Explanatory Notes Regarding NCPD/CBI Awards and Allocations

1. The allocations are based on known sub allocations in multi state projects plus projected allocations based on the assumption that all awards for single state projects will eventually be allocated, even if not done so in the year of the award.

2. The major difference between the two tables is that for some multistate awards, suballocations were made among the partner States at their request. For example, there were multistate awards made in FY 1999, FY 2000 and FY 2001 to Arkansas as the lead State for a multistate application for future I-69. Similarly, Vermont received an allocation for a multistate project for which Maine was the lead State. In each case, subsequent to the award, the funds were suballocated to the individual States at their request. The suballocations were to facilitate project implementation.

3. Total allocations were less than awards in FY 2001. This was because the FHWA, subsequent to awards, had to reduce allocations in compliance with the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-554 of December 15, 2000.

4. The figures shown for GSA in the allocation table were actually based on reimbursable funding agreement between the FHWA and the GSA. This is very close to the same function as an allocation and thus is counted similarly.

5. All the GSA projects funded were in either Michigan or Texas. The awards for Michigan projects were $2,990,000. The awards for Texas projects were $3,308,000. The allocations for Michigan projects were $2,987,873. The allocations for Texas projects were $3,304,465.

6. Projects in New York and Texas, at first awarded to those two States were subsequently implemented through various funding agreements with the GSA. These, however, are counted as part of the State totals because of the fact that State applications were the reason for the award.

7. Some multistate projects were administered by one State but clearly benefit other States. For example, Arizona received the award and allocation for the Hoover Dam Bypass project. However, Nevada benefits about as much as Arizona from this project. Similarly, awards for an I-29/I-35 ITS project were made to Missouri in FY 1999 and Iowa in FY 2000 for a multistate Mexico to Canada project. Since both projects were studies and could be conveniently be managed by a single State, the funds were not suballocated. However, many States benefited from the two studies.

8.