[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7434]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments

February 8, 2007.
    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.
    b. Project No.: P-2101-084.
    c. Date filed: February 1, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
    e. Name of Project: Upper American River Project.
    f. Location: On the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and South Fork of
the American River near Placerville, California. The project affects
6,375 acres of Federal land administered by the El Dorado National
Forest and 54 acres of Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.
    h. Applicant Contact: Michael A. Swiger, Van Ness Feldman,
Attorneys at Law, 1050 Thomas Jefferson St, NW., Washington, DC 20007,
(202) 298-1891.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo, 888 First St, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments: March 10, 2007. Reply comments due
March 25, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. SMUD filed a settlement on behalf of itself and the majority of
Federal and State agencies and other stakeholders involved in the
relicense proceeding. The purpose of the settlement agreement is to
resolve all issues, except those that may arise under the Endangered
Species Act, that have or could have been raised by the settling
parties in connection with the Commission's issuance of a new license
for the project and to establish SMUD's obligations for the protection,
mitigation, and enhancement of resources affected by the project. SMUD
asks that the settlement become the preferred alternative in lieu of
the preferred alternative identified in the application for new
license, filed with the Commission on July 15, 2005.
    l. A copy of the settlement agreement is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2587 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 5203]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01540]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2019-0296; FRL-10003-09-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad
of EPA Actions (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Procedures for Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental
Effects Abroad of EPA Actions (EPA ICR Number 2243.09, OMB Control
Number 2020-0033) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through January 31, 2020. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on September 24, 2019 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 28,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OA-2019-0296, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi Schaedle, NEPA Compliance
Division, Office of Federal Activities, Mail Code 2203A, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. 4321-4347 establishes a national policy for the environment. The
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees the NEPA
implementation. CEQ's Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 set
the standard for NEPA compliance. They also require agencies to
establish their own NEPA implementing procedures. The EPA's procedures
for implementing NEPA are found in 40 CFR part 6. Through this part,
the EPA adopted the CEQ Regulations and supplemented those regulations
for actions proposed by the EPA that are subject to NEPA requirements.
The EPA actions subject to NEPA include the award of wastewater
treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act,
the EPA's issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits under section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, certain research and development projects, development and
issuance of regulations, the EPA actions involving renovations or new
construction of EPA facilities, and certain grants awarded for projects
authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual appropriations act.
The EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of
the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114
(``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions''). The EPA's
NEPA regulations apply to actions of the EPA that are subject to NEPA
in order to ensure that environmental information is available to the
Agency's decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and
before actions are taken. When the EPA conducts an environmental
assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency
generally follows its NEPA procedures. Compliance with the procedures
is the responsibility of the EPA's Responsible Officials, and for
applicant proposed actions applicants may be required to provide
environmental information to the EPA as part of the environmental
review process. For this ICR, applicant-proposed projects subject to
either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in
other EPA programs' ICRs) are addressed through the NEPA process.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Certain grant or permit applicants
who must submit environmental information documentation to the EPA for
their projects to comply with NEPA or Executive Order 12114, including
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program facilities, State and
Tribal Assistance Grant recipients, and new source National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permittees.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 27 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 7,560 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $631,800 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 6,117 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to an adjustment change in the
size of the respondent universe.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-01540 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


needs of the proposed communities.
ii. Demonstrated Staff Expertise
For All Program Applicants
    As noted in section D.2(h) of this NOFO, all applicants must submit
a Staffing Plan and resumes as part of their applications. Applicants
must submit an accompanying narrative that describes how the staff
listed and their relevant areas of expertise will contribute to the
goals of TCP and to meeting individual community needs. DOT will
evaluate Staffing Plans based on their ability to demonstrate how
individual team members represent the different areas of expertise
needed to develop and implement a well-structured, feasible, and
scalable technical assistance, planning, and capacity building plan.

c. Rating Factor 3: Proven Success
i. Experience Supportive of Technical Assistance Approach (Priority
Sub-Factor)
For All Applicants
    Applicants must demonstrate prior experience and successes related
to the tasks and activities described in the technical assistance
approach, clearly identifying which organization(s) have undertaken the
activities described. DOT will evaluate applicants based on their
descriptions of past experience and success undertaking activities
proposed in the technical assistance approach.
    Narratives should include information on the following:

 Examples of conducting the activities described in the
technical assistance approach for each of the three transportation
phases, including outcomes and impacts
 Experience executing projects that address local community
mobility, access, climate and community development goals, in
accordance with regional or statewide plans
 Experience supporting disadvantaged, rural, and Tribal
communities on equity-related issues such as civil rights compliance,
equitable development, inclusive community engagement
 Experience supporting innovative, inclusive, and meaningful
public engagement activities, including experience engaging with
communities with Limited English Proficiency
 Experience and evidence of the team's knowledge of Federal
funding and technical assistance programs and the transportation
planning processes relevant to the Community of Practice being
supported that will support its role as a community navigator that
connects communities to existing technical assistance resources
available through DOT and other Federal agencies
 Experience and evidence of the team's knowledge and experience
with applicable Federal statutes such as NEPA, title VI, ADA, and
others
 Experience supporting workforce development, hiring and labor
practices benefitting local economically disadvantaged communities,
including specific examples
ii. Experience Supportive of Capacity Building Approach
For All Applicants
    Applicants must demonstrate prior experience and successes related
to the tasks and activities described in the capacity building
approach, clearly identifying which organization(s) have undertaken the
activities described. DOT will evaluate applicants based on their
descriptions of past experience and success undertaking activities
proposed in the capacity building approach.
    Narratives should include information on the following:

 Examples of conducting the activities described in the
capacity building approach, including outcomes and impacts
 Demonstration of experience applying strategies to nurture
small and disadvantaged business participation and development,
including capacity building initiatives and facilitating supportive
services within disadvantaged business enterprise community
marketplaces
 Experience with community wealth building and economic
development practices, including community ownership models,
apprenticeship, and business entrepreneurial programs
iii. Experience Supportive of Community of Practice Management Approach
For TCP-N Applicants
    Applicants must demonstrate prior experience and successes related
to the tasks and activities described in the Community of Practice
Management approach, clearly identifying which organization(s) have
undertaken the activities described. DOT will evaluate applicants based
on their descriptions of past experience and success undertaking
activities proposed in the community of practice management approach.
    Narratives should include information on the following:

 Examples of conducting the activities described in the
Community of Practice approach, including outcomes and impacts
 Specific examples of experiences relevant to the chosen
Community of Practice cohort (Main Streets, Complete Neighborhoods, or
Networked Communities)
 Demonstration of having conducted convenings to facilitate
peer learning among communities
For TCP-R Applicants
    Applicants must demonstrate prior experience and successes related
to the tasks and activities described in the peer learning approach,
clearly identifying which organization(s) have undertaken the
activities described. DOT will evaluate applicants based on their
descriptions of past experience and success undertaking activities
proposed in the peer learning approach.
    Narratives should include information on the following:

 Examples of conducting the activities described in the peer
learning approach, including outcomes and impacts
 Demonstration of having conducted convenings to facilitate
peer learning among communities; and/or support regional collaboratives
d. Rating Factor 4: Program Management and Evaluation
i. Schedule of Milestones and Deliverables
For All Program Applicants
    Applications must include a proposed set of tasks and schedule
detailing the expected start and end date of tasks and major
deliverables described in the proposed approach. Applicants must
clearly delineate and describe tasks and deliverables expected in the
first two years of targeted community support, including peer learning
support, and the third year of peer learning, evaluation, reporting,
and transition activities. Applications should incorporate preparation
of the final report and presentation into the project timeline and
period of performance. The proposed task organization and schedule will
serve as a starting point for cooperative agreement negotiations with
the selected teams.
    DOT will evaluate applicants based on the feasibility of the
schedule; level of detail; alignment with proposed technical
assistance, planning, and capacity building support; and alignment with
accomplishing TCP goals within the period of performance.
ii. Program Evaluation and Assessment
For All Program Applicants
    Applicants must include specific performance metrics under each of
the specific work tasks describing how they will track, analyze, and
report on the results and outcomes of the technical assistance,
planning, and capacity building they are providing to individual
communities and to the Communities of Practice/network of peer
communities they are supporting. Performance metrics may be qualitative
and/or quantitative and should be described in terms of well-defined
goals that align with the goals of TCP.
    DOT will evaluate the strength, clarity, and meaningfulness of
proposed metrics and methodologies.
    A list of potential metrics is bulleted below each TCP goal below:

1. Facilitate the Planning and Development of Transportation and
Community Revitalization Activities Supported by DOT

 New projects that increase mobility, reduce pollution from
transportation sources, expand affordable transportation options,
facilitate efficient land use, preserve or expand jobs, and improve
housing conditions
 Enhanced access to health care, education, and food security,
or improved health outcomes

2. Build Capacity and Provide Support to Disadvantaged and/or
Transportation Burdened Communities

 Short- and long-term capacity increases (e.g., increased
staff, strategic hires)
 Sustained participation of key stakeholders that have
historically been excluded from planning and decision making processes
 Leveraging relationships with other entities to advance
community priorities

3. Increase the Level of Federal Investments in Transportation
Infrastructure

 Number of successful grant or funding applications for
projects supported through this program
 Implementation of new transportation infrastructure projects

4. Center and Advance Community-Driven Priorities

 Development of community-defined impact metrics to evaluate
local equity outcomes
 Demonstrate positive benefits for disadvantaged communities
 Establishment of resident steering or advisory committees
e. Priority Considerations
    DOT will prioritize Capacity Builders based on the below priority
considerations. Priority considerations will be evaluated and
documented in the Merit Review phase but will not factor into Merit
Review scores. The documentation will be shared with the SRT for final
recommendations.
i. Experience With Priority Geographies
For All Program Applicants
    To receive priority consideration under this factor, applicants
must clearly demonstrate their experience with supporting communities
facing transportation burden and disparity, including but not limited
to:

 Communities identified as disadvantaged in the transportation
category in the CEJST tool
 Communities identified as transportation insecure in the ETC
tool

    Applicants should provide this information in their Experience
Supportive of Technical Assistance Approach and Experience Supportive
of Capacity Building Approach narratives.
ii. Diversity of Capacity Builder Teams
For TCP-N Program Applicants
    Applicant Capacity Builder Teams include one or more partner
organization that can be classified as:
     a disadvantaged business (e.g., 8(a) business) as defined
by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA);
     a small business as defined by the SBA;
     a Historically Black College or University;
     other Minority Serving Institution;
     a HUBZone as defined by SBA [https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/hubzone-program]; or
     a woman-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small
business as defined by SBA.
    Applicants should identify this information in their Executive
Summary and in each Organization Description attachment.
    The diversity of the Capacity Builder teams is not a priority
consideration for the TCP-R program.
iii. Leveraging of Additional Funding Sources
For All Program Applicants
    Applicants that demonstrate an ability to leverage other funding
and resources to provide support to additional communities, supported
by Letters of Commitment, will be prioritized. This may include
leveraging other funding, including from philanthropy, other Federal
funding sources (e.g., formula funds, State or local resources and in-
kind contributions of staff, volunteer time, facilities or other
resources) to amplify program impact and support Thriving Communities
Program goals and objectives in the long-term. Applicants should
identify this information in their Budget Proposals.
f. Additional Considerations
i. Soundness of Proposed Budget
    Proposed budgets will not receive merit ratings, but will be
evaluated for soundness and strength, with reviewers providing comments
on the following factors for consideration by the Senior Review Team:
     Does the proposed budget seem reasonable, feasible, and
well-planned relevant to the activities proposed?
     Does the proposed budget allocate at least 20% of funding
for sub-granting to community organizations? Are these allocations
clearly described and reasonable?
     Does the budget clearly delineate between targeted support
provided during the first two years of the period of performance and
activities undertaken in the third year?
     DOT will prioritize applicants offering the highest
percentages of targeted support. How much of the budget is devoted to
targeted support?
     Does the proposed budget seem to provide high service
value relevant to the funding requested?
     Do reviewers have any concerns or foresee any risks with
the proposed budget? Examples of concerns/risks include, but are not
limited to: a budget line-item for profit; excessive employee salaries;
a total budget request in excess of what this NOFO offers; excessive
sub-contracting to consultants that are not on the applicant team; and
excessive allocation to third-year budgets.
     For TCP-R applicants only: DOT will view favorably
applicants that propose robust meaningful public engagement activities.
Does the applicant allocate a reasonable amount of budget for public
engagement activities in comparison to described approach?
    DOT acknowledges that TCP-N applicants do not have details on
specific communities or the exact number of communities they would
support if selected at the time of application. If selected,
applicants' proposed budgets will be negotiated and finalized with DOT
as part of the cooperative agreement process.

2. Review and Selection Process

a. Review for Eligibility and Completeness
    For each application, DOT staff will assess whether the applicant
is eligible and submitted all the information requested for a complete
application. The following elements are required for a complete
application:

 Required forms listed in section D.2(a)
 Organizational documentation (see section D.2(b))
 Organizational descriptions (see section D.2(c))
 Executive Summary (see section D.2(e))
 Narrative Responses (see section D.2(f))
 Letters of Commitment (TCP-R applicants only) (see section
D.2(g))

 Staffing Plan (see section D.2(h))
 Budget Proposal (see section D.2(i)))

    Applications that do not have all the necessary components for a
complete application will be referred to an Evaluation Management
Oversight Team, which will contact the applicant if it is determined
they are an eligible applicant and request the missing information with
a response time of 5 business days. Applicants that do not supply
required information in this timeframe will be disqualified. For the
Executive Summary and Narrative Responses, DOT will contact applicants
only if these sections have been omitted entirely; applications that
lack substance for either of these items will not be disqualified but
are likely to receive low Merit Ratings.
    Applicants will be disqualified if:
     Application does not include any one of the required
components listed above and does not respond within 5 business days
with complete application component(s).
     Lead applicant is not an eligible organization (as
described in section C.1).
     Activities proposed do not align with the purpose and
goals of the TCP.
     Application is submitted after the deadline (unless
application is late due to legitimate technical issue(s) documented in
advance of the application deadline and DOT is notified of the
technical issue prior to the deadline in section D.4).
     Application is submitted via any method other than
grants.gov (unless there is a confirmed systems issue and DOT exercises
its right to accept the application in an alternate format).
    Applicants who are determined to be ineligible will be notified in
writing, and all determinations will be documented.
b. Evaluation Criteria Review
    First-level Review Teams, comprised of staff from DOT, inter-agency
Federal staff, and contractor staff, will evaluate all eligible and
complete applications received by the deadline for an Evaluation Review
against the evaluation criteria in section E.1 of this NOFO.
    Ratings will be determined by each reviewer on an individual basis,
and a compilation of ratings will be produced. The First-level Review
Team will conduct a panel discussion, revise scores as appropriate, and
prepare an overall project rating based on majority opinion of the
review team.
    The First-level Review Team will consider the quality and
completeness of each rating sub-factor, which will result in a rating
of `High,' `Medium,' or `Low,' for each sub-factor.
    Each Rating Factor will receive an overall rating of `High,'
`Medium,' or `Low,' based on ratings of the Sub-Factors A, B, and/or C.
    For Rating Factors 1 and 3:
     Rating Factor will receive a `High' rating when:

[cir] Priority Sub-Factor A is rated `High;' AND,
[cir] Of the remaining two sub-factors (B and C), at least one is rated
`High,' and neither is rated `Low'

     Rating Factor will receive a `Medium' rating when:

[cir] The Rating Factor does not meet the criteria for a `High' rating;
AND,
[cir] Priority Sub-Factor A is rated at least `Medium;' AND,
[cir] Of the remaining two sub-factors (B and C), at least one is rated
`Medium' or higher

     Rating Factor will receive a `Low' rating when:

[cir] The Rating Factor does not meet the criteria for a `High' or
`Medium' rating; OR,
[cir] Priority Sub-Factor A is rated `Low'

    For Rating Factors 2 and 4:
     Rating Factor will receive a `High' rating when both sub-
factors (A and B) are rated `High'
     Rating Factor will receive a `Medium' rating when:

[cir] either both sub-factors are rated `Medium;' OR
[cir] one sub-factor is rated `Medium' and another is rated `High'

     Rating Factor will receive a `Low' rating when at least
one sub-factor is rated `Low'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rating scale                        High                    Medium                    Low
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description..........................  The application is       The application is       The application is
                                        substantively and        moderately responsive    minimally responsive
                                        comprehensively          to the criterion. It     to the criterion. It
                                        responsive to the        makes a moderate case    makes a weak case
                                        criterion. It makes a    about advancing the      about advancing the
                                        strong case about        program goals as         program goals as
                                        advancing the program    described in the         described in the
                                        goals as described in    criterion descriptions.  criterion
                                        the criterion                                     descriptions. Proposal
                                        descriptions..                                    may be counter to the
                                                                                criterion or does not
                                                                                contain sufficient
                                                                                information. It does
                                                                                not advance or may
                                                                                negatively impact
                                                                                criterion goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria ratings, an overall application merit rating
of `Highly Recommended,' `Recommended,' or `Not Recommended' will be
assigned using the following methodology. The ratings on the individual
merit criteria translate to the following overall application rating
for merit criteria:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Overall merit rating              Individual rating factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Recommended...................   At least three Rating
                                        Factors are `High'.
                                        No Rating Factor is
                                        rated `Low'.
Recommended..........................   Application received
                                        fewer than three `High' ratings,
                                        and;
                                        No more than one Rating
                                        Factor is rated `Low',
Not Recommended......................   Application received at
                                        least two `Low' ratings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After completing the merit review, among applications of similar
merit, DOT will prioritize applicants that:

 demonstrate an ability to leverage other funding sources
 demonstrate experience working with priority geographies
 devote the highest percentage of their proposed budgets to
targeted community support
 have diverse Capacity Builder teams (for TCP-N applicants
only)
 describe robust meaningful public involvement approaches (for
TCP-R applicants only)

c. Leadership Selection Process
    Applications that receive an overall application rating of Highly
Recommended will be advanced to a Senior Review Team (SRT), which will
include senior DOT and HUD leadership, to recommend applicants to the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy (Under Secretary) for
final selection. Final selection will be made with consideration to:

 Geographic, team member, and organizational diversity
 Applicant's demonstrated ability to leverage other funding
sources to support additional communities and advance TCP goals in the
long term
 Experience working with priority geographies
 Soundness of overall proposed budgets
 Applicants that devote the highest percentage of their
proposed budgets to targeted community support
 For TCP-N applicants, ability to meet anticipated technical
assistance needs of communities selected by DOT
 For the TCP-R, applicants with robust meaningful public
engagement approaches

    The SRT at its sole discretion may elect to review and select for
cooperative agreements proposals rated as Recommended if the proposal
fulfills technical assistance needs that would not otherwise be met by
applications rated as Highly Recommended.
d. Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy Selection Phase
    The SRT will present a list of applications for recommended
consideration to the Under Secretary for final selection. The SRT may
advise the Under Secretary on any application on the list, including
options for reduced awards. The Under Secretary will make final
selections based on applications that best address program requirements
and are most deserving of funding.

3. Risk Assessment

    Prior to award, each selected applicant will be subject to a risk
assessment as required by 2 CFR 200.206. DOT must review and consider
any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the designated
integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. An applicant
may review information in FAPIIS and comment on any information about
itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. DOT will
consider comments by the applicant, in addition to the other
information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants.

F. Federal Award Administration

1. Federal Award Notice

    This NOFO will remain open until November 28, 2023.Following the
evaluation process, DOT will notify successful applicants of their
selection for funding. DOT will also notify other applicants, whose
applications were received by the deadline, but have not been chosen
for award. The DOT will offer a written or telephonic debrief to
provide an explanation of, and guidance regarding, the reasons why the
application was not approved.
    Final Award. After DOT has made selections, DOT will finalize
specific terms of the cooperative agreement and budget in consultation
with the selected lead applicant. If DOT and the selected applicant do
not finalize the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement in a
timely manner, or the selected applicant fails to provide requested
information, an award will not be made to that applicant. In this case,
DOT may select another eligible applicant.
    DOT will reimburse labor and direct costs incurred by the Capacity
Builder team, including subcontractors. Capacity Builders should
maintain a system for recording all project costs. Invoices may be
transmitted to DOT monthly. Aggregate payment will not exceed the cap
shown in the cooperative agreement.
    Adjustments to Funding. To ensure the fair distribution of funds
and enable the purposes or requirements of a specific program to be
met, DOT reserves the right to fund less than the amount requested in
an application.
    DOT Involvement. As the Federal awarding agency, DOT will maintain
substantial involvement and oversight throughout the three-year period
of performance of the executed cooperative agreements. This includes,
but may not be limited to:

 Assigning communities selected to receive support through the
TCP with specific Capacity Builder teams and finalizing work plans for
cohort specific Communities of Practice
 Review of deliverables including individualized community deep
dive work plans and technical assistance assessment
 Collecting and reviewing quarterly performance reports and
final reports
 Convening regular meetings or Capacity Builder calls to review
project activities, schedule, and progress toward the scope of work
 Identifying relevant Federal technical assistance programs to
be aligned with TCP efforts in specific communities and assigning
Federal agency staff to serve as liaisons with capacity builders,
technical assistance recipients and their community partners
 Reviewing and approving changes in key personnel or scope
changes
 Oversight of ongoing compliance with applicable Federal
regulations
 Budget oversight, including collecting and reviewing and
reimbursing monthly invoices for incurred costs and receiving
notification when budgets are 50% and 90% expended
 Conducting quarterly meetings with Capacity Builders and
involvement with an annual TCP convening with Capacity Builders and
community partners

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Administrative Budget
    DOT requires that a selected applicant participates in negotiations
to determine an administrative budget. The administrative budget must
clearly identify the labor, associated indirect costs, travel, and
material and supply costs associated with your management of the award.
The administrative budget must track the different sources of funding
and associate administrative costs to each source. Should DOT not be
able to successfully conclude negotiations with a selected applicant
within a period determined by DOT, an award will not be made.
    Performance under the grant program will be governed by and in
compliance with the following requirements as applicable to the type of
organization of the recipient and any applicable sub-recipients:
    All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards found in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by DOT at 2 CFR part
1201.
    Other terms and conditions as well as performance requirements will
be addressed in further communications with the recipient. The full
terms and conditions may vary and are subject to discussions and
negotiations.
    In connection with any program or activity conducted with or
benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds
must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including,
without limitation, the Constitution of the United States

statutory, regulatory, and public policy requirements, including
without limitation, those protecting free speech, religious liberty,
public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination; the
conditions of performance, non-discrimination requirements, and other
assurances made applicable to the award of funds in accordance with
regulations of the Department of Transportation; and applicable Federal
financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the
Office of Management and Budget. In complying with these requirements,
recipients must ensure that no concession agreements are denied, or
other contracting decisions made on the basis of speech or other
activities protected by the First Amendment. If the Bureau determines
that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable Federal
requirements, the Bureau may terminate the award of funds and disallow
previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to reimburse any
expended award funds.
    Additionally, Executive Order 13858 directs the Executive Branch
Departments and agencies to maximize the use of goods, products, and
materials produced in the United States through the terms and
conditions of Federal financial assistance awards. If selected for an
award, grant recipients must be prepared to demonstrate how they will
maximize the use of domestic goods, products, and materials, as
applicable.
Administration Priorities
    Civil Rights and Title VI: As a condition of a grant award, grant
recipients should demonstrate that the recipient has a plan for
compliance with civil rights obligations and nondiscrimination laws,
including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing
regulations (49 CFR 21), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, all other civil
rights requirements, and accompanying regulations. This should include
a signed agreement of standard Title VI/Non-Discrimination Assurances,
identified as an attachment in an executed cooperative agreement. DOT's
and the applicable Operating Administrations' Office of Civil Rights
may work with awarded grant recipients to ensure full compliance with
Federal civil rights requirements.
    Performance and Program Evaluation: As a condition of grant award,
grant recipients may be required to participate in an evaluation
undertaken by DOT or another agency or partner. The evaluation may take
different forms such as an implementation assessment across grant
recipients, an impact and/or outcomes analysis of all or selected sites
within or across grant recipients, or a benefit/cost analysis or
assessment of return on investment. DOT may require applicants to
collect data elements to aid the evaluation and/or use information
available through other reporting. As a part of the evaluation, as a
condition of award, grant recipients must agree to: (1) make records
available to the evaluation contractor or DOT staff; (2) provide access
to program records, and any other relevant documents to calculate costs
and benefits; (3) in the case of an impact analysis, facilitate the
access to relevant information as requested; and (4) follow evaluation
procedures as specified by the evaluation contractor or DOT staff.
    Recipients and subrecipients are also encouraged to incorporate
program evaluation including associated data collection activities from
the outset of their program design and implementation to meaningfully
document and measure their progress towards meeting an agency priority
goal(s). Title I of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act
of 2018 (Evidence Act), Public Law 115-435 (2019) urges Federal
awarding agencies and Federal assistance recipients and subrecipients
to use program evaluation as a critical tool to learn, to improve
equitable delivery, and to elevate program service and delivery across
the program lifecycle. Evaluation means ``an assessment using
systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs,
policies, and organizations intended to assess their effectiveness and
efficiency.'' 5 U.S.C. 311. Credible program evaluation activities are
implemented with relevance and utility, rigor, independence and
objectivity, transparency, and ethics (OMB Circular A-11, part 6
section 290).
    For grant recipients receiving an award, evaluation costs are
allowable costs (either as direct or indirect), unless prohibited by
statute or regulation, and such costs may include the personnel and
equipment needed for data infrastructure and expertise in data
analysis, performance, and evaluation. (2 CFR part 200).
Performance and Program Evaluation
    Each cooperative agreement lead organization must submit quarterly
progress reports to monitor progress and ensure accountability and
financial transparency in the grant program. Each Capacity Builder must
collect and report to the Bureau performance information on the
technical assistance and advisory services being provided. The specific
performance information and reporting period will be determined on an
individual basis and communicated at the kickoff meeting of the
cooperative agreement. It is anticipated that the Bureau and the
Capacity Builder will hold regular, informal meetings or calls to
review project activities, schedule, and progress toward the scope of
work.
    If funding is appropriated for an FY 2024 TCP, and there is no
change in the TCP's authorization, DOT may elect not to issue a new
NOFO for the FY 2024 TCP-N program; rather, it may select National
Capacity Builders from the FY 2023 awardees, provided that DOT
determines that awardees have demonstrated an appropriate level of
performance and that awardees have sufficient capacity to and agree to
provide support to a new cohort of communities. For the purposes of
this program, an appropriate level of performance is determined based
on the community recipients' overall satisfaction with technical
assistance and capacity building support and with the responsiveness by
the Capacity Builder to the needs of the community. Community
recipients of technical assistance may be contacted to assess their
level of satisfaction with Capacity Builder performance.
    Additionally, it will be determined based on the Capacity Builder's
successful advancement of goals and objectives related to:

1. Project Management
2. Technical Assistance, Planning, and Capacity Building Services to
assigned TCP Communities
3. Meaningful Public Engagement to assigned TCP Communities
4. Establishing and Managing a National or Regional Community of
Practice
5. Program Evaluation and Performance Metrics Assessment Plan
6. Project Budget
Remedies for Noncompliance
    Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.340 [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR86b76dde0e1e9dc/section-200.340], a Federal award may be terminated
in whole or in part if the grantee fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the award or if DOT determines the award no longer
effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.
3. Reporting
    If the total value of a selected applicant's currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all
Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000

for any period of time during the period of performance of this Federal
award, then the applicant during that period of time must maintain the
currency of information reported to the SAM that is made available in
the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS)
about civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings described in
paragraph 2 of this award term and condition. This is a statutory
requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41
U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all
information posted in the designated integrity and performance system
on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance review required for
Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts

    If you have questions or need additional information about this
NOFO, you may contact [email protected]. Prospective
applicants may visit the following website for more information:
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/thriving-communities.

H. Other Supporting Information

1. Definitions

    Areas of Persistent Poverty: An area of persistent poverty is a
county with 20 percent or more of the population living in poverty over
the 30 years preceding the date of enactment of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, November 15, 2021, as measured by the 1990 and
2000 decennial census and the most recent Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates. Alternatively, data to support eligibility may also be from
any census tract with a poverty rate of at least 20 percent as measured
by the 2013-2017, 5-year data series available from the American
Community Survey of the Census Bureau.
    Authorized Organization Representative (AOR): The person authorized
to submit applications on behalf of the organization via Grants.gov.
The AOR is authorized by the E-Biz point of contact in the System for
Award Management. The AOR is listed on the SF- 424.
    Capacity Building: Activities designed to improve the ability of an
organization to design and implement the necessary technical,
financial, business, data analysis, and management skills of grantees
to access Federal funding, meet Federal requirements, undertake
statewide and metropolitan long-range planning and programming
activities, and implement other activities that broadly support project
development and delivery. This includes developing long-term community
capacity to sustain partnerships and engage non-governmental partners,
leadership and workforce development, and program evaluation.
    Community-Based Organizations: The term ``community-based
organization'' means a public or private nonprofit organization of
demonstrated effectiveness that--(A) is representative of a community
or significant segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or
related services to individuals in the community.
    Disadvantaged Business: According to the Small Business
Administration, a Disadvantaged business must be 51% owned or
controlled by one or more disadvantaged persons, and the firm must also
be small according to SBA's size standards. A full definition can be
found on SBA's website [https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/small-disadvantaged-business].
    Disadvantaged Community: (1) Any Tribal land or any Territory or
possession of the United States and (2) those census tracts (a)
experiencing disproportionate effects (as defined by Executive Order
12898); (b) that contain areas of persistent poverty as defined in 49
U.S.C. 6702(a)(1); (c) that are historically disadvantaged as defined
by CEQ's Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool [https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5] and DOT's USDOT
Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer [https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/ETC-Explorer---Homepage/] mapping tool for Historically Disadvantaged
Communities; or (d) other federally designated community development
zones.
    Equitable Development: Equitable development is a development
approach for meeting the needs of all communities, including
underserved communities through policies and programs that reduce
disparities while fostering livable places that are healthy and vibrant
for all.
    Grants.gov: The website serving as the Federal Government's central
portal for searching and applying for Federal financial assistance
throughout the Federal Government. Registration on Grants.gov is
required for submission of applications to prospective agencies unless
otherwise specified in this NOFO.
    Historically Disadvantaged Community: Any Tribal land or any
Territory or possession of the United States, or certain census tracts
census experiencing disadvantage when its overall disadvantaged index
score places it in the 65% (or higher) of all US census tracts in the
USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer [https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/ETC-Explorer---Homepage/].
    Indian Tribe: For the purposes of this NOFO, Indian Tribes include
federally recognized Tribal Governments (as defined by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs) [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/12/2023-00504/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of].
    Location-Efficient Housing: Housing that benefits from being
located in communities near work, schools, services, and amenities and
has accessibility to public transportation networks.
    Meaningful Public Involvement: A process that proactively seeks
full representation from the community, considers public comments and
feedback, and incorporates that feedback into a project, program, or
plan when possible. The impact of community contributions encourages
early and continuous public involvement and brings diverse viewpoints
and values into the decision-making process. This process enables the
community and agencies to make better-informed decisions through
collaborative efforts.
    Place-Making: A multi-faceted and collaborative approach to the
planning, design, and management of the public realm to re-activate or
co-create active, accessible and inviting public spaces that promote
the well-being of people.
    Planning: Efforts that support inclusive public participation and
community engagement in developing and implementing a range of
activities to identify, assess, and evaluate community needs, including
but not limited to environmental reviews, data and mapping
visualization, market and mobility studies, health and safety impacts,
and climate vulnerability assessments. Planning assistance may involve
developing or designing for a program or project that aligns with the
goals of the DOT Strategic Plan [https://www.transportation.gov/dot-strategicplan].
    Project Planning and Scoping: Technical assistance in this phase
will support communities in efforts to identify projects that address a
problem in the community and complete planning activities to move these
projects toward development and implementation. Examples of areas of
technical assistance in this phase

include, but are not limited to environmental planning, transportation
planning (e.g., corridor studies, pre-engineering studies), visioning
and goal setting, feasibility studies, and other planning and scoping
activities.
    Project Development and Design: Technical assistance in this phase
will support communities that have completed planning and scoping
activities for one or more projects and who need assistance with
completing relevant analyses and identifying and securing funding for
project delivery. Specific types of technical assistance that could be
provided for communities in this phase include, but are not limited to
environmental analysis (e.g., NEPA); equity analysis; mapping and data
analysis; title VI, ADA, and other regulatory compliance; benefit-cost
analysis; grant/funding identification and planning; grant writing; and
other pre-construction activities.
    Project Delivery: Technical assistance in this phase will support
communities that have received funding for one or more projects and who
need assistance administering funding to successfully deliver projects.
Examples of technical assistance activities that could support
communities in this phase include but are not limited to project and
grant management; value engineering; right-of-way acquisition;
coordination with housing and community development, including anti-
displacement strategies; data and technology deployment; and other
project delivery activities.
    Regional Planning Organization: For the purposes of this NOFO,
regional planning organizations serve metropolitan areas over 50,000
population, and can include public agencies that fall within one of the
eligible entities to receive support under this TCP NOFO that promote
and implement policy-driven, regional planning solutions. These may
include MPOs, regional transportation commissions, councils of
government, regional transportation agencies, and regional planning
councils. Non-profit regional planning organizations are eligible only
to provide support through the TCP-R.
    Rural Area: Under this NOFO, communities are in rural areas if:
     The community is not located in a 2020 Census Bureau
designated urban area, or
     The community is located in a 2020 Census Bureau
designated urban area with a population of 50,000 or less.
    A community is not in a rural area if located in a 2020 Census
Bureau designated urban area that has a population of more than 50,000
people. Applicants may use TigerWeb [https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerwebmain/TIGERweb_main.html] to determine if their community
located in a 2020 Urban Area. A list of urban areas with corresponding
populations for the 2020 Census is available in the Federal Register
[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28286/2020-census-qualifying-urban-areas-and-final-criteria-clarifications].
    Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): A statewide
prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a
period of 4 years that is consistent with the long-range statewide
transportation plan, metropolitan transportation plan, and TIPs, and
required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C.
and title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
    Technical Assistance: Programs, processes, and resources that
provide targeted support, knowledge or expertise to a community,
region, organization, or other beneficiary to help them access and
utilize Federal funding to develop, analyze, design, and deliver
transportation plans and projects.
    Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): A prioritized listing/
program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years that is
developed and formally adopted by an MPO as part of the metropolitan
transportation planning process, consistent with the metropolitan
transportation plan, and required for projects to be eligible for
funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2023.
Christopher Coes,
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Department of
Transportation.

Appendix A. Full Application Checklist

    Before you submit your application to DOT, please ensure that
the following elements are included in your submission.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Requirement                 Location in NOFO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ballot]    SF-424--Application for Federal     D.2(a).
             Assistance (submitted as an
             attachment).
[ballot]    SF-424A--Budget Information for     D.2(a).
             Non-Construction Programs
             (submitted as an attachment).
[ballot]    SF-LLL--Disclosure of Lobbying      D.2(a).
             Activities (submitted as an
             attachment).
[ballot]    Organizational Documentation        D.2(b).
             (submitted as an attachment, no
             page limit).
[ballot]    Organization Descriptions (one      D.2(c).
             page each for the lead and co-
             applicants).
[ballot]    Indirect Cost Documentation (if     D.2(d).
             applicable, submitted as an
             attachment, no page limit).
[ballot]    Executive Summary (500 words or     D.2(e).
             less).
[ballot]    Letters of Commitment (TCP-R        D.2(g).
             applicants only).
[ballot]    Staffing Plan (including key staff  D.2(h).
             resumes).
[ballot]    Budget Proposal (template           D.2(i).
             required, maximum 3 pages *
             (excluding tables)) (include
             Letters of Commitment as
             attachments, if applicable).
[ballot]    Technical Assistance Approach       E.1(a)(i).
             Narrative (maximum 3 pages).
[ballot]    Capacity Building Approach          E.1(a)(ii).
             Narrative (maximum 1 page).
[ballot]    Community of Practice Management    E.1(a)(iii).
             Approach Narrative (maximum 1
             page).
[ballot]    Role of Partner Organizations       E.1(b)(i).
             Narrative (maximum 1 page).
[ballot]    Demonstrated Staff Expertise        E.1(b)(ii).
             Narrative (maximum 1 page).
[ballot]    Experience Supportive of Technical  E.1(c)(i).
             Assistance Approach Narrative
             (maximum 3 pages).
[ballot]    Experience Supportive of Capacity   E.1(c)(ii).
             Building Approach Narrative
             (maximum 1 page).
[ballot]    Experience Supportive of Community  E.1(c)(iii).
             of Practice Management Approach
             Narrative (maximum 1 page).
[ballot]    Schedule of Milestones and          E.1(d)(i).
             Deliverables Narrative (maximum 1
             page).
[ballot]    Program Evaluation and Assessment   E.1(d)(ii).
             Narrative (maximum 1 page).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All page limits are single-sided 8.5 x 11-inch pages, with a minimum
  12-point font and 1-inch margins.

[FR Doc. 2023-19984 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9P-P