May a single Eligible Applicant submit or be a part of multiple applications?

A single Eligible Applicant may submit or be a part of multiple applications.

May one application request funding for multiple projects?  Do the projects have to be linked or related to be considered in one application?

Applications may request funding for multiple, related projects.  These projects need not be physically linked to be considered for funding; however, to the extent the projects are not related the Department may choose to consider them independently, as separate projects.

Can an applicant request Grant Funds for one or more components of a larger project?  Similarly, will the Department exercise any discretion to fund only a portion of a larger project for which an applicant has requested Grant Funds? 

As stated in Section III(B) of the Notice, “[t]he Department may consider one or more components of a large project to be an Eligible Project, but only to the extent that the components themselves, not the project of which they are a part, are Eligible Projects and satisfy the selection criteria specified in this notice. 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.”  In accordance with this language, an applicant may apply for individual components of a project if the components will align well with the selection criteria specified in the Notice when the components are completed.  Please note, however, that the Department will not fund individual phases of a project if the benefits of completing only these phases would not align well with the selection criteria specified in the Notice because the overall project would still be incomplete. 
To the extent an applicant requests a substantial amount of Grant Funds for a larger project or a group of related projects, the Department has discretion to award funds for only one part of the project, not the full project, if one part of the project aligns better with the selection criteria specified in the Notice.  To the extent applicants expect that the Department 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 specified in the Notice.  By the same token, if a project is not viable unless the Department funds the full project, this should be stated in the application.

Does the Department have a preferred format for the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) required in Section II(B)(1)(a) of the Notice? Would the Department prefer that it be presented in a Kaldor-Hicks Tableau?

A Kaldor-Hicks Tableau is an acceptable format, but no single format is required.  Any format is acceptable as long as it clearly lays out the various categories of benefits and costs, quantifies and monetizes them to the extent possible, and discounts them to present values so that they can be compared to one another.

Would the BCA format used for the Federal Aviation Administration’s AIP program be an acceptable format for the BCA required for the Program?

The BCA format used for the Federal Aviation Administration’s AIP program is unlikely to capture all of the benefits and costs identified in the Notice.  In particular, the Notice states that: “For BCA to yield useful results, the Department believes that full consideration of cost and benefits is necessary … from factors traditionally considered, including fuel savings and travel time benefits, to some that have not traditionally been considered, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water quality impacts, public health effects, and others” and “should attempt to capture the dynamic effects that transportation investments can have on land use and household budgets.”
Also, the Notice states that: “Any applicant seeking a TIGER Discretionary Grant of more than $20 million but less than $100 million must include in its application estimates of the project’s expected benefits in the five long-term outcomes identified in […] Section II(A)(1)(a).”  While some of the five long-term outcomes (State of Good Repair, Economic Competitiveness, Livability, Sustainability, and Safety) could be included in the format used for the AIP program BCA, they are not required in that BCA.  In addition, the guidance for the AIP program BCA encourages consideration of direct effects (time savings), but does not focus on indirect effects (including economic development, land use, etc.).  Therefore, while the AIP program BCA may be a good place to start, the BCA submitted with applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants should be sure to address the requirements specified in the Notice.

What base year should be used for expressing benefits and costs for the BCA required in Section II(B)(1)(a) of the Notice?

Where benefits and costs include changes in travel time or reductions in fatalities and injuries, the Notice instructs grant applicants to follow the Department’s guidance on the values of time and statistical lives found at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm.  A number of inquiries have been received as to the correct procedure for adjusting the price levels in these guidance documents to a common basis.  This response provides a consistent method for such adjustments. 
If cost information has been developed for a recent base year (2006 or later) the Department does not regard it as essential that these figures be re-estimated for a new base of 2008 or 2009, provided that there have been no substantive changes in market conditions or forecasts.  Applicants may use any base year between 2006 and 2009, as long as they state the benefits in terms of the same base year as the estimated costs.
The “Revised Departmental Guidance: Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis” contains values for several types of travel that are expressed in 2000 dollars.  Since revision of this document has not been completed, we recommend that applicants adjust the published values by an annual factor of 1.026, which represents the annual rate of growth of both the median household income and the median wage over the 2000-2008 period.  Consequently, the values of time in that guidance should be multiplied by the following factors for the given base years:

The value of preventing fatalities and injuries is discussed in the guidance document “Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses.”  The current (2009) value of preventing a fatality is $6.0 million.  Consistent with the Department’s accepted procedures, the values that should be used for other base years are: 

How will the Department balance the BCA ratios of projects that use a 3 percent discount rate with projects that use the required 7 percent discount rate?  Would the Department like to see analyses using both numbers for easier comparison?

The Notice requires discounting of future benefits and costs to present values using a discount rate of 7 percent, but the Department encourages applicants to also provide an alternative analysis using a discount rate of 3 percent.  The sources for these rates are OMB circulars A-4 and A-94, where 7 percent is represented as the average expected return on private capital and 3 percent is an estimate of the social rate of time preference.  The former is an appropriate basis of comparison between government and private investments over the period during which benefits are generated.  Required use of a 7 percent discount rate will subject government projects conferring benefits on the public to the same test of economic justification that confronts private investments expected to earn a profit.  Although the Program is being implemented at a moment when private returns are temporarily reduced, it is necessary to demonstrate that the criteria by which projects are approved will remain valid following recovery.
The discount rate of 3 percent may better reflect the willingness of savers to defer personal consumption.  Over the very long term involving lasting health effects and intergenerational allocations, people may also be willing to value their own and others’ future welfare more highly than suggested by commercial discount rates.  Therefore, it is recommended that applications include analyses derived from both discount rates, 7 percent and 3 percent.  This is particularly desirable when benefits are expected over a long period and when they are not exclusively commercial.  For example, reduced environmental pollution and preservation of natural resources yield long-term social benefits.  Transportation access for elderly, economically disadvantaged, or physically disabled populations has an ethical dimension that mitigates the justification for discounting it steeply in future years.  Wherever such considerations indicate that the 3 percent discount rate is preferable, it is recommended that applications discuss them in depth.

I am puzzled by the instructions to use 7% or 3% discount rates, "following guidance provided by OMB in Circulars A-4 and A-94." OMB A-94 Appendix C, revised in December 2008, identifies nominal discount rates up to 4% and real rates of up to 2.9%. The 30-year rates, presumably the most appropriate for infrastructure, are 4.5% and 2.7%. Should the latter real discount rates be used?

Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94 focuses on discount rates for cost-effectiveness analyses, lease-purchase agreements, and internal government investments where the costs and benefits are to the government itself, and not to the general public.  In the case of government actions where the benefits and costs accrue to the government itself, the treasury rates cited in Appendix C are appropriate for determining the appropriate discount rate.  However, these discount rates do not apply in cases where the benefits and costs accrue to the general public (as is the case with the TIGER Discretionary Grants).  In these cases, the higher discount rates cited in Circular A-94 under “Public Investments and Regulatory Analyses” are appropriate.

With respect to the Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion, is the Department more interested in national-level economic impacts or local and regional economic impacts? 

Applicants should estimate national-level economic impacts, and may also estimate the economic impacts that the investment will have at the local or regional level.  In estimating local and regional impacts, applicants should consider net increases in economic activity and jobs, and should avoid consideration of economic activity and jobs that are being shifted from one location in the United States to another location.

Has the Department developed standard guidelines for estimating job creation?

The Department recently indicated (http://www.dot.gov/recovery/ost/Responses.htm) that certain types of expenditures are less likely to align well with the Job Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion.  These types of expenditures include, among other things, engineering or design work and purchasing existing facilities or right-of-way.
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.”  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 may 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 than another project 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 (as requested in Section II(B)(1)(b)(i) of the Notice) would be useful in assessing the relative impacts of different projects on economic recovery.

The Notice states that an applicant seeking $20-$100 million in Grant Funds "must include in its application estimates of the project's expected benefits in the five long-term outcomes..."  Further, it states that "[i]n all cases, if it is clear to the Department 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."  Since estimation of full lifetime costs and calculation of a benefit-cost ratio is not required for applicants seeking $20-$100 million, is the second statement referring only to design and construction costs?

No.  Applicants that are seeking $20-$100 million in Grant Funds are encouraged to provide estimates of full lifetime costs for projects.  If such estimates are not provided, the Department will make its best judgment of what the full lifetime costs would be, and will use that judgment in determining whether the project’s total benefits are reasonably likely to outweigh its costs.  The Department will not base its determination solely on the project’s design and construction costs, unless it determines that other costs are inconsequential.

Can the Department provide any clarification on BCA requirements for an application that includes a program of multiple component projects?  While each of the individual component projects has discrete benefits and independent utility, the full benefits for each of the components are realized only when all the component projects are completed.  Additionally, national benefits are not fully realized with a project-specific approach.
The Notice states “The Department may consider one or more components of a large project to be an Eligible Project, but only to the extent that the components themselves, not the project of which they are a part, are Eligible Projects and satisfy the selection criteria specified in this notice.  For these projects, the benefits described in an applications must be related to the components of the project for which funding is requested, not the full project of which they are a part.”
Question 1:  For such an application, should an applicant submit (1) an economic analysis of each component project separately, (2) an economic analysis for the full program, which includes projects that will not be included in the application, or (3) an economic analysis combining both approaches?
Question 2: If some of the component projects that will be included in the application seek less than $20 million in Grant Funds and some seek between $20 million and $100 million in Grant Funds, would it be acceptable to adhere to the guidance on required economic analyses for projects in those respective grant size categories, even though the sum of Grant Funds requested for all project components would exceed $100 million? 

Answer 1:  In many cases, projects proposed for funding under the Program will have multiple funding sources, including State, local, and private sources as well as the possible Grant Funds provided under the Program.  In these cases, one option is for applicants to focus on a component of the overall project that will be funded by the Program, and discuss that individual component’s benefits and costs.  Another option is to focus on the overall project, and assess benefits and costs of the overall project, and then to estimate benefits for the part of the project funded with Grant Funds as a proportion of the benefits of the overall project, where the benefits of the part of the project funded with Grant Funds would be in the same proportion to the project’s overall benefits as the Grant Funds would be to the project’s overall costs (external costs would also need to be apportioned proportionately).  The latter approach could only be used in cases in which the Grant Funds completed funding for the overall project.  In no case could benefits and costs be reported for a project whose overall funding is not in hand.  In cases where the overall funding is not in hand, benefits and costs would have to be estimated for a portion of the project for which the funding is in hand, and the benefits and costs would have to be estimated on the assumption that the rest of the project was not completed.
Answer 2: If an application is submitted for multiple components of one larger project, the applicant is not required to submit an economic analysis for any component for which it is seeking less than $20 million in Grant Funds.  By the same token, the economic analysis required for other components of the project for which the applicant is seeking more than $20 million in Grant Funds should then only include benefits for those components of the project, not for other components that are treated separately in the application.  Please also note that the Department’s authority to waive the prohibition on grant sizes under $20 million is “for the purpose of funding significant projects in smaller cities, regions, or States.”

Should applicants include the required BCA in the narrative portion of the application, which is limited to 25 pages, or as an attachment?

Applicants should provide a brief description of the results of the BCA in the narrative portion of the application, which is limited to 25 pages, and provide the full BCA as an attachment supporting the results described in the narrative.

Section II(B)(1)(b)(iv) of the Notice requests that MPOs applying for TIGER Discretionary Grants provide evidence that the "owner" of the project supports the application and will cooperate in carrying out the activities to be supported by the TIGER Discretionary Grant.  For purposes of this section, who is the "owner" of the project?

While MPOs generally have responsibility for planning, programming and coordination of Federal highway and transit investments, they generally do not own or operate transportation infrastructure and are not responsible for making capital investments (there are certain exceptions where MPOs own and operate infrastructure).  If an MPO is applying for a TIGER Discretionary Grant for a project that it does not own or operate, the owner of the project would be the entity that owns and operates the relevant transportation infrastructure and will be responsible for making the capital investment that is the subject of the application.  The intent of this provision is to ensure that MPOs have coordinated with any such partners during the application process and that the project will be able to proceed quickly if Grant Funds are awarded.

For projects that must be included in the relevant State and local planning documents, do they need to be included in these plans before the grant application is submitted, or before they receive Grant Funds?

Projects are not required to be on the relevant State and local planning documents at the time the TIGER Discretionary Grant application is submitted, but projects must be on the relevant State and local planning documents prior to award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.  As stated in Section II(B)(1)(b)(iv) of the Notice, for purposes of demonstrating that the project will be ready to proceed rapidly upon award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant, the application should include a certification from the appropriate agency that the project will be included in the relevant planning document prior to award of a Tiger Discretionary Grant, consistent with applicable State and Federal laws.

Are parking facilities Eligible Projects?

TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used for parking facilities to the extent any such investments would align well with the selection criteria set forth in the Notice (parking facilities that meet certain conditions are presently eligible for funding under titles 23 and 49, chapter 53).

Can TIGER Discretionary Grants be used for the installation of a shore power/cold ironing system at a port?

TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used for the installation of shore power/cold ironing systems at ports to the extent these investments align well with the selection criteria set forth in the Notice.

Are intelligent transportation systems (ITS) projects eligible for TIGER Discretionary Grants?  What about a Traffic Management Center?

Yes, capital investments in ITS and other traffic management technology or equipment are generally Eligible Projects. 

Are monthly mortgage payments for transportation facilities eligible expenditures for Grant Funds?

No, monthly mortgage payments (or other similar fees or charges) would not be considered eligible capital investments for purposes of the Program.

Are revenue-generating projects eligible for TIGER Discretionary Grants?  If so, must project revenues first repay the Grant Funds before being redirected to other projects?

TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used for revenue-generating projects to the extent these investments align well with the selection criteria set forth in the Notice, and there are generally no requirements to repay any of the Grant Funds.

Can a grant recipient use Grant Funds to reimburse costs incurred prior to award of the Grant Funds?

No.  Grant Funds may not be used to reimburse costs incurred prior to the award of the Grant Funds.

Are Federal agencies Eligible Applicants?  If not, can an Eligible Applicant partner with a Federal agency and use Grant Funds for a project to be undertaken by the Federal agency?

No, Federal agencies are not generally Eligible Applicants.  In addition, absent specific statutory authority, the Department will not provide Grant Funds to an Eligible Applicant for a project to be undertaken by or with a Federal agency.

Can an Eligible Applicant apply for a TIGER Discretionary Grant to fund a project that would benefit the Federal government, for example, to fund a State road going through a National Park? 

An Eligible Applicant may use Grant Funds to fund a project that will generally also benefit the Federal government.  However, absent specific statutory authority, TIGER Discretionary Grants may not be used to fund projects owned or operated by the Federal government.

Are private port authorities that are not chartered by a State or local government Eligible Applicants?

No, private port authorities are not Eligible Applicants; however, Eligible Applicants may partner with a private port authority and use Grant Funds for a public-private partnership or a privately-owned port project.

Does the program have any DBE requirements for professional services and/or construction work?

While the Recovery Act did not specifically apply DBE program requirements to the Program, for TIGER Discretionary Grant projects also receiving funding under title 23, DBE program requirements do apply (see Question PC-4 at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/qandas.htm), and for Tiger Discretionary Grant projects also receiving funding under title 49, chapter 53, DBE program requirements apply (see http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_9440_9327.html#Contracts).  (For other projects also receiving funding from other DOT modes subject to the DBE program requirements, please see 49 CFR Part 26).  DOT’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has also issued official guidance available at http://www.osdbu.dot.gov/DBEProgram/dbeqna.cfm.   Additionally, applicants are encouraged to assist the Department in meeting DBE goals.  Section II(B)(1)(b) of the Notice, 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 on April 3, 2009, and Federal laws guaranteeing equal opportunity, encouraged applicants to provide information to assist the Department in assessing (1) whether the project will promote the creation of job opportunities for low-income workers through the use of best practice hiring programs and utilization of apprenticeship (including preapprenticeship) programs; (2) whether the project will provide maximum practicable opportunities for small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises, including veteran-owned small businesses and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses; (3) whether the project will make effective use of community-based organizations in connecting disadvantaged workers with economic opportunities; (4) whether the project will support entities that have a sound track record on labor practices and compliance with Federal laws ensuring that American workers are safe and treated fairly; and (5) whether the project implements best practices, consistent with our nation’s civil rights and equal opportunity laws, for ensuring that all individuals— regardless of race, gender, age, disability, and national origin—benefit from the Recovery Act.

Does the “Buy America” provision in the Recovery Act apply to the purchase of new equipment to be used in conjunction with a TIGER Discretionary Grant?

Section 1605 of the Recovery Act regarding “Buy America” applies to TIGER Discretionary Grant projects for the construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of public building or public work and includes the purchase of new equipment.  Section 1605 requires that all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in a construction project be produced in the United States.  Thus, for TIGER Discretionary Grant projects, this requirement would apply to the purchase of new equipment used as part of a construction project, but would not apply to the purchase of new equipment unrelated to construction.
However, for projects receiving funding under Title 23 from the Federal Highway Administration and also receiving TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, “Buy America” requirements do not apply to manufactured goods, pursuant to 23 USC 313 and FHWA implementing regulations and policy.  For more information on the application of “Buy America” to projects receiving Title 23 funding in addition to TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, see Question PO-10 at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/qandas.htm.  For projects receiving funding under Title 49, Chapter 53, from the Federal Transit Administration and also receiving TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, the provision at 49 USC 5323(j) and regulations at 49 CFR Part 661 require the application of “Buy America” requirements to manufactured goods.  With certain exceptions, FTA's “Buy America” requirements prevent FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1).  One of the exceptions, is for if “the steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or are not of a satisfactory quality.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B). For more information on the application of “Buy America” to projects receiving funding under Title 49, Chapter 53, see http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_9440_9327.html#Contracts.

Must the Section 1511 Certification required in Section X of the Notice be submitted with the application, or may it be submitted once an applicant is notified that it has been selected to receive Grant Funds?

For TIGER Discretionary Grants, the Section 1511 Certification is a requirement for award of the Grant Funds to a State or local agency.  While this Certification is not required to be submitted with the application, it must be executed and posted on a website and linked to Recovery.gov prior to the recipient of a TIGER Discretionary Grant receiving Grant Funds.  A template for the Certification is available on the Department’s Recovery Act website, at http://www.dot.gov/recovery/.  Additional information about this certification requirement is available in Section X of the Notice.

To what extent should applications include a plan for operating and maintaining the project?  Should operations and maintenance be addressed in the portion of the application demonstrating the viability and completeness of the financing package, pursuant to Section II(B)(1)(b)(vi) of the Notice?

The plan for operating and maintaining the project will be assessed by the Department in evaluating the project’s alignment with the first part of the Long-Term Outcomes selection criterion, State of Good Repair.  As stated in Section II(B)(1)(a)(i), the Department will assess, among other things, “the extent to which a sustainable source of revenue is available for long-term operations and maintenance of the project.” 
The requirement in Section II(B)(1)(b)(vi) of the Notice to demonstrate the viability and completeness of the financing package is included in the context of the Recovery Act’s preference for quick-start activities.  In this context, the Department is particularly focused on whether the project has a viable and complete financing package for construction of the project. 
Therefore, while long-term sources of revenue for operations and maintenance of the project is an important factor in assessing a project’s alignment with the long-term outcome of State of Good Repair, these sources of revenue do not need to be identified in the project’s financial plan which is provided to demonstrate the project’s ability to proceed quickly to construction upon the award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.

Please elaborate on the requirement in Section VII(D) of the Notice that applications include information about the grant recipient and other project parties.

Applications should include information about the grant recipient and other project parties to the extent it is relevant to the Department’s assessment of whether or not the applicant is an Eligible Applicant or the project is an Eligible Project, or to the extent it is relevant to the Department’s assessment of whether or not a project aligns well with the selection criteria specified in the Notice or is ready to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.

Section VII(G) of the Notice requires that applications 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 Recovery Act.  Is there a specific form that must be filled out?

There isn’t a specific form for the required certification.  An application should include a statement that the applicant 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 Recovery Act, and this statement should be signed by an appropriate official.

Must applicants submit a letter of intent to apply for a TIGER Discretionary Grant?

A letter notifying the Department of the intent to submit an application is generally not required for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program, unless the application is for a TIGER TIFIA Payment, in which case a letter of intent was required to be submitted by August 3, 2009.  If the application is for a TIGER Discretionary Grant, not a TIGER TIFIA Payment, no letter of intent is required.  Applicants should submit complete applications by September 15, 2009, in accordance with the requirements specified in the Notice.

Do cover pages and/or Tables of Contents count towards the 25-page limit for the narrative portion of the application?  What about the Federal wage rate certification required by Section VII(G) of the Notice?  Are there any other portions of the application that are not counted towards this limit?

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 required by Section VII(G) may also be outside of the 25-page narrative.  Otherwise, the only substantive portions of the application that should exceed the 25-page limit are any supporting documents provided to support assertions or conclusions made in the 25-page narrative section, as specified in Section VII(A) of the Notice.  For example, the narrative should include specific information explaining the project’s NEPA status, but any relevant NEPA documentation that demonstrates this status can be posted on a website and referenced in the 25-page narrative.  Similarly, if the 25-page narrative asserts that a particular public official supports the project and has provided a letter of support, the letter of support can be attached outside of the 25-page narrative. 

Are there any limits on the acceptable file size of the electronic applications submitted in accordance with the Notice?

Applications should be less than 20 megabytes to help ensure that there are no problems with electronic transmission.  In addition, applicants are encouraged to zip or compress their applications to avoid delays or problems with electronic transmission.

How can interested parties find out who has applied for TIGER Discretionary Grants and for what projects?

The Department will post a list of all applications (including the names of the applicants, the amount of Grant Funds requested, and brief descriptions of the projects) on the Program website as soon as possible after the Application Deadline.  The Department will not be providing any partial lists of applicants in advance of the Application Deadline.

Is the Department using particular definitions for the terms “urban,” “rural” and “smaller cities, regions or States”?  (The Recovery Act requires the Department to take measures to ensure an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities, and gives the Department discretion to waive the $20 million minimum grant size requirement for significant projects in smaller cities, regions, or States.)

The Department will generally use the definitions of “urban” and “rural” provided by the Bureau of the Census.  The following definitions used by the Census Bureau are available in the Census Bureau’s 2008 publication, “Geographic Terms and Concepts (2008).”
URBAN AND RURAL
For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classified as urban all territory, population, and housing units located within urbanized areas (UAs) and urban clusters (UCs), both defined using the same criteria. The Census Bureau delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which generally consists of:

• A cluster of one or more block groups or census blocks, each of which has a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile at the time.
• Surrounding block groups and census blocks, each of which has a population density of at least 500 people per square mile at the time.
• Less densely settled blocks that form enclaves or indentations, or are used to connect discontiguous areas with qualifying densities.

Rural consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs.
For Census 2000, the urban and rural classification was applied to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Urbanized Areas (UAs)—An urbanized area consists of densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people. The Census Bureau delineates UAs to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. For Census 2000, the UA criteria were extensively revised and all areas were reexamined and redefined, rather than building from the previous decade’s UA boundary as had been the practice in previous censuses (territory that was part of a 1990 UA was not automatically grandfathered into the 2000 UA). Because of changes in criteria, some territory that was classified as urbanized for the 1990 census was reclassified as rural. In addition, some areas that were identified as being within UAs for the 1990 census were reclassified as within urban clusters.
Urban Clusters (UCs)—An urban cluster consists of densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000 people. The Census Bureau introduced the UC concept for Census 2000 to provide a more consistent and accurate measure of urban population, housing, and territory throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. Prior to Census 2000, urban places of 2,500 or more population were identified outside UAs without regard to population density. In addition, densely settled populations located outside places and outside UAs were classified as rural prior to Census 2000. Because of the adoption of the UC concept for Census 2000, some territory that was classified as rural for the 1990 census was reclassified as urban. Note: All urban areas defined within Guam based on the results of Census 2000 are designated as urban clusters regardless of their total population.
Updated lists of UAs and UCs are available on the Census Bureau website.
SMALLER CITIES, REGIONS OR STATES
For “Smaller cities, regions, or States” the Department will generally use the following definitions; however, the Department will consider other cities, regions, or States to be smaller cities, regions, or States if an applicant can demonstrate that the Department would be justified in making such a determination:
“Smaller cities” are cities that are defined as UCs by the Census Bureau (see definition above).
“Smaller regions” are any areas that are defined as Rural by the Census Bureau (see definition above).
“Smaller States” are the fifteen States that have the lowest population totals, as of the Census Bureau’s July 2008 population estimate.  These States, from smallest to largest, are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, and New Mexico.  These 15 States are the only States that have fewer than two million people, as of the Census Bureau’s July 2008 population estimate.