a lower-cost 

transportation mode when the quality of 

service on the lower-cost mode becomes 

more competitive. In this case, the 

applicant should demonstrate clearly 

what the basis is of any estimated modal 

diversion. In estimating operating cost 

savings, it is important to avoid doublecounting. For example, applicants must 

not count both the reductions in fuel 

costs and the overall reductions in 

operating costs, because fuel costs are 

part of operating costs. 

One particular form of reduced 

operating costs is travel time savings. 

Road improvements or other projects 

whose purpose is to relieve congestion 

frequently generate travel time savings 

for travelers and shippers that 

contribute to economic competitiveness. 

Where this is the case, applicants 

should clearly demonstrate how the 

travel time savings are calculated and 

should account for induced travel 

demand to the extent practical or 

applicable. If travel time savings vary 

over time, the applicant must clearly 

show savings by year. Once the 

applicant generates its estimate of hours 

saved, it should apply the Department’s 

guidance on the value of time to those 

estimates (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/ 

policy/reports.htm) to monetize them. 

Freight-related projects that improve 

roads, rails, and ports frequently 

generate savings to shippers that they 

pass on to consumers (e.g., fuel savings 

and other operating cost savings). If 

applicants are projecting these savings 

as benefits, they need to carefully 

demonstrate how the proposed project 

would generate such benefits. However, 

savings to freight carriers can not be 

counted along with savings to shippers 

that are passed along from the carrier to 

the shipper. 

Applicants should also guard against 

analysis that double-counts other kinds 

of benefits. Analysis should distinguish 

between real benefits and transfer 

payments. Benefits reflect real resource 

usage and overall benefits to society, 

while transfers represent payments by 

one group to another and do not 

represent a net increase in societal 

benefits. Employment or output 

multipliers that purport to measure 

secondary effects should not be 

included as societal benefits because 

these secondary effects are generally the 

same (per dollar spent) regardless of 

what kind of project is funded. 

As noted earlier in this Appendix (see 

Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic 

Impact Analysis), applicants must be 

extremely cautious about including job 

creation and economic development 

benefits as societal benefits in the 

benefit-cost analysis. In the case of job 

creation, for example, every job 

represents both a cost to the employer 

(paying a wage) and a benefit to the 

employee (receiving a wage), so it is a 

transfer payment, rather than a net 

benefit. However, if a project increases 

the productivity of labor, then the 

applicant can count the increased 

productivity as a benefit. For example, 

if the project allows workers working at 

low-productivity jobs to switch to highproductivity jobs, then the increase in 

their productivity can be counted as a 

benefit. But the applicant needs to 

demonstrate rigorously how such 

productivity benefits are estimated and 

the exact time period over which the 

productivity benefits occur. Simply 

asserting these gains is inadequate. 

With respect to economic 

development, estimates of capital 

investments or property tax revenues 

are not legitimate benefits in a benefitcost analysis. A property tax is a benefit 

to the tax assessor, but it is a cost to the 

taxpayer. An applicant can potentially 

claim an increase in the value of land 

as a benefit if the transportation project 

increases the value and productivity of 

the land. However, the applicant needs 

to count the increase in the value of the 

land carefully to avoid double counting 

and transfer payments. For example, if 

the property value goes up by the exact 

same value as the developer’s 

investment, then this is not a benefit. 

Property value increases over and above 

the developer’s investment may 

potentially be a benefit from the project. 

However, if this property value increase 

is due to improved travel times that the 

applicant has already included as a 

benefit then there is no additional 

benefit here. The analysis should also 

consider to what extent an increase in 

land values induced by the project in 

one area causes a reduction in land 

values in some other area. Only the net 

increase in land value can be counted as 

a benefit. 

Applicants must carefully net out any 

embedded time savings in the property 

value increase before claiming any 

benefits. Simply asserting that there is a 

property tax increase net of time savings 

is inadequate. The Department expects 

any applicant claiming these types of 

benefits to provide a rigorous 

justification of the benefit that shows 

how it is derived from the project 

(rather than from some other nonproject investment) and that shows how 

increases in property values attributable 

to other benefits (such as travel time 

savings) have been deducted. 

Applicants should note that any 

claimed societal benefit from a property 

value increase is only a one-time stock 

benefit. Applicants can not treat it as a 

stream of benefits accruing annually. 

Types of Benefits—Safety 

Road projects can also improve the 

safety of transportation. A well-designed 

project can reduce fatalities and injuries 

as well as reduce other crash costs, such 

as hazardous materials releases. The 

applicant should clearly demonstrate 

how the project will improve safety. For 

example, to claim a reduction in 

fatalities, an applicant must clearly 

demonstrate how the existence of the 

project would have prevented the types 

of fatalities that commonly occur in that 

area. Applicants should use crash 

causation factors or similar analyses of 

causes of crashes to show the extent to 

which the type of improvements 

proposed would actually reduce the 

likelihood of the kinds of crashes that 

actually had occurred. Alternatively, 

when only a few cases are involved, the 

applicant should provide a description 

of the incidents and demonstrate the 

linkage between the proposed project 

and crash reduction. In some cases, 

safety benefits may occur because of 

modal diversion from a less safe mode 

to a more safe mode. When this type of 

benefit is claimed, the applicant should 

provide a clear analysis of why the 

forecasted modal diversion will take 

place. Once the applicant has 

established a reasonable count of the 

incidents that are likely to be prevented 

by the project, it should apply the 

Department’s guidance on value of life 

and injuries (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/

policy/reports.htm) to monetize them. 

Sources of information on the social 

benefits of reducing crash costs are 

discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s rulemaking on 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy for 

MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45

b55bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/). The 

economic values of various benefits are 

summarized in Table VIII–5 on page 

VIII–60. 

Types of Benefits—State of Good Repair 

Many infrastructure projects that 

improve the state of good repair of 

transportation infrastructure can reduce 

long-term maintenance and repair costs. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

These benefits are in addition to the 

benefits of reductions in travel time, 

shipping costs, and crashes which the 

applicant should account for separately. 

Applicants should include these 

maintenance and repair savings as 

benefits. Improving state of good repair 

may also reduce operating costs and 

congestion by reducing the amount of 

time that the infrastructure is out of 

service due to maintenance and repairs, 

or may prevent a facility (such as a 

bridge) from being removed from service 

entirely. In the latter case, the analysis 

should include a reasonable assessment 

of the cost that closing the facility 

would have on system users who would 

be required to take longer and more 

circuitous routes, as well as the 

probability (and likely time in the 

future) when the bridge would need to 

be closed. The application should also 

consider differences in maintenance and 

repair costs when comparing different 

project alternatives. For example, an 

applicant can compare the maintenance 

costs that would be required after 

rehabilitating an existing pier with those 

that would be required after building a 

new one. As part of the data that go into 

estimating the benefits of improving the 

state of good repair, applicants should 

provide accepted metrics for assessing 

an asset’s current condition. For 

example, applicants can use Present 

Serviceability Ratings (PSR) to discuss 

pavement condition and bridge 

sufficiency ratings to discuss the 

condition of a bridge. As discussed in 

the section on costs, the Department 

expects applicants to consider the lifecycle costs of the project when making 

these comparisons. 

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 morepolluting modes to less-polluting modes 

can similarly reduce emissions. 

Applicants claiming these types of 

benefits must clearly demonstrate and 

quantify how the project will reduce 

emissions. Once an applicant has 

adequately quantified levels of emission 

reductions, it should estimate the dollar 

value of these benefits. Sources of 

information on the social benefits of 

reducing criteria pollutant emissions are 

discussed in Chapter VIII of the Final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s rulemaking on 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy for 

MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d0b5a45b55

bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/). 

The Interagency Working Group on 

Social Cost of Carbon has recently 

issued its guidance on ‘‘Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866’’ (http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/

sem_finalrule_appendix15a.pdf). This 

guidance lays out a range of values to 

use for monetizing the social cost of 

carbon at various years in the future and 

at various discount rates. Applicants 

should clearly indicate how and to what 

degree calculations of benefits in their 

analyses are based on these assumed 

values of CO2 emissions reduction. 

Transparency and Reproducibility of 

Calculations 

Applicants must ensure that the 

results of their analyses are transparent 

and easily reproduced. Applicants 

should clearly set out basic 

assumptions, methods, and data 

underlying the analysis and discuss any 

uncertainties associated with the 

estimates. Applicants should describe 

factors that could cause estimates to be 

incorrect, such as failure of traffic to 

materialize or actual costs turning out to 

exceed estimates. Applicants should 

also explain how likely these events are 

to occur and what actions that might 

take to mitigate these risks. 

A Department reviewer reading the 

analysis should be able to understand 

the basic elements of the analysis and 

the way in which the applicant derived 

the estimates. If the application refers 

the reader to more detailed 

documentation to explain how the 

calculations were done, that 

documentation must go beyond merely 

providing spreadsheets. It must include 

a thorough verbal description of how 

the calculation was done, including 

references to tabs and cells in the 

spreadsheet. This verbal description 

should include specific sources for all 

the numbers in the spreadsheet that are 

not calculated from the spreadsheet 

itself. 

If an applicant uses a ‘‘pre-packaged’’ 

economic model to calculate net 

benefits, the applicant should provide 

annual benefits and costs by benefit and 

cost type for the entire analysis period. 

In any case, applicants must provide a 

detailed explanation of the assumptions 

used to run the model (e.g., peak traffic 

hours and traffic volume during peak 

hours, mix of traffic by cars, buses, and 

trucks, etc.). The applicant must provide 

enough information so that a 

Department reviewer can follow the 

derivation of the estimates and 

reproduce them if need be. 

Ideally, the applicant should be able 

to summarize all pertinent data and cost 

and benefit calculations in a single 

spreadsheet tab (or table in Word). A 

Department reviewer should be able to 

understand the calculations of the 

spreadsheet both from directions in the 

spreadsheet and any accompanying text. 

The following provides a simplified 

example for expository purposes of 

discounted costs and benefits from a 

road project providing travel time 

savings only to local travelers over the 

course of five years following a one-year 

period of construction. 

Calendar year Project 

year 

Affected 

drivers 

Travel time 

saved 

(hours) 1

Total value of 

time saved 

($2008) 2

Initial costs 

($2008) 

Operations & 

maintenance 

costs ($2008) 3

Undiscounted 

net benefits 

Discounted at 

7% 

2011 ................. 1 $38,500,000 $6,000,000 ¥$44,500,000 ¥$41,588,785 

2012 ................. 2 80,000 1,040,000 $14,248,000 ........................ 700,000 13,548,000 11,833,348 

2013 ................. 3 95,000 1,235,000 16,919,500 ........................ 700,000 16,219,500 13,239,943 

2014 ................. 4 100,000 1,300,000 17,810,000 ........................ 700,000 17,110,000 13,053,137 

2015 ................. 5 102,000 1,326,000 18,166,200 ........................ 700,000 17,466,200 12,453,159 

2016 ................. 6 109,000 1,417,000 19,412,900 ........................ 700,000 18,712,900 12,469,195 

NPV .................. ................ ................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 21,459,998 

1 Number of drivers times three minutes a day (3/60 hours) over 260 workdays. 

2 Hours at $13.70 per hour ($2008). 

3 Includes costs from delays to users during construction. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21715 

Most applicant analyses will be more 

complicated than this example and will 

likely include several benefit categories. 

However, the summary cost and benefit 

data should be as transparent and as 

easy to follow and replicate as the 

example above. 

Appendix B: Additional Information on 

Applying Through Grants.gov 

Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER II 

Discretionary Grants must be submitted 

through Grants.gov. To apply for 

funding through Grants.gov, applicants 

must be properly registered. Complete 

instructions on how to register and 

apply can be found at http:// 

www.grants.gov. If interested parties 

experience difficulties at any point 

during registration or application 

process, please call the Grants.gov 

Customer Support Hotline at 1–800– 

518–4726, Monday–Friday from 7 a.m. 

to 9 p.m. EST. 

Registering with Grants.gov is a onetime process; however, processing 

delays may occur and it can take up to 

several weeks for first-time registrants to 

receive confirmation and a user 

password. It is highly recommended 

that applicants start the registration 

process as early as possible to prevent 

delays that may preclude submitting an 

application by the deadlines specified. 

Applications will not be accepted after 

the relevant due date; delayed 

registration is not an acceptable reason 

for extensions. In order to apply for 

TIGER II Discretionary Grant funding 

under this announcement and to apply 

for funding through Grants.gov, all 

applicants are required to complete the 

following: 

1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS 

number is required for Grants.gov 

registration. The Office of Management 

and Budget requires that all businesses 

and nonprofit applicants for Federal 

funds include a DUNS (Data Universal 

Numbering System) number in their 

applications for a new award or renewal 

of an existing award. A DUNS number 

is a unique nine-digit sequence 

recognized as the universal standard for 

identifying and keeping track of entities 

receiving Federal funds. The identifier 

is used for tracking purposes and to 

validate address and point of contact 

information for Federal assistance 

applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. The DUNS number will be 

used throughout the grant life cycle. 

Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, 

one-time activity. Obtain a DUNS 

number by calling 1–866–705–5711 or 

by applying online at http:// 

www.dunandbradstreet.com. 

2. Acquire or Renew Registration with 

the Central Contractor Registration 

(CCR) Database. All applicants for 

Federal financial assistance maintain 

current registrations in the Central 

Contractor Registration (CCR) database. 

An applicant must be registered in the 

CCR to successfully register in 

Grants.gov. The CCR database is the 

repository for standard information 

about Federal financial assistance 

applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. Organizations that have 

previously submitted applications via 

Grants.gov are already registered with 

CCR, as it is a requirement for 

Grants.gov registration. Please note, 

however, that applicants must update or 

renew their CCR registration at least 

once per year to maintain an active 

status, so it is critical to check 

registration status well in advance of 

relevant application deadlines. 

Information about CCR registration 

procedures can be accessed at http:// 

www.ccr.gov. 

3. Acquire an Authorized 

Organization Representative (AOR) and 

a Grants.gov Username and Password. 

Complete your AOR profile on 

Grants.gov and create your username 

and password. You will need to use 

your organization’s DUNS Number to 

complete this step. For more 

information about the registration 

process, go to http://www.grants.gov/ 

applicants/get_registered.jsp. 

4. Acquire Authorization for your 

AOR from the E-Business Point of 

Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at 

your organization must login to 

Grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR. 

Please note that there can be more than 

one AOR for your organization. 

5. Search for the Funding Opportunity 

on Grants.gov. Please use the following 

identifying information when searching 

for the TIGER II funding opportunity on 

Grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for 

this solicitation is 20.933, titled Surface 

Transportation Infrastructure 

Discretionary Grants for Capital 

Investments II. 

6. Submit an Application Addressing 

All of the Requirements Outlined in this 

Funding Availability Announcement. 

Within 24–48 hours after submitting 

your electronic application, you should 

receive an email validation message 

from Grants.gov. The validation message 

will tell you whether the application 

has been received and validated or 

rejected, with an explanation. You are 

urged to submit your application at least 

72 hours prior to the due date of the 

application to allow time to receive the 

validation message and to correct any 

problems that may have caused a 

rejection notification. 

Note: When uploading attachments please 

use generally accepted formats such as .pdf, 

.doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture 

files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, 

please do not save and submit the attachment 

in these formats. Additionally, the following 

formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, 

.vbs, .cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, 

.sys, and .zip. 

Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov 

Technical Issues 

If you experience unforeseen 

Grants.gov technical issues beyond your 

control that prevent you from 

submitting your application by the 

deadline, you must contact Robert 

Mariner at 202–366–8914 or 

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 email the 

complete grant application, your DUNS 

number, and provide a Grants.gov Help 

Desk tracking number(s). After DOT 

staff review all of the information 

submitted as well as contacts the 

Grants.gov Help Desk to validate the 

technical issues you reported, DOT staff 

will contact you to either approve or 

deny your request to submit a late 

application. If the technical issues you 

reported cannot be validated, your 

application will be rejected as untimely. 

To ensure a fair competition for 

limited discretionary funds, the 

following conditions are not valid 

reasons to permit late submissions: (1) 

Failure to complete the registration 

process before the deadline date; (2) 

failure to follow Grants.gov instructions 

on how to register and apply as posted 

on its Web site; (3) failure to follow all 

of the instructions in the funding 

availability notice; and (4) technical 

issues experienced with the applicant’s 

computer or information technology (IT) 

environment. 

Issued on: April 21, 2010. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9591 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping 

Requirements; Agency Information 

Collection Activity Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES