Rrifp Nprm

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
information is available to contractors
on the internet in GSAM Subpart 533.1.
GSAR Subpart 533.2, Disputes and
Appeals, has three sections, including
the prescription for a utility disputes
clause. Editorial changes were made to
GSAR 533.211, Contracting officer’s
decision, so as not to repeat the
information that must be included, as
prescribed in FAR 33.211, to clarify the
GSA-unique requirements, and to
recognize that the GSA Board of
Contract Appeals’(GSBCA) duties are
now vested in the Civilian Board of
Contract Appeals (CSBA). No other
changes were made to this subpart. In
addition, the clause at GSAR 552.233–
71, Disputes (Utility Contracts), and its
prescription at GSAR 533.215, were
deleted at the request of the GSA Public
Buildings Service.
This is not a significant regulatory
action and, therefore, was not subject to
review under Section 6(b) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under5 U.S.C.
804.

Dated: May 30, 2008
David A. Drabkin,
Acting Chief Acquisition Officer & Senior
Procurement Executive Office of the Chief
Acquisition Officer.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The General Services Administration
does not expect this proposed rule to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because this rule will only impact an
offeror that is submitting a protest or has
a dispute with GSA. Further, GSA is
proposing only minor changes in the
regulations and procedures for pursuing
either action. For these reasons, it is
expected that the number of entities
impacted by this rule will be minimal.
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis has, therefore, not been
performed. We invite comments from
small businesses and other interested
parties. GSA will consider comments
from small entities concerning the
affected GSAR Parts 533 and 552 in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested
parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq. (GSAR case 2007–G501), in all
correspondence.

The contracting officer’s written
decision must include the paragraph at
FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v). The contracting
officer shall state in the decision that a
contractor’s notice of appeal to the
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals
(CBCA) should include a copy of the
contracting officer’s decision.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the proposed changes
to the GSAR do not impose information
collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 533 and
552
Government procurement.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

32515

In GSA, the agency official
responsible for investigating fraud is the
Office of Inspector General.
4. Revise section 533.211 to read as
follows:

SUMMARY: The Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA–
21) established the Rail Rehabilitation
and Improvement Financing (RRIF)
Program. The program authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to issue
direct loans and loan guarantees to state
and local governments, railroads,
interstate compacts, and other specified
organizations to finance the
development of railroad infrastructure.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of
2005: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
amended and expanded the program.
SAFETEA–LU increased the principal
amount of the RRIF program up to $35.0
billion, and of that amount, $7.0 billion
is reserved for freight railroads other
than Class I carriers. This NPRM
proposes amending eligibility and
application form and content criteria to
ensure the long-term sustainability of
the program, promote competition in
the railroad industry, and reduce the
risk of default for applicants and the
Government.

533.211

DATES:

Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48
CFR parts 533 and 552 as set forth
below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 533 and 552 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c).

PART 533—PROTESTS, DISPUTES,
AND APPEALS
Subpart 533.1

[Removed]

2. Remove subpart 533.1, Protests.
3. Add section 533.209 to Subpart
533.2 to read as follows:
533.209

533.215

Suspected fraudulent claims.

Contracting officer’s decision.

[Removed]

5. Remove section 533.215.
PART 552—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
552.233–70 and 552.233–71

[Removed]

6. Remove sections 552.233–70 and
552.233–71.
[FR Doc. E8–12572 Filed 6–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–61–S

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 260
[Docket No. FRA–2008–0061]
RIN 2130–AB91

Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing Program
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.
AGENCY:

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Comments must be received on
or before August 8, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
Docket No. FRA–2008–0061 and may be
submitted the following ways:
• E-Gov Web site: http://
www.regulations.gov. This Web site
allows the public to enter comments on
any Federal Register notice issued by
any agency. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: DOT Docket Management
System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket
Management System; West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590–0001 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket ID, FRA–2008–0061, at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, submit
two copies. To receive confirmation that
FRA received your comments, include a
self-addressed stamped postcard.
Internet users may submit comments at
http://www.regulations.gov. Note:
Comments are posted without changes
or edits to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
discussion in the Supplementary
Information section of this NPRM.

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1

32516

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules

John
Kern, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
([email protected] or 202–493–6044).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

Electronic Access and Filing
You may submit or retrieve comments
online through http://
www.regulations.gov, which is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
Electronic submission and retrieval help
and guidelines are available under the
help section of the Web site.
An electronic copy of this document
may also be downloaded from Office of
the Federal Register’s home page at
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register
and the Government Printing Office’s
Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
Section 7203 of TEA–21, Public Law
105–178 (June 9, 1998), established the
Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program.
This program revised and replaced the
pre-existing railroad financing program
established under Title V of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976. In 2000, the FRA
promulgated a rule implementing the
RRIF program (65 FR 41838, July 6,
2000) found in 49 CFR Part 260 (‘‘RRIF
Rule’’). In 2005, SAFETEA–LU further
amended and expanded the RRIF
program, establishing additional
priorities, increasing the loan principal,
and eliminating any requirement for
collateral under the program.
The RRIF program authorizes the
Secretary to provide direct loans and
loan guarantees to state and local
governments, interstate compacts
consented to by Congress, governmentsponsored authorities and corporations,
railroads, joint ventures that include
one railroad, and limited option rail
freight shippers that own or operate a
plant or other facility that is served by
no more than a single railroad.
SAFETEA–LU did not amend the types
of eligible projects, so they remain the
same as under TEA–21: (1) Acquisition,
improvement, or rehabilitation of
intermodal or rail equipment or
facilities (including tracks, components
of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and
shops); (2) refinancing outstanding debt
incurred for these purposes; or (3)
development or establishment of new
intermodal or railroad facilities. Direct
loans and loan guarantees issued under
this section cannot be used for railroad
operating expenses.
SAFETEA–LU increased the
authorized, aggregate unpaid principal

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

amount of obligations under direct loans
and loan guarantees from $3.5 billion
under TEA–21 to $35.0 billion. Of this
amount, SAFETEA–LU increased the
amount available solely for projects
primarily benefiting freight railroads
other than Class I carriers to $7.0
billion. Furthermore, SAFETEA–LU
prescribed that the Secretary shall not
establish any limit on the proportion of
the unused amount authorized that may
be used for one loan or loan guarantee.
The Secretary has delegated her
authority under the RRIF program to the
FRA Administrator. TEA–21 required
FRA to give priority consideration to
projects that: (1) Enhance public safety;
(2) enhance the environment; (3)
promote economic development; (4)
enable United States companies to be
more competitive in international
markets; (5) are endorsed by plans
prepared under 23 U.S.C. 135 by the
state or states in which they are located;
or (6) preserve or enhance rail or
intermodal service to small
communities or rural areas. SAFETEA–
LU amended these priority
considerations to include projects that:
(7) Enhance service and capacity in the
national rail system or (8) would
materially alleviate rail capacity
problems which degrade the provision
of service to shippers and would fulfill
a need in the national transportation
system.
Pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and
OMB Circular No. A–129, Policies for
Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax
Receivables, the Federal government
must manage the RRIF program to
ensure that the goals of the program are
met while minimizing the risk of
borrower default. The Federal
government is responsible for making
estimates of the costs of direct loan and
loan guarantees. The goal of the RRIF
program is to address a perceived gap
between the railroad industry’s financial
needs and the lack of private financial
sources willing to provide the necessary
long-term, low-capital loans.
Additionally, a goal of the program shall
be to assist small railroads that lack
access to capital and financing for
making capital improvements in
support of the priority considerations
listed in section 260.7. The program
shall also strive to encourage the private
sector to invest in railroads and to
provide financing for the types of
projects underwritten by the RRIF
program. The proposed amendments
will further these goals and priorities.
The NPRM proposes to amend the
RRIF rule to incorporate a number of
program features which FRA believes
will improve the administration and

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

effectiveness of the RRIF program.
FRA’s beliefs are based on its
experience gained while administering
the RRIF program and its knowledge of
the railroad industry, as well as
congressional findings and General
Accountability Office recommendations,
which will be discussed later in the
preamble. The NPRM proposes
substantive amendments to the existing
rule that will ensure the long-term
sustainability of the program, promote
competition in the railroad industry,
and reduce the risk of default for
applicants and the Government.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the
Proposed Changes
Section 260.21 Eligibility
The NPRM proposes to establish an
equity contribution requirement for
applicants who are larger than small
entities. The FRA believes that by
requiring borrowers to invest a certain
percentage of non-RRIF funds to finance
a project, this will ensure that borrowers
are themselves financially invested in
the project. Equity contribution
requirements are a common practice
among financial lenders. The FRA’s
intent is to reduce the risk of borrower
default, and subsequent Government
loss, by having an applicant contribute
to the assets financed by the loan.
The NPRM proposes that an applicant
be required to have and maintain a
minimum equity contribution of the
total costs of the project being financed
by the federal assistance. Furthermore,
the FRA proposes to establish a required
equity contribution ratio that is a
function of the creditworthiness of the
applicant, the degree of leverage in the
project represented by the amount of
federal assistance requested, the size of
the loan as compared with the overall
financial resources of the applicant, and
whether the applicant is requesting a
direct loan or loan guarantee. Finally,
the FRA proposes that direct loan and
loan guarantee applications for less than
$20 million will be exempt from the
equity contribution requirement.
Applicants with a low credit rating,
which the FRA proposes to define as
below ‘‘investment grade,’’ represent a
riskier investment for the federal
government. Applicants requesting a
large amount of financial assistance as
compared with the overall financial
resources of the applicant will also
represent a greater risk to the federal
government, since more of the federal
government’s resources will be
dependent on the outcome of the
project.
Additionally, the Department believes
applicants whose debt (including the

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
federal assistance applied for) to equity
ratio exceeds 1.0 also pose an increased
risk to the federal government since
borrowers whose debt exceeds equity
generally have an increased risk of
default. Finally, direct loans create more
risk to the federal government than loan
guarantees do, since loan guarantees
have the added protection of having an
independent financial lender assessing
project risk. In cases where applicants
and projects create an increased risk to
the federal government, applicants will
be required to have invested a greater
proportion of the total project costs to
offset the increased risk to the
government.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

Direct Loan Applicants
The NPRM proposes that all direct
loan applicants with either a credit
rating of less than investment grade or
whose debt (including the federal
financial assistance applied for) to
equity ratio exceeds 1.0 will be required
to have and always maintain an equity
contribution of at least 20 percent of
total project costs for direct loan
applications for less than $250 million
and an equity contribution of at least 30
percent of total project costs for direct
loan applications exceeding $250
million.
The NPRM proposes that all direct
loan applicants with a credit rating of
no less than investment grade and
whose debt, including the federal
financial assistance applied for, to
equity ratio does not exceed 1.0 will be
required to have and to always maintain
an equity contribution of at least 10
percent of total project costs for direct
loan applications for less than $250
million and an equity contribution of at
least 15 percent of total project costs for
direct loan applications exceeding $250
million.
Loan Guarantee Applicants
The NPRM proposes that all loan
guarantee applicants with either a credit
rating of less than investment grade or
whose debt, including the federal
financial assistance applied for, to
equity ratio exceeds 1.0 will be required
to have and always maintain an equity
contribution of at least 20 percent of
total project costs for loan guarantee
applications for less than $250 million
and an equity contribution of at least 25
percent of total project costs for loan
guarantee applications exceeding $250
million. The equity contribution
required for applications of direct loans
and loan guarantees of less than $250
million is the same because FRA
believes that the greater risk presented
by direct loans is only necessarily
addressed in this program in the context

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

of very large direct loan amounts.
Additionally, the type of financial
assistance requested is one of many
factors that the FRA used to determine
the appropriate level of equity
contribution for each financial
assistance amount category.
The NPRM proposes that all loan
guarantee applicants with a credit rating
of no less than investment grade and
whose debt, including the federal
financial assistance applied for, to
equity ratio does not exceed 1.0 will be
required to have and to always maintain
an equity contribution of at least 10
percent of total project costs for loan
guarantee applications for less than
$250 million and an equity contribution
of at least 12.5 percent of total project
costs for loan guarantee applications
exceeding $250 million.
The FRA requests comments on the
equity contribution requirement and the
amounts proposed.
Finally, the NPRM proposes a
limitation on the cumulative
outstanding balance to a single
borrower. The SAFETEA–LU
amendments to RRIF state that the
Secretary shall not establish ‘‘any limit
on the proportion of the unused amount
authorized under this subsection that
may be used for 1 loan or loan
guarantee.’’ However, FRA believes that
placing a limit on the cumulative
amount of direct loans and loan
guarantees to any one borrower is
within the FRA’s authority since the
proposed limit is an absolute limit and
not based on a proportion of unused
funds. 45 U.S.C. 822(d). As Congress
could have chosen instead to explicitly
prohibit all limitations, regardless of
whether or not the limitation is based
on the proportion of unused funds, FRA
interprets the language as written to
indicate that Congress did not intend to
prohibit all limitations but only
limitations based on the proportion of
the unused amount authorized.
In an October 2006 report, the GAO
recommended that the Department
‘‘consider strategies to sustain the role
of competitive market forces by creating
a level playing field for all freight
modes.’’ 1 The GAO report found that
over the past 30 years, the railroad
industry has become more concentrated.
The number of Class I railroad systems
decreased from 30 railroads in 1976 to
7 railroads in operation today. Of those,
four railroads account for over 89% of
the industry’s revenues.
FRA believes a sufficiently large
direct loan or loan guarantee to one
1 GAO, Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has
Improved, but Concerns about Competition and
Capacity Should Be Addressed, GAO–07–94,
October 2006.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

32517

borrower could potentially further
increase concentration in the railroad
industry. A sufficiently large direct loan
or loan guarantee to one railroad may
have the potential to allow it to obtain
a preferential standing in the
marketplace over its competitors. The
FRA believes that the RRIF program can
be an effective means of updating and
improving railroad infrastructure to
meet modern needs. Congress also
established that it is a priority of the
program to focus on providing capital to
smaller railroads by requiring that
twenty percent of the program’s total
funding be set aside for these smaller
railroads. Therefore, the FRA believes
that limiting the cumulative amount
that any one applicant may borrow is
proper federal direct loan and loan
guarantee policy and would be in
keeping with Congressional intent to
ensure that a few large projects do not
dominate the entire funding for the
program.
In order to ensure that the direct loans
and loan guarantees are spread evenly
throughout the railroad industry, the
NPRM proposes limiting the amount of
any cumulative outstanding balance to a
single borrower. The NPRM proposes
$500 million as an appropriate limit for
any cumulative loan guarantee and
direct loan for any single borrower and
seeks comment on the suitability of this
figure. In particular, commenters who
believe this figure is insufficient for
their project needs should comment on
whether any greater amount would be
more suitable.
Section 260.23 Form and Content of
Application Generally
First, if the amount of financial
assistance requested exceeds a defined
threshold, the NPRM proposes adding a
requirement for applicants to obtain a
credit rating or assessment that takes
into account the proposed project. This
will result in better informed decisions
by the government and ensure that the
credit risk to the Government is
minimized for the largest direct loan
and loan guarantee requests. The NPRM
proposes a threshold of $250 million as
an appropriate amount and invites
comments on the suitability of this
figure.
Second, the NPRM proposes adding a
requirement that applicants submit
electronic copies of their audited
financial statements. This requirement
will reduce application review costs and
credit risk for the Government and
ensure more efficient processing of loan
applications. As this requirement may
be overly burdensome on small railroad
operations, the NPRM proposes
excluding applicants with annual

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1

32518

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules

revenues of less than $20 million from
this requirement, as well as applications
for direct loans or loan guarantees for
less than $20 million.
Pursuant to its authority under the
Small Business Act to define ‘‘small
entities,’’ FRA published a final
statement of agency policy that formally
establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as railroads
that meet the line-haulage revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad. See
68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003), as codified
at part 209, appendix C of this chapter.
The $20 million limit (adjusted
annually for inflation) is based on the
Surface Transportation Board’s
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier,
which is adjusted by applying the
railroad revenue deflator adjustment (49
CFR parts 1201). The NPRM proposes to
use this definition for this rulemaking.
Third, the NPRM proposes adding a
requirement for applicants to identify
and quantify the public benefit to be
attained by the financial assistance. A
GAO report from 2003 discussing the
financing limitations of freight
transportation recommended the DOT
promote the use of benefit analyses,
including external benefits.2 The report
found that by evaluating the benefits of
competing alternatives, applicants
would have to apply systematic
analytical methods as part of their
investment decision-making process,
leading to a better understanding of the
tradeoffs among competing alternative
solutions. Additionally, by determining
clear and tangible benefits, applicants
would be better able to garner support
for projects from private firms. The
proposed rule will reduce the credit risk
to the Government by encouraging
participation from private financial
sources, reduce application review
costs, and improve government
decision-making through better
information. Furthermore, the NPRM
proposes giving priority consideration
to applications that have the highest
benefit to loan value in order to make
economically efficient use of limited
government resources and to further
reduce the risk to the Government of
default.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and U.S. DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule has been
evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and
determined to be significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
2 GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed
to Address Planning and Financing Limitations,
GAO–04–165, December 2003.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

Feb. 26, 1979). We have prepared and
placed in the docket a regulatory
evaluation addressing the economic
impact of this proposed rule. FRA
invites comments on this regulatory
evaluation.
This regulation will affect only those
entities that voluntarily elect to apply
for a direct loan or loan guarantee and
those who receive a direct loan or loan
guarantee under the program. It will not
impose any direct, involuntary, or unreimbursed costs on those entities not
applying for the program. The only costs
imposed on the applicants are the costs
associated with completing an
application. The costs associated with
the proposed rule would also not differ
materially from the current applications
costs. The proposed rule codifies and
regularizes many requirements already
in effect. Although we have not
provided a detailed cost of the
application, many of these costs would
be incurred with or without the rule.
FRA specifically solicits comment on
the total and incremental application
costs of this proposed rule.
FRA has also concluded that the
railroad rehabilitation and improvement
loan program could generate both direct
and indirect benefits. By codifying
existing application review practices,
the proposed rule will result in a more
efficient and consistent use of
government resources. Additionally, the
proposed rule will provide for greater
governmental transparency in codifying
how applications will be reviewed.
Furthermore, applicants will have the
benefit of knowing their applications
contain all the information necessary for
review. The regulatory evaluation
contains a more detailed discussion of
the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule.
This rule is not anticipated to
adversely affect, in a material way, any
sector of the economy. This rulemaking
sets forth criteria for project
applications in the RRIF program,
which will result in only minimal
additional cost to program applicants.
This rule would also not create a serious
inconsistency with any other agency’s
action or materially alter the budgetary
impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 601–612)
requires a review of rules to assess their
impact on small entities. FRA does not
expect the proposed rule to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For
this proposed rule, the relevant
definition of small entities is based on

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the applicant’s annual revenue. The
Small Business Administration (SBA)
has provided FRA with the authority to
establish a definition for small entities.
FRA has published a final policy that
formally establishes small entities as
railroads that meet the line haulage
revenue requirements of a Class III
railroad, which is currently annual
operating revenues of $20 million or
less. The $20 million limit is based on
the Surface Transportation Board’s
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier.
FRA has not conducted a regulatory
flexibility assessment of this proposed
rule’s impact on small entities. Small
entities are largely exempt from the new
application and equity contribution
requirements in order to avoid a
scenario where additional costs
imposed could have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Additionally,
FRA notes that this is a voluntary loan
program, and the proposed rule will not
have any effect on small entities that do
not apply for direct loans or loan
guarantees. FRA invites comment on the
economic effect of the proposed rule on
small entities. However, FRA believes
the proposed rule will benefit small
entities by providing them with greater
access to capital and capital markets.
FRA has, therefore, concluded that there
are no substantial economic impacts for
small entities of government, business,
or other organizations.
FRA requests public comments that
will clarify what the impacts will be for
the affected small entities. FRA
especially encourages political
subdivisions that may be considered to
be small entities to participate in the
comment process and submit written
comments to the docket.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Pursuant to Section 201 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that ‘‘before
promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in the promulgation of any rule
that includes any Federal mandate that
may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year,

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules
and before promulgating any final rule
for which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was published, the agency
shall prepare a written statement’’
detailing the effect on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector.
This loan program is not an
‘‘unfunded mandate.’’ This NPRM will
not result in the expenditure by state,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $132,000,000 (adjusted
annually for inflation) or more in any
one year, and thus preparation of such
a statement is not required.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The FRA has analyzed this NPRM in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which
directs Federal agencies to exercise great
care in establishing policies that have
federalism implications. See 64 FR
42355. This NPRM will not have a
substantial effect on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government. This NPRM will not have
federalism implications that impose any
direct compliance costs on state and
local governments. There will be minor
costs associated with the submission of
applications, but they are discretionary
and will only be incurred should a state
or local government wish to apply for
funding. Otherwise, this NPRM directs
how Federal funds will go to the states,
and thus, there are no federalism
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) addresses the
collection of information by the Federal
government from individuals, small
businesses and state and local
governments and seeks to minimize the
burdens such information collection
requirements might impose. A
collection of information includes
providing answers to identical questions
posed to, or identical reporting or
record-keeping requirements imposed
on ten or more persons, other than
agencies, instrumentalities, or
employees of the United States. In
accordance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies may
not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. FRA is requesting comment on
a proposed information collection. FRA
is also giving notice that the proposed

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

32519

National Environmental Policy Act

collection of information has been
submitted to OMB for review and
approval.
Section 260.23 of the NPRM contains
additional information requirements
that would apply to railroads, states or
political subdivisions of states that file
applications for Federal funding for
railroad rehabilitation and improvement
projects.
This NPRM proposes to include
requirements for applicants for loans
and loan guarantees to provide certain
information with their application in
order to assess their financial health.
Specifically, in Sections 260.23(4)(p)-(r),
FRA proposes to require: Credit ratings
or assessments for loan and guarantee
applications for more than $250 million;
electronic copies of audited financial
statements to be submitted with
applications from other than small
entities for loans or guarantees of more
than $20 million; and, that applicants
must identify and quantify the public
benefit that would accrue from the
completion of the proposed project.
FRA believes that any burden on
applicants from formally incorporating
these proposed requirements would be
negligible because there are exceptions
made for small loan and guarantee
amounts as well as for small entities in
general. For all other scenarios, the
documentation requested would be
required for any sort of financing that an
applicant would seek, be it public or
private, in order to assess the risk of
granting financing. Pursuant to 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the FRA solicits
comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are
necessary for FRA to properly perform
its functions, including whether the
information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collecting information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
may be minimized.

Executive Order 13211 requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. The FRA has
evaluated this NPRM in accordance
with Executive Order 13211. The FRA
has determined that this NPRM is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, FRA has
determined that this NPRM is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ within the
meaning of the Executive Order.

Privacy Act

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 260

Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT’s dockets by
the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65,
Number 70, Pages 19477–78).

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

The FRA has evaluated this regulation
in accordance with its procedures for
ensuring full consideration of the
potential environmental impacts of FRA
actions, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and related
directives (see FRA Policy Statement on
Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545).
FRA has concluded that the issuance of
this NPRM, which proposes to amend
regulations governing the provisions of
loan guarantees and direct loans for
railroad rehabilitation and improvement
projects, does not have a potential
impact on the environment and does not
constitute a major Federal action
requiring an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

Loan programs—Transportation;
Railroads.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, and under the authority of 45
U.S.C. 822, FRA proposes to amend Part
260 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1

32520

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 111 / Monday, June 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules

PART 260—[AMENDED]

§ 260.23 Form and content of application
generally.

1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:

*

Authority: 45 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823; 49 CFR
1.49.

2. Revise section 260.21 to read as
follows:

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

§ 260.21

Eligibility.

(a) The Administrator may make a
direct loan to an Applicant, or guarantee
the payment of the principal balance
and any interest of an obligation of an
Applicant prior to, on, or after the date
of execution or the date of disbursement
of such obligation, if the proceeds of
such direct loan or obligation shall be,
or have been, used by the Applicant for
the eligible purposes listed in
§ 260.5(a)(1), (2), and (3).
(b) Except for railroads that are small
entities as provided in part 209,
appendix C of this chapter and are
seeking loans not in excess of $20
million, an Applicant applying for
financial assistance must make an
equity contribution to the costs of the
project being financed, in part, by the
federal assistance, based on the
creditworthiness of the Applicant and
the degree of leverage in the project
represented by the federal assistance.
(c) An Applicant for a direct loan that
is greater than $20 million but less than
$250 million shall have and always
maintain an equity contribution of at
least 20 percent of total project costs. An
Applicant for a direct loan that is greater
than $250 million shall have and always
maintain an equity contribution of at
least 30 percent of total project costs.
(d) An Applicant for a loan guarantee
that is greater than $20 million but less
than $250 million shall have and always
maintain an equity contribution of at
least 20 percent of total project costs. An
Applicant for a loan guarantee that is
greater than $250 million shall have and
always maintain an equity contribution
of at least 25 percent of total project
costs.
(e) An Applicant for a direct loan or
loan guarantee with a credit rating of no
less than investment grade and whose
debt to equity ratio that does not exceed
1.0, shall be required to have and
always maintain an equity contribution
of half of the amounts prescribed in
paragraphs (c) or (d), respectively.
(f) The cumulative outstanding
balance of loans and loan guarantees to
a single borrower shall not exceed $500
million.
3. Section 260.23 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (p), (q), and (r)
to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:31 Jun 06, 2008

Jkt 214001

*
*
*
*
(p) A credit rating or assessment if the
application for financial assistance is in
excess of $250 million.
(q) Electronic copies of their audited
financial statements, unless the
Applicant has revenues of less than $20
million or the application for financial
assistance is less than $20 million.
(r) Identification and quantification of
the public benefit to be obtained by the
financial assistance requested,
including, but not limited to, the
priorities listed in 49 U.S.C. 822(c).
Priority consideration will be given to
those applications that have the highest
benefit to loan value, consistent with
the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 822.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 3, 2008.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–12811 Filed 6–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 383, 384, and 385
[Docket No. FMCSA–2007–27659]
RIN 2126–AB02

Commercial Driver’s License Testing
and Commercial Learner’s Permit
Standards; Extension of Comment
Period
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: In response to several
requests, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) extends
until July 9, 2008, the comment period
for the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that was published on April 9,
2008.
DATES: Please submit comments
regarding the NPRM to the docket by
July 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be
identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA–2007–27659, and submitted by
one of the following methods:
• Electronically: Through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS), at
http://www.regulations.gov; and follow
the instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail/Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Management

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Facility, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received and
background material, go to the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
http://www.regulations.gov, and search
for docket ID Number FMCSA–2007–
27659. Comments may also be inspected
at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Management
Facility, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Ave,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Privacy Act: Regardless of the
method used for submitting comments,
all comments or material will be posted
without change to the FDMS, including
personal information. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all of our
dockets in FDMS by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement
published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Mr.
Robert Redmond, Office of Safety
Programs, Commercial Driver’s License
Division, telephone (202) 366–5014 or email [email protected]. Office
hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

On April
9, 2008 (73 FR 19282), FMCSA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register concerning proposed
requirements related to commercial
driver’s license testing and commercial
learner’s permit standards. We provided
the public with a 60-day comment
period that expires on June 9, 2008.
Several commenters have submitted
requests for an extension of 30 days
beyond June 9, which are in the docket.
Accordingly, FMCSA extends the
comment period for an additional 30
days, which now expires on July 9,
2008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Issued on: June 4, 2008.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–12876 Filed 6–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1