59770 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1776.18 OMB control number. 

The information collection 

requirements in this part are approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB 

control number 0572–0139.

Dated: September 2, 2004. 

Curtis M. Anderson, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 04–22448 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service 

7 CFR Part 1783 

RIN 0572–AB95 

Grant Program To Establish a Fund for 

Financing Water and Wastewater 

Projects (Revolving Fund Program 

(RFP))

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS or the Agency) is issuing a 

regulation to establish the Grant 

Program to Establish a Fund for 

Financing Water and Wastewater 

Projects (Revolving Fund Program 

(RFP)) as authorized by the 

Consolidated Farm and Rural 

Development Act (CONACT), as 

amended by section 6002 of the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (Farm Bill). The Secretary may 

make grants to qualified, private, nonprofit entities. Grant Recipients will 

make loans to eligible entities to finance 

pre-development costs associated with 

proposed water and wastewater projects 

or with existing water and wastewater 

systems, and short-term costs incurred 

for replacement equipment, small-scale 

extension of services, or other small 

capital projects that are not part of the 

regular operations and maintenance 

activities of existing water and 

wastewater systems.

DATES: This rule will become effective 

November 22, 2004, unless RUS 

receives written adverse comments or a 

written notice of intent to submit 

adverse comments on or before 

November 5, 2004. If RUS receives such 

comments or notice, the Agency will 

publish a timely notice in the Federal 

Register withdrawing the rule. 

Comments received will be considered 

under the proposed rule published in 

this edition of the Federal Register in 

the proposed rule section. A second 

public comment period will not be held. 

Comments must be received by RUS or 

carry a postmark or equivalent no later 

than November 5, 2004. Comments 

regarding the information collection 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act must be received on or 

before December 6, 2004, to be assured 

of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments 

or notice of intent to submit adverse 

comments by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instruction for submitting 

comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http://www.

usda.gov/rus/index2.Comments.htm.

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: RUSComments@usda.gov.

Include in the subject line of the 

message ‘‘7 CFR 1783.’’

• Mail: Addressed to Richard Annan, 

Acting Director, Program Development 

and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities 

Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, STOP 1522, Washington, DC 

20250–1522. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Addressed 

to Richard Annan, Acting Director, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

5168–S, Washington, DC 20250–1522. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include ‘‘Rural Utilities Service’’

and the subject heading ‘‘7 CFR 1783.’’

All comments received must identify 

the name of the individual (and the 

name of the entity, if applicable) who is 

submitting the comment. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.usda.gov.rus.index2.

Comments.htm, including any personal 

information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Saulnier, Loan Specialist, 

Water Programs Division, Rural Utilities 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

2235–S, Stop 1570, Washington, DC 

20250–1570. Telephone (202) 690–2526. 

E-Mail: stephen.saulnier@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866

This direct final rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

Executive Order 12372 

This rule is not subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs’’, as implemented under 

USDA’s regulations at 7 CFR Part 3015. 

Executive Order 12988 

This direct final rule has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. RUS has 

determined that this proposed rule 

meets the applicable standards provided 

in section 3 of the Executive Order. In 

addition all State and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

rule will be preempted; no retroactive 

effect will be given to the rule; and, in 

accordance with Section 212(e) of the 

Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 

6912(e)) administrative appeal 

procedures, if any are required, must be 

exhausted prior to initiating any action 

against the Department or its agencies. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), this 

proposed rule related to grants is 

exempt from the rulemaking 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 

including the requirement to provide 

prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment. Because this proposed 

rule is not subject to a requirement to 

provide prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553, or any other law, the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. are 

inapplicable. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The policies contained in this rule do 

not have any substantial direct effect on 

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. Nor does this rule 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on states and local governments. 

Therefore, consultation with states is 

not required. 

Information Collection and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35) RUS is requesting comments 

on the information collection 

incorporated in this proposed rule. 

Comments on this information 

collection must be received by 

December 6, 2004. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 59771

agency’s estimate of the burden 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumption used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Title: 7 CFR part 1783, Revolving 

Fund Program. 

OMB Control Number: 0582–0138. 

Type of Request: Approval for 

collection. 

Abstract: The information collections 

contained in this rule are requirements 

prescribed by the Consolidated Farm 

and Rural Development Act (CONACT) 

(7 U.S.C. 1926(a)), as amended. 

The primary reason for the 

promulgation of the proposed collection 

of information under this rule is to 

implement the Revolving Fund 

Program. 

RUS applicants would submit an 

application for consideration of grant 

funding, and if selected for funding, 

submit quarterly reports, as prescribed 

by the rule. The collection of 

information is only that information 

which is essential for RUS to award and 

service grants in the best interest of the 

Government. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 8.2 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondents: 7.6. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 313 hours. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, Rural Utilities Service. 

Telephone: (202) 720–7853. 

Send comments regarding this 

information collection requirement to 

Richard Annan, Acting Director, 

Program Development and Regulatory 

Analysis, USDA, Rural Utilities Service, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 

5168, Stop 1522, Washington, DC 

20250–1522.

Comments must be received on or 

before 30 days of publication in the 

Federal Register. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Certification 

The Administrator of RUS has 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment as defined by the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, 

this action does not require an 

environmental impact statement or 

assessment. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The programs described by this 

proposed rule are listed in the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs under numbers 10–864, 

Revolving Fund Program Grant. This 

catalog is available on a subscription 

basis from the Superintendent of 

Documents, the United States 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC, 20402–9325, telephone 

number (202) 512–1800. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provision of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, 

local, and tribal governments or the 

private sector. Thus this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

Background 

On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm 

Bill) was signed into law as Public Law 

107–171. Section 6002 of the Farm Bill 

amended the Consolidated Farm and 

Rural Development Act (CONACT), by 

adding a grant program to establish a 

revolving loan fund. The Secretary may 

make grants to qualified, private, nonprofit entities. The grant recipients will 

use the grant funds to establish a 

revolving loan fund. The loans will be 

made to eligible entities to finance 

predevelopment costs of water or 

wastewater projects, or short-term small 

capital projects not part of the regular 

operation and maintenance of current 

water and wastewater systems. 

Eligible entities for the revolving loan 

fund will be the same entities eligible to 

obtain a loan, loan guarantee, or grant 

from the Rural Utilities Service Water 

and Waste Disposal and Wastewater 

loan and grant programs. The amount of 

financing to an eligible entity shall not 

exceed $100,000.00 and shall be repaid 

in a term not to exceed 10 years. The 

rate shall be determined in the approved 

grant work plan. 

No funds were appropriated for the 

grant program for fiscal years (FY) 2002 

and FY 2003. However, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–199) included $500,000.00 

for the grant program. Therefore, we are 

developing the regulation to implement 

the grant program. 

The Administrator of RUS is required 

to prescribe regulations to implement 

the provisions of the CONACT. Rural 

Utilities Service will be relying heavily 

on existing regulations within the Rural 

Development Program in order to 

develop regulations for this new 

program. 

A Notice of Inquiry was published in 

the Federal Register, Thursday, 

February 12, 2004 at 69 CFR Part 6937, 

requesting interested parties to review 

the CONACT and comment on six 

topics. The comment period closed on 

March 15, 2004. RUS received responses 

from six parties; National Rural Water 

Association (NRWA), Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators 

(ASDWA), Rural Community Assistance 

Program (RCAP), Midwest Assistance 

Program (MAP), Community Resource 

Group (CRG), and South Central Illinois 

Regional Planning & Development 

Commission (SCIRP&DC). The topics, 

comments, and Agency responses as 

follows: 

(1) RUS is seeking comments on a 

requirement for current lending 

experience of potential grant applicants. 

ASDWA did not feel they were able 

to comment on this topic. SCIRP&DC 

was in favor of requiring current lending 

experience of potential grant applicants. 

CRG, MAP, and RCAP believe that the 

applicant should have the demonstrated 

capacity and financial ability to provide 

on-site technical assistance to the 

borrowers, both before and after a loan 

is made. RCAP further recommends that 

RUS base its criteria for determining 

applicants’ qualifications on the criteria 

outlined in regulations for USDA’s 

Intermediary Relending Program (7 CFR 

Part 4274). RCAP believes this would 

allow the Agency flexibility to award a 

grant to a non-profit that may not have 

significant loan making experience. 

The Agency’s position is that in order 

to fulfill its fiduciary and oversight 

responsibilities, the primary experience 

for an applicant is a successful record of 

making and servicing loans. 

(2) RUS is also interested in 

comments regarding a proposed 

minimum 20 percent matching funds 

contribution by the grant recipient. 

Should in-kind contributions be 

accepted as part of the 20 percent 

minimum? 

All respondents except NRWA agree 

with a minimum 20 percent match. 

NRWA did not comment on this topic. 

CRG believes that above a 20 percent 

match should not favor one area of the 

country above another and the cash 

match should be proportionate to every 

loan. All loan losses should come out of

59772 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

the matching funds. MAP recommends 

that more points should be given for a 

greater than 20 percent match only 

when two or more applications are from 

the same region of the country. RCAP 

recommends that priority points be 

awarded for a match above 20 percent. 

The Agency’s position is to require a 

minimum 20 percent matching funds 

contribution by the grant recipient. 

Contributions by the grant recipient 

signal a serious intent to invest in the 

project as well as increasing the overall 

size of the loan fund from which loans 

shall be made, thereby increasing the 

number of potential loan recipients. The 

Agency agrees with RCAP’s 

recommendation and will award 

priority points for greater than 20 

percent match. 

(3) RUS is interested in comments 

regarding the percentage of the grant 

funds that may be used for 

administrative or servicing fees. 

ASDWA believes that 6 percent 

would be reasonable although the 

current allowable percentage for the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is 

4 percent. SCIRP&DC recommends a 

rate of 2 to 3 percent is adequate. 

SCIRP&DC further recommends 0.5 

percent be incorporated into the loan 

rate for debt servicing. CRG believes that 

no Federal or match funds should be 

used for administrative fees. Interest 

and fees earned from loans should be 

used to fund loan loss reserves. MAP 

believes that allowable eligible costs as 

described in the authorizing Farm Bill 

language are adequate. RCAP 

recommends that Federal funds not be 

used for administrative costs. 

Administrative costs should come from 

matching funds. NRWA believes that 

administrative costs and overhead 

should be minimal.

The Agency’s position is to maximize 

the use of limited grants dollars in order 

to fund the greatest number of projects 

possible, therefore, grant funds may not 

be used for payment of the 

intermediary’s administrative cost or 

expenses. Interest collected from loans 

made by the intermediary may be used 

to cover reasonable administrative costs. 

(4) RUS is seeking comments on the 

issue of the revolving fund paying up to 

a maximum of 75 percent of the project 

costs, with the other 25 percent of 

project costs paid from non-Federal 

sources. 

ASDWA had no objection. SCIRP&DC 

has some confusion between the 

organization’s match funding a 

maximum of 75 percent of project costs. 

CRG believes limiting Federal 

participation to no more than 75 percent 

of project costs is reasonable. Both MAP 

and RCAP believe that the 75 percent 

maximum may restrict or deter 

borrowers from seeking financing 

through this program. MAP further 

believes that this requirement will 

create a financial burden to low-income 

communities. 

The Agency’s response is to establish 

a maximum loan amount of the lesser of 

$100,000 or 75 percent of the total costs 

of the project in order to focus program 

funding of small capital projects. The 

authorizing legislation sets a maximum 

loan amount of $100,000. The Agency 

believes that the lesser of $100,000 or 75 

percent of the cost of the project will 

allow for a greater number of loans to 

be made and also comply with the 

authorizing legislation. 

(5) RUS is interested in comments 

regarding the use of the Central 

Servicing Center (http://

www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/sfh/

bor_sfh.htm) for servicing loans made 

from the revolving loan fund, to include 

processing loan payments, reviewing 

financial statements, and other 

responsibilities involved in loan 

servicing. 

ASDWA had no comment. SCIRP&DC 

wants to service the loans in house and 

has a proven track record. MAP 

recommends not utilizing the Central 

Servicing Center. Both CRG and RCAP 

believe maintaining servicing in house 

allows the lender to stay close to 

borrowers and alerts the lender to any 

potential problems. Also, using a third 

party for servicing would raise costs. 

The Agency agrees with SCIRP&DC, 

MAP, CRG, and RCAP that the grant 

recipient should service loans made 

from the Revolving Fund Program. The 

direct final rule, 7 CFR Part 1783, does 

not require loans made from the 

Revolving Fund Program to be serviced 

by the Central Servicing Center. 

(6) RUS is also seeking comments on 

the definition of eligible and ineligible 

projects for the loans made from the 

revolving loan fund. 

ASDWA wants the lender to consult 

with state agencies in defining eligible 

projects. SCIRP&DC believes that 

reasonable administrative fees for 

providing guidance/technical assistance 

should be an eligible project. CRG 

recommends that pre-development, 

upgrades, or extending service should 

have the same eligibility requirements 

as the regular RUS Water and Waste 

Disposal Loan Program. RCAP believes 

that projects financed under this 

program should be coordinated with the 

State Rural Development Office. RCAP 

also presents a long list of eligible 

projects they feel should be included. 

The Agency is required to follow the 

definition of eligible as set forth in the 

authorizing legislation of the CONACT. 

The Agency will, to the extent possible 

within the parameters of the authorizing 

legislation, be flexible in determining 

the specific projects that qualify as 

eligible. 

General Comments 

(1) ASDWA believes that, historically, 

the primary vehicle to provide lowinterest loans water and wastewater 

systems is through the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds and the Clean 

Water State Revolving Funds and that 

Federal funds should be channeled 

through these mechanisms. ASDWA 

believes all water projects should be 

aligned with state drinking water 

priorities. 

The Agency’s response is that it is not 

authorize to roll funds for the Revolving 

Fund Program into the existing USDA 

loan and grant program or through the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds 

and the Clean Water State Revolving 

Funds. 

(2) SCIRP&DC suggest that revolving 

fund grants be made to regional 

planning commissions that are familiar 

with state and local funding options. 

NRWA believes funds for the Revolving 

Fund Program would be more 

effectively used within the existing 

USDA loan and grant program. Cost of 

administering such a small program will 

significantly outweigh any potential 

benefits. 

The Agency’s response is that the 

CONACT, as amended by the Farm Bill, 

added a grant program to establish a 

revolving loan fund. The Secretary may 

make grants to qualified, private, nonprofit entities, not state agencies. As 

with current RUS water and waste 

disposal projects, loans made under this 

program will be coordinated with state 

agencies. 

All comments received were taken 

into consideration in developing the 

regulation.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1783 

Business and industry, Community 

development, Community facilities, 

Grant programs-housing and community 

development, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rural 

areas, Waste treatment and disposal, 

Water supply, Watersheds.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

RUS amends chapter XVII of Title 7 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations by 

adding a new Part 1783 to read as 

follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 59773

PART 1783—REVOLVING FUNDS FOR 

FINANCING WATER AND 

WASTEWATER PROJECTS 

(REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM)

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

1783.1 What is the purpose of the 

Revolving Fund Program? 

1783.2 What Uniform Federal Assistance 

Provisions apply to the Revolving Fund 

Program? 

1783.3 What definitions are used in this 

regulation? 

1783.4 [Reserved]

Subpart B—Revolving Loan Program 

Grants 

1783.5 What are the eligibility criteria for 

grant recipients? 

1783.6 When will applications for grants be 

accepted? 

1783.7 What is the grant application 

process? 

1783.8 What are the acceptable methods for 

submitting applications? 

1783.9 What are the criteria for scoring 

applications? 

1783.10 What is the grant agreement? 

1983.11 What is the revolving loan fund? 

1783.12 What are eligible uses of grant 

proceeds? 

1783.13 What administrative expenses may 

be funded with grant proceeds?

Subpart C—Revolving Loan Program Loans 

1783.14 What are the eligibility criteria for 

RFP loan recipients? 

1783.15 What are the terms of RFP loans? 

1783.16 How will loans from the revolving 

fund be serviced?

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1926 (a)(2)(B).

Subpart A—General

§ 1783.1 What is the purpose of the 

Revolving Fund Program? 

This part sets forth the policies and 

procedures for making grants to 

qualified private, non-profit entities to 

capitalize revolving funds for the 

purpose of providing financing to 

eligible entities for pre-development 

costs associated with proposed water 

and wastewater projects or with existing 

water and wastewater systems, and 

short-term costs incurred for 

replacement equipment, small-scale 

extension of services, or other small 

capital projects that are not part of the 

regular operations and maintenance 

activities of existing water and 

wastewater systems.

§ 1783.2 What Uniform Federal Assistance 

Provisions apply to the Revolving Fund 

Program? 

(a) This program is subject to the 

general provisions that apply to all 

grants made by USDA and that are set 

forth in 7 CFR Part 3015—Uniform 

Federal Assistance Regulations. 

(b) This program is subject to the 

uniform administrative requirements 

that apply to all grants made by USDA 

to non-profit organizations and that are 

set forth in 7 CFR Part 3019—Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

And Agreements with Institutions of 

Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other 

Non-Profit Organizations. 

(c) This program is subject to OMB 

Circular No. A–122 (Revised): Cost 

Principles for Non-Profit Organizations.

§ 1783.3 What definitions are used in this 

regulation? 

Administrative expenses means 

expenses incurred by a grant recipient 

that are of the type more particularly 

described in § 1783.12. 

Applicant means a private, non-profit 

organization that applies for an RFP 

grant under this part. 

CONACT means the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act. 

Eligible entity means an entity eligible 

to obtain a loan, loan guarantee or grant 

under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of 

section 306(a) the CONACT (codified at 

7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(1) and (2)). 

Grant agreement means the contract 

between RUS and the grant recipient 

which sets forth the terms and 

conditions governing a particular grant 

awarded under this part. 

Grant recipient means a private, nonprofit entity that has been awarded a 

grant under this part. 

Loan recipient means an eligible 

entity that has received an RFP loan. 

Revolved funds means the cash 

portion of the revolving loan fund that 

is not composed of RFP grant funds, 

including cash comprising repayments 

of RFP loans, fees relating to RFP loans 

and interest collected on RFP loans.

Revolving loan fund means the loan 

fund established by the grant recipient 

to carry out the purposes of this part, 

such fund comprising the proceeds of 

an RFP grant and other related assets. 

RFP means Revolving Fund Program. 

RFP grant means a grant from RUS to 

a grant recipient under this part. 

RFP loan means a loan from a grant 

recipient using the direct or indirect 

proceeds of an RFP grant awarded under 

this part. 

Rural and rural area means a city, 

town or unincorporated area that has a 

population of no more than 10,000 

inhabitants, according to the latest 

decennial census of the United States. 

RUS means the Rural Utilities 

Service, a Federal agency delivering the 

USDA’s Rural Development Utilities 

Program. 

USDA means the United States 

Department of Agriculture.

§ 1783.4 [Reserved]

Subpart B—Revolving Loan Program 

Grants

1783.5 What are the eligibility criteria for 

grant recipients? 

(a) The applicant must be a private 

entity. 

(b) The applicant must be organized 

as a non-profit entity. 

(c) The applicant must have the legal 

capacity and lawful authority to perform 

the obligations of a grantee under this 

part.

Example 1 to paragraph (c): If the 

organization is incorporated as a non-profit 

corporation, it must have corporate authority 

under state law and its corporate charter to 

engage in the practice of making loans to 

legal entities.

Example 2 to paragraph (c): If the 

organization is an unincorporated 

association, state law may prevent the 

organization from entering into binding 

contracts, such as a grant agreement.

(d) The applicant must have sufficient 

expertise and experience in making and 

servicing loans to assure the likelihood 

that the objectives of this part can be 

achieved.

§ 1783.6 When will applications for grants 

be accepted? 

In Fiscal Year 2004, applications will 

be accepted for this RFP grant program 

from October 6, 2004, until December 6, 

2004, at which time the initial 

application period shall close. An 

applicant may withdraw, substitute, 

amend or supplement its application at 

any time prior to the closing of the 

initial application period. Once the 

initial application period has closed, all 

applications shall be considered final. 

For subsequent fiscal years, if any funds 

for this program are available, the 

Secretary will publish a notice to that 

effect. The notice will establish the 

period during which applications for 

such funds may be submitted for 

consideration.

§ 1783.7 What is the grant application 

process? 

(a) The applicant must complete and 

submit the following items to RUS to 

apply for a grant under this part: 

(1) Application for Federal 

Assistance: Standard Form 424;

(2) Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs: Standard Form 

424A;

(3) Assurances—Non-Construction 

Programs: Standard Form 424B;

(4) Evidence of applicant’s legal 

existence and authority in the form of 

certified copies of organizational 

documents and a certified list of 

directors and officers with their 

respective terms;

59774 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) Evidence of tax exempt status, and 

(6) Most recent annual audit 

conducted by an independent auditor. 

(b) The applicant must submit a 

written work plan that demonstrates the 

ability of the applicant to make and 

service loans to eligible entities under 

this program and the feasibility of the 

applicant’s lending program to meet the 

objectives of this part. 

(c) The applicant should submit a 

narrative establishing the basis for any 

claims that it has substantial expertise 

in making and servicing loans. The 

Secretary will give priority to an 

applicant that demonstrates it has 

substantial experience of this type. 

(d) The applicant may submit such 

additional information as it elects to 

support and describe its plan for 

achieving the objectives of the part.

§ 1783.8 What are the acceptable methods 

for submitting applications? 

(a) Applications for RFP grants may 

be submitted by U.S. Mail. Applications 

submitted by mail must be addressed as 

follows: Rural Utilities Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 

1548, Washington, DC 20250–1548. The 

outside of the application should be 

marked: ‘‘Attention: Assistant 

Administrator, Water and 

Environmental Programs.’’ Applications 

submitted by mail must be postmarked 

not later than the filing deadline to be 

considered during the period for which 

the application was submitted. 

(b) In lieu of submitting an 

application by U.S. Mail, an applicant 

may file its application electronically by 

using the Federal Government’s eGrants 

Web site (Grants.gov) at http://

www.grants.gov. Applicants should refer 

to instructions found on the Grants.gov 

Web site for procedures for registering 

and using this facility. Applicants who 

have not previously registered on 

Grants.gov should allow a sufficient 

number of business days to complete 

the process necessary to be qualified to 

apply for Federal Government grants 

using electronic submissions. Electronic 

submissions must be filed not later than 

the filing deadline to be considered 

during the period for which the 

application was submitted. 

(c) The methods of submitting 

applications may be changed from time 

to time to reflect changes in addresses 

and electronic submission procedures. 

Applicants should refer to the most 

recent notice of funding availability for 

notice of any such changes. In the event 

of any discrepancy, the information 

contained in the notice must be 

followed.

§ 1783.9 What are the criteria for scoring 

applications? 

(a) Applications that are incomplete 

or ineligible will be returned to the 

applicant, accompanied by a statement 

explaining why the application is being 

returned. 

(b) Promptly after an application 

period closes, all applications that are 

complete and eligible will be ranked 

competitively based on the following 

scoring criteria:

(1) Degree of expertise and successful 

experience in making and servicing 

commercial loans, with a successful 

record, for the following number of full 

years: 

(i) At least 1 but less than 3 years—

5 points 

(ii) At least 3 but less than 5 years—

10 points 

(iii) At least 5 but less than 10 years—

20 points 

(iv) 10 or more years—30 points 

(2) Extent to which the work plan 

demonstrates a well thought out, 

comprehensive approach to 

accomplishing the objectives of this 

part, clearly defines who will be served 

by the project, clearly articulates the 

problem/issues to be addressed, 

identifies the service area to be covered 

by the RFP loans, and appears likely to 

be sustainable. Up to 40 points. 

(3) Percentage of applicant 

contributions. Points allowed under this 

paragraph will be based on written 

evidence of the availability of funds 

from sources other than the proceeds of 

an RFP grant to pay part of the cost of 

a loan recipient’s project. In-kind 

contributions will not be considered. 

Funds from other sources as a 

percentage of the RFP grant and points 

corresponding to such percentages are 

as follows: 

(i) Less than 20%—ineligible 

(ii) At least 20% but less than 50%—

10 points 

(iii) 50% or more—20 points 

(4) Extent to which the goals and 

objectives are clearly defined, tied to the 

work plan, and are measurable. Up to 15 

points. 

(5) Lowest ratio of projected 

administrative expenses to loans 

advanced. Up to 10 points. 

(6) The evaluation methods for 

considering loan applications and 

making RFP loans are specific to the 

program, clearly defined, measurable, 

and are consistent with program 

outcomes. Up to 20 points. 

(7) Administrator’s discretion, 

considering such factors as creative 

outreach ideas for marketing RFP loans 

to rural residents; the amount of funds 

requested in relation to the amount of 

needs demonstrated in the work plan; 

previous experiences demonstrating 

excellent utilization of a revolving loan 

fund grant; and optimizing the use of 

agency resources. Up to 10 points. 

(c) All qualifying applications under 

this part will be scored based on the 

criteria contained in this section. 

Awards will be made based on the 

highest ranking applications and the 

amount of financial assistance available 

for RFP grants. All applicants will be 

notified of the results in writing on form 

AD–622.

§ 1783.10 What is the grant agreement? 

RUS and the grant recipient will enter 

into a contract setting forth the terms 

and conditions governing a particular 

RFP grant award. RUS will furnish the 

form of grant agreement. No funds 

awarded under this part shall be 

disbursed to the grant recipient before 

the grant agreement is binding and RUS 

has received a fully executed 

counterpart of the grant agreement.

§ 1783.11 What is the revolving loan fund? 

The grant recipient shall establish and 

maintain a revolving loan fund for the 

purposes set forth in § 1783.12. The 

revolving loan fund shall be comprised 

of revolving loan fund grant funds and 

the grant recipient’s contributed funds. 

All revolving loan fund loans made to 

loan recipients shall be drawn from the 

revolving loan fund. All revolving loan 

fund loans shall be serviced and the 

revolving loan fund maintained, in 

accordance with this part and 

applicable law.

§ 1783.12 What are eligible uses of grant 

proceeds? 

(a) Grant proceeds shall be used solely 

for the purpose of establishing the 

revolving loan fund to provide loans to 

eligible entities for: 

(1) Pre-development costs associated 

with proposed water and wastewater 

projects or with existing water and 

wastewater systems, and 

(2) Short-term costs incurred for 

replacement equipment, small-scale 

extension of services, or other small 

capital projects that are not part of the 

regular operations and maintenance 

activities of existing water and 

wastewater systems. 

(b) A grant recipient may not use 

grant funds in any manner inconsistent 

with the terms of the grant agreement.

§ 1783.13 What administrative expenses 

may be funded with grant proceeds? 

RFP grant funds may not be used for 

any purposes not described in 

§ 1783.12, including, without limitation, 

payment or reimbursement of any of the 

grant recipient’s administrative costs or 

expenses. Administrative expenses may,

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 59775

1The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 

Ceremonies, which is formed by a Congressional 

resolution every four years, several months in 

advance of the Presidential election, plans and 

finances the Presidential inaugural events held at 

the Capitol, including the swearing-in ceremony 

and the Congressional luncheon to honor the 

President and Vice-President.

however, be paid or reimbursed from 

revolving loan fund assets that are not 

RFP grant funds, including revolved 

funds and cash originally contributed by 

the grant recipient.

Subpart C—Revolving Fund Program 

Loans

§ 1783.14 What are the eligibility criteria 

for RFP loan recipients? 

(a) A loan recipient must be an 

eligible entity as defined in § 1783.3. 

(b) The loan recipient must be unable 

to finance the proposed project from 

their own resources or through 

commercial credit at reasonable rates 

and terms. 

(c) The loan recipient must have or 

will obtain the legal authority necessary 

for owning, constructing, operating and 

maintaining the proposed service or 

facility, and for obtaining, giving 

security for, and repaying the proposed 

loan. 

(d) The project funded by the 

proceeds of an RFP loan must be located 

in, or the services provided as the result 

of such project must benefit, rural areas.

§ 1783.15 What are the terms of RFP 

loans? 

(a) RFP loans under this part—

(1) Shall have an interest rate that is 

determined by the grant recipient and 

approved by RUS; 

(2) Shall have a terms not to exceed 

10 years; and 

(3) Shall not exceed the lesser of 

$100,000 or 75 percent of the total cost 

of a project. The total outstanding 

balance for all loans under this program 

to any one entity shall not exceed 

$100,000. 

(b) The grant recipient must set forth 

the RFP loan terms in written 

documentation signed by the loan 

recipient. 

(c) Grant recipients must develop and 

use RFP loan documentation that 

conforms to the terms of this part, the 

grant agreement, and the laws of the 

state or states having jurisdiction.

§ 1783.16 How will the loans given from 

the revolving fund be serviced? 

The grant recipient shall be 

responsible for servicing all loans, to 

include preparing loan agreements, 

processing loan payments, reviewing 

financial statements and debt reserves 

balances, and other responsibilities such 

as enforcement of loan terms. Loan 

servicing will be in accordance with the 

work plan approved by the Agency 

when the grant is awarded for as long 

as any loan made in whole or in part 

with Agency grant funds is outstanding.

Dated: September 2, 2004. 

Curtis M. Anderson, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 04–22446 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 104 and 110 

[Notice 2004–13] 

Presidential Inaugural Committee 

Reporting and Prohibition on 

Accepting Donations From Foreign 

Nationals

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Final rules and transmittal of 

regulations to Congress. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission is promulgating new rules 

regarding disclosure requirements for 

Presidential inaugural committees. The 

new rules also ban inaugural 

committees from accepting donations 

from foreign nationals. These 

regulations implement requirements of 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002. Further information is provided in 

the Supplementary Information that 

follows.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Ms. Esa L. Sferra, Attorney, 

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20463, (202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–

9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

308 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (‘‘BCRA’’), Public Law 107–

1555, 116 Stat. 81 (March 27, 2002), 

amended 36 U.S.C. 510 by establishing 

new requirements for Presidential 

inaugural committees regarding 

reporting and acceptance of certain 

donations. The Commission is issuing 

these final rules to implement these new 

requirements for inaugural committees. The Presidential inaugural committee 

is appointed by the President-elect to be 

in charge of the Presidential inaugural 

ceremony and the functions and 

activities connected with the ceremony. 

36 U.S.C. 501(1). The inaugural 

committee plans and finances all 

inaugural events, other than the 

swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol and 

the luncheon honoring the President 

and Vice-President,1 including opening 

ceremonies, the parade, galas, and balls. 

The inaugural committee also receives 

special privileges in the District of 

Columbia beginning five days before 

and ending four days after the inaugural 

ceremony. Chapter 5 of title 36 of the 

United States Code authorizes Congress 

to make appropriations for the 

inauguration, however, the 

appropriations are limited to funding for 

the District of Columbia to pay for the 

costs of municipal services associated 

with the inaugural events. Accordingly, 

the inaugural committee accepts 

donations to cover the costs associated 

with all other inaugural events.

BCRA section 308 amended 36 U.S.C. 

510 to require the inaugural committee 

to disclose, in a report filed with the 

Commission within 90 days after the 

inaugural ceremony, certain donations 

made to the inaugural committee, and to 

ban the inaugural committee from 

accepting donations from foreign 

nationals. Accordingly, the Commission 

is adding new 11 CFR 104.21 to its 

reporting rules, in 11 CFR part 104, to 

set forth inaugural committee reporting 

requirements. The Commission is also 

adding to the rules regarding foreign 

nationals at 11 CFR 110.20 a new 

paragraph banning both the acceptance 

by inaugural committees of donations 

from foreign nationals, as well as the 

making of such donations. 

Under the Administrative Procedures 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and the 

Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), 

agencies must submit final rules to the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

and the President of the Senate and 

publish them in the Federal Register at 

least 30 calendar days before they take 

effect. The final rules on inaugural 

committees were transmitted to 

Congress on September 30, 2004. 

Explanation and Justification 

On April 7, 2004, the Commission 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) in the Federal 

Register containing proposed rules to 

implement BCRA’s amendment to 36 

U.S.C. 510 that requires disclosure of 

certain donations to Presidential 

inaugural committees and bans the 

acceptance of donations from foreign 

nationals by Presidential inaugural 

committees. 69 FR 18301 (April 7, 

2004). The Commission sought 

comments on several issues raised in 

the NPRM and on the proposed rules in 

general. The comment period ended 

May 7, 2004. The Commission received 

three comments, two from individuals