[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50289-50312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20577]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0107]
Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of
Transportation's National Infrastructure Investments Under the Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations, 2011; and Request for Comments
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability, Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funding and requests
proposals for the Department of Transportation's National
Infrastructure Investments. In addition, this notice announces
selection criteria and pre-application and application requirements for
the National Infrastructure Investments.
On July 1, 2011 the Department of Transportation published an
interim notice announcing the availability of funding for the
Department of Transportation's National Infrastructure Investments, or
``TIGER Discretionary Grants,'' project selection criteria and pre-
application and application requirements for these grants. The interim
notice also requested comments on the project selection criteria and
pre-application and application requirements. The Department considered
the comments that were submitted in accordance with the interim notice
and decided to make no substantive revisions to the interim notice
based on those comments. However, the Department has decided to make
minor revisions to the interim notice, to provide additional
information to potential applicants on the project readiness
characteristics that the Department considers when evaluating an
application (see section I(b) and Appendix C). The Department has also
updated the point-of-contact information for program staff that should
be contacted with any questions regarding the application process for
these grants.
On April 15, 2011, the President signed the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations, 2011 (Div. B of the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-010, Apr. 15, 2011))
(``FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act''). The FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act appropriated $526.944 million to be awarded by the
Department of Transportation (``DOT'') for National Infrastructure
Investments. This appropriation is similar, but not identical to the
appropriation for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery, or ``TIGER Discretionary Grant'', program authorized and
implemented pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (the ``Recovery Act''), and the National Infrastructure
Investments or ``TIGER II Discretionary Grant'' program under the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for 2010 (``FY 2010 Appropriations Act''). Because
of the similarity in program structure, DOT has referred to the grants
for National Infrastructure Investments under the FY 2010
Appropriations Act as ``TIGER II Discretionary Grants''. Given that
funds have now been appropriated for these similar programs in three
separate statutes, DOT is referring to the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments under the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations
Act simply as ``TIGER Discretionary Grants.'' As with the TIGER and
TIGER II programs, funds for the FY2011 TIGER program are to be awarded
on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact
on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. Through this notice,
DOT is soliciting applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants.
In the event that this solicitation does not result in the award
and obligation of all available funds, DOT may decide to publish an
additional solicitation(s).
DATES: Pre-applications must be submitted by October 3, 2011, at 5 p.m.
EDT (the ``Pre-Application Deadline''). Final applications must be
submitted through Grants.gov by October 31, 2011, at 5 p.m. EDT (the
``Application Deadline''). The DOT pre-application system will open on
or before September 9, 2011, to allow prospective applicants to submit
pre-applications. Subsequently, the Grants.gov ``Apply'' function will
open on October 5, 2011, allowing applicants to submit applications.
While applicants are encouraged to submit pre-applications in advance
of the Pre-Application Deadline, pre-applications will not be reviewed
until after the pre-application deadline. Similarly, while applicants
are encouraged to submit applications in advance of the Application
Deadline, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be
made, until after the Application Deadline.
ADDRESSES: 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
pre-applications to DOT and applications through Grants.gov are
included in Section VII (Pre-Application and Application Cycle).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
this notice please contact the TIGER Discretionary Grant program staff
via e-mail at [email protected], or call Howard Hill at 202-366-0301.
A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at
202-366-3993. In addition, DOT will regularly post answers to questions
and requests for clarifications on DOT's Web site at http://www.dot.gov/TIGER.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is substantially similar to the
Final notice published for the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program in
the Federal Register on June 1, 2010. However, there are a few
significant differences that applicants should be aware of. These
differences are as follows:
1. Unlike the FY 2010 Appropriations Act, the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act does not provide any funding for projects solely for
the planning, preparation, or design of capital projects (``TIGER
Planning Grants''); however these activities may be eligible to the
extent that they are part of an overall construction project that
receives TIGER Discretionary Grants funding.
2. As specified in section VI of this notice, any applicant that is
applying for a TIGER TIFIA Payment must also submit a TIFIA letter of
interest along with their application.
3. As specified in section VII(A) of this notice, eligible
applicants may submit, as a lead applicant, no more than three
applications for consideration. However, multistate applications will
not count towards the lead applicant's three application limit.
Additionally, applicants may be identified as a partnering agency on
the application of another lead applicant and such an application will
not count towards a partnering applicant's three application limit as a
lead applicant.
[[Page 50290]]
Other than these differences, and minor edits made to conform the
notice to the factual circumstances of this round of TIGER funding,
there have been no material changes made to the notice. This final
notice includes minor revisions to the interim notice, to provide
additional information to potential applicants on the project readiness
characteristics that the Department considers when evaluating an
application (see section I(b) and Appendix C). The Department has also
updated the point-of-contact information for program staff that should
be contacted with any questions regarding the application process for
these grants. Each section of this notice contains information and
instructions relevant to the application process for these TIGER
Discretionary Grants and prospective applicants should read this notice
in its entirety so that they have the information they need to submit
eligible and competitive applications.
Table of Contents
I. Background
Tiger Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
IV. Grant Administration
V. Projects in Rural Areas
VI. TIGER TIFIA Payments
Application Requirements
VII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
VIII. Project Benefits
IX. Questions and Clarifications
Appendix A: Additional Information on Cost Benefit Analysis
Appendix B: Additional Information on Applying Through Grants.gov
Appendix C: Additional Information on Guidelines for Project
Readiness
I. Background
Recovery Act TIGER and Fiscal Year 2010 TIGER II Discretionary Grants
On February 17, 2009, the President of the United States signed the
Recovery Act, which appropriated $1.5 billion of discretionary grant
funds to be awarded by DOT for capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure. DOT has referred to these grants as
Grants for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or
``TIGER Discretionary Grants.'' DOT solicited applications for TIGER
Discretionary Grants through a notice of funding availability published
in the Federal Register on June 17, 2009 (an interim notice was
published on May 18, 2009). Applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants
were due on September 15, 2009 and DOT received over 1,400 applications
with funding requests totaling almost $60 billion. Funding for 51
projects totaling nearly $1.5 billion was announced on February 17,
2010.
On December 16, 2009, the President signed the FY 2010
Appropriations Act that appropriated $600 million to DOT for National
Infrastructure Investments using language that was similar, but not
identical, to the language in the Recovery Act authorizing the TIGER
Discretionary Grants. DOT has referred to those grants for National
Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
The FY 2010 Appropriations Act permitted DOT to use an amount not
to exceed $35 million of the available TIGER II funds for projects that
involved solely the planning, preparation, or design of Eligible
Projects, and not their construction (``TIGER II Planning Grants'').
The Recovery Act did not explicitly provide funding for similar
activities under the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
DOT solicited applications for TIGER II Discretionary Grants
through a notice of funding availability published in the Federal
Register on June 1, 2010 (an interim notice was published on April 26,
2010). Applications for TIGER II Discretionary Grants were due on
August 23, 2010 and nearly 1,700 applications were received with
funding requests totaling about $21 billion. Funding awards for 42
capital projects totaling nearly $557 million were announced on October
20, 2010. Grant announcements ranged from $1.01 million to $47.6
million for individual capital projects, with an average award size of
approximately $13.25 million; the median award amount was $10.5
million. Additionally, funding for 33 planning projects totaling nearly
$28 million was announced on October 20, 2010. TIGER II Planning Grant
announcements ranged from $85 thousand to $2.8 million for individual
projects, with an average award size of approximately $835 thousand;
the median award size was $720 thousand. Fourteen TIGER II Planning
Grant recipients received HUD Sustainable Community Challenge Grants
that were also announced on October 20, 2010. Projects were selected
for funding based on their alignment with the selection criteria
specified in the June 1, 2010, Federal Register notice for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program.
On April 15, 2011, the President signed the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act. This Act appropriated $526.944 million to DOT for
National Infrastructure Investments using language that is similar, but
not identical to the language in the FY 2010 Appropriations Act
authorizing the TIGER II Discretionary Grants. DOT is referring to
these grants for National Infrastructure Investments as TIGER
Discretionary Grants.
The most significant difference between the 2010 and 2011
appropriations is that there is no funding available for TIGER Planning
Grants in the 2011 Act.
Section 1101 of the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, Title
I--General Provisions, states that the appropriations are for such
amounts as may be necessary, at the level specified and under the
authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2010, for projects or activities for which appropriations,
funds, or other authority were made available under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117). Because of this general
provision in the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, DOT is applying
the authority and conditions outlined in the following section.
FY 2011 TIGER Discretionary Grants
Like the TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grants, this year's TIGER
Discretionary Grants are for capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure and are to be awarded on a competitive
basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region. Key requirements of the TIGER
Discretionary Grant program are summarized below, and material
differences from the previous TIGER Discretionary Grant programs are
highlighted.
``Eligible Applicants'' for TIGER Discretionary Grants are State,
local, and Tribal governments, including U.S. territories, Tribal
governments, transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), other political subdivisions of State or local
governments, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups applying
through a single lead applicant (for multi-jurisdictional groups, each
member of the group, including the lead applicant, must be an otherwise
eligible applicant as defined in this paragraph).
Projects that are eligible for TIGER Discretionary Grants under the
FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act (``Eligible Projects'') include,
but are not limited to: (1) Highway or bridge projects eligible under
title 23, United States Code; (2) public transportation projects
eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code; (3)
passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and (4) port
infrastructure investments. Federal wage rate requirements included in
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, apply to
all projects receiving funds. This
[[Page 50291]]
description of Eligible Projects is identical to the description of
eligible projects under the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consistent with the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act,
DOT will apply the following principles in determining whether a
project is eligible as a capital investment in surface
transportation: (1) Surface transportation facilities generally
include roads, highways and bridges, ports, freight and passenger
railroads, transit systems, and projects that connect transportation
facilities to other modes of transportation; and (2) surface
transportation facilities also include any highway or bridge project
eligible under title 23, U.S.C., or public transportation project
eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, U.S.C. Please note that the
Department may use a TIGER Discretionary Grant to pay for the
surface transportation components of a broader project that has non-
surface transportation components, and applicants are encouraged to
apply for TIGER Discretionary Grants to pay for the surface
transportation components of these projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, while in the past applicants could submit as many
applications as they wished, for the Fiscal Year 2011 TIGER
Discretionary Grant Program, to help ensure that applicants submit only
those applications that are most likely to align well with DOT's
selection criteria, each applicant may submit no more than three
applications for consideration. While applications may include requests
to fund more than one project, applicants should not bundle together
unrelated projects in the same application for purposes of avoiding the
three application limit that applies to each applicant. Please note
that the three application limit applies only to applications where the
applicant is the lead applicant, and there is no limit on applications
for which an applicant can be listed as a partnering agency. Also, DOT
will not count any application for a multistate project against the
three application limit to the extent multiple states are partnering to
submit the application.
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act requires a new
solicitation of applications and, therefore, any unsuccessful applicant
for a TIGER or TIGER II Discretionary Grant that wishes to be
considered for a TIGER Discretionary Grant this year must reapply
according to the procedures in this notice. Additionally, TIGER II
planning grant recipients must reapply to be considered for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant for capital funding, if they meet the eligibility
criteria and schedule requirements for TIGER and are ready to proceed
to the construction phase of the project.
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act specifies that TIGER
Discretionary Grants may be not less than $10 million (except in rural
areas) and not greater than $200 million. Based on DOT's experience
with the TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs, it is
unlikely that the $200 million maximum grant size for this year's TIGER
Discretionary Grant program will be reached for any project. The FY
2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, like the FY 2010 Appropriations
Act, does not provide authority to waive the minimum $10 million grant
size for TIGER Discretionary Grants. For projects located in rural
areas (as defined in section V (Projects in Rural Areas)), the minimum
TIGER Discretionary Grant size is $1 million, as it was in the FY 2010
Appropriations Act. The term ``grant'' in the provision of the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act specifying a minimum grant size does not
include TIGER TIFIA Payments, as defined below.
Pursuant to the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, no more than
25 percent of the funds made available for TIGER Discretionary Grants
(or $131.736 million) may be awarded to projects in a single State.
This maximum State share is consistent with the maximum State share
under the TIGER II Discretionary Grants program. The comparable figure
for TIGER II Discretionary Grants was also 25 percent (or $150
million).
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act directs that not less
than $140 million of the funds provided for TIGER Discretionary Grants
is to be used for projects located in rural areas. The comparable
amount set aside for rural areas under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act
was also $140 million. In awarding TIGER Discretionary Grants pursuant
to the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, DOT must take measures to
ensure an equitable geographic distribution of grant funds, an
appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas
and the investment in a variety of transportation modes. The FY 2010
Appropriations Act included the same provisions for the TIGER II
Discretionary Grant program.
TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used for up to 80 percent of the
costs of a project, but priority must be given to projects for which
Federal funding is required to complete an overall financing package
and projects can increase their competitiveness by demonstrating
significant non-Federal contributions.\2\ The FY 2010 Appropriations
Act included the same priority for TIGER II Discretionary Grants. Once
again for this year's TIGER Discretionary Grants, DOT may increase the
Federal share above 80 percent only for projects located in rural
areas, in which case DOT may fund up to 100 percent of the costs of a
project. Therefore, for projects not located in rural areas, based on
the statutory requirements of at least 20 percent non-Federal cost
share and a minimum grant size of $10 million, the minimum total
project size for an eligible project is $12.5 million (where the
minimum $10 million TIGER Discretionary Grant request represents 80
percent of the total project cost). The minimum total project size for
an eligible project in a rural area is 1 million (where the entire
project cost is funded with a TIGER Discretionary Grant). However, the
statutory requirement to give priority to projects that use Federal
funds to complete an overall financing package applies to projects
located in rural areas as well, and projects located in rural areas can
increase their competitiveness for purposes of the TIGER program by
demonstrating significant non-Federal financial contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOT will consider any non-Federal funds for purposes of
meeting the 20 percent match requirement, whether such funds are
contributed by the public sector (State or local) or the private
sector; however, DOT will not consider funds already expended at the
time of the award for purposes of meeting the 20 percent match
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Recovery Act required DOT to give priority to projects that
were expected to be completed by February 17, 2012. Like the FY 2010
Appropriations Act, the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act does not
include any similar requirements for the TIGER Discretionary Grants,
although this year's TIGER funds are only available for obligation
through September 30, 2013. The limited amount of time for which the
funds will be made available means that DOT will consider the extent to
which a project is ready to proceed with obligation of grant funds when
evaluating applications.
The Recovery Act emphasized the generation of near-term economic
effects from expenditures on project costs, such as construction job
creation. However, the FY 2010 and FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations
Acts do not include explicit emphasis on job creation and instead focus
more broadly on the impact of projects on the Nation, a metropolitan
area, or a region including the medium- and long-term benefits that
would accrue post-project completion. Therefore, in all cases, TIGER
Discretionary Grant applications will need to be competitive on the
merits of the medium- to long-term impacts of the projects themselves,
as demonstrated by a project's alignment with the Long-
[[Page 50292]]
Term Outcomes selection criterion described in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria) below. However, because communities nationwide continue to
face difficult economic circumstances, including high unemployment, DOT
will also continue to incorporate near-term impacts like job creation
in its evaluation of TIGER applications, as demonstrated by a project's
alignment with the Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity selection
criterion described in Section II(A) below. Consideration of near-term
benefits will apply particularly in the case of projects that will
employ people in Economically Distressed Areas as discussed in more
detail in Section II(A) below.
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act allows for an amount not
to exceed $150 million of the $526.944 million to be used to pay the
subsidy and administrative costs of the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (``TIFIA'') program, a Federal
credit assistance program, if it would further the purposes of the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program. DOT is referring to these payments
as ``TIGER TIFIA Payments.'' The FY 2010 Appropriations Act also
authorized DOT to use up to $150 million of the amount available for
TIGER II Discretionary Grants for similar purposes.
Based on the subsidy amounts required for projects in the TIFIA
program's existing portfolio, DOT estimates that $150 million of TIGER
TIFIA Payments could support approximately $1.5 billion in TIFIA credit
assistance. The amount of budget authority required to support TIFIA
credit assistance is calculated on a project-by-project basis.
Applicants for TIGER TIFIA Payments should submit an application
pursuant to this notice and a separate TIFIA letter of interest, as
described below in Section VI (TIGER TIFIA Payments). Unless otherwise
noted, or the context requires otherwise, references in this notice to
TIGER Discretionary Grants include TIGER TIFIA Payments.
DOT reserves the right to offer a TIGER TIFIA Payment to an
applicant that applied for a TIGER Discretionary Grant even if DOT does
not choose to fund the requested TIGER Discretionary Grant and the
applicant did not specifically request a TIGER TIFIA Payment.
Therefore, as described below in Section VI (TIGER TIFIA Payments),
applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants, particularly applicants that
require a substantial amount of funds to complete a financing package,
should indicate whether or not they have considered applying for a
TIGER TIFIA Payment. To the extent an applicant thinks that TIFIA may
be a viable option for the project, applicants should provide a brief
description of a project finance plan that includes TIFIA credit
assistance and identifies a source of revenue which may be available to
support the TIFIA credit assistance.
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act provides that the
Secretary of Transportation may retain up to $25 million of the
$526.944 million to fund the award and oversight of TIGER Discretionary
Grants. Portions of the $25 million may be transferred for these
purposes to the Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the Federal Maritime Administration.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit applications for TIGER
Discretionary Grants.
TIGER Discretionary Grants
II. Selection Criteria and Guidance on Application of Selection
Criteria
This section specifies the criteria that DOT will use to evaluate
applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants. The criteria incorporate
the statutory eligibility requirements for this program, which are
specified in this notice as relevant. This section is divided into two
parts. Part A (Selection Criteria) specifies the criteria that DOT will
use to rate projects. Additional guidance about how DOT will apply
these criteria, including illustrative metrics and examples, is
provided in Part B (Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria).
A. Selection Criteria
TIGER Discretionary Grants will be awarded based on the selection
criteria as outlined below. There are two categories of selection
criteria, ``Primary Selection Criteria'' and ``Secondary Selection
Criteria.''
The Primary Selection Criteria include (1) Long-Term Outcomes and
(2) Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity. The Secondary Selection
Criteria include (1) Innovation and (2) Partnership. The Primary
Selection Criteria are intended to capture the primary objective of the
TIGER provisions of the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, which is
to invest in infrastructure projects that will have a significant
impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The Secondary
Selection Criteria are intended to capture the benefits of new and/or
innovative approaches to achieving this programmatic objective.
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 life-cycle costs.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: Contributing to the economic
competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-term.
(iii) Livability: Fostering livable communities through place-based
policies and investments that increase transportation choices and
access to transportation services for people in communities across the
United States.
(iv) Environmental Sustainability: Improving energy efficiency,
reducing dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
benefitting the environment.
(v) Safety: Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities
and systems.
(b) Job Creation and Near-Term Economic Activity
While the TIGER Discretionary Grant program is not a Recovery Act
program, job creation and near-term economic activity remain a top
priority of this Administration; therefore, DOT will give priority (as
it did for the TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs) to
projects that are expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and
promote rapid increases in economic activity, particularly jobs and
activity that benefit economically distressed areas as defined by
section 301 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 3161) (``Economically Distressed Areas'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While Economically Distressed Areas are typically identified
under the Public Works and Economic Development Act at the county
level, for the purposes of this program DOT will consider regions,
municipalities, smaller areas within larger communities, or other
geographic areas to be Economically Distressed Areas if an applicant
can demonstrate that any such area otherwise meets the requirements
of an Economically Distressed Area as defined in section 301 of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50293]]
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
DOT will give priority to projects that use innovative strategies
to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined above.
(b) Partnership
DOT will give priority to projects that demonstrate strong
collaboration among a broad range of participants and/or integration of
transportation with other public service efforts.
B. Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria
The following additional guidance explains how DOT will evaluate
each of the selection criteria identified above in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria). Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate the
responsiveness of a project to any and all of the selection criteria
with the most relevant information that applicants can provide,
regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested,
or identified, in this notice. Any such information shall be considered
part of the application, not supplemental, for purposes of the
application size limits specified below in Section VII(D) (Length of
Application).
1. Primary Selection Criteria
(a) Long-Term Outcomes
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess the public benefits generated by the project, as measured
by the extent to which a project produces one or more of the following
outcomes.
(i) State of Good Repair: In order to determine whether the project
will improve the condition of existing transportation facilities or
systems, including whether life-cycle costs will be minimized, DOT will
assess (i) whether the project is part of, or consistent with, relevant
State, local or regional efforts and plans to maintain transportation
facilities or systems in a state of good repair, (ii) whether an
important aim of the project is to rehabilitate, reconstruct or upgrade
surface transportation assets that, if left unimproved, threaten future
transportation network efficiency, mobility of goods or people, or
economic growth due to their poor condition, (iii) whether the project
is appropriately capitalized up front and uses asset management
approaches that optimize its long-term cost structure, and (iv) the
extent to which a sustainable source of revenue is available for long-
term operations and maintenance of the project. The application should
include any quantifiable metrics of the facility or system's current
condition and performance and, to the extent possible, projected
condition and performance, with an explanation of how the project will
improve the facility or system's condition, performance and/or long-
term cost structure, including calculations of avoided operations and
maintenance costs and associated delays.
(ii) Economic Competitiveness: In order to determine whether a
project promotes the economic competitiveness of the United States, DOT
will assess whether the project will measurably contribute over the
long term to growth in the productivity of the American economy. For
purposes of aligning a project with this outcome, applicants should
provide evidence of how improvements in transportation outcomes (such
as time savings and operating cost savings) translate into long-term
economic productivity benefits. These long-term economic benefits that
are provided by the completed project are different from the near-term
economic benefits of construction that are captured in the Job Creation
& Near-Term Economic Activity criterion. In weighing long-term economic
competitiveness benefits, applicants should describe how the project
supports increased long-term efficiency and productivity.
Priority consideration will be given to projects that: (i) Improve
long-term efficiency, reliability or cost-competitiveness in the
movement of workers or goods (including, but not limited to, projects
that have a significant effect on reducing the costs of transporting
export cargoes), or (ii) make improvements that increase the economic
productivity of land, capital or labor at specific locations,
particularly Economically Distressed Areas. Applicants may propose
other methods of demonstrating a project's contribution to the economic
competitiveness of the country and such methods will be reviewed on a
case-by-case 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 benefits, applicants should
estimate National-level or region-wide economic benefits on
productivity and production (e.g., reduced shipping costs or travel
times for U.S. exports originating both inside and outside of the
region), and should net out those benefits most likely to result in
transfers of economic activity from one localized area to another.
Therefore, in estimating local and regional benefits, applicants should
consider net increases in economic productivity and benefits, and
should take care not to include economic benefits that are being
shifted from one location in the United States to another location.
Highly localized benefits will receive the most consideration under
circumstances where such benefits are most likely to improve an
Economically Distressed Area (as defined herein) or otherwise improve
access to more productive employment opportunities for under-employed
and disadvantaged populations.
Finally, the TIGER program strives to promote long-term economic
growth in a manner that will be sustainable for generations to come.
Therefore, for projects designed to enhance economic competitiveness,
applicants should also provide evidence that the project will achieve
the goals of this outcome in an environmentally sustainable manner. To
satisfy this condition, applicants should reference the fourth
criterion in this Section II(B) ``Environmental Sustainability'' for
more information on what features promote sustainable growth and be
sure to address the extent to which sustainability features are
incorporated into the proposed project's economic impact.
(iii) Livability: Livability investments are projects that not only
deliver transportation benefits, but are also designed and planned in
such a way that they have a positive impact on qualitative measures of
community life. This element of long-term outcomes delivers benefits
that are inherently difficult to measure. However, it is implicit to
livability that its benefits are shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected community. Therefore,
descriptions of how projects enhance livability should include a
description of the affected community and the scale of the project's
impact as measured in person-miles traveled or number of trips
affected. In order to determine whether a project improves the quality
of the living and working environment of a community, DOT will consider
whether the project furthers the six livability principles developed by
DOT with HUD and EPA
[[Page 50294]]
as part of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which are
listed fully at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm. For this
criterion, the Department will give particular consideration to the
first principle, which prioritizes the creation of affordable and
convenient transportation choices.\4\ Specifically, DOT will
qualitatively assess whether the project:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In full, this principle reads: ``Provide more transportation
choices. Develop safe, reliable and economical transportation
choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our
nations' dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and promote public health.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 transportation-related crashes,
injuries, and fatalities among drivers and/or non-drivers in the United
States or in the affected metropolitan area or region, and/or the
project's contribution to the elimination of highway/rail grade
crossings, the protection of pipelines, or the prevention of unintended
release of hazardous materials.
Evaluation of Expected Project Costs and Benefits: DOT believes
that benefit-cost analysis (``BCA''), including the monetization and
discounting of costs and benefits in a common unit of measurement in
present-day dollars, is an important discipline. For BCA to yield
useful results, full consideration of costs and benefits is necessary.
These include traditionally quantified fuel and travel time savings as
well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water quality impacts,
public health effects, and other costs and benefits that are more
indirectly related to vehicle-miles or that are harder to measure. In
addition, BCA should attempt to measure the indirect effects of
transportation investments on land use and on the portions of household
budgets spent on transportation. The systematic process of comparing
expected benefits and costs helps decision-makers organize information
about, and evaluate trade-offs between, alternative transportation
investments. DOT has a responsibility under Executive Order 12893,
Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments, 59 FR 4233, to base
infrastructure investments on systematic analysis of expected benefits
and costs, including both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Therefore, applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants are generally
required to identify, quantify, and compare expected benefits and
costs, subject to the following qualifications:
All applicants will be expected to prepare an analysis of benefits
and costs; however, DOT understands that the level of expense that can
be expected in these analyses for surveys, travel demand forecasts,
market forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on will be less for
smaller projects than for larger projects. The level of resources
devoted to preparing the benefit-cost analysis should be reasonably
related to the size of the overall project and the amount of grant
funds requested in the application. Any subjective estimates of
benefits and costs should still be quantified, and applicants are
expected to provide whatever evidence they have available to lend
credence to their subjective estimates. Estimates of benefits should be
presented in monetary terms whenever possible; if a monetary estimate
is not possible, then at least a quantitative estimate (in physical,
non-monetary terms, such as ridership estimates, emissions levels,
etc.) should be provided.
The lack of a useful analysis of expected project benefits and
costs may be the basis for denying an award of a TIGER Discretionary
Grant to an applicant. If it is clear to DOT that the total benefits of
a project are not reasonably likely to outweigh the project's costs,
DOT will not award a TIGER Discretionary Grant to the project.
Consistent with the broader goals of DOT and the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, DOT can consider some factors that do not readily
lend themselves to quantification or monetization, including equitable
geographic distribution of grant funds and an appropriate balance in
addressing the needs of urban and rural areas and investment in a
variety of transportation modes.
Detailed guidance for the preparation of benefit-cost analyses is
provided in Appendix A. Benefits should be presented, whenever
possible, in a tabular form showing benefits and costs in each year for
the useful life of the project. Benefits and costs should both be
discounted to the year 2011, and present discounted values of both the
stream of benefits and the stream of costs should be calculated. If the
project has multiple parts, each of which has independent utility, the
benefits and costs of each part should be estimated and presented
separately. A project component has independent utility if the
component itself could qualify as an
[[Page 50295]]
Eligible Project and would provide benefits that satisfy the selection
criteria specified in this notice, as described further in Section
III(B) (Evaluation of Eligibility) below. The results of the benefit-
cost analysis should be summarized in the Project Narrative section of
the application itself, but the details may be presented in an
attachment to the application.
DOT recognizes that some categories of costs and benefits are more
difficult to quantify or monetize than others. In presenting benefit-
cost analyses, applicants should include qualitative discussion of the
categories of benefits and costs that they were not able to quantify,
noting that these benefits and costs are in addition to other benefits
and costs that were quantified. However, in the event of an
unreasonable absence of data and analysis, or poor applicant effort to
put forth a robust quantification of benefits and costs, the
application is unlikely to receive further consideration. In general,
the lack of a useful analysis comparing benefits and costs for any such
project is ground for denying the award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.
Evaluation of Project Performance: Each applicant selected for
TIGER Discretionary Grant funding will be required to work with DOT on
the development and implementation of a plan to collect information and
report on the project's performance with respect to the relevant long-
term outcomes that are expected to be achieved through construction of
the project.
(b) Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess whether the project promotes the short- or long-term
creation or preservation of jobs and whether the project rapidly
promotes new or expanded business opportunities during construction of
the project or thereafter. Demonstration of a project's rapid economic
impact is critical to a project's alignment with this criterion.
Applicants are encouraged to provide information to assist DOT in
making these assessments, including the total amount of funds that will
be expended on construction and construction-related activities by all
of the entities participating in the project and, to the extent
measurable, the number and type of jobs to be created and/or preserved
by the project by calendar quarters during construction and annually
thereafter. Applicants should also identify any business enterprises to
be created or benefited by the project during its construction and once
it becomes operational.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic
Advisers, issued a memorandum in May 2009 on ``Estimates of Job
Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.''
The memorandum is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/Estimate-of-Job-Creation/. Table 5 of this
memorandum provides a simple rule for estimating job-years created
by government spending, which is that $92,000 of government spending
creates one job-year. Of this, 64% of the job-year estimate
represents direct and indirect effects and 36% of the job-year
estimate represents induced effects. Applicants can use this
estimate as an appropriate indicator of direct, indirect and induced
job-years created by TIGER Discretionary Grant spending, but are
encouraged to supplement or modify this estimate to the extent they
can demonstrate that such modifications are justified. However,
since the May 2009 memorandum makes job creation purely a function
of the level of expenditure, applicants should also demonstrate how
quickly jobs will be created under the proposed project. Projects
that generate a given number of jobs more quickly will have a more
favorable impact on economic recovery. A quarter-by-quarter
projection of the number of direct job-hours expected to be created
by the project is useful in assessing the impacts of a project on
economic recovery. Furthermore, applicants should be aware that
certain types of expenditures are less likely to align well with the
Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity criterion. These types of
expenditures include, among other things, engineering or design work
and purchasing existing facilities or right-of-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the Recovery Act, the Updated Implementing Guidance
for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') on April 3, 2009 (the ``OMB
Guidance''), which were applied both to TIGER I and TIGER II, and which
DOT will continue to apply to the TIGER Discretionary Grants program as
a matter of policy, and consistent with applicable Federal laws,
applicants are encouraged to provide information to assist DOT in
assessing (1) whether the project will promote the creation of job
opportunities for low-income workers through the use of best practice
hiring programs and apprenticeship (including pre-apprenticeship)
programs; (2) whether the project will provide maximum practicable
opportunities for small businesses and disadvantaged business
enterprises, including 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 grant funding.
To the extent possible, applicants should indicate whether the
populations most likely to benefit from the creation or preservation of
jobs or new or expanded business opportunities are from Economically
Distressed Areas. In addition, to the extent possible, applicants
should indicate whether the project's procurement plan is likely to
create follow-on jobs and near-term economic activity for manufacturers
and suppliers that support the construction industry. A key
consideration in assessing projects under this criterion will be how
quickly jobs are created.
In evaluating a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT will
assess whether a project is ready to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a
TIGER Discretionary Grant (see Appendix C: Additional Information on
Project Readiness Guidelines for further details), as evidenced by:
(i) Project Schedule: A feasible and sufficiently detailed project
schedule demonstrating that the project can begin construction quickly
upon receipt of a TIGER Discretionary Grant,\6\ and that the grant
funds will be spent steadily and expeditiously once construction
starts; the schedule should show how many direct, on-project jobs are
expected to be created or sustained during each calendar quarter after
the project is underway;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Applicants should demonstrate that their project can
obligate grant funds no later than June 30, 2013 in order give DOT
comfort that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are likely to be
obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013 statutory deadline,
and that any unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds at risk of expiring before they are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Environmental Approvals: Receipt (or reasonably anticipated
receipt) of all environmental approvals necessary for the project to
proceed to construction on the timeline specified in the project
schedule, including satisfaction of all Federal, State and local
requirements and completion of the National Environmental Policy Act
(``NEPA'') process;
To demonstrate satisfaction of this requirement, applicants should
provide assurances with their pre-applications and evidence with their
applications that NEPA review is complete or substantially complete and
submit relevant draft or final NEPA documentation--preferably by way of
a Web site link--for DOT review. DOT is unlikely to select a project
for TIGER Discretionary Grant funding if it involves, or potentially
involves,
[[Page 50296]]
significant environmental impacts and has not begun or has not
substantially completed required environmental and regulatory reviews.
For such projects that have not begun, or have not substantially
completed these reviews, it may be difficult to complete environmental
and regulatory review as well as all activities needed to be complete
prior to construction and meet the obligation deadline of September 30,
2013.
DOT will consider exceptions to the requirement that NEPA be
substantially complete upon application in accordance with this
paragraph. If an applicant has not substantially completed the NEPA
process the applicant should provide information on the project's
current status in the NEPA process and an estimate of the latest date
that the NEPA process is reasonably expected to be completed. If an
applicant has not initiated the NEPA process the applicant must provide
a reasonable justification for why the NEPA process has not yet been
initiated as of the date of this notice, and an assurance that the
necessary environmental reviews can be completed with enough time for
any post-NEPA, pre-obligation activities to be completed by June 30,
2013, in order to give DOT comfort that all of the TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds are likely to be obligated in advance of the September 30,
2013 statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can be
obligated (see Appendix C for additional guidance). An example of a
reasonable justification for why an applicant has not initiated NEPA
review would be if, prior to the availability of TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds, there were no reasonable expectations of receiving Federal
funding for the project. A project selected for award that has not
completed the NEPA process may not be permitted to use grant funds for
construction and related activities until NEPA is complete and all
other necessary environmental approvals have been received.
An applicant seeking to justify an exception to this requirement
should submit the information listed below with its application:
a. The information required under Sections VII(C)(2)(V) and VII(F)-
(G) (Contents of Applications) of this notice;
b. Environmental studies or other documents--preferably by way of a
Web site link--that describe in detail known potential project impacts,
and possible mitigation for those impacts;
c. A description of completed, or planned and anticipated
coordination with Federal and State regulatory agencies for permits and
approvals;
d. An estimate of the time required for completion of NEPA and all
other required Federal, State or local environmental approvals; and
e. An identification of the proposed NEPA class of action (i.e.,
Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or Environmental
Impact Statement).
(iii) Legislative Approvals: Receipt of all necessary legislative
approvals (for example, legislative authority to charge user fees or
set toll rates), and evidence of support from State and local elected
officials; evidence of support from all relevant State and local
officials is not required, however, the evidence should demonstrate
that the project is broadly supported;
(iv) State and Local Planning: The planning requirements of the
operating administration administering the TIGER project will apply.\7\
Where required by an operating administration, a project should
demonstrate that a project is included in the relevant State,
metropolitan, and local planning documents, or will be included. To
demonstrate satisfaction of this requirement, applicants should provide
evidence that the project is included in the relevant planning
documents. One way applicants may do this is by providing a link to a
Web site showing the planning documents. If the project is not included
in the relevant planning documents at the time the application is
submitted, applicants should submit a certification from the
appropriate planning agency that actions are underway at the time of
the application to include the project in the relevant planning
document. The applicant should provide a schedule demonstrating when
the project will be added to the relevant planning documents; any
applicant that is applying for a TIGER Discretionary Grant and does not
own all of the property or right-of-way required to complete the
project should provide evidence that the property and/or right-of-way
owner whose permission is required to complete the project supports the
application and will cooperate in carrying out the activities to be
supported by the TIGER Discretionary Grant;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ All regionally significant projects requiring an action by
the FHWA or the FTA must be in the metropolitan transportation plan,
TIP and STIP. Further, in air quality non-attainment and maintenance
areas, all regionally significant projects, regardless of the
funding source, must be included in the conforming metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP. To the extent a project is required to
be on a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and/or STIP it will
not receive a TIGER Discretionary Grant until it is included in such
plans. Projects not currently included in these plans can be amended
in by the State and MPO. Projects that are not required to be in
long range transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs will not need to be
included in such plans in order to receive a TIGER Discretionary
Grant. Freight and passenger rail projects are not required to be on
the State Rail Plans called for in the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008. This is consistent with the exemption for
high speed and intercity passenger rail projects under the Recovery
Act. However, applicants seeking funding for freight and passenger
rail projects are encouraged to demonstrate that they have done
sufficient planning to ensure that projects fit into a prioritized
list of capital needs and are consistent with long-range goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Technical Feasibility: The technical feasibility of the
project, as indicated by previously performed and/or ongoing
engineering and design studies and activities; the development of
design criteria and/or a basis of design; the basis for the cost
estimate presented in the TIGER application, including the
identification of contingency levels appropriate to its level of
design; and any scope, schedule, and budget risk-mitigation measures.
For projects generating ongoing operating expenses, an estimate of
those expenses and a basis for the estimate. Technical feasibility also
includes the technical capacity of the project sponsor, including a
staffing and management plan, demonstrated experience in successfully
implementing (on-time and on-budget) similar capital investments, and
other indications of sponsor and partner technical capacity to
construct the project.; and
(vi) Financial Feasibility: The viability and completeness of the
project's financing package (assuming the availability of the requested
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds), including evidence of stable and
reliable capital and (as appropriate) operating revenue commitments
sufficient to cover estimated costs; the availability of contingency
reserves should planned capital or operating revenue sources not
materialize; evidence of the financial condition of the project
sponsor; and evidence of the grant recipient's ability to manage
grants.
DOT reserves the right to revoke any award of TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds and to award such funds to another project to the extent
that such funds are not timely expended and/or construction does not
begin in accordance with the project schedule. Because projects have
different schedules DOT will consider on a case-by-case basis how much
time after selection for award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant each
project has before funds must be obligated (consistent with law) and
construction started. This deadline will be specified
[[Page 50297]]
for each TIGER Discretionary Grant in the project-specific grant
agreements signed by the grant recipients and will be based on critical
path items identified by applicants in response to items (i) through
(vi) above, but all deadlines will reflect DOT's preference that pre-
conditions be complete and TIGER Discretionary Grants funds obligated
on or before June 30, 2013 in order to give DOT comfort that all TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds will be obligated before the statutory
deadline of September 30, 2013. For example, if an applicant reasonably
anticipates that NEPA requirements will be completed and a final
decision made within 30 to 60 days of announcement of the award of a
TIGER Discretionary Grant, this timeframe will be taken into account in
evaluating the application, but also in establishing a deadline for
obligation of funds and commencement of construction. By statute, DOT's
ability to obligate funds for TIGER Discretionary Grants expires on
September 30, 2013 and DOT has no authority to extend the deadline.
2. Secondary Selection Criteria
(a) Innovation
In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT
will assess the extent to which the project uses innovative technology
(including, for example, intelligent transportation systems, dynamic
pricing, rail wayside or on-board energy recovery, smart cards, real-
time dispatching, active traffic management, radio frequency
identification (RFID), or others) to pursue one or more of the long-
term outcomes outlined above and/or to significantly enhance the
operational performance of the transportation system. DOT will also
assess the extent to which the project incorporates innovations that
demonstrate the value of new approaches to, among other things,
transportation funding and finance, contracting, project delivery,
congestion management, safety management, asset management, or long-
term operations and maintenance. The applicant should clearly
demonstrate that the innovation is designed to pursue one or more of
the long-term outcomes outlined above and/or significantly enhance the
transportation system.
Innovative, multi-modal projects are often difficult to fund under
traditional transportation programs. DOT will consider the extent to
which innovative projects might be difficult to fund under other
programs and will give priority to projects that align well with the
Primary Selection Criteria but are unlikely to receive funding under
traditional programs.
(b) Partnership
(i) Jurisdictional & Stakeholder Collaboration: In order to measure
a project's alignment with this criterion, DOT will assess the
project's involvement of non-Federal entities and the use of non-
Federal funds, including the scope of involvement and share of total
funding. DOT will give priority to projects that receive financial
commitments from, or otherwise involve, State and local governments,
other public entities, or private or nonprofit entities, including
projects that engage parties that are not traditionally involved in
transportation projects, such as nonprofit community groups. Pursuant
to the OMB Guidance, DOT will give priority to projects that make
effective use of community-based organizations in connecting
disadvantaged people with economic opportunities. Letters of commitment
and other supporting documentation showing existing or confirmed
collaboration, partnerships, etc., should be provided (preferably
through a Web site link) to demonstrate alignment with this criterion.
In compliance with the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act, DOT
will give priority to projects for which a TIGER Discretionary Grant
will help to complete an overall financing package. An applicant should
clearly demonstrate in the application the extent to which the project
cannot be readily and efficiently completed without Federal assistance,
and the extent to which other sources of Federal assistance are or are
not readily available for the project. DOT will assess the amount of
private debt and equity to be invested in the project or the amount of
co-investment from State, local or other non-profit sources.
DOT will also assess the extent to which the project application
demonstrates collaboration among neighboring or regional jurisdictions
to achieve National, regional or metropolitan benefits. Multiple States
or jurisdictions may submit a joint application and should identify a
lead State or jurisdiction as the primary point of contact. Where
multiple States or jurisdictions are submitting a joint application,
the application should demonstrate how the project costs are
apportioned between the States or jurisdictions to assist DOT in making
the distributional determinations described below in Section III(C)
(Distribution of Funds).
(ii) Disciplinary Integration: In order to demonstrate the value of
partnerships across government agencies that serve various public
service missions and to promote collaboration on the objectives
outlined in this notice, DOT will give priority to projects that are
supported, financially or otherwise, by non-transportation public
agencies that are pursuing similar objectives. For example, DOT will
give priority to transportation projects that create more livable
communities and are supported by relevant public housing agencies or
are consistent with State or local efforts or plans to promote economic
development, revitalize communities, or protect historic or cultural
assets; similarly, DOT will give priority to transportation projects
that encourage energy efficiency or improve the environment and are
supported by relevant public agencies with energy or environmental
missions.
III. Evaluation and Selection Process
A. Evaluation Process
TIGER Discretionary Grant applications will be evaluated in
accordance with the below discussed 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 Pre-Application
Deadline. This evaluation team will be organized and led by the Office
of the Secretary and will include members from the relevant modal
administrations in DOT with the most experience and/or expertise in the
relevant project areas (the ``Cognizant Modal Administrations''). These
representatives will include technical and professional staff with
relevant experience and/or expertise. This evaluation team will be
responsible for analyzing whether the pre-application satisfies the
following key threshold requirements:
1. The project is an Eligible Project;
2. NEPA is complete or underway, as described above in Section
II(B)(2)(b)(ii) (Environmental Approvals);
3. The project is included in the relevant State, metropolitan, and
local planning documents, or will be included, if applicable;
4. The project expects to be ready to obligate all of the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds no later than June 30, 2013 \8\; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See footnote 7, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Local matching funds to support 20 percent or more of the costs
for the project are identified and committed.\9\
[[Page 50298]]
DOT will consider any non-Federal funds as a local match for purposes
of this program, whether such funds are contributed by the public
sector (State or local) or the private sector. However, DOT cannot
consider funds already expended as a local match. Furthermore, the 20
percent matching requirement for projects that are not in rural areas
is an eligibility requirement. All projects, whether in an urban or
rural area, can increase their competitiveness by demonstrating
significant non-Federal contributions in excess of the required local
match, and DOT will give priority, based on the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, to projects for which Federal funding is required
to complete an overall financing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For FHWA and FTA committed funds are defined as: ``Funds
that have been dedicated or obligated for transportation purposes''
as described in 23 CFR 450.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent the pre-application evaluation team determines that a
pre-application 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 pre-applications received.
DOT will not assign specific numerical scores to projects based on
the selection criteria outlined above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria). Rather, ratings of ``highly recommended,'' ``recommended,''
``not recommended'', or ``negative'' will be assigned to projects for
each of the selection criteria. DOT will award TIGER Discretionary
Grants to projects that are well-aligned with one or more of the
selection criteria, with projects that are well-aligned with multiple
selection criteria being more likely to receive TIGER Discretionary
Grants. In addition, DOT will consider whether a project has a negative
effect on any of the selection criteria, and any such negative effect
may reduce the likelihood that the project will receive a TIGER
Discretionary Grant. To the extent the initial evaluation process does
not sufficiently differentiate among highly rated projects, DOT will
use a similar rating process to re-assess the projects that were highly
rated and identify those that should be most highly rated.
DOT will give more weight to the two Primary Selection Criteria
(Long-Term Outcomes and Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity),
which will be weighted equally, than to the two Secondary Selection
Criteria (Innovation and Partnership) which will also be weighted
equally. Projects that are unable to demonstrate a likelihood of
significant long-term benefits in any of the five long-term outcomes
identified in Section II(A)(1)(a) (Long-Term Outcomes) will not proceed
in the evaluation process. A project need not be well aligned with each
of the long-term outcomes in order to be successful in the long-term
outcomes criterion overall. However, projects that are strongly aligned
with multiple long-term outcomes will be the most successful in this
criterion. Furthermore, a project that has a negative effect on safety
or environmental sustainability will need to demonstrate significant
merits in other long-term outcomes in order to be selected for funding.
For the Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity criterion,
projects need not receive a rating of ``highly recommended'' in order
to be recommended for funding, although a project that is not ready to
proceed quickly, as evidenced by the items requested in Section
II(B)(1)(b)(i)-(vi) (Project Schedule, Environmental Approvals,
Legislative Approvals, State and Local Planning, Technical Feasibility,
and Financial Feasibility), is less likely to be successful under this
criterion.
The following table summarizes the weighting of the selection
criteria, as described in the preceding paragraphs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Outcomes:.......... DOT will give more weight to this
criterion than to either of the
Secondary Selection Criteria. In
addition, this criterion has a minimum
threshold requirement. Projects that are
unable to demonstrate a likelihood of
significant long-term benefits in any of
the five long-term outcomes identified
in this criterion will not proceed in
the evaluation process.
Job Creation & Near-Term DOT will give more weight to this
Economic Activity. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovation & Partnership..... DOT will give less weight to these
criteria than to the Primary Selection
Criteria. These criteria will be
weighted equally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted below in Section III(C) (Distribution of Funds), upon
completion of this competitive rating process DOT will analyze the
preliminary list and determine whether the purely competitive ratings
are consistent with the distributional requirements of the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT will adjust the list
of recommended projects to satisfy the statutory distributional
requirements while remaining as consistent as possible with the
competitive ratings.
B. Evaluation of Eligibility
To be selected for a TIGER Discretionary Grant, a project must be
an Eligible Project and the applicant must be an Eligible Applicant.
DOT may consider one or more components of a large project to be an
Eligible Project, but only to the extent that the
[[Page 50299]]
components have independent utility, meaning the components themselves,
not the project of which they are a part, are Eligible Projects and
satisfy the selection criteria identified above in Section II(A)
(Selection Criteria). For these projects, the benefits described in an
application must be related to the components of the project for which
funding is requested, not the full project of which they are a part.
DOT will not fund individual phases of a project if the benefits of
completing only these phases would not align well with the selection
criteria specified in the Notice because the overall project would
still be incomplete.
To the extent that an application requests a substantial amount of
grant funds for a larger project or a group of related projects, DOT
reserves the right to award funds for a part of the project, not the
full project, if a part of the project has independent utility and
aligns well with the selection criteria specified in this notice. To
the extent applicants expect that DOT may wish to consider funding one
or more parts of a project and not the full project that is the subject
of the application, then applicants should clearly identify in their
applications the separate parts of the project and the benefits that
each part of the project provides, and how these benefits align with
the selection criteria. Similarly, if a project is not viable unless
DOT funds the full project, this should be stated in the application.
C. Distribution of Funds
As noted above in Section I (Background), the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act prohibits the award of more than 25 percent of the
funds made available under the TIGER program to projects in any one
State. The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act also requires that DOT
take measures to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds,
an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural
areas, and the investment in a variety of transportation modes. DOT
will apply an initial unconstrained competitive rating process based on
the selection criteria identified above in Section II(A) (Selection
Criteria) to determine a preliminary list of projects recommended for
TIGER Discretionary Grants. DOT will then analyze the preliminary list
and determine whether the purely competitive ratings are consistent
with the distributional requirements of the FY 2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act. If necessary, DOT will adjust the list of
recommended projects to satisfy the statutory distributional
requirements while remaining as consistent as possible with the
competitive ratings.
As noted above in Section II(B)(2)(b)(i) (Jurisdictional &
Stakeholder Collaboration), applications submitted jointly by multiple
Eligible Applicants must include an allocation of project costs to
assist DOT in making these determinations. In addition, DOT will use
the TIFIA subsidy and administrative cost estimate, not the principal
amount of credit assistance, to determine any TIGER TIFIA Payment's
effect on these distributional requirements.
D. Transparency of Process
In the interest of transparency, DOT will disclose as much of the
information related to its evaluation process as is practical and
consistent with law. DOT expects that the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program may be reviewed and/or audited by Congress, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, DOT's Inspector General, or others, and has
taken, and will continue to take steps to document its decision-making
process.
IV. Grant Administration
DOT expects that each TIGER Discretionary Grant will be
administered by one of the Cognizant Modal Administration, pursuant to
a grant agreement between the TIGER Discretionary Grant recipient and
the Cognizant Modal Administration. In accordance with the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, the Secretary has the discretion to
delegate such responsibilities to the appropriate operating
administration.
Applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations of the Cognizant
Modal Administration administering the project will apply to projects
that receive TIGER Discretionary Grants.
As noted above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation & Near-Term
Economic Activity), how soon after selection for award a project is
expected to obligate grant funds and start construction will be
considered on a case-by-case basis and will be specified in the
project-specific grant agreements. DOT reserves the right to revoke any
award of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds and to award such funds to
another project to the extent that such funds are not timely expended
and/or construction does not begin in accordance with the project
schedule. DOT's ability to obligate funds for TIGER Discretionary
Grants expires on September 30, 2013.
V. Projects in Rural Areas
The FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act directs that not less
than $140 million of the funds provided for TIGER Discretionary Grants
are to be used for projects in rural areas. For purposes of this
notice, DOT is generally defining ``rural area'' as any area not in an
Urbanized Area, as such term is defined by the Census Bureau,\10\ and
will consider a project to be in a rural area if all or the majority of
a project is located in a rural area. To the extent more than a de
minimis portion of a project is located in an Urbanized Area,
applicants should identify the estimated percentage of project costs
that will be spent in Urbanized Areas and the estimated percentage that
will be spent in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For Census 2000, the Census Bureau defined an Urbanized
Area (UA) as an area that consists of densely settled territory that
contains 50,000 or more people. Updated lists of UAs are available
on the Census Bureau Web site. Urban Clusters (UCs) will be
considered rural areas for purposes of the TIGER Discretionary Grant
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For projects located in rural areas the FY 2011 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 non-Federal sources of funds) and the
minimum grant size is $1 million. Applicants for TIGER Discretionary
Grants of between $1 million and $10 million for projects located in
rural areas are encouraged to apply and should address the same
criteria as applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants in excess of $10
million.
VI. TIGER TIFIA Payments
Up to $150 million of the $526.944 million available for TIGER
Discretionary Grants may be used for TIGER TIFIA Payments. Based on the
average subsidy cost of the existing TIFIA portfolio, $150 million in
TIGER TIFIA Payments could support approximately $1.5 billion in
Federal credit assistance.
Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA Payments should apply in accordance
with all of the criteria and guidance specified in this notice for
TIGER Discretionary Grant applications and will be evaluated
concurrently with all other applicants. Any applicant seeking a TIGER
TIFIA Payment is also required to submit a TIFIA letter of interest
concurrent with the TIGER TIFIA Payment application. If selected for a
TIGER TIFIA Payment, the applicant must comply with all of the TIFIA
program's standard application and approval requirements including
submission of a complete TIFIA application and $50,000 application fee
[[Page 50300]]
(the TIFIA program guide can be downloaded from http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Applicants should demonstrate that the TIFIA loan will be ready to
close on or before September 30, 2013, in accordance with the guidance
specified above in Section II(B)(1)(b) (Job Creation & Near-Term
Economic Activity). DOT's TIFIA Joint Program Office will assist DOT in
determining a project's readiness to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a
TIGER TIFIA Payment.
Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA Payments may also apply for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant for the same project and must indicate the type(s)
of funding for which they are applying clearly on the face of their
applications. An applicant for a TIGER TIFIA Payment must submit an
application pursuant to this notice for a TIGER TIFIA Payment even if
it does not wish to apply for a TIGER Discretionary Grant.
DOT reserves the right to offer a TIGER TIFIA Payment to an
applicant that applied for a TIGER Discretionary Grant even if DOT does
not choose to fund the requested TIGER Discretionary Grant request and
the applicant did not request a TIGER TIFIA Payment. Therefore,
applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants, particularly applicants that
require a substantial amount of funds to complete a financing package,
should indicate whether or not they have considered applying for a
TIGER TIFIA Payment. To the extent an applicant thinks that TIFIA may
be a viable option for the project, applicants should provide a brief
description of a project finance plan that includes TIFIA credit
assistance and identifies a source of revenue which may be available to
support the TIFIA credit assistance.
Unless otherwise expressly noted herein, any and all requirements
that apply to TIGER Discretionary Grants pursuant to the FY 2011
Continuing Appropriations Act, this notice, or otherwise, apply to
TIGER TIFIA Payments.
Pre-Application and Application Cycle
VII. Pre-Application and Application Cycle
A. Two Stages of Application Cycle
The application cycle for TIGER Discretionary Grants has two
stages:
1. Pre-Application: In Stage 1, applicants must submit a pre-
application form to the DOT. This step qualifies applicants to submit
an application in Stage 2. No application submitted during Stage 2 that
does not correlate with a properly completed Stage 1 pre-application
will be considered.
2. Application: In Stage 2, applicants must submit a complete
application package through Grants.gov. If an applicant is seeking a
TIGER TIFIA payment, applicants must submit electronically a TIFIA
letter of interest to the TIFIA office at [email protected]. TIFIA
letters of interest must comply with all of the program's standard
requirements (the TIFIA program guide can be downloaded from http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/).
Pre-applications must be submitted to DOT by the Pre-Application
Deadline, which is October 3, 2011, at 5 p.m. EST. Final applications
must be submitted through Grants.gov by the Application Deadline, which
is October 31, 2011, at 5 p.m. EST. The Grants.gov ``Apply'' function
will open on October 5, 2011, allowing applicants to submit
applications. While applicants are encouraged to submit pre-
applications in advance of the Pre-Application Deadline, pre-
applications will not be reviewed until after the Pre-Application
Deadline. Similarly, while applicants are encouraged to submit
applications in advance of the Application Deadline, applications will
not be evaluated, and selections for awards will not be made, until
after the Application Deadline.
Pre-applications (stage 1) must be submitted to the DOT. The pre-
application form will be available on the DOT Web site at http://www.dot.gov/TIGER on or before September 9, 2011, 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 www.grants.gov. Please be aware that the
registration process usually takes 2-4 weeks and must be completed
before an application can be submitted. If interested parties
experience difficulties at any point during the registration or
application process, please call the Grants.gov Customer Support
Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.
Additional information on applying through Grants.gov is available in
Appendix B, attached hereto.
To help ensure that applicants submit only those applications that
are most likely to align well with the department's selection criteria,
each applicant may submit no more than three applications for
consideration under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. While
applications may include requests to fund more than one project,
applicants should not bundle together unrelated projects in the same
application for purposes of avoiding the three application limit that
applies to each applicant. Please note that the three application limit
applies only to applications where the applicant is the lead applicant,
and there is no limit on applications for which an applicant can be
listed as a partnering agency. Also, DOT will not count any application
for a multistate project against the three application limit to the
extent multiple states are partnering to submit the application.
B. Contents of Pre-Applications
An applicant for a TIGER Discretionary Grant should provide all of
the information requested below in its pre-application form. DOT
reserves the right to ask any applicant to supplement the data in its
pre-application, but expects pre-applications 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/TIGER. 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. Information about the geographic location of the project for
mapping purposes using one of the following methods:
1. A geographic information system (GIS) file that indicates the
location of the project;
2. For locating point specific projects, latitude and longitude in
decimal degrees to an accuracy of 5 decimal places (e.g. 0.12345) using
the WGS 84 datum (the default datum used by Global Positioning System
(GPS) equipment; or
3. For linear projects on existing roads, route number (Interstate,
U.S. Route, or State Route) or road name and the latitude and longitude
in decimal
[[Page 50301]]
degrees to an accuracy of 5 decimal places (e.g. 0.12345) of the
beginning and ending points of the project;
viii. Project title (descriptive);
ix. Project type: Highway, transit, rail, port, multimodal, or
bicycle and pedestrian activity (if the project is a multimodal
project, the pre-application form will require that applicants provide
additional information identifying the affected modes);
x. Whether the project is requesting a TIGER TIFIA Payment;
xi. Project description (describe the project in plain English
terms that would be generally understood by the public, using no more
than 50 words (e.g. ``the project will replace the existing bridge over
the W river on interstate-X between the cities of Y and Z''; please do
not describe the project's benefits, background, or alignment with the
selection criteria in this description);
xii. Total cost of the project;
xiii. Total amount of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds requested;
xiv. Contact name, phone number, e-mail address, and physical
address for applicant;
xv. Congressional districts affected by the project;
xvi. Type of jurisdiction where the project is located (urban or
rural, as defined above in Section V (Projects in Rural Areas));
xvii. Whether or not the project is in an Economically Distressed
Area, as defined in Section II(A) (Selection Criteria);
xviii. An assurance that the NEPA and/or environmental review
process is complete, substantially complete, or in progress (and the
expected outcome of the process), unless an exception is justified
pursuant to Section II(B)(1)(b)(ii) (Environmental Approvals). Absent
an acceptable justification, DOT will not evaluate applications for
projects that have not made substantial progress in the environmental
review process, including all Federal, State, and local environmental
requirements, by the Pre-Application Deadline;
xix. The schedule for completing right-of-way acquisition and final
design; approval of plans, specifications, and estimates;
xx. The date that the project is expected to be ready for
obligation of grant funds, which should be no later than June 30, 2013
in order to give DOT comfort that the funds will be obligated before
they expire on September 30, 2013; and
xxi. An assurance that local matching funds to support 20 percent
or more of the costs of the project are identified and committed (as
noted in Section I (Background), this requirement does not apply to
projects located in rural areas (as defined above in Section V
(Projects in Rural Areas)), and these projects do not need to provide
this assurance); however, DOT will give priority to projects that also
will be funded with non-Federal sources of funds.
To the extent the pre-application does not provide adequate
assurances for items xvii through xxii, DOT will inform the project
sponsor that an application for the project will not be reviewed unless
the application submitted on or prior to the Application Deadline can
demonstrate that each requirement has been addressed.
C. Contents of Applications
An applicant for a TIGER Discretionary Grant must include all of
the information requested below in its application. DOT reserves the
right to ask any applicant to supplement the data in its application,
but expects applications to be complete upon submission. To the extent
practical, DOT encourages applicants to provide data and evidence of
project merits in a form that is publicly available or verifiable. For
TIGER TIFIA Payments, these requirements apply only to the applications
required under this notice; the standard TIFIA letter of interest and
loan application requirements, including the standard $50,000.00
application fee, are separately described in the Program Guide and
Application Form found at http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/.
1. Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance
Please see http://www07.grants.gov/assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for
instructions on how to complete the SF 424, which is part of the
standard Grants.gov submission. Additional clarifying guidance and FAQs
to assist applicants in completing the SF-424 will be available at
http://www.dot.gov/TIGER by September 16, 2011, when the ``Apply''
function within Grants.gov opens to accept applications under this
notice.
2. Project Narrative (Attachment to SF 424)
The project narrative must respond to the application requirements
outlined below. DOT recommends that the project narrative be prepared
with standard formatting preferences (e.g. a single-spaced document,
using a standard 12-point font, such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch
margins).
A TIGER Discretionary Grant application must include information
required for DOT to assess each of the criteria specified in Section
II(A) (Selection Criteria), as such criteria are explained in Section
II(B) (Additional Guidance on Selection Criteria). Applicants must
demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to any and all of the
selection criteria with the most relevant information that applicants
can provide, regardless of whether such information has been
specifically requested, or identified, in this notice. Applicants
should provide concrete evidence of project milestones, financial
capacity and commitment in order to support project readiness. Any such
information shall be considered part of the application, not
supplemental, for purposes of the application size limits identified
below in Part D (Length of Applications). Information provided pursuant
to this paragraph must be quantified, to the extent possible, to
describe the project's benefits to the Nation, a metropolitan area, or
a region. Information provided pursuant to this paragraph should
include projections for both the build and no-build 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
[[Page 50302]]
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, and the identity and percentage
shares of all parties providing funds for the project (including
Federal funds provided under other programs));
IV. Selection Criteria (information about how the project aligns
with each of the primary and secondary selection criteria and a
description of the results of the benefit-cost analysis):
a. Long-Term Outcomes
i. State of Good Repair
ii. Economic Competitiveness
iii. Livability
iv. Sustainability
v. Safety
b. Job Creation & Near-Term Economic Activity
c. Innovation
d. Partnership
e. Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis
V. Project Readiness and NEPA (information about how ready the
project is to move forward quickly, including information about the
project schedule, environmental approvals, legislative approvals,
state and local planning, technical feasibility, and financial
feasibility);
VI. Federal Wage Rate Certification (an application must include
a certification, signed by the applicant, stating that it will
comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title
40, United States Code (Federal wage rate requirements), as required
by the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act); and
VII. To the extent relevant, the final page of the application
should describe (in one page or less) any material changes that need
to be made to the pre-application form, including changes to the
assurances provided in items xvii through xxii regarding initiation
of NEPA, planning, and required cost sharing.
The purpose of this recommended format is to ensure that
applications are provided in a format that clearly addresses the
application requirements and makes critical information readily
apparent and easy to locate.
D. Length of Applications
The project narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length.
Documentation supporting the assertions made in the narrative portion
may also be provided, but should be limited to relevant information. If
possible, Web site links to supporting documentation (including a more
detailed discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) should be provided
rather than copies of these materials. At the applicant's discretion,
relevant materials provided previously to a Cognizant Modal
Administration in support of a different DOT discretionary program (for
example, New Starts or TIFIA) may be referenced and described as
unchanged. To the extent referenced, this information need not be
resubmitted for the TIGER Discretionary Grant application (although
provision of a Web site link would facilitate DOT's consideration of
the information). DOT recommends use of appropriately descriptive file
names (e.g., ``Project Narrative,'' ``Maps,'' ``Memoranda of
Understanding and Letters of Support,'' etc.) for all attachments.
Cover pages and tables of contents do not count towards the 25-page
limit for the narrative portion of the application, and the Federal
wage rate certification and one-page update of the pre-application form
(if necessary) may also be outside of the 25-page narrative. Otherwise,
the only substantive portions of the application that should exceed the
25-page limit are any supporting documents (including a more detailed
discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) provided to support assertions
or conclusions made in the 25-page narrative section.
E. Contact Information
Contact information is requested as part of the SF-424. DOT will
use this information to inform parties of DOT's decision regarding
selection of projects, as well as to contact parties in the event that
DOT needs additional information about an application.
F. National Environmental Policy Act Requirement
An application for a TIGER Discretionary Grant must detail whether
the project will significantly impact the natural, social and/or
economic environment. If the NEPA process is completed, an applicant
must indicate the date of, and provide a Web site link or other
reference to, the final Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No
Significant Impact or Record of Decision. If the NEPA process is
underway but not complete, the application must detail where the
project is in the process, indicate the anticipated date of completion
and provide a Web site link or other reference to copies of any NEPA
documents prepared.
G. Environmentally Related Federal, State and Local Actions
An application for a TIGER Discretionary Grant must indicate
whether the proposed project requires actions by other agencies (e.g.,
permits), indicate the status of such actions and provide a Web site
link or other reference to materials submitted to the other agencies,
and/or demonstrate compliance with other Federal, State and local
regulations as applicable, including, but not limited to, Section 4(f)
Parklands, Recreation Areas, Refuges, & Historic Properties; Section
106 Historic and Culturally Significant Properties; Clean Water Act
Wetlands and Water; Executive Orders Wetlands, Floodplains,
Environmental Justice; Clean Air Act Air Quality (specifically note if
the project is located in a nonattainment area); Endangered Species Act
Threatened and Endangered Biological Resources; Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat; The
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; and/or any State and local
requirements.
H. Protection of Confidential Business Information
All information submitted as part of or in support of any
application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made
public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and
standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes
information that the applicant considers to be a trade secret or
confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should
do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission
``Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI);'' (2) mark each
affected page ``CBI;'' and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI
portions. DOT protects such information from disclosure to the extent
allowed under applicable law. In the event DOT receives a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, DOT will follow the
procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only
information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that
procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
VIII. Project Benefits
DOT expects to identify and report on the benefits of the projects
that it funds with TIGER Discretionary Grants. To this end, DOT will
request that recipients of TIGER Discretionary Grants cooperate in
Departmental efforts to collect and report on information related to
the benefits produced by the projects that receive TIGER Discretionary
Grants.
The benefits that DOT reports on may include the following: (1)
Improved condition of existing transportation facilities and systems;
(2) improved economic competitiveness in the form of reduced travel
time, less traffic congestion, improved trip reliability, fewer vehicle
miles traveled, or lower vehicle operating costs; (3) long-term growth
in employment, production or other high-value economic activity; (4)
improved livability of communities across the United States through
expansion of transportation options, efficiency, and reliability; (5)
improved
[[Page 50303]]
energy efficiency, reduced dependence on oil and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions; (6) reduced adverse impacts of transportation on the natural
environment; (7) reduced number, rate and consequences of surface
transportation-related crashes, injuries and fatalities; (8) greater
use of technology and innovative approaches to transportation funding
and project delivery; (9) greater collaboration with state and local
governments, other public entities, private entities, nonprofit
entities, or other non-traditional partners; (10) greater integration
of transportation decision making with decision making by other public
agencies with similar public service objectives; or (11) any other
benefits claimed in the project's 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 Discretionary Grants may not be
readily available. In addition, because many of these benefits are
long-term outcomes, it may be years before the value of the investments
can be quantified and fully reported. DOT is considering the most
appropriate way to collect and report information about these potential
project benefits.
IX. Questions and Clarifications
For further information concerning this notice please contact the
TIGER Discretionary Grant program staff via e-mail at
[email protected], or call Howard Hill at 202-366-0301. A TDD is
available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 202-366-
3993. DOT will regularly post answers to these questions and other
important clarifications on DOT's Web site at http://www.dot.gov/TIGER.
Appendix A: Additional Information on Benefit-Cost Analysis
As previously discussed in the Notice, the lack of a useful
analysis of expected project benefits and costs may be a basis for
denying an award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant to any applicant.
Additionally, if it is clear that the total benefits of a project
are not reasonably likely to outweigh the project's costs, the
Department will not award a TIGER Discretionary Grant to the
project. Consequently, it is important for the applicant to prepare
as thorough a benefit-cost analysis as possible that demonstrates
clearly how both the costs and the benefits of the project were
estimated. However, DOT understands that the level of expense that
can be expected in these analyses for surveys, travel demand
forecasts, market forecasts, statistical analyses, and so on will be
less for smaller projects than for larger projects. The level of
resources devoted to preparing the benefit-cost analysis should be
reasonably related to the size of the overall project and the amount
of grant funds requested in the application. Any subjective
estimates of benefits and costs should still be quantified, and
applicants are expected to provide whatever evidence they have
available to lend credence to their subjective estimates. Estimates
of benefits should be presented in monetary terms whenever possible;
if a monetary estimate is not possible, then at least a quantitative
estimate (in physical, non-monetary terms, such as ridership
estimates, emissions levels, etc.) should be provided.
This appendix provides general information and guidance on
conducting an analysis. In addition to this guidance, applicants
should 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\11\) if an applicant wants to review additional background
material. The Department will rate all analyses as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ E.J. Mishan and Euston Quah, Cost-Benefit Analysis, 5th
edition (New York: Routledge, 2007).
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, after accounting for the relative timing of those
benefits and costs. In some cases, benefits may be difficult to
measure in dollar terms. Applicants must at least describe the
nature of each of the major types of benefits described in this
guidance. To the extent possible, applicants must also quantify each
of those types of benefits (e.g., in terms of the number of users
making use of a transportation facility). Finally, applicants must
attempt to measure those benefits in dollar terms (i.e.,
``monetize'' them). These benefits must then be compared with a
dollar measure of the costs of the project. Both benefits and costs
must be estimated for each year after work on the project is begun
and for a period of time at least 20 years in the future (or the
project's useful life, whichever
[[Page 50304]]
is shorter), and these streams of annual benefits and costs must be
discounted to the present using an appropriate discount rate, so
that a present value of the stream of benefits and a present value
of the stream of costs is calculated.
As a starting point for any analysis, applicants should provide
a Project Summary describing the project and what it changes. The
Project Summary should provide:
A description of the current infrastructure baseline
(e.g., an existing 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; and
A description of what types of economic effects the
project is expected to have.
If an application contains multiple separate projects (but that are
linked together in a common objective), each of which has
independent utility, the applicant should provide a separate summary
(and analysis) for each project.
The summary should also identify the types of societal benefits
the project might generate. The applicant should list the types of
benefits here and then clearly demonstrate in the analysis how it
estimated benefits for each category. The summary should also
include the full cost of a project, including Federal, State, local,
and private funding, as well as expected operations and maintenance
costs, and not simply the requested grant amount or the local
amount.
Each application must include in its analysis estimates of the
project's expected benefits with respect to each of the five 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 sure that the benefit is listed and measured (but only once).
Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project has
independent utility as defined in this Notice. It cannot be a
component of a larger project such that, if the larger project were
not built, this project would have little or no transportation value
(or, if it is part of a larger project, the application must
demonstrate that funding for the larger project is committed). If
the applicant provides a benefit-cost analysis for a larger project,
then it must estimate what portion of the benefits and costs of the
larger project apply to the smaller project for which funding is
being sought. The following sections describe baselines, affected
population, discounting, forecasting, costs, and benefit categories
in more detail. The Department expects a thorough discussion of
these items in the body of the analysis.
Benefit-Cost Analysis vs. Economic Impact Analysis
First, it is important to recognize that a benefit-cost analysis
is not an economic impact analysis. Applicants are required to
provide a benefit-cost analysis in support of their proposed
projects. An economic impact analysis is not a substitute for a
benefit-cost analysis.
A benefit-cost analysis attempts to measure the dollar value of
the benefits and the costs to all the members of society (in this
context, ``society'' means all residents of the United States). The
benefits represent a dollar measure of the extent to which people
are made better off by the project--that is, the benefits represent
the amount that all the people in the society would jointly be
willing to pay to carry out the project, and feel as if they had
generated enough benefits to justify the project's costs.
An economic impact analysis, on the other hand, typically
focuses on local and regional impacts rather than national impacts.
Some of the impacts that are counted in an economic impact analysis,
such as diversion of economic activity from one region of the
country to another, represent gains to one part of the country but
losses to another part, so they are not gains from the standpoint of
the nation as a whole.
Moreover, economic impact analyses estimate ``impacts'' rather
than ``benefits,'' and the ``impacts'' are normally quite different
from the ``benefits.'' For example, the total payroll of workers on
a project is usually considered one of the ``impacts'' in an
economic impact analysis. The total payroll is not a measure of the
``benefits'' of the project, however, for two reasons. First, a
payroll is a cost to whoever pays the employees, at the same time
that it is a benefit to the employees, so it is not a net benefit.
Second, even for the employees, the employees have to work for their
wages, so the amount they are paid is not a net benefit to them--it
is a benefit only to the extent that they value their wages more
than the cost to them of having to be at work every day.
Economic impact analyses also often treat real estate
investments induced by a project as one of the economic ``impacts.''
The full value of such an investment is not a ``benefit,'' however,
because the benefit of those investments to the community in which
they are made is balanced by the cost of the investment to the
investor. Because these investments are a cost as well as a benefit,
they are not a net benefit for purposes of a benefit-cost analysis.
There is often an element of benefit in these ``impacts.'' A
worker who gets a 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 and
land productivity effects requires a careful analysis of the local
labor market and how that market is changed by the transportation
investment. Similarly, measuring the effects of transportation
projects on the productivity of land requires a careful netting out
of increases in land values that are compensated by costs of real
estate investment and increases in land values that in effect
capitalize other types of benefits that have already been counted,
such as time savings.
In summary, applicants must be careful to measure only the net
benefits of a project, and should avoid using software packages that
are designed primarily to produce economic impact analyses. An
application containing only an economic impact analysis does not
meet the program's requirements and may be denied an award for that
reason.
Baselines and Alternatives
Applicants should measure costs and benefits of a proposed
project against a baseline (also called a ``base case'' or a ``no
build'' case). The baseline should be an assessment of the way the
world would look if the project did not receive the requested TIGER
Discretionary Grant funding. Usually, it is reasonable to forecast
that that baseline world resembles the present state. However, it is
important to factor in any projected changes (e.g., baseline
economic growth, increased traffic volumes, or completion of already
planned and funded projects) that would occur even if the proposed
project were not funded. In some cases the proposed project already
has a financing plan that would allow it to be built, but that
involves a slower construction schedule than would occur if it
received TIGER Discretionary Grant funding. Or it may be likely
that, in the absence of TIGER Discretionary Grant funding, the
project would be built later using ordinary funding sources. In
these cases, the TIGER Discretionary Grant funding may accelerate
completion of the project, but it does not allow a project to be
built that would never otherwise have been built. The benefits and
costs in this case should thus be limited to the marginal benefits
(and marginal costs) of having the project completed in a shorter
period of time and including the cost of expending resources on the
project sooner than otherwise planned (i.e., a ``now versus later''
comparison).
Baselines also need to be realistic in the transportation
assumptions that they make. If a project would construct a short
freight rail spur from a railroad mainline to a particular facility,
it is unrealistic to assume in the baseline that, in the absence of
the project, cargo would be shipped by truck for thousands of miles,
whereas the same cargo would be shipped by rail if the project were
built. A more realistic baseline would assume that, in the absence
of the project, the cargo would be shipped by rail for most of the
distance, and then shipped by truck for the relatively short
distance over which rail transportation is not available. Baseline
assumptions need to incorporate the lowest-cost transportation
options that would be available in the absence of the project.
Many projects have multiple parts or multiple phases, only one
or two of which would actually receive funding from a TIGER
Discretionary Grant. It is important in these cases that both the
costs and the benefits pertain to the same portion of the project.
If the part or phase of the project funded by a TIGER Discretionary
Grant has independent
[[Page 50305]]
utility, then the analysis should compare the costs and the benefits
of just that part or phase. If the part or phase of the project
funded by a TIGER Discretionary Grant does not have independent
utility, then the applicant must first demonstrate that funding is
committed for the entire project (or for an entire portion of the
project, including the TIGER Discretionary Grant-funded portion,
that has independent utility). In this case, the applicant should
compare the benefits and costs of the entire project (or the entire
portion of the project that has independent utility). The applicant
must make clear exactly what portions of the project form the basis
of the estimates of benefits and costs. It is incorrect to claim
benefits for the entire project but only count as costs the costs of
the portion of the project funded by the TIGER Discretionary Grant.
Thus, it would be incorrect to attribute all the benefits from a new
port facility to a TIGER Discretionary Grant when the costs that are
counted only cover a portion of the project funded by the TIGER
Discretionary Grant, for example, paving a loading area. In some
cases, the applicant may choose to allocate the benefits of the
project proportionately to the costs of the project that would be
funded by the TIGER Discretionary Grant, but this should generally
be done only if (1) the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
commingled with non-TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for a single,
non-divisible structure that has independent utility, and (2) the
project has sufficient funding in place to be completed as a whole
unit. If a project is being funded by multiple Federal, State, and
local sources, it would be inappropriate to attribute the full
benefit of the project to only one source of funding (such as the
local share or the TIGER Discretionary Grant itself).
All costs and benefits of the project should be evaluated,
including benefits and costs that fall outside of the jurisdiction
sponsoring the project. It is also important that the applicant
assume the continuation of reasonable and sound management practices
in establishing a baseline. Assuming a baseline scenario in which
the owner of the facility does no maintenance on the facility and
ignores traffic problems and maintenance is not realistic and will
lead to the overstatement of project benefits.
In addition to the baseline, the applicant should present and
consider reasonable alternatives in the analysis. Smaller-scale and
more focused projects should be evaluated for comparison purposes.
For example, if an applicant is requesting funds to replace a pier,
it should also analyze the alternative of rehabilitating the current
pier. Similarly, if an applicant seeks funds to establish a
relatively large streetcar project, it should also evaluate a more
focused project serving only the more densely populated corridors or
an area.
Affected Population
Applicants should clearly identify the population that the
project will affect and measure the number of passengers (for a
passenger project) and the amount of freight (for a freight project)
affected by the project. If possible, passenger and freight traffic
should be measured in passenger-miles and freight ton-miles (and
possibly value of freight). If, as is often the case, the forecasted
traffic volume is not the same for all years (e.g., projected growth
in highway traffic), then the applicant needs to break out the
forecasted traffic annually. In some cases, the characteristics of
the passenger population or of the freight cargo may be important
(e.g., whether the passengers are members of a disadvantaged group,
or are spread across a multi-state region, or whether the cargo
being shipped is predominantly export traffic). Measures of freight
traffic might include growing levels of port calls. In some cases,
the relevant population is the volume of traffic that is diverted
from one mode to another. Applicants must clearly identify which
population will be affected by any particular benefit. For example,
as noted above, the affected population that will enjoy travel time
savings may be different from the affected population benefiting
from reduced shipping costs. Further, the applicant should be
realistic as to how the project affects these populations. For
example, improving rail access to a wholesale distribution center
near an urban area may take some trucks off the road that had been
carrying freight from a truck/rail intermodal yard to the wholesale
distribution center. However, it is unrealistic to claim benefits
from reduced truck traffic all the way from the shipping origin
point hundreds or thousands of miles away to the truck/rail
intermodal yard, if that traffic would be likely to be moving much
of this distance by rail already.
Discounting
Applicants should discount future benefits and costs to present
values using a real discount rate (i.e., a discount rate that
reflects the opportunity cost of money net of the rate of inflation)
of 7 percent, following guidance provided by OMB in Circulars A-4
and A-94 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default/).
Applicants may also provide an alternative analysis using a real
discount rate of 3 percent. The latter approach should be used when
the alternative use of funds currently dedicated to the project
would be other public expenditures, rather than private investment.
As a first step, applicants should present the year-by-year
stream of benefits and costs from the project. Applicants should
clearly identify when they expect costs and benefits to occur. The
beginning point for the year-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 most or all of the significant costs and benefits
resulting from the project (at least 20 years in the future), but
not to exceed the usable life of the asset without capital
improvement.\12\ In presenting these year-by-year streams,
applicants should measure them in constant (or ``real'') dollars
prior to discounting. Applicants should not add in the effects of
inflation to the estimates of future benefits and costs prior to
discounting. Once an applicant has generated the stream of costs and
benefits in constant dollars, it should then discount these
estimates to arrive at a present value of costs and benefits using
the real discount rate specified above. The standard formula for the
discount factor in any given year is 1/(1 + r)\t\, where ``r'' is
the discount rate and ``t'' measures the number of years in the
future that the costs or benefits will occur. Infrequently, benefits
or costs will be the same in constant dollars for all years. In
these limited cases, an applicant can calculate the formula for the
present value of an ordinary annuity instead of showing a year-by-
year calculation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In some cases the application may use a fixed term of years
to analyze benefits and costs (e.g., 20 years), even though the
applicant knows that the project will last longer than that and
continue to have benefits and costs in later years. In these cases,
the project will retain a ``residual value'' at the end of the
analysis period. For instance, a new bridge may be expected to have
a 100-year life but the analysis period for the benefit-cost
analysis might cover only 40 years. In such cases, a residual value
can be claimed as a benefit (or cost offset) for the asset at the
end of the analysis period. One method to estimate the residual
value is to calculate the percentage of the project that will not be
depreciated or used up at the end of the analysis period and to
multiply this percentage by the original cost of the project.
Different components of the project may have different depreciation
rates--land typically does not depreciate. The estimated residual
value is assigned to the end of the analysis period and should then
be discounted to its present value as would any other cost or
benefit occurring at that time. Note that a residual value of a
project can only be claimed if the project will be kept in operation
beyond the end of the analysis period. If the project will be
retired at that time, a salvage value (reflecting revenues raised
from the decommissioning of the project) can be claimed.
\13\ See http://www.brighthub.com/money/personal-finance/articles/17948.aspx. For example, 10.594 is the discount factor that
would be multiplied by an annual benefit to get the present value of
a constant benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of seven
percent. If the constant annual benefit is $500,000, then the
present value of the benefits is $5.297 million. In these limited
cases, the applicant must show the calculation of the discount
factor of the ordinary annuity formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk and Uncertainty
When the amount and timing of important benefits and costs are
uncertain, applicants should identify and address this uncertainty
through appropriate quantitative and qualitative analyses. This is
especially so if the uncertainty includes the risk of the
catastrophic failure of an asset (e.g., a bridge collapse). The
applicant's analytical approaches should be consistent with OMB
Circular A-94. Circular A-94 directs applicants to characterize the
sources and nature of uncertainty. Ideally, applicants should
present probability distributions of potential costs and benefits,
and net benefits. If point estimates are used to represent uncertain
values of costs or benefits, these point estimates should represent
expected values of the underlying uncertain values of the costs or
benefits. For a distribution of costs or benefits, the expected
value can be calculated by weighing each outcome by its probability
of occurrence and then summing across all potential outcomes. If
risk of a catastrophic failure is present, an applicant may want to
take this risk into account by estimating a ``certainty
equivalent,'' i.e., a net benefit under conditions of certainty that
would be considered equally desirable to a
[[Page 50306]]
higher net benefit (based on expected values) that is subject to
considerable risk.
Forecasting
Benefit-cost analyses of transportation projects almost always
depend on forecasts of projected levels of usage (road traffic, port
calls, etc.). When an applicant is using such forecasts to generate
benefit estimates, it must assess the reliability of these
forecasts. If the applicant is using outside forecasts, it must
provide a citation and an appropriate page number for the forecasts.
An applicant should carefully review any outside forecasts for
reliability before using them in its analyses. In cases where an
applicant is using its own estimates, it should clearly demonstrate
in the analysis the methodology it used to forecast affected
population (e.g., how it generated traffic volumes for cars and
trucks on a highway section). The number of individuals who enjoy
the benefits of a project will partly determine the net benefits of
the project. Consequently, accurate forecasts are essential to
conducting a quality benefit-cost analysis. Applicants should
incorporate indirect effects into their forecasts where possible
(e.g., induced demand). Applicants should also take great care to
match forecasts of usage levels to the corresponding year. For
example, using projected traffic levels for 2030 to generate
benefits for all the earlier years is incorrect. For more
information on forecasting, applicants can refer to the forecasting
section of FHWA's Economic Analysis Primer (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer06.cfm). While produced for analysis
of highway projects, the primer is a good source of information on
issues related to all transportation forecasting.
Costs
As noted above, the estimate of costs must pertain to the same
project as the estimate of benefits. If the TIGER Discretionary
Grant is to pay for only part of the project, but the project is
indivisible (i.e., no one part of the project would have independent
utility), then the benefits of the whole project should be compared
to the costs of the whole project, including costs paid for by
State, local, and private partners other than the Federal
government. Applicants may not claim that the TIGER Discretionary
Grant ``leverages'' the financial contributions of other parties,
and therefore that all the benefits of the project are attributable
to the TIGER Discretionary Grant, even though the TIGER
Discretionary Grant only pays for part of the project.
The analysis of costs should be equally as rigorous as the
analysis of benefits. The lack of a useful analysis of expected
project costs may be a basis for denying the award of a TIGER
Discretionary Grant to an applicant. In general, applicants should
use a life-cycle cost analysis approach in estimating the costs of
the project. The Department expects applicants to include operating,
maintenance, and other life-cycle costs of the project, along with
capital costs. In addition to construction costs, other direct costs
may include design and land acquisition. If the time period
considered in the analysis is long enough to require the
rehabilitation of the facility during the period of analysis, then
the costs of that rehabilitation should be included. External costs,
such as noise, increased congestion, and environmental pollutants
resulting from the use of the facility or related changes in usage
on other facilities in the same network, should be considered as
costs in the analysis. Additionally, applicants should include, to
the extent possible, costs to users during construction, such as
delays and increased vehicle operating costs associated with work
zones or detours. The applicant should correctly discount annual
costs to arrive at a present value of the project's cost.
Types of Benefits--Livability
There are several potential benefits that a project could
generate that affect livability. The most important aspect of
livability is accessibility to non-single-occupancy vehicle modes of
transportation, such as transit, bicycle paths, and sidewalks.
Measuring the benefits of increased accessibility should start with
a quantitative measure of the increase in accessibility--how many
people will have access to these alternative modes who did not have
access before? The analysis should go on to estimate how many people
are actually likely to use these newly available transportation
modes and how much of their existing single-occupancy vehicle travel
are those people likely to divert to these alternative modes.
Finally, the analysis should attempt to estimate the monetary value
that people place on access to these newly available transportation
modes. In some cases, monetary values may be estimated based on
existing market transactions--e.g., bicycle rentals. In others,
differentials in the market values of land or rents between
residences and businesses that are already easily accessible (e.g. <
0.5 miles) to these modes and those that are in the same areas but
not easily accessible (e.g. > 0.5 miles) can be used as a proxy
estimate of the value of this access. In other cases, no objective
market values are available, and the applicant should make the best
subjective estimate it can of the average value that this
accessibility has to those who now have access to these alternative
modes. One useful source of guidance on measuring benefits of
bicycle facilities (particularly for understanding demand
estimation) is the Transportation Research Board's National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 552, Guidelines for
Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (Washington: TRB,
2006) (available at http://onlinepubs.trb. org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
nchrp--rpt--552.pdf).
Transit and bicycle paths may provide greater accessibility to
alternative transportation modes, but they will not actually enhance
livability unless people actually want to use them, and the desire
to use them will depend in part on where these modes go and on the
amenities provided with them. An important part of accessibility is
making sure not only that people's residences are accessible to
these modes, but that the modes connect to workplaces, schools,
shopping, and other desired destinations. Assessments of enhanced
accessibility should describe where these alternative modes go as
well as where they start.
Land use changes are also an important aspect of livability.
When people live closer to their workplaces, their schools, and
shopping, they will be more likely to use these alternative
transportation modes. Transportation changes that encourage more
mixed-use land development (where residences are intermixed with
workplaces and shopping) will shorten the length of travel and
encourage more use of non-highway modes. The analysis should
evaluate the extent to which the proposed transportation project
will encourage these changes in land use and be coordinated with
zoning changes and other public and private investments.
Changes in land use that result in shorter travel distances can
result in long-term travel time savings, and the quantitative extent
of these time savings can be estimated. Values of time can then be
used to estimate the monetary value of these time savings. The
applicant should propose a subjective estimate of the monetary value
of land use changes. Land use changes can also reduce the total cost
of transportation for the affected population, so applicants should
attempt to measure the effects of the project and associated land
use changes on average household transportation expenditures.
In using differentials in property values or rents to measure
the value of changes in accessibility, applicants must identify
other factors that might have caused property values and/or rents to
change and isolate the portion of the change that is attributable to
the change in accessibility. Applicants must also be careful to
avoid double-counting. If the applicant has already counted
reductions in travel time as a benefit, the value of those
reductions in travel time may get capitalized in changes in property
values or rents, and the applicant must be careful not to count
those benefits again as part of the change in property values.
Finally, an important aspect of livability is the availability
of transportation to disadvantaged communities, such as low-income
people, non-drivers, people with disabilities, and senior citizens.
Applicants should assess the extent to which their projects will
improve transportation opportunities and quality of life for members
of these disadvantaged communities. While there may not be well-
defined methodologies for assigning monetary values to these
enhancements to accessibility, applicants should attempt to measure
the size of the disadvantaged community affected and make subjective
judgments of the monetary values that should be assigned to these
improvements.
Types of Benefits--Economic Competitiveness
Economic competitiveness benefits might include reduced
operating costs due to infrastructure improvements. In some cases, 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
[[Page 50307]]
from a higher-cost transportation mode to a lower-cost
transportation mode when the quality of service on the lower-cost
mode becomes more competitive. In this case, the applicant should
demonstrate clearly what the basis is of any estimated modal
diversion. In estimating operating cost savings, it is important to
avoid double-counting. For example, applicants must not count both
the reductions in fuel costs and the overall reductions in operating
costs, because fuel costs are part of operating costs. For freight
projects, economic competitiveness benefits may be particularly
significant if the project reduces the costs of transporting freight
that will be exported.
One particular form of reduced operating costs is travel time
savings. Road improvements or other projects whose purpose is to
relieve congestion frequently generate travel time savings for
travelers and shippers that contribute to economic competitiveness
and quality of life to non-business travelers. Where this is the
case, applicants should clearly demonstrate how the travel time
savings are calculated and should account for induced travel demand
to the extent practical or applicable. If travel time savings vary
over time, the applicant must clearly show savings by year. Once the
applicant generates its estimate of hours saved, it should apply the
Department's guidance on the value of time to those estimates
(http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm) to monetize them for
both business and non-business travelers. The value of time saving
is often among the largest benefit components of transportation
capacity enhancement projects.\14\ Transportation projects may also
enhance economic competitiveness by improving the reliability of
travel times (i.e., reducing the variation in travel times), in
addition to the benefits from a reduction in the average travel
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ There is a growing body of academic research that attempts
to value the improved reliability of travel time in addition to
travel time savings. Improved travel time reliability resulting from
a project can influence business inventory costs and travel time
allotted for unexpected delays. Applicants attempting to quantify
the value of improved reliability of a transportation project as
part of a benefit-cost analysis should carefully define how they
have measured and valued it for the project, with particular
attention to its relationship to estimates and valuations of travel
time saving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight-related projects that improve roads, rails, and ports
frequently generate savings to carriers (e.g., fuel savings and
other operating cost savings) that they may pass on in whole or in
part to shippers by way of lower freight rates. Shippers may, in
turn, pass on, in whole or in part, these savings to consumers. If
applicants are projecting these savings as benefits, they need to
carefully demonstrate how the proposed project would generate such
benefits. However, applicants must be careful to count the value of
the fuel and other operating cost savings (however allocated among
carriers, shippers, and consumers) only once in the benefit-cost
analysis; it cannot be re-counted in full each time it transfers
from one group to the other as this would entail double-counting of
the same benefit.
Applicants should also guard against analysis that double-counts
other kinds of benefits. Analysis should distinguish between real
benefits and transfer payments. Benefits reflect real resource usage
and overall benefits to society, while transfers represent payments
by one group to another and do not represent a net increase in
societal benefits. Employment or output multipliers that purport to
measure secondary effects should not be included as societal
benefits because these secondary effects are generally the same (per
dollar spent) regardless of what kind of project is funded.
As noted earlier in this Appendix (see Benefit-Cost Analysis vs.
Economic Impact Analysis), applicants must be extremely cautious
about including job creation and economic development impacts as
societal benefits in the benefit-cost analysis. In the case of job
creation, for example, every job represents both a cost to the
employer (paying a wage) and a benefit to the employee (receiving a
wage), so it is a transfer payment, rather than a net benefit.
However, if a project increases the productivity of labor, then the
applicant can count the increased productivity as a benefit. For
example, if the project allows workers working at low-productivity
jobs to switch to high-productivity jobs, then the increase in their
productivity can be counted as a benefit. But the applicant needs to
demonstrate rigorously how such productivity benefits are estimated
and the exact time period over which the productivity benefits
occur. Simply asserting these gains is inadequate.
With respect to economic development, estimates of capital
investments or property tax revenues are not legitimate benefits in
a benefit-cost analysis. A property tax is a benefit to the tax
assessor, but it is a cost to the taxpayer. An applicant can
potentially claim an increase in the value of land as a benefit if
the transportation project increases the value and productivity of
the land. However, the applicant needs to count the increase in the
value of the land carefully to avoid double counting and transfer
payments. For example, if the property value goes up by the exact
same value as the developer's investment, then this is not a
benefit. Property value increases over and above the developer's
investment may potentially be a benefit from the project. However,
if this property value increase is due to improved travel times that
the applicant has already included as a benefit then there is no
additional benefit here. The analysis should also consider to what
extent an increase in land values induced by the project in one area
causes a reduction in land values in some other area. Only the net
increase in land value can be counted as a benefit. Applicants must
carefully net out any embedded time savings in the property value
increase before claiming any benefits. Simply asserting that there
is a property tax increase net of time savings is inadequate. The
Department expects any applicant claiming these types of benefits to
provide a rigorous justification of the benefit that shows how it is
derived from the project (rather than from some other non-project
investment) and that shows how increases in property values
attributable to other benefits (such as travel time savings) have
been deducted. Applicants should note that any claimed societal
benefit from a property value increase is only a one-time stock
benefit. Applicants can not treat it as a stream of benefits
accruing annually.
Types of Benefits--Safety
Road projects can also improve the safety of transportation. A
well-designed project can reduce fatalities and injuries as well as
reduce other crash costs, such as hazardous materials releases. The
applicant should clearly demonstrate how the project will improve
safety. For example, to claim a reduction in fatalities, an
applicant must clearly demonstrate how the existence of the project
would have prevented the types of fatalities that commonly occur in
that area. Applicants should use crash causation factors or similar
analyses of causes of crashes to show the extent to which the type
of improvements proposed would actually reduce the likelihood of the
kinds of crashes that actually had occurred. Alternatively, when
only a few cases are involved, the applicant should provide a
description of the incidents and demonstrate the linkage between the
proposed project and crash reduction. In some cases, safety benefits
may occur because of modal diversion from a less safe mode to a
safer 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. Note that these unit values apply to the maximum
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). In instances where crash injury
reports are based on the KABCO scale (often used for law enforcement
reporting), it is necessary to convert these reported crash and
injury data into AIS before applying the unit costs. The KABCO-AIS
Conversion Table provided below should assist in this task.
[[Page 50308]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12AU11.001
Types of Benefits-State of Good Repair
Many infrastructure projects that improve the state of good
repair of transportation infrastructure can reduce long-term
maintenance and repair costs. These benefits are in addition to the
benefits of reductions in travel time, shipping costs, and crashes
which the applicant should account for separately. Applicants should
include these maintenance and repair savings as benefits. Improving
state of good repair may also reduce operating costs and congestion
by reducing the amount of time that the infrastructure is out of
service due to maintenance and repairs, or may prevent a facility
(such as a bridge) from being removed from service entirely (i.e.
low-volume facilities that would cost too much to replace). In the
latter case, the analysis should include a reasonable assessment of
the cost that closing the facility would have on system users who
would be required to take longer and more circuitous routes, as well
as the probability (and likely time in the future) when the bridge
would need to be closed even if sound maintenance practices had been
pursued. Improving state of good repair may also reduce user costs
if, for example, the roughness of a road reduces travel speeds or
increases damage to vehicles. Improving state of good repair can
also have safety benefits. The application should also consider
differences in maintenance and repair costs when comparing different
project alternatives. For example, an applicant can compare the
maintenance costs that would be required after rehabilitating an
existing pier with those that would be required after building a new
one. As part of the data that go into estimating the benefits of
improving the state of good repair, applicants should provide
accepted metrics for assessing an asset's current condition. For
example, applicants can use Present Serviceability Ratings (PSR) to
discuss pavement condition and bridge sufficiency ratings to discuss
the condition of a bridge. As discussed in the section on costs, the
Department expects applicants to consider the life-cycle costs of
the project when making these comparisons.
Types of Benefits--Sustainability
Transportation can generate environmental costs in the form of
emissions of ``criteria pollutants'' (e.g., SOX,
NOX, and particulates) and from the emission of
greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Increased
traffic congestion results in increased levels of these emissions.
Transportation projects that reduce congestion can reduce these
emissions and produce societal benefits given reduced idling and
otherwise constant vehicle miles travelled. Also, transportation
projects that encourage transportation users to shift from more-
polluting modes to 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 the table at the end of this
Appendix and in Chapter VIII of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking
on Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks (http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Final_Rule_MY2011_FRIA.pdf).
The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon has
recently issued its guidance on ``Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866'' (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf). Table A1 (``Annual
SCC Values: 2010-2050 (in 2007 dollars)'') in the appendix of the
guidance lays out a range of values to use for monetizing the social
cost of carbon at various years in the future and at various
discount rates. Applicants should clearly indicate how and to what
degree calculations of benefits in their analyses are based on these
assumed values of CO2 emissions reduction.
Transparency and Reproducibility of Calculations
Applicants should make every effort to make the results of their
analyses as transparent and reproducible as possible. Applicants
should clearly set out basic assumptions, methods, and data
underlying the analysis and discuss any uncertainties associated
with the estimates. Applicants should attempt to describe the degree
of uncertainty in key estimates, such as the level of traffic or the
total costs of the project. Applicants should show what the effect
of this uncertainty is on the probability of benefits exceeding
costs, and describe what actions they 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. It is inadequate for the
applicant only to provide links to large documents or spreadsheets
as sources. The Department expects all outside data sources to be
clearly cited with a page number (or cell number, for a spreadsheet)
provided for the cited source. 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
(including forecast year traffic volumes). In any case, applicants
must provide a detailed explanation of the assumptions used to run
the model (e.g., peak traffic hours and traffic volume during peak
hours, mix of traffic by cars, buses, and trucks, etc.). The
applicant must provide enough information so that a Department
reviewer can follow the general logic of the estimates (and, in the
case of spreadsheet models, reproduce them).
Ideally, the applicant should be able to summarize the results
of all pertinent data and cost and benefit calculations in a single
spreadsheet tab (or table in Word). A Department reviewer should be
able to understand the calculations in spreadsheet models both from
directions in the spreadsheet and any accompanying text. The
following provides a simplified example for expository purposes of
discounted costs and benefits from a road project providing travel
time savings only to local travelers over the course of five years
following a one-year period of construction.
[[Page 50309]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12AU11.002
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.
The following table summarizes key values for various types of
benefits and costs that the Department recommends that applicants
use in their benefit-cost analyses. Benefits and costs for any
reliable analysis are not only limited to this table. The applicant
should provide documentation of sources and detailed calculations
for monetized benefit/cost values of additional categories.
Similarly, applicants using different values for the benefit/cost
categories below should provide sources, calculations, and rationale
for divergence from recommended values.
[[Page 50310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12AU11.003
Applications (Stage 2) for TIGER Discretionary Grants must be
submitted through Grants.gov. To apply for funding through
Grants.gov, applicants must be properly registered. Complete
instructions on how to register and apply can be found at http://www.grants.gov. If interested parties experience difficulties at any
point during registration or application process, please call the
Grants.gov Customer Support Hotline at 1-800-518-4726, Monday-Friday
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.
Registering with Grants.gov is a one-time process; however,
processing delays may occur and it can take up to several weeks for
first-time registrants to receive confirmation and a user password.
It is highly recommended that applicants start the registration
process as early as possible to prevent delays that may preclude
submitting an application by the deadlines specified. Applications
will not be accepted after the relevant due date; delayed
registration is not an acceptable reason for extensions. In order to
apply for TIGER Discretionary Grant funding under this announcement
and to apply for funding through Grants.gov, all applicants are
required to complete the following:
1. Acquire a DUNS Number. A DUNS number is required for
Grants.gov registration. The Office of Management and
[[Page 50311]]
Budget requires that all businesses and nonprofit applicants for
Federal funds include a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System)
number in their applications for a new award or renewal of an
existing award. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence
recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping
track of entities receiving Federal funds. The identifier is used
for tracking purposes and to validate address and point of contact
information for Federal assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-
recipients. The DUNS number will be used throughout the grant life
cycle. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Obtain
a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by applying online at
http://www.dunandbradstreet.com.
2. Acquire or Renew Registration with the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) Database. All applicants for Federal financial
assistance maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database. An applicant must be registered in the
CCR to successfully register in Grants.gov. The CCR database is the
repository for standard information about Federal financial
assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Organizations
that have previously submitted applications via Grants.gov are
already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov
registration. Please note, however, that applicants must update or
renew their CCR registration at least once per year to maintain an
active status, so it is critical to check registration status well
in advance of relevant application deadlines. Information about CCR
registration procedures can be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov.
3. Acquire an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and a
Grants.gov Username and Password. Complete your AOR profile on
Grants.gov and create your username and password. You will need to
use your organization's DUNS Number to complete this step. For more
information about the registration process, go to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
4. Acquire Authorization for your AOR from the E-Business Point
of Contact (E-Biz POC). The E-Biz POC at your organization must log
in to Grants.gov to confirm you as an AOR. Please note that there
can be more than one AOR for your organization.
5. Search for the Funding Opportunity on Grants.gov. Please use
the following identifying information when searching for the TIGER
funding opportunity on Grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number for this solicitation is 20.933, titled
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Discretionary Grants for
Capital Investments II.
6. Submit an Application Addressing All of the Requirements
Outlined in this Funding Availability Announcement. Within 24-48
hours after submitting your electronic application, you should
receive an e-mail validation message from Grants.gov. The validation
message will tell you whether the application has been received and
validated or rejected, with an explanation. You are urged to submit
your application at least 72 hours prior to the due date of the
application to allow time to receive the validation message and to
correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.
Note: When uploading attachments please use generally accepted
formats such as .pdf, .doc, and .xls. While you may imbed picture
files such as .jpg, .gif, .bmp, in your files, please do not save
and submit the attachment in these formats. Additionally, the
following formats will not be accepted: .com, .bat, .exe, .vbs,
.cfg, .dat, .db, .dbf, .dll, .ini, .log, .ora, .sys, and .zip.
Experiencing Unforeseen Grants.gov Technical Issues
If you experience unforeseen Grants.gov technical issues beyond
your control that prevent you from submitting your application by
the deadline of October 31, 2011, at 5 p.m. EDT, you must contact
Howard Hill at 202-366-0301 or John Kennedy at [email protected]
within 24 hours after the deadline and request approval to submit
your application. At that time, DOT staff will require you to e-mail
the complete grant application, your DUNS number, and provide a
Grants.gov Help Desk tracking number(s). After DOT staff review all
of the information submitted as well as contacts the Grants.gov Help
Desk to validate the technical issues you reported, DOT staff will
contact you to either approve or deny your request to submit a late
application. If the technical issues you reported cannot be
validated, your application will be rejected as untimely.
To ensure a fair competition for limited discretionary funds,
the following conditions are not valid reasons to permit late
submissions: (1) Failure to complete the registration process before
the deadline date; (2) failure to follow Grants.gov instructions on
how to register and apply as posted on its Web site; (3) failure to
follow all of the instructions in the funding availability notice;
and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant's computer
or information technology (IT) environment.
Appendix C: Additional Information on Project Readiness Guidelines
As applicants develop their applications, there are some
guidelines on project readiness that they should consider. The TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds are available for a limited period of time
(DOT's ability to obligate the funds expires after September 30,
2013), and DOT may be limited as to when they may obligate the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds to a project if it is not far enough along
in the project development process. The application package should
provide concrete evidence of project milestones, financial capacity
and commitment in order to support project readiness. Each operating
administration with the responsibility for obligating the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds has its own regulations, policies, and
procedures that they may apply for projects that have been selected
for TIGER Discretionary Grant funds. In some cases, an operating
administration may obligate a portion of the overall amount of funds
that an applicant has been selected to receive so that such an
applicant may use that portion of the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds for eligible pre-construction activities, delaying the balance
of the obligation of funds until all pre-construction requirements
have been completed.
The guidelines below provide additional details about some of
these pre-construction steps if a project element is for pre-
construction activities, or requirements before the total award is
obligated (including, but not limited to, planning requirements,
environmental approvals, right-of-way acquisitions, and design
completion) and suggests milestones each project should aim to
achieve in order to obligate the full amount of awarded TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds, in advance of the obligation deadline of
September 30, 2013. Applicants should demonstrate that they can
reasonably expect to complete all of these pre-construction steps if
a project element is for pre-construction activities, or
requirements before the total award is obligated no later than June
30, 2013 so that all the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds are
obligated in advance of or by the September 30, 2013 statutory
deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can be
fully obligated. DOT may reallocate unobligated TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds towards projects that are ready to use TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds if a project is not ready for DOT to
obligate all TIGER Discretionary Grant funds before the September
30, 2013, statutory deadline. Applicants that are unfamiliar with,
or have questions about, the requirements that a proposed project or
projects may need to complete in order for the operating
administration to obligate TIGER Discretionary Grant funds may
contact [email protected] with questions. The below information is
not an exhaustive list of the requirements that a project may need
to comply with in order for TIGER Discretionary Grant funds to be
obligated by the operating administration that is administering the
TIGER Discretionary Grant.
State and Local Planning: Project activities that are focused on
refining scope and completing Federal environmental reviews are
eligible capital expenses under the TIGER Discretionary Grants
Program and are an essential part of project development. A project
that receives TIGER Discretionary Grant funds may be required to be
approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization or State in the
Long Range Plans and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Applicants
should take steps to ensure that the project will be included in the
relevant plan if the project is required to be included in such
planning documents before an operating administration may obligate
funds to the project.
If the project is not included in the relevant planning
documents at the time the TIGER application is submitted, applicants
should submit a certification from the appropriate planning agency
that actions are underway at the time of application to include the
project in the relevant planning document. If the obligation of
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for construction or other activities
is
[[Page 50312]]
contingent on the project being included in the relevant planning
documents, applicants should demonstrate they can reasonably expect
to have the project included in such planning documents by March 30,
2013. We suggest the March 30 milestone since applicants should
demonstrate in their project schedule that all additional, necessary
pre-construction steps if a project element is for pre-construction
activities, or requirements before the total award is obligated will
be complete on or before June 30, 2013, and planning must be
complete before other pre-construction or other activities can be
completed. DOT is suggesting these dates so that all the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds will be obligated in advance of the
September 30, 2013, statutory deadline, and that any unexpected
delays will not put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of
expiring before they can be fully obligated. The applicant should
provide a schedule demonstrating when the project will be added to
the relevant planning documents.
Environmental Approvals: Projects should have received all
environmental approvals, including satisfaction of all Federal,
State and local requirements and completion of the National
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') process at the time the
application is submitted or should demonstrate, through their
project schedule, that receipt of NEPA approval, and all additional,
necessary pre-construction steps if a project element is for pre-
construction activities, or other approvals can occur by June 30,
2013, so that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds will be fully
obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013, statutory deadline,
and that any unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary
Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can be fully obligated.
If the obligation of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for
construction or other activities is contingent on completion of
other approvals that can only take place after the environmental
approvals process, the applicant should demonstrate, through their
project schedule, that they can reasonably expect to obtain all
environmental approvals by March 30, 2013, or other date
sufficiently in advance of June 30, 2013. Like planning, the
environmental approvals must be obtained prior to completing other
pre-construction steps if a project element is for pre-construction
activities, or other activities. We are suggesting the March 30 date
for environmental approvals since all pre-construction steps if a
project element is for pre-construction activities, or other
activities should be completed by June 30, 2013, so that the TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds will be fully obligated in advance of the
September 30, 2013, statutory deadline. DOT also wants to ensure
that any unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds at risk of expiring before they can be fully obligated,
because it may be difficult to complete environmental and regulatory
review as well as any other necessary pre-construction steps if a
project element is for pre-construction activities, or other
activities that must be completed before funds can be obligated for
construction or other activities that will fully obligate the TIGER
funding.
To demonstrate that this suggested milestone is achievable,
applicants should provide information about the anticipated class of
action, the budget for completing NEPA, including hiring a
consultant if necessary, and a schedule that demonstrates when NEPA
will be complete. The schedule should show how the suggested
milestones described in this section will be complied with, and
include any anticipated coordination with Federal and State
regulatory agencies for permits and approvals. The budget should
demonstrate how costs to complete NEPA factor into the overall cost
to complete the project. The budget and schedule for completing NEPA
should be reasonable and be comparable to a budget and schedule of a
typical project of the same type. The applicant should provide
evidence of support based on input during the NEPA process from
State and local elected officials as well as the public.
Additionally, the applicant should provide environmental studies or
other documents (preferably by way of a Web site link) that describe
in detail known potential project impacts and possible mitigation
for these impacts. The applicant should supply sufficient
documentation for DOT to adequately review the project's NEPA
status.
Right-of-Way and Design: If the obligation of TIGER
Discretionary Grant funds for construction or other activities by an
operating administration may be contingent on completion of right-
of-way acquisition and final design approval, applicants should
demonstrate, through their project schedule, that they reasonably
expect to have right-of-way and design completed, and completion of
any other needed pre-construction steps if a project element is for
pre-construction activities, or other approvals by June 30, 2013, so
that the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds will be fully obligated in
advance of or by the September 30, 2013, statutory deadline, and
that any unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds at risk of expiring before they can be fully obligated. If the
obligation of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds for construction or
other activities is contingent on the project completing right-of-
way acquisition and design, and additional approvals contingent on
completion of right of way acquisition and design, applicants should
demonstrate, through their project schedule, they can reasonably
expect to have right-of-way acquisition and design completed, along
with the additional required approvals by June 30, 2013, so that the
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds will be fully obligated in advance
of or by the September 30, 2013, statutory deadline, and that any
unexpected delays will not put TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at
risk of expiring before they can be fully obligated. Applicants
should submit a reasonable schedule of when right-of-way (if
applicable), design, and any other required approvals are expected
to be obtained. Applicants may expect that DOT may obligate TIGER
funds for right-of-way and design completion only after planning and
environmental approvals are obtained.
Completion of Obligation: Applicants should plan to have all
necessary pre-construction or other approvals and activities
completed by June 30, 2013, so that the TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds will be fully obligated in advance of the September 30, 2013,
statutory deadline, and that any unexpected delays will not put
TIGER Discretionary Grant funds at risk of expiring before they can
be fully obligated. In some instances, DOT may not obligate for
construction or other activities until all planning and
environmental approvals are obtained and right-of-way and final
design are complete. If a project is selected for a TIGER
Discretionary Grant and the TIGER Discretionary Grant funding will
be used to complete all of these activities, DOT may obligate the
funding in phases, in accordance with the laws, regulations, and
policies of the operating administration that is administering the
grant.
* * * * *
Issued on: August 9, 2011.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20577 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P