Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program Regulations, 45772-45776 [2024-11139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45772
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not Operated
after July 9, 1981, effective September 1,
2018, (including a letter from Robert R.
Scott, Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Services, State of New
Hampshire, to David J. Alukonis,
Director, Office of Legislative Services,
dated October 23, 2018, certifying that
the enclosed rule, Env–Sw 2100, is the
official version of this rule),IBR
approved for § 63.99(a).
*
*
*
*
*
This rule is effective on May 28,
2024. The amendments adding 46 CFR
541.6 (instruction 2) and 541.99
(instruction 3), published on February
26, 2024 (89 FR 14330), are effective on
May 28, 2024.
DATES:
[FR Doc. C1–2024–10515 Filed 5–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Subpart E—Approval of State
Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities
49 CFR Parts 80 and 260
6. Amend § 63.99 by revising
paragraph (a)(30)(iii) to read as follows:
[Docket Number DOT–OST–2024–0006]
■
§ 63.99
Delegated Federal authorities.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(30) * * *
(iii) Affected inactive waste disposal
sites not operated after July 9, 1981
within New Hampshire must comply
with New Hampshire Regulations
Chapter Env–Sw 2100: Management and
Control of Asbestos Disposal Sites Not
Operated after July 9, 1981, effective
September 1, 2018 (incorporated by
reference, see § 63.14) as described in
paragraph (a)(30)(iii)(A) of this section:
(A) The material incorporated by
reference from Chapter Env–Sw 2100,
Management and Control of Asbestos
Disposal Sites Not Operated after July 9,
1981, pertains to inactive waste disposal
sites not operated after July 9, 1981 in
the State of New Hampshire’s
jurisdiction, and has been approved
under the procedures in § 63.93 to be
implemented and enforced in place of
the Federal NESHAPs for Inactive Waste
Disposal Sites (40 CFR 61.151).
(B) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–11422 Filed 5–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 541
[Docket No. FMC–2022–0066]
RIN 3072–AC90
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Demurrage and Detention Billing
Requirements
Correction
In rule document 2024–10515
appearing on page 41895 in the issue of
Tuesday, May 14, 2024, make the
following correction:
In the second column, starting in the
twenty-eighth line, the DATES section is
corrected to read:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
RIN 2105–AE69
Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing Program and
Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act Program
Regulations
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this final rule, the
Department of Transportation
(Department) amends the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing and Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act program regulations to implement
provisions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and make other
necessary updates.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective on June 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Morteza Farajian, Executive Director,
National Surface Transportation and
Innovative Finance Bureau, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366–2300, email at
BuildAmerica@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction and Background
II. Public Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and DOT’s
Responses
A. Interest Rate Setting for TIFIA and RRIF
Obligations With a Long Tenor
B. Interest Rate Spread on RRIF Direct
Loans and Loan Guarantees With a
Positive CRP
C. Inclusion in Transportation Plans and
Programs
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 12988
F. Executive Order 13175
G. Executive Order 13132
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Introduction and Background
This final rule establishes additional
policies and procedures for the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (RRIF) program authorized by
title V of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as
amended (49 U.S.C. Ch. 224; the RRIF
Act) and the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act (TIFIA) program authorized by the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act of 1998, as amended
(23 U.S.C. Ch. 6; the TIFIA Act). The
RRIF Act authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to make
direct loans and loan guarantees for
eligible projects that meet enumerated
criteria, and the TIFIA Act authorizes
the Secretary to issue secured loans,
loan guarantees, and lines of credit for
eligible projects that meet statutory
factors.
On January 25, 2024, the Department
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (89 FR 4880; NPRM) that
proposed to amend the RRIF and TIFIA
program regulations to implement
provisions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and make
other necessary updates. Having
considered all comments submitted to
DOT in response to the NPRM, the
Department is issuing this final rule that
adopts the proposal without change.
II. Public Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and DOT’s
Responses
DOT received comments on the
NPRM from nine interested parties. The
Department carefully reviewed all
comments it received. In sections II.A.C. of the preamble to this final rule, the
Department summarizes the areas of the
NPRM on which it received public
comment and discusses DOT’s
responses to those comments.
A. Interest Rate Setting for TIFIA and
RRIF Obligations With a Long Tenor
In the NPRM, DOT proposed to
require an interest rate spread on any
RRIF or TIFIA obligation if the United
States Treasury does not post the yield
for securities of a similar maturity on
the date of execution of the loan
agreement. The spread would be
applied to any RRIF or TIFIA loan that
has both: (1) a final maturity date more
than 35 years after the date of
substantial completion of the project;
and (2) a loan term—the period
beginning on the date of execution of
the loan agreement and ending on the
final maturity date—of more than 40
years. The interest rate would be equal
to the rate on thirty-to-forty-year State
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and Local Government Series (SLGS)
securities plus one basis point plus an
annual interest rate adjustment for any
period of the loan term after year 40
through year 100, which would be
cumulative.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Public Comments
Several commenters are supportive of
the proposed methodology for setting
the interest rate for obligations with a
long tenor. One commenter supports the
proposed rule but encourages DOT to
provide more clarity on whether a
project qualifies for the extended
maturities authorized by the IIJA. (Pub.
L. 117–58, sec. 12001(e)(2), 21301(d)(6)
(2021).) Other commenters request
specific terms for long-tenor loans.
The America Public Transportation
Association (APTA), which represents a
diverse membership of transportation
entities, supports the proposed rule to
set interest rates, but encourages DOT to
increase transparency about the specific
criteria a project would need to meet to
qualify for a loan with a term longer
than those authorized before the passage
of the IIJA. In addition, APTA requests
that the flexibility currently offered
under the TIFIA and RRIF programs
apply equally to long-tenor loans.
Rembe Urban Design + Development
(Rembe) recommend a minimum 40year amortization period, and ideally
60-year amortization period, for RRIF
transit-oriented development (TOD)
projects. In their view, this extended
amortization period would increase
feasibility for RRIF TOD projects and
match ‘‘the 40-year fully amortizing
non-recourse construction loan’’
provided by other Federal loan
programs.
DOT Response
As mentioned in the NPRM, DOT
administers the RRIF and TIFIA
programs pursuant to their respective
statutes and regulations, as well as
additional criteria in notices of funding,
which are issued and updated as
necessary, and guidance 1 to applicants.
The Department uses criteria in the
statutes, regulations, notices of funding,
and guidance to determine the loan
tenor of all projects and will do the
same to determine whether a project
qualifies for a loan with a long tenor.
Specifically, to qualify for a loan with
a term longer than those authorized
before passage of the IIJA, the project
must meet the criteria of either 49
U.S.C. 22402(g)(1) or 23 U.S.C.
603(b)(5)(C). In addition, DOT must
determine with a reasonable degree of
1 https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/
financing/program-guide.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
confidence that the loan is able to be
repaid by the maturity date.
Furthermore, each project undergoes an
in-depth review of its creditworthiness
and must satisfy applicable
creditworthiness criteria. Using the
above criteria, as well as relevant
statutes, regulations, notices of funding,
and guidance, DOT will assess each
project individually to determine
whether it qualifies for a loan with a
long tenor.
RRIF loans or loan guarantees,
including those for TOD projects, may
be structured to allow for a 40-year, or
longer, amortization period, if such
amortization period complies with the
requirements of the RRIF statute. As
mentioned in the NPRM, the Secretary
shall not make a RRIF direct loan or
loan guarantee unless repayment of the
obligation is made within a term that is
not longer than the shorter of:
(A) 75 years after the date of substantial
completion of the project;
(B) the estimated useful life of the rail
equipment or facilities to be acquired,
rehabilitated, improved, developed, or
established, subject to an adequate
determination of long-term risk; or
(C) for projects determined to have an
estimated useful life that is longer than 35
years, the period that is equal to the sum of—
(i) 35 years; and
(ii) the product of—
(I) the difference between the estimated
useful life and 35 years; multiplied by
(II) 75 percent.
(49 U.S.C. 22402(g)(1).) In addition,
payment of the RRIF direct loan or loan
guarantee must commence no later than
5 years after the date of substantial
completion. (49 U.S.C. 22402(j)(1).)
Because of the variable nature of the
estimated useful life and substantial
completion of RRIF projects, not all
RRIF loans will be able to support a 40year, or longer, amortization period,
while complying with the requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 22402(g)(1) and (j)(1).
Therefore, the Department cannot
establish a minimum 40-year
amortization schedule for any type of
RRIF project, including TOD projects.
Instead, DOT will evaluate each project
on a project-by-project basis to
determine whether it qualifies for a loan
with a long tenor.
B. Interest Rate Spread on RRIF Direct
Loans and Loan Guarantees With a
Positive CRP
DOT proposed to add a credit spread,
equivalent to the rate needed to reduce
the credit risk premium (CRP) to zero
dollars, to the interest rate charged on
any RRIF direct loan projected to have
a positive subsidy cost. The additional
interest would not qualify as a CRP
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45773
payment and would not be returned to
the original source once the obligation
is satisfied.
Public Comments
Multiple commenters are supportive
of the proposal to add a credit spread to
any RRIF obligation with a positive
subsidy cost. One commenter supports
the proposed rule but suggests that the
CRP be waived or reduced for RRIF
projects that meet certain criteria.
Another commenter requests that the
Department delay consideration of this
proposal because the commenter
believes the credit spread would
prevent project sponsors from applying
for RRIF loans.
The American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), a non-profit trade
association representing the interests of
more than 600 short line railroads, notes
that paying an upfront CRP payment can
be a potential challenge to borrowers
and states that the proposed rule will
support lending to short line railroads
by eliminating that payment.
Amtrak requests additional clarity on
the implementation of the proposed
rule, including explanations of the rate
adjustment required to achieve zero CRP
and how any future appropriations or
statutory revisions would affect a RRIF
loan with an interest rate adjustment.
APTA urges DOT to delay
consideration of this part of the
proposed rule because it would increase
the cost of RRIF loans and limit demand
in the RRIF program. APTA also states
that the proposed rule would prevent
project sponsors from applying for RRIF
loans, in part because the expected
credit spread was not discussed in the
NPRM. Finally, APTA notes that the
proposed rule may not align with
Congress’s intent, as enacted in 49
U.S.C. 22402(f)(7).
Rembe suggests that special
consideration be given to RRIF projects
considered catalytic and that CRP
should be reduced or waived for certain
projects. Specifically, Rembe suggests
the reduction of CRP for RRIF projects
that: (1) have a debt coverage ratio over
1.28; (2) provide multifamily or
workforce housing; (3) have a market
study that strongly supports the project;
or (4) are public-private partnerships.
Rembe also suggests that the DOT
consider the size of a project and the
project’s ability to cover the interest rate
spread in calculating that spread.
DOT Response
The Department will continue to
determine the applicable CRP by
estimating the total long-term cost to the
Federal Government of the RRIF direct
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
45774
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
loan or loan guarantee. (49 U.S.C.
22402(f)(2).) To calculate the CRP for a
RRIF obligation, the Department uses
the criteria in 49 U.S.C. 22402(f), the
regulations, notices of funding, and
guidance, to determine the net present
value of expected losses due to default
or delinquency. This calculation is then
reviewed and confirmed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). OMB
either concurs with the CRP, as
calculated, or advises DOT of changes
needed to the calculation to fully
capture the estimated cost to the
government of providing the financial
assistance.
In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to add a credit spread to the
interest rate charged on a RRIF direct
loan where the calculated CRP is a
positive amount. To determine this
credit spread, the President’s Budget
rate would be adjusted to an interest
level sufficient to bring the CRP down
to zero dollars. The interest rate on the
RRIF direct loan would then be adjusted
to match the President’s Budget rate
credit spread. The interest rate will
continue to be set on the date of the
execution of the loan agreement for the
RRIF direct loan or loan guarantee.
The NPRM provides that removal of
the requirement that the Department
return CRP payments would remove the
requirement for the addition of a credit
spread. As mentioned above, the
interest rate, plus any credit spread, will
be calculated on the date of execution
of the RRIF loan agreement. Therefore,
the removal of the credit spread would
apply to any RRIF loans not yet entered
into, but would not change the
requirements of an existing RRIF
obligation. Similarly, any future
appropriation from Congress to cover
subsidy cost would not change the
terms of an existing RRIF loan
agreement.
In the NPRM, DOT also addressed the
fact that without an appropriation from
Congress to cover the subsidy cost and
with the requirement to return CRP
payments, the cost of RRIF loans would
increase and result in a CRP that would
be cost prohibitive to borrowers. In
initial calculations carried out with the
assistance of the Department of Treasury
and OMB, the Department found that
the CRP would have to be sized to the
face value of the direct loan to allow
CRP payments, plus interest accrued, to
be returned to the original source once
the loan obligation is satisfied. Without
an appropriation to cover the CRP, the
Department calculated that a RRIF
borrower would be required to pay a
CRP payment equal to each loan
disbursement, prior to such
disbursement. DOT believes that such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
high CRP payments would prevent
project sponsors from applying for RRIF
loans and severely limit demand in the
RRIF program.
The Department proposed the credit
spread to remove the barriers to
utilization of the RRIF program created
by the need to repay CRP, while
ensuring proper accounting of the
government’s risk. The Department
considered preserving optionality for
borrowers and allowing each borrower
to determine whether it is preferable to
pay a high CRP, but have those
payments returned upon satisfaction of
the obligation, or to pay an interest rate
premium. DOT determined, however,
that the vast majority, if not all,
borrowers could not afford to pay the
face value of the RRIF direct loan to
preserve repayment. This conclusion is
supported by feedback from prospective
RRIF applicants that the need to pay
CRP contributed to their decision to not
apply for a RRIF loan and the comment
from the ASLRRA that reiterates that
paying the cost of the loan before the
loan proceeds are disbursed to the
borrower is a challenge to borrowers.
For these reasons, the Department has
determined not to delay consideration
of this portion of the proposal and is
adopting it as proposed. In addition, the
Department proposed to add a credit
spread in the amount needed to result
in a CRP of zero dollars. Given that the
CRP will be $0, DOT does not plan to
waive or reduce the CRP further.
Furthermore, the Department cannot
waive or reduce the subsidy cost of a
loan.
C. Inclusion in Transportation Plans
and Programs
In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to amend 49 CFR part 80 to
delete outdated statutory language. With
this change, a TIFIA project would only
need to ‘‘satisfy the applicable planning
and programming requirements of
sections 134 and 135 at such time as an
agreement to make available a Federal
credit instrument is entered into under
the TIFIA program.’’ (23 U.S.C.
602(a)(3).)
Public Comments
The Airports Council International—
North America (ACI–NA), representing
local, regional, and state governing
bodies that own and operate commercial
airports in the United States and
Canada, believes that FAA’s Master Plan
and Airport Layout Plan approval
processes should be sufficient to enable
airports to meet the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3) and requests that DOT
clarify that airport projects included in
a FAA-approved Airport Master Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and Airport Layout Plan do not also
need to meet the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 134 and 135.
APTA supports the objective to revise
the TIFIA regulations to comply with 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3) but believes that this
would be better accomplished by adding
the statutory language to the rule. In
addition, APTA notes that the rule
should be implemented in a way that
recognizes the unique characteristics of
transit-oriented development projects.
LOCUS, Smart Growth America’s
coalition of triple bottom line real estate
developers, recommends that the final
rule explicitly exclude or exempt TOD
projects from the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3).
DOT Response
The Department proposed to amend
49 CFR part 80 to align with 23 U.S.C.
602(a)(3) and has done so by replacing
outdated statutory language with the
requirement that a project comply with
23 U.S.C. 602(a)(3). The Department
believes that the approach taken in the
final rule addresses the concern raised
by APTA in their comment suggesting
that DOT include the language of the
current statutory provision in the final
rule at 49 CFR 80.13(a)(1). In addition,
sections 134 and 135 of title 23 of the
U.S.C., and the underlying regulations,
are administered by the Federal
Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration. The
Department believes it is in the best
interest of TIFIA borrowers to rely on
the agencies with expertise in
transportation planning and
programming to determine which
projects must satisfy the requirements of
sections 134 and 135 of title 23 of the
U.S.C.
The Department may consider in
future rulemaking whether referring to
this and other statutory requirements in
the regulations assists in program
administration.
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Order 12866, 13563, and
14094
This rule has been determined to not
be a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), as
supplemented by E.O. 13563,
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011),
and amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21870 (Apr. 11, 2023). Accordingly,
this action was not subject to review
under that Executive order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
within the Office of Management and
Budget.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), no Federal agency may collect
or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information
collection requirement, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The National Surface
Transportation and Innovative Finance
Bureau (Bureau) received approval from
OMB for use of forms for the RRIF and
TIFIA program under OMB control
number 2105–0569, with an expiration
date of February 28, 2025. This rule
does not change that collection of
information or create any collection of
information, and therefore, is not
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended, requires
preparation of a final regulatory
flexibility analysis for any final rule that
by law must first be proposed for public
comment, unless the Federal agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOT issued
procedures and policies to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered
during the rulemaking process and DOT
has made its procedures and policies
available on its website: https://
www.transportation.gov/regulations/
rulemaking-requirements-concerningsmall-entities.
The Bureau has evaluated the effects
of this action on small entities and has
determined that the rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
First, the Bureau does not expect to
enter into loans with a substantial
number of small entities. In the last five
years, the Bureau has obligated almost
40 loans under both the RRIF and TIFIA
programs, and no borrowers have been
small entities. Given that zero percent of
borrowers were small entities in the
time period sampled, the Bureau does
not expect that a large number of
borrowers will be small entities in the
future. Second, the Bureau doesn’t
believe that this action would have a
significant economic impact. The
changes to 49 CFR part 80 related to
inclusion in the transportation plans
and programs will not have any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
economic impact because the regulatory
change merely updates the regulation
consistent with existing statutory
requirements. While the changes to 49
CFR parts 80 and 260 related to longtenored obligations will raise interest
rates for borrowers of long-tenored
obligations, this impact can be avoided
by a borrower opting for a loan term that
is less than 40 years. A RRIF loan with
a positive CRP will similarly have a
higher interest rate, but the Bureau
believes this economic impact is
preferable to a CRP payment that is so
large it is cost prohibitive.
The Department did not receive
comments on its certification in the
proposed rule and responds to
comments on the economic impact of
the rule in the preamble to the final
rule.
For the reasons discussed in this
section, the Department certifies that
this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.) requires each Federal agency, to
the extent permitted by law, to prepare
a written assessment of the effects of
any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. The rule does not contain such
a mandate; therefore, the analytical
requirements of title II of the Act do not
apply.
E. Executive Order 12988
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
requires that Federal agencies
promulgating new regulations or
reviewing existing regulations take steps
to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity and to reduce burdens on the
regulated public. The Bureau has
reviewed this rulemaking and has
determined that this rulemaking action
conforms to the applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
F. Executive Order 13175
Consistent with Executive Order
13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR
67249 (Nov. 6, 2000), DOT ensures that
Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are
given the opportunity to provide
meaningful and timely input regarding
proposed Federal actions that have the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45775
potential to affect uniquely or
significantly their respective Tribes. The
Bureau has not identified any unique or
significant effects, environmental or
otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this
rule.
G. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications.
Agencies are required to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and carefully assess the necessity
for such actions. DOT has examined this
rule and has determined that it would
not preempt State law and would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. No further action
is required by Executive Order 13132.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 80
Credit, Highways and roads, Loan
programs—transportation, Mass
transportation, Railroads.
49 CFR Part 260
Loan programs—transportation,
Railroads.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16,
2024.
Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 49 CFR parts 80
and 260 as follows:
PART 80—CREDIT ASSISTANCE FOR
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
1. The authority citation for part 80 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 1501 et seq., Pub. L. 105–
178, 112 Stat. 107, 241, as amended; 23
U.S.C. 601–611 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 116.
2. Amend § 80.13 by:
a. In the introductory text of
paragraph (a), removing the word ‘‘five’’
and adding in its place the word ‘‘four’’;
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
■ c. Removing paragraph (a)(5).
The revision reads as follows:
■
■
§ 80.13
Threshold criteria.
(a) * * *
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
45776
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(1) A project shall comply with 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Add § 80.23 to read as follows:
§ 80.23
Loan terms.
(a) The interest rate on a secured loan
will be not less than the rate on United
States Treasury securities of a similar
maturity to the maturity of the secured
loan on the date of the execution of the
loan agreement, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section and 23
U.S.C. chapter 6.
(b) If, on the date of the execution of
the loan agreement, the United States
Treasury does not post the rate of
securities of a similar maturity to the
maturity of the secured loan, the interest
rate on any secured loan with both a
final maturity date that is more than 35
years after the date of substantial
completion of the project, and a loan
term that is more than 40 years, will be
equal to not less than the rate on thirtyto-forty year Treasury securities plus an
annual interest rate adjustment. The
annual interest rate adjustment will be,
cumulatively:
(i) 1.4 basis points for each year of the
loan term after year 40 to, but not
including, year 51;
(ii) 0.4 basis points for each year of
the loan term from year 51 to, but not
including, year 71; and
(iii) 0.2 basis points for each year of
the loan term from year 71 to year 100.
(c) For purposes of this section, ‘‘loan
term’’ means the period beginning on
the date of the execution of the loan
agreement and ending on the final
maturity date.
PART 260—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING LOANS AND LOAN
GUARANTEES UNDER THE RAILROAD
REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT
FINANCING PROGRAM
4. The authority citation for part 260
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 22401, 22402, 22403,
22404, 22405, 22406; 49 U.S.C. 116.
■
5. Revise § 260.9 to read as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
§ 260.9
Loan terms.
(a) The interest rate on a direct loan
will be not less than the rate on United
States Treasury securities of a similar
maturity of the direct loan on the date
of the execution of the loan agreement,
except as described in paragraph (b) of
this section and in § 260.17(d).
(b) If, on the date of the execution of
the loan agreement, the United States
Treasury does not post the rate of
securities of a similar maturity of the
direct loan, the interest rate on any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
direct loan with both a final maturity
date that is more than 35 years after the
date of substantial completion of the
project, and a loan term that is more
than 40 years, will be equal to not less
than the rate on thirty-to-forty year
Treasury securities plus an annual
interest rate adjustment. The annual
interest rate adjustment will be,
cumulatively:
(i) 1.4 basis points for each year of the
loan term after year 40 to, but not
including, year 51;
(ii) 0.4 basis points for each year of
the loan term from year 51 to, but not
including, year 71; and
(iii) 0.2 basis points for each year of
the loan term from year 71 to year 100.
(c) For purposes of this section, ‘‘loan
term’’ means the period beginning on
the date of the execution of the loan
agreement and ending on the final
maturity date.
■ 6. Amend § 260.17 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 260.17
Credit risk premium analysis.
*
*
*
*
*
(d)(1) Where the Credit Risk Premium
determined pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section is a positive amount, the
interest rate on the direct loan will be
equal to not less than the rate set
pursuant to § 260.9 plus an interest rate
adjustment sufficient to result in a
Credit Risk Premium of zero dollars.
(2) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section
shall apply to a direct loan or loan
guarantee only so long as the Act
requires the Secretary to return Credit
Risk Premiums paid on that loan or loan
guarantee to the original source.
[FR Doc. 2024–11139 Filed 5–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 220919–0193; RTID 0648–
XD871]
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries;
Angling Category Retention Limit
Adjustment
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; retention limit
adjustment.
AGENCY:
NMFS has determined, based
on consideration of the regulatory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determination criteria regarding
inseason adjustments, that the Atlantic
bluefin tuna (BFT) daily retention limit
that applies to Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) Angling and HMS Charter/
Headboat permitted vessels (when
fishing recreationally for BFT) should be
adjusted for the remainder of 2024.
NMFS is adjusting the Angling category
BFT daily retention limit from the
default of 1 school, large school, or
small medium BFT to: 2 school BFT and
1 large school/small medium BFT per
vessel per day/trip for private vessels
with HMS Angling permits; 3 school
BFT and 1 large school/small medium
BFT per vessel per day/trip for charter
boat vessels with HMS Charter/
Headboat permits when fishing
recreationally; and 12 school BFT and 2
large school/small medium BFT per
vessel per day/trip for headboat vessels
with HMS Charter/Headboat permits
when fishing recreationally. These
retention limits are effective in all areas,
except for the Gulf of Mexico, where
targeted fishing for BFT is prohibited.
DATES: Effective May 23, 2024, through
December 31, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Quintrell (anna.quintrell@
noaa.gov) or Larry Redd, Jr. (larry.redd@
noaa.gov) at 301–427–8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic
BFT fisheries are managed under the
2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) and its
amendments, pursuant to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) and consistent with the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C.
971 et seq.). HMS implementing
regulations are at 50 CFR part 635.
Section 635.27 divides the U.S. BFT
quota, established by the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as
implemented by the United States
among the various domestic fishing
categories, per the allocations
established in the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS
is required under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide
U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable
opportunity to harvest quotas under
relevant international fishery
agreements such as the ICCAT
Convention, which is implemented
domestically pursuant to ATCA.
As described in § 635.27(a), the
current baseline U.S. BFT quota is
1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including
the 25-mt ICCAT allocated to the United
States to account for bycatch of BFT in
pelagic longline fisheries in the
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45772-45776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11139]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Parts 80 and 260
[Docket Number DOT-OST-2024-0006]
RIN 2105-AE69
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program and
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
Regulations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Department of Transportation
(Department) amends the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
program regulations to implement provisions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and make other necessary updates.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 24, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morteza Farajian, Executive Director,
National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2300, email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
II. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and DOT's
Responses
A. Interest Rate Setting for TIFIA and RRIF Obligations With a
Long Tenor
B. Interest Rate Spread on RRIF Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees
With a Positive CRP
C. Inclusion in Transportation Plans and Programs
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 12988
F. Executive Order 13175
G. Executive Order 13132
I. Introduction and Background
This final rule establishes additional policies and procedures for
the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program
authorized by title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976, as amended (49 U.S.C. Ch. 224; the RRIF Act) and
the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
program authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998, as amended (23 U.S.C. Ch. 6; the TIFIA Act).
The RRIF Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to
make direct loans and loan guarantees for eligible projects that meet
enumerated criteria, and the TIFIA Act authorizes the Secretary to
issue secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for eligible
projects that meet statutory factors.
On January 25, 2024, the Department published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (89 FR 4880; NPRM) that proposed to amend the RRIF and TIFIA
program regulations to implement provisions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and make other necessary updates. Having
considered all comments submitted to DOT in response to the NPRM, the
Department is issuing this final rule that adopts the proposal without
change.
II. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and DOT's
Responses
DOT received comments on the NPRM from nine interested parties. The
Department carefully reviewed all comments it received. In sections
II.A.-C. of the preamble to this final rule, the Department summarizes
the areas of the NPRM on which it received public comment and discusses
DOT's responses to those comments.
A. Interest Rate Setting for TIFIA and RRIF Obligations With a Long
Tenor
In the NPRM, DOT proposed to require an interest rate spread on any
RRIF or TIFIA obligation if the United States Treasury does not post
the yield for securities of a similar maturity on the date of execution
of the loan agreement. The spread would be applied to any RRIF or TIFIA
loan that has both: (1) a final maturity date more than 35 years after
the date of substantial completion of the project; and (2) a loan
term--the period beginning on the date of execution of the loan
agreement and ending on the final maturity date--of more than 40 years.
The interest rate would be equal to the rate on thirty-to-forty-year
State
[[Page 45773]]
and Local Government Series (SLGS) securities plus one basis point plus
an annual interest rate adjustment for any period of the loan term
after year 40 through year 100, which would be cumulative.
Public Comments
Several commenters are supportive of the proposed methodology for
setting the interest rate for obligations with a long tenor. One
commenter supports the proposed rule but encourages DOT to provide more
clarity on whether a project qualifies for the extended maturities
authorized by the IIJA. (Pub. L. 117-58, sec. 12001(e)(2), 21301(d)(6)
(2021).) Other commenters request specific terms for long-tenor loans.
The America Public Transportation Association (APTA), which
represents a diverse membership of transportation entities, supports
the proposed rule to set interest rates, but encourages DOT to increase
transparency about the specific criteria a project would need to meet
to qualify for a loan with a term longer than those authorized before
the passage of the IIJA. In addition, APTA requests that the
flexibility currently offered under the TIFIA and RRIF programs apply
equally to long-tenor loans.
Rembe Urban Design + Development (Rembe) recommend a minimum 40-
year amortization period, and ideally 60-year amortization period, for
RRIF transit-oriented development (TOD) projects. In their view, this
extended amortization period would increase feasibility for RRIF TOD
projects and match ``the 40-year fully amortizing non-recourse
construction loan'' provided by other Federal loan programs.
DOT Response
As mentioned in the NPRM, DOT administers the RRIF and TIFIA
programs pursuant to their respective statutes and regulations, as well
as additional criteria in notices of funding, which are issued and
updated as necessary, and guidance \1\ to applicants. The Department
uses criteria in the statutes, regulations, notices of funding, and
guidance to determine the loan tenor of all projects and will do the
same to determine whether a project qualifies for a loan with a long
tenor. Specifically, to qualify for a loan with a term longer than
those authorized before passage of the IIJA, the project must meet the
criteria of either 49 U.S.C. 22402(g)(1) or 23 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)(C). In
addition, DOT must determine with a reasonable degree of confidence
that the loan is able to be repaid by the maturity date. Furthermore,
each project undergoes an in-depth review of its creditworthiness and
must satisfy applicable creditworthiness criteria. Using the above
criteria, as well as relevant statutes, regulations, notices of
funding, and guidance, DOT will assess each project individually to
determine whether it qualifies for a loan with a long tenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/program-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRIF loans or loan guarantees, including those for TOD projects,
may be structured to allow for a 40-year, or longer, amortization
period, if such amortization period complies with the requirements of
the RRIF statute. As mentioned in the NPRM, the Secretary shall not
make a RRIF direct loan or loan guarantee unless repayment of the
obligation is made within a term that is not longer than the shorter
of:
(A) 75 years after the date of substantial completion of the
project;
(B) the estimated useful life of the rail equipment or
facilities to be acquired, rehabilitated, improved, developed, or
established, subject to an adequate determination of long-term risk;
or
(C) for projects determined to have an estimated useful life
that is longer than 35 years, the period that is equal to the sum
of--
(i) 35 years; and
(ii) the product of--
(I) the difference between the estimated useful life and 35
years; multiplied by
(II) 75 percent.
(49 U.S.C. 22402(g)(1).) In addition, payment of the RRIF direct loan
or loan guarantee must commence no later than 5 years after the date of
substantial completion. (49 U.S.C. 22402(j)(1).) Because of the
variable nature of the estimated useful life and substantial completion
of RRIF projects, not all RRIF loans will be able to support a 40-year,
or longer, amortization period, while complying with the requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 22402(g)(1) and (j)(1). Therefore, the Department cannot
establish a minimum 40-year amortization schedule for any type of RRIF
project, including TOD projects. Instead, DOT will evaluate each
project on a project-by-project basis to determine whether it qualifies
for a loan with a long tenor.
B. Interest Rate Spread on RRIF Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees With a
Positive CRP
DOT proposed to add a credit spread, equivalent to the rate needed
to reduce the credit risk premium (CRP) to zero dollars, to the
interest rate charged on any RRIF direct loan projected to have a
positive subsidy cost. The additional interest would not qualify as a
CRP payment and would not be returned to the original source once the
obligation is satisfied.
Public Comments
Multiple commenters are supportive of the proposal to add a credit
spread to any RRIF obligation with a positive subsidy cost. One
commenter supports the proposed rule but suggests that the CRP be
waived or reduced for RRIF projects that meet certain criteria. Another
commenter requests that the Department delay consideration of this
proposal because the commenter believes the credit spread would prevent
project sponsors from applying for RRIF loans.
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA),
a non-profit trade association representing the interests of more than
600 short line railroads, notes that paying an upfront CRP payment can
be a potential challenge to borrowers and states that the proposed rule
will support lending to short line railroads by eliminating that
payment.
Amtrak requests additional clarity on the implementation of the
proposed rule, including explanations of the rate adjustment required
to achieve zero CRP and how any future appropriations or statutory
revisions would affect a RRIF loan with an interest rate adjustment.
APTA urges DOT to delay consideration of this part of the proposed
rule because it would increase the cost of RRIF loans and limit demand
in the RRIF program. APTA also states that the proposed rule would
prevent project sponsors from applying for RRIF loans, in part because
the expected credit spread was not discussed in the NPRM. Finally, APTA
notes that the proposed rule may not align with Congress's intent, as
enacted in 49 U.S.C. 22402(f)(7).
Rembe suggests that special consideration be given to RRIF projects
considered catalytic and that CRP should be reduced or waived for
certain projects. Specifically, Rembe suggests the reduction of CRP for
RRIF projects that: (1) have a debt coverage ratio over 1.28; (2)
provide multifamily or workforce housing; (3) have a market study that
strongly supports the project; or (4) are public-private partnerships.
Rembe also suggests that the DOT consider the size of a project and the
project's ability to cover the interest rate spread in calculating that
spread.
DOT Response
The Department will continue to determine the applicable CRP by
estimating the total long-term cost to the Federal Government of the
RRIF direct
[[Page 45774]]
loan or loan guarantee. (49 U.S.C. 22402(f)(2).) To calculate the CRP
for a RRIF obligation, the Department uses the criteria in 49 U.S.C.
22402(f), the regulations, notices of funding, and guidance, to
determine the net present value of expected losses due to default or
delinquency. This calculation is then reviewed and confirmed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB either concurs with the CRP,
as calculated, or advises DOT of changes needed to the calculation to
fully capture the estimated cost to the government of providing the
financial assistance.
In the NPRM, the Department proposed to add a credit spread to the
interest rate charged on a RRIF direct loan where the calculated CRP is
a positive amount. To determine this credit spread, the President's
Budget rate would be adjusted to an interest level sufficient to bring
the CRP down to zero dollars. The interest rate on the RRIF direct loan
would then be adjusted to match the President's Budget rate credit
spread. The interest rate will continue to be set on the date of the
execution of the loan agreement for the RRIF direct loan or loan
guarantee.
The NPRM provides that removal of the requirement that the
Department return CRP payments would remove the requirement for the
addition of a credit spread. As mentioned above, the interest rate,
plus any credit spread, will be calculated on the date of execution of
the RRIF loan agreement. Therefore, the removal of the credit spread
would apply to any RRIF loans not yet entered into, but would not
change the requirements of an existing RRIF obligation. Similarly, any
future appropriation from Congress to cover subsidy cost would not
change the terms of an existing RRIF loan agreement.
In the NPRM, DOT also addressed the fact that without an
appropriation from Congress to cover the subsidy cost and with the
requirement to return CRP payments, the cost of RRIF loans would
increase and result in a CRP that would be cost prohibitive to
borrowers. In initial calculations carried out with the assistance of
the Department of Treasury and OMB, the Department found that the CRP
would have to be sized to the face value of the direct loan to allow
CRP payments, plus interest accrued, to be returned to the original
source once the loan obligation is satisfied. Without an appropriation
to cover the CRP, the Department calculated that a RRIF borrower would
be required to pay a CRP payment equal to each loan disbursement, prior
to such disbursement. DOT believes that such high CRP payments would
prevent project sponsors from applying for RRIF loans and severely
limit demand in the RRIF program.
The Department proposed the credit spread to remove the barriers to
utilization of the RRIF program created by the need to repay CRP, while
ensuring proper accounting of the government's risk. The Department
considered preserving optionality for borrowers and allowing each
borrower to determine whether it is preferable to pay a high CRP, but
have those payments returned upon satisfaction of the obligation, or to
pay an interest rate premium. DOT determined, however, that the vast
majority, if not all, borrowers could not afford to pay the face value
of the RRIF direct loan to preserve repayment. This conclusion is
supported by feedback from prospective RRIF applicants that the need to
pay CRP contributed to their decision to not apply for a RRIF loan and
the comment from the ASLRRA that reiterates that paying the cost of the
loan before the loan proceeds are disbursed to the borrower is a
challenge to borrowers.
For these reasons, the Department has determined not to delay
consideration of this portion of the proposal and is adopting it as
proposed. In addition, the Department proposed to add a credit spread
in the amount needed to result in a CRP of zero dollars. Given that the
CRP will be $0, DOT does not plan to waive or reduce the CRP further.
Furthermore, the Department cannot waive or reduce the subsidy cost of
a loan.
C. Inclusion in Transportation Plans and Programs
In the NPRM, the Department proposed to amend 49 CFR part 80 to
delete outdated statutory language. With this change, a TIFIA project
would only need to ``satisfy the applicable planning and programming
requirements of sections 134 and 135 at such time as an agreement to
make available a Federal credit instrument is entered into under the
TIFIA program.'' (23 U.S.C. 602(a)(3).)
Public Comments
The Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA),
representing local, regional, and state governing bodies that own and
operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada, believes
that FAA's Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan approval processes
should be sufficient to enable airports to meet the requirements of 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3) and requests that DOT clarify that airport projects
included in a FAA-approved Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan
do not also need to meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135.
APTA supports the objective to revise the TIFIA regulations to
comply with 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(3) but believes that this would be better
accomplished by adding the statutory language to the rule. In addition,
APTA notes that the rule should be implemented in a way that recognizes
the unique characteristics of transit-oriented development projects.
LOCUS, Smart Growth America's coalition of triple bottom line real
estate developers, recommends that the final rule explicitly exclude or
exempt TOD projects from the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(3).
DOT Response
The Department proposed to amend 49 CFR part 80 to align with 23
U.S.C. 602(a)(3) and has done so by replacing outdated statutory
language with the requirement that a project comply with 23 U.S.C.
602(a)(3). The Department believes that the approach taken in the final
rule addresses the concern raised by APTA in their comment suggesting
that DOT include the language of the current statutory provision in the
final rule at 49 CFR 80.13(a)(1). In addition, sections 134 and 135 of
title 23 of the U.S.C., and the underlying regulations, are
administered by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration. The Department believes it is in the best
interest of TIFIA borrowers to rely on the agencies with expertise in
transportation planning and programming to determine which projects
must satisfy the requirements of sections 134 and 135 of title 23 of
the U.S.C.
The Department may consider in future rulemaking whether referring
to this and other statutory requirements in the regulations assists in
program administration.
III. Regulatory Review
A. Executive Order 12866, 13563, and 14094
This rule has been determined to not be a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), as supplemented by E.O. 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21,
2011), and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88
FR 21870 (Apr. 11, 2023). Accordingly, this action was not subject to
review under that Executive order by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs
[[Page 45775]]
within the Office of Management and Budget.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), no Federal agency may collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The National
Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau (Bureau) received
approval from OMB for use of forms for the RRIF and TIFIA program under
OMB control number 2105-0569, with an expiration date of February 28,
2025. This rule does not change that collection of information or
create any collection of information, and therefore, is not subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended,
requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis for any
final rule that by law must first be proposed for public comment,
unless the Federal agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration
of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16,
2002), DOT issued procedures and policies to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during
the rulemaking process and DOT has made its procedures and policies
available on its website: https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities.
The Bureau has evaluated the effects of this action on small
entities and has determined that the rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. First, the
Bureau does not expect to enter into loans with a substantial number of
small entities. In the last five years, the Bureau has obligated almost
40 loans under both the RRIF and TIFIA programs, and no borrowers have
been small entities. Given that zero percent of borrowers were small
entities in the time period sampled, the Bureau does not expect that a
large number of borrowers will be small entities in the future. Second,
the Bureau doesn't believe that this action would have a significant
economic impact. The changes to 49 CFR part 80 related to inclusion in
the transportation plans and programs will not have any economic impact
because the regulatory change merely updates the regulation consistent
with existing statutory requirements. While the changes to 49 CFR parts
80 and 260 related to long-tenored obligations will raise interest
rates for borrowers of long-tenored obligations, this impact can be
avoided by a borrower opting for a loan term that is less than 40
years. A RRIF loan with a positive CRP will similarly have a higher
interest rate, but the Bureau believes this economic impact is
preferable to a CRP payment that is so large it is cost prohibitive.
The Department did not receive comments on its certification in the
proposed rule and responds to comments on the economic impact of the
rule in the preamble to the final rule.
For the reasons discussed in this section, the Department certifies
that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.) requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law,
to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate
in a proposed or final rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. The rule does not contain such a mandate;
therefore, the analytical requirements of title II of the Act do not
apply.
E. Executive Order 12988
Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729
(February 7, 1996), requires that Federal agencies promulgating new
regulations or reviewing existing regulations take steps to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity and to reduce burdens on the regulated
public. The Bureau has reviewed this rulemaking and has determined that
this rulemaking action conforms to the applicable standards in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
F. Executive Order 13175
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6,
2000), DOT ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given
the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding
proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or
significantly their respective Tribes. The Bureau has not identified
any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on
Tribes resulting from this rule.
G. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. DOT has examined this rule and has
determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 80
Credit, Highways and roads, Loan programs--transportation, Mass
transportation, Railroads.
49 CFR Part 260
Loan programs--transportation, Railroads.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2024.
Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 49 CFR parts 80 and 260 as follows:
PART 80--CREDIT ASSISTANCE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1501 et seq., Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107,
241, as amended; 23 U.S.C. 601-611 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 116.
0
2. Amend Sec. 80.13 by:
0
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), removing the word
``five'' and adding in its place the word ``four'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); and
0
c. Removing paragraph (a)(5).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 80.13 Threshold criteria.
(a) * * *
[[Page 45776]]
(1) A project shall comply with 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(3).
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 80.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 80.23 Loan terms.
(a) The interest rate on a secured loan will be not less than the
rate on United States Treasury securities of a similar maturity to the
maturity of the secured loan on the date of the execution of the loan
agreement, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and 23
U.S.C. chapter 6.
(b) If, on the date of the execution of the loan agreement, the
United States Treasury does not post the rate of securities of a
similar maturity to the maturity of the secured loan, the interest rate
on any secured loan with both a final maturity date that is more than
35 years after the date of substantial completion of the project, and a
loan term that is more than 40 years, will be equal to not less than
the rate on thirty-to-forty year Treasury securities plus an annual
interest rate adjustment. The annual interest rate adjustment will be,
cumulatively:
(i) 1.4 basis points for each year of the loan term after year 40
to, but not including, year 51;
(ii) 0.4 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 51
to, but not including, year 71; and
(iii) 0.2 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 71
to year 100.
(c) For purposes of this section, ``loan term'' means the period
beginning on the date of the execution of the loan agreement and ending
on the final maturity date.
PART 260--REGULATIONS GOVERNING LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES UNDER THE
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM
0
4. The authority citation for part 260 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 22401, 22402, 22403, 22404, 22405, 22406;
49 U.S.C. 116.
0
5. Revise Sec. 260.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 260.9 Loan terms.
(a) The interest rate on a direct loan will be not less than the
rate on United States Treasury securities of a similar maturity of the
direct loan on the date of the execution of the loan agreement, except
as described in paragraph (b) of this section and in Sec. 260.17(d).
(b) If, on the date of the execution of the loan agreement, the
United States Treasury does not post the rate of securities of a
similar maturity of the direct loan, the interest rate on any direct
loan with both a final maturity date that is more than 35 years after
the date of substantial completion of the project, and a loan term that
is more than 40 years, will be equal to not less than the rate on
thirty-to-forty year Treasury securities plus an annual interest rate
adjustment. The annual interest rate adjustment will be, cumulatively:
(i) 1.4 basis points for each year of the loan term after year 40
to, but not including, year 51;
(ii) 0.4 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 51
to, but not including, year 71; and
(iii) 0.2 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 71
to year 100.
(c) For purposes of this section, ``loan term'' means the period
beginning on the date of the execution of the loan agreement and ending
on the final maturity date.
0
6. Amend Sec. 260.17 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 260.17 Credit risk premium analysis.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Where the Credit Risk Premium determined pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section is a positive amount, the interest rate
on the direct loan will be equal to not less than the rate set pursuant
to Sec. 260.9 plus an interest rate adjustment sufficient to result in
a Credit Risk Premium of zero dollars.
(2) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall apply to a direct loan
or loan guarantee only so long as the Act requires the Secretary to
return Credit Risk Premiums paid on that loan or loan guarantee to the
original source.
[FR Doc. 2024-11139 Filed 5-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
