89692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2023–0143] 

Truck Leasing Task Force (TLTF): 

Notice of Rescheduled Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of a rescheduled meeting 

of the TLTF. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the 

public meeting of the TLTF previously 

scheduled for Wednesday, November 

20, 2024, is rescheduled for Tuesday, 

December 3, 2024. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 10 

a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. Requests for 

accommodations for a disability and 

requests to submit written materials for 

consideration during the meeting must 

be received no later than Friday, 

November 22, respectively. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be virtual 

for its entirety. Please register in 

advance of the meeting at 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/tltf. A copy of the 

agenda for each meeting will be made 

available at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/tltf 1 

week in advance of each meeting. Once 

approved, copies of the meeting minutes 

will be available at the website 

following each meeting. You may visit 

the TLTF website at 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/tltf for further 

information on the committee and its 

activities. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Shannon L. Watson, Deputy Designated 

Federal Officer, TLTF, FMCSA, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, (202) 360–2925, tltf@dot.gov. 

Any committee-related request should 

be sent to the person listed in this 

section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 23009 of the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117– 

58) requires the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) to 

establish the TLTF, which was set up in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92– 

463 (1972). TLTF will examine the 

terms, conditions, and equitability of 

common truck leasing arrangements, 

particularly as they impact owneroperators and trucking businesses 

subject to such agreements and submit 

a report on the task force’s identified 

issues and conclusions regarding truck 

leasing arrangements, including 

recommended best practices, to the 

Secretary, the Secretary of Labor, and 

the appropriate committees of Congress. 

TLTF will work in coordination with 

the United States Department of Labor. 

TLTF operates in accordance with 

FACA under the terms of the TLTF 

charter, filed February 11, 2022, and 

amended April 28, 2023, and renewed 

February 9, 2024. 

II. Agenda 

• The final report of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau on its 

analysis of the leases submitted to 

FMCSA and their implications on 

predatory leasing of trucks to drivers of 

commercial motor vehicles; 

• A presentation from the Drafting 

Subcommittee on recommendations for 

TLTF’s final report to FMCSA outlining 

its recommendations on truck leasing 

agreements and TLTF’s consideration of 

these recommendations; and 

• A public comment period that will 

allow drivers and lessees of CMVs to 

share their personal experiences with 

leases and present any supporting 

information they would like to share to 

assist TLTF in making 

recommendations on such agreements. 

III. Public Participation 

The meeting will be open to the 

public via virtual platform. Advance 

registration via the website 

(www.fmcsa.dot.gov/tltf) is required by 

Friday, November 22, 2024. 

DOT is committed to providing equal 

access to this meeting for all 

participants. If you need alternative 

formats or services due to a disability, 

such as sign language interpretation or 

other ancillary aids, please contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by Friday, 

November 22. 

Oral comments from the public will 

be heard during the designated 

comment period at the discretion of the 

TLTF chair and Designated Federal 

Officer. To accommodate as many 

speakers as possible, the time for each 

commenter will be limited to 2 minutes. 

Speakers may submit a written copy of 

their remarks for inclusion in the 

meeting records and for circulation to 

TLTF members. All prepared remarks 

submitted on time will be accepted and 

considered as part of the record. Any 

member of the public may present a 

written statement to the committee at 

any time. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26218 Filed 11–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2024–0103] 

Evaluation of the Appropriateness of 

Public-Private Partnership Project 

Delivery Including Value for Money or 

Comparable Analyses; Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law 

AGENCY: Build America Bureau, Office 

of the Secretary (OST), and Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed guidance, request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Build America Bureau 

(the Bureau) and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) propose 

guidance to help the public understand 

statutory requirements to evaluate the 

appropriateness of using public-private 

partnerships (P3s) to deliver 

infrastructure projects. This proposed 

guidance intends to inform project 

sponsors of the Bureau’s 

implementation of the evaluation 

requirements when seeking Federal 

credit assistance through the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) and 

the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) credit 

assistance programs and FHWA’s 

implementation of the major project 

financial plan requirement perform 

detailed Value for Money (VfM) 

analysis. The Bureau and FHWA invite 

public comment on this proposed 

guidance. In addition to general 

comments, the Bureau is seeking 

specific feedback on the implementation 

of certain statutory requirements. The 

guidance does not contain any new 

criteria, does not impose any new legal 

requirements, and has no legal effect. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed guidance must be submitted 

on or before December 31, 2024 after 

posting. The Bureau and FHWA will 

consider comments received after that 

date to the extent possible without 

incurring additional expense or delay. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. DOT–OST– 

2024–0103 by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

guidance. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. Please 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 89693 

1Public Law 117–58 (2021). 

2A Major Project is a project funded with Federal 

financial assistance under title 23, United States 

Code, with a total estimated cost of $500 million 

or more and such other projects as identified by the 

Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

106(h). 

3https://buildamerica.dot.gov/buildamerica/and 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/toolkit/. 

see the Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read the proposed guidance or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Innovative Finance Technical 

Assistance Team at the Build America 

Bureau: InnovativeFinanceTA@dot.gov, 

or call Jennifer Hara, Strategic 

Partnerships Program Manager at 202– 

839–0199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Definitions 

3. Principles of P3 Analysis 

4. P3 Analysis Requirements 

5. Compliance Guidelines 

A. Early Phase P3 Evaluation (Stage 1) 

B. Progressive P3 Procurement (Stage 1A) 

C. Subsequent P3 Evaluations (Stage 2) 

D. Auditing and Public Information 

6. P3 Post-Implementation Review 

Requirements 

1. Introduction 

A public-private partnership (P3) is 

an infrastructure project delivery 

method in which a public owner and 

project sponsor (called the public 

sponsor) leverages private sector 

resources and methods through a longterm contract that finances the project 

and typically includes design, 

construction, maintenance, and/or 

operations. A mutually beneficial P3 

aligns public and private interests 

through the commercial and financial 

terms of a project agreement, herein 

referred to as the concession agreement. 

Where appropriate, P3 delivery could 

provide more value for projects as 

compared to conventional public 

delivery. However, in some cases, P3 

delivery also creates complexities and 

limitations for the public sponsor. 

Public sponsors can analyze these 

complexities, including project risks, 

and consider how best to manage them 

before choosing a P3 with its long-term 

partnership obligations. The general 

term for the process of analyzing and 

comparing advantages and 

disadvantages of P3 versus conventional 

public delivery options is value for 

money analysis (VfM). The analysis 

demonstrates whether delivering a 

project using a P3 would yield more or 

less value to the public sponsor than the 

most suitable public delivery option. 

The analysis also documents the goals, 

objectives, and underlying assumptions 

for the project delivery. The intent of 

VfM is not to analyze the benefits of the 

project itself but to document the 

analysis underlying the public sponsor’s 

chosen delivery option based on 

expected benefits to the public. 

Federal surface transportation statutes 

require public sponsors to conduct a 

VfM or comparable analysis for certain 

projects, as described below and shown 

in Exhibit 1. A VfM or comparable 

analysis is required for: 

• Any project type using any delivery 

method where the project cost is over 

$750 million, the project sponsor is a 

public entity seeking federal credit 

assistance, the project is in a state with 

P3 laws, and the project generates 

revenue or user fees; 

• Any surface transportation project 

receiving federal financial assistance 

under title 23, United States Code, using 

a P3 delivery method with a project cost 

over $500 million; and 

• Any project type using a P3 

delivery method and seeking federal 

credit assistance. On November 15, 

2021, the President signed the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(also known as the ‘‘Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law’’) (IIJA or the BIL) 

into law.1 Section 70701 of the BIL 

requires that certain projects with an 

estimated total cost of more than 

$750,000,000 conduct a VfM analysis or 

comparable analysis. Additionally, 

section 11508 of the BIL requires that 

Major Projects 2 under section 106(h) of 

title 23, United States Code, for which 

the project sponsor intends to carry out 

the project through a P3 shall include a 

detailed VfM analysis or similar 

comparative analysis. In addition, many 

states’ P3 laws require public sponsors 

to conduct due diligence analysis, such 

as VfM, to determine whether the P3 

delivery method would provide more 

value and benefits to the public sponsor 

than other delivery methods. 

This proposed guidance is not aimed 

at building the capacity or capability of 

entities to develop and deliver 

infrastructure projects through P3s. 

Entities that want to build their 

capacities and capabilities may access 

Bureau and FHWA educational and 

technical assistance resources.3 Through 

such resources, Bureau and FHWA 

subject matter experts are available 

upon request to conduct targeted 

workshops and provide training 

materials for project sponsors. 

To improve readability, clarity, and 

brevity, this proposed guidance 

describes the requirements with words 

that might differ from statute and 

regulation. The proposed guidance does 

not contain any new criteria, does not 

impose any new legal requirements, and 

has no legal effect. The contents of this 

document do not have the force of law 

and are not meant to bind the public in 

any way. This document is intended 

only to share information with the 

public on existing requirements under 

the law or agency policies and is not 

intended to modify any Major Projects 

requirements under 23 U.S.C. 106(h). 

The proposed guidance only applies to 

Major Projects that require a VfM 

analysis. 

BILLING CODE P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
89694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 

4Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701(b)(3)(B) (2021). 5Public Law 117–58, sec. 11508(d)(1)(C) (2021). 6Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701(a)(5) (2021). 

BILLING CODE C 

A. Proposed Guidance Public 

Comments. The goal of this guidance is 

to help public sponsors fulfill VfM or 

comparable analysis requirements for 

federally assisted projects where 

applicable. The Bureau and FHWA 

invite public comment on this guidance. 

In addition, the Bureau is asking for 

public input on two matters. 

First, the Bureau is seeking input 

about applying the VfM statutory 

requirement for projects with costs 

exceeding $750,000,000 that are 

‘‘anticipated to generate user fees or 

other revenues that could support the 

capital and operating costs of such 

project.’’ 4 In theory, the provision 

requires a public sponsor to conduct 

VfM if the project might generate a 

single dollar of user fees or other 

revenues. The statute does not specify 

an amount of revenue generated below 

which VfM is not required. The Bureau 

invites the public to suggest ways to 

apply the requirement without unduly 

burdening public sponsors. 

The proposed methodology for VfM 

analyses in this guidance is useful for 

Major Project financial plan 

requirements under section 106(h)(3)(D) 

as added by BIL section 11508.5 The 

proposed methodology will also be 

useful for Major Projects receiving title 

23 assistance that are intended to be 

delivered as a P3. However, we note that 

not all of the VfM requirements in this 

proposed guidance apply to all Major 

Projects. Only those Major Projects that 

also meet the threshold requirements of 

BIL sections 11508 and 70701 and 

section 116(e)(3) of title 49, United 

States Code, would need to satisfy the 

VfM requirements described therein, as 

supplemented by this proposed 

guidance. For more information on 

FHWA’s Major Projects requirements, 

see FHWA’s Major Projects proposed 

guidance documents, available at 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

majorprojects/. 

Second, the Bureau is asking for 

public input on ‘‘other information’’ 

that would be advantageous for the 

Secretary of Transportation to require in 

detailed P3 VfM evaluations. The VfM 

requirement in BIL section 70701 lists 

required elements for VfM or 

comparable analysis and authorizes the 

Secretary to require additional 

information, as appropriate.6 Examples 

of additional information that could be 

beneficial to include as part of VfM are 

long-term commitments and risks the P3 

agreement creates for the public 

sponsor, such as non-compete clauses 

and revenue protections that could lead 

to compensation from the public 

sponsor; and impacts of P3 delivery on 

business and labor, including 

disadvantaged business enterprises, 

local contractors, and public and private 

employees. 

The Bureau asks for comments from 

the public to better inform its proposed 

guidance process. The Bureau will post 

these comments, without edit, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which is available at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate 

comment tracking and response, we 

encourage commenters to provide their 

name, or the name of their organization; 

however, submission of names is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN13NO24.000</GPH>

Exhibit 1: Value for Money Guidance Use Decision Chart 

Start Here 

Does the project 

meet all five criteria 

below? 

D Cost more than 

$750 million 

D Carried out by 

a public entity 

D Located in a 

state with P3 

laws 

D Applying for a 

TIFIA or RRIF 

loan 

D Generate user 

fees or revenues 

* Pub. L. 117-58, sec. 70701 (2021) 

VfM required' 

Is 

with 

the project 

a cost 

a 

more 

Title 

than 

23 project 

$500 

➔ 

Yes 

million and using a P3 approach? 

Is the 

and 

project 

seeking 

using 

federal 

a P3 

credit 

approach ➔ 

Yes 

assistance? 

** Pub. L. 117-58, sec. 11508(d)(l)(C) (2021) 

***49 U.S.C. 116(e)(3) and 23 U.S.C 602(a)(l 1) 

VfM not 

required 

VfM 

required'* 

VfM 

required ...... • 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 89695 

completely optional. The Bureau will 

fully consider all timely comments, 

whether or not commenters identify 

themselves. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

2. Definitions 

For purposes of this proposed 

guidance, the definitions in Exhibit 2 

apply. If the exhibit does not 

specifically define a term, industry 

standard definitions apply. 

EXHIBIT 2—DEFINITIONS OF TERMS IN THIS PROPOSED GUIDANCE

Term Definition 

Public-private partnership (P3) ............. A long-term arrangement between a public sponsor and a private entity for delivery of a project that includes at least the following elements: design, construction, financing, and either operations or maintenance or both of the project over a term specified in a concession agreement (as defined below). 

Agreement types: 

Concession Agreement ................. An agreement between a public sponsor and private entity (e.g., concessionaire or developer) signed 

after a preferred bidder is selected or contract price is agreed upon. Other names for such agreements include P3 agreement, project agreement, project development agreement, and comprehensive project agreement. BIL section 70701(a) uses the term ‘‘Project Development Agreement,’’ 

which the Bureau interprets as a concession agreement. 

Pre-development Agreement ........ An agreement between a public sponsor and private entity to develop and design the project further 

and finalize a committed proposal. 

Contract types: 

Long-term Contract ....................... A contract between a public sponsor and a private entity to deliver a project, including some or all elements for design, construction, financing, operations, and maintenance over the concession term. 

Short-term Contract ....................... A contract between a public sponsor and private entity to deliver a project that does not include operations or maintenance. 

Evaluation types: 

Screening Evaluation .................... An evaluation that sets high-level criteria based on the public sponsor’s project goals and objectives. 

Qualitative Evaluation ................... Before detailed project scope, cost, and schedule are available, an evaluation that compares advantages and disadvantages of all practical conventional and alternative delivery options including publicprivate partnership delivery. The public sponsor documents the process for selecting the preferred 

delivery option based on the project’s characteristics, feasibility, goals, and objectives. 

Detailed Evaluation ....................... An evaluation that compares all practical conventional and alternative delivery options to select the 

most suitable public delivery option and most suitable P3 delivery option and then estimates the likely 

quantitative outcomes of public and P3 options. Conventional VfM quantifies differences in financial 

outcomes to the public sponsor and evaluates other outcomes qualitatively. Detailed P3 evaluation 

may account for non-financial benefits such as differences in service levels for the public and costs 

to the public and society at large by use of benefit-cost analysis methodology. For example, if one 

delivery method results in an earlier start of operations than the other, the public will benefit earlier 

from higher service levels, which can be quantified in economic terms. 

Federal financial assistance ................. Includes grants and loans from the Federal government to support infrastructure investment, not including private activity bond allocations and grants for technical assistance. 

Major Project ........................................ A project funded with Federal financial assistance under title 23, United States Code, with a total estimated cost of $500 million or more and such other projects as identified by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 106(h). 

P3 procurement types: 

Conventional P3 Procurement ...... Public sponsor seeks competitive, fixed price, and certain schedule bids from qualified bidders after the 

public sponsor completes a limited preliminary design of the project. 

Progressive P3 Procurement ........ Through a competitive process early in project development, the public sponsor selects a qualified private entity to develop a project without a bid price. 

3. Principles of P3 Analysis 

The appropriateness of P3 delivery as 

an option should be evaluated during 

the early phases of the project life cycle 

(such as project identification and 

delivery option screening) and as the 

project progresses during project 

development and procurement. With 

better and more information available 

later in the project life cycle, and as the 

commercial and financial terms or 

assumptions change, the public sponsor 

should update the P3 evaluation by 

conducting detailed VfM to ensure a P3 

model is still appropriate and in the 

public interest. 

To ensure compliance with statutory 

VfM or comparable analysis 

requirements, the Bureau expects public 

sponsors to evaluate the appropriateness 

of, and value to be generated from, P3 

project delivery at two decision points 

in the project lifecycle: (1) after project 

identification and before the project 

development phase, and (2) after the P3 

procurement and before entering into a 

concession agreement between the 

public sponsor and private developer at 

commercial close. Exhibit 3 below 

shows these two decision points in a 

simplified P3 project lifecycle. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
89696 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 

7Public Law 109–59, sec. 1904(a) (2005), 

amending 23 U.S.C. 106(h). 

8Public Law 112–141, sec. 1503(a)(4)(B) (2012), 

amending 23 U.S.C. 106(h). 

9Public Law 114–94, sec. 9001(a) (2015), adding 

49 U.S.C. 116(e)(3). 

10Public Law 117–58, secs. 11508 and 70701 

(2021). 

The project life cycle presented in 

Exhibit 3 also applies to Major Projects 

under section 106(h) of title 23, United 

States Code, with an estimated total cost 

above $750 million that meet the other 

criteria under BIL section 70701. 

Additionally, under BIL section 11508, 

the Major Project financial plan for 

Major Projects being carried out through 

a P3 must include a detailed VfM 

analysis or similar comparative analysis. 

This analysis is submitted as part of the 

initial financial plan, or subsequent 

financial plan annual update where 

appropriate. For requirements 

applicable to Major Projects that do not 

meet these criteria, see FHWA’s Major 

Projects guidance documents, available 

at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

majorprojects/. 

Observing principles derived from 

lessons learned and best practices helps 

public sponsors objectively analyze the 

advantages and disadvantages of 

delivering an infrastructure project 

through a P3. Following these principles 

also helps public sponsors communicate 

to the public the basis of their decisions. 

The next paragraphs describe principles 

public sponsors should incorporate into 

their analyses to support requests for 

DOT federal financial assistance. 

A. Establish Delivery Option Goals. 

VfM provides insights to support 

decision-making, when the public 

sponsor defines goals related to the 

delivery method. Examples of delivery 

goals are maximizing use of innovative 

approaches and technologies, preserving 

flexibility for future improvements, and 

minimizing the taxpayers’ near-term 

financial burden in subsidizing the 

project. Delivery goals may be different 

than project goals. Whether a project is 

likely to achieve project goals is better 

analyzed through techniques such as 

benefit-cost analysis or environmental 

or economic impact analysis, rather 

than VfM. 

B. Identify Practical Delivery Options. 

After setting project delivery goals, 

public sponsors can then consider 

which delivery methods are likely to 

fulfill the identified goals. Sponsors can 

then narrow their choices by screening 

out impractical ones. For example, a 

public sponsor might have authority for 

some delivery methods and not others. 

Documenting the basis for rejecting a 

delivery method enhances credibility of 

the public sponsor’s process. 

C. Inform Subsequent Decisions. VfM 

analyzes tradeoffs between delivery 

options to identify the most suitable 

public delivery option and most suitable 

P3 option. The public sponsor can then 

determine whether the public or P3 

option provides the most value relative 

to the established delivery option goals. 

The purpose of VfM is to inform 

selection of the project delivery method, 

not to justify project delivery decisions 

public sponsors previously made. Using 

VfM as intended, public sponsors will 

be able to show how the analysis 

preceded, and directly contributed to, 

the decision to advance the project with 

a P3 or other delivery approach. 

D. Analytical Framework and Data. 

VfM involves predictions, projections, 

and assumptions. Public sponsors 

should (a) use actual, verifiable data, if 

possible, and (b) where predictions, 

projections, and assumptions are 

necessary, provide the methodology and 

basis for the inputs. 

E. Transparency and Accountability. 

To the maximum extent practicable, 

public sponsors should make 

information available to the public, 

including (a) the project’s delivery 

goals, (b) the information used in the 

VfM analysis, (c) how the VfM analysis 

was employed in the decision-making 

process, and (d) the decision-makers 

charged with selecting the final delivery 

method. 

4. P3 Analysis Requirements 

Several provisions in the legislation 

established or amended statutory P3 

evaluation requirements. Applicability 

of these requirements depends on 

project size, source of funding or 

financing, phase of the project life cycle, 

and other attributes. In 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users defined the term major project, 

reduced the financial plan requirement 

threshold to $500 million, and required 

submission of project management 

plans.7 In 2012, the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act 

established the requirement to assess 

the appropriateness of a P3 for 

delivering major projects.8 The 2015 

FAST Act established the requirement 

that public sponsors receiving credit 

assistance from the Bureau have 

conducted VfM or comparable analysis 

before deciding to advance projects as 

P3s.9

Enacted November 15, 2021, the BIL 

established new, and amended prior, 

statutory P3 evaluation requirements.10

The BIL: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN13NO24.001</GPH>

Exhibit 3: Illustrative P3 Project Life Cycle 

Project 

identification 

Commercial close, 

concession 

agreement executed 

Financial close 

Stage 1: Screening 

evaluation of 

delivery options 

Design and 

construction 

Stage 2: Detailed 

VfM analysis 

Operations and 

maintenance 

j 

Project 

development 

( due diligence) 

Project 

procurement 

Hand back to 

public owner 

j 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 89697 

11Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701 (2021). 

12Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701(a) (2021). 

13Public Law 117–58, sec. 11508(d)(1)(C) (2021), 

adding 23 U.S.C. 106(h)(3)(D). 

14Public Law 117–58, secs. 11508(b), (c), and 

70701(c), (d) (2021). 

15Public Law 117–58, sec. 11508(d) (2021), 

adding 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(11). 

16Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701 (2021). 

17Public Law 117–58, sec 11508(d)(1)(C) (2021). 

18 49 U.S.C. 116(e)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(11). 

19 49 U.S.C. 116(e)(3) and 23 U.S.C. 602(a)(11). 

• establishes a P3 evaluation 

requirement for projects with total 

estimated costs of more than $750 

million. Sponsors of these projects are 

required to conduct VfM if they intend 

to seek TIFIA or RRIF credit assistance, 

are in a state in which there is a state 

law authorizing the use and 

implementation of P3s for 

transportation projects, and the project 

is anticipated to generate user fees or 

other revenues that could support 

project capital and operating costs.11

This provision of BIL further specifies 

the level of detail and specific elements 

to be included in this detailed P3 

evaluation; 12

• amends the requirements of section 

106(h) of title 23 to require public 

sponsors of projects with an estimated 

cost of $500 million or more, receiving 

title 23 assistance, and intended to be 

delivered as a P3, to conduct a detailed 

VfM or similar comparative analysis; 13

• stipulates reporting and 

transparency requirements throughout 

project delivery and following key 

project delivery milestones; 14 and 

• adds VfM as a TIFIA eligibility 

criterion for projects to be carried out 

through P3s.15

Exhibit 4 summarizes the statutory 

requirements for projects required to 

conduct a VfM analysis and the 

expected evaluation type based on the 

project delivery type. 

EXHIBIT 4—P3 EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS BY PROJECT AND DELIVERY TYPE

Project type Delivery type 

Required public sponsor P3 evaluation * 

Stage 1 Stage 1A Stage 2 

All transportation projects costing more than $750 million 

that generate user fees or other revenues carried out by 

certain public agencies in states with P3 authority, and 

seeking TIFIA or RRIF credit assistance 16.

All delivery types, except progressive P3.

Progressive P3 ......................

Screening .......

Screening .......

n.a ....................

Qualitative ........

Detailed. 

Detailed. 

Title 23 projects costing $500 million or more 17 ................. All P3 ..................................... Detailed.** 

All projects proposed for P3 delivery and seeking TIFIA or 

RRIF credit assistance 18.

Conventional P3 ....................

Progressive P3 ......................

Screening .......

Screening .......

n.a ....................

Qualitative ........

Detailed. 

Detailed. 

Notes: 

* Stage 1: early in project development before starting the procurement process. 

Stage 1A: for a progressive P3, before signing a pre-development agreement. 

Stage 2: before signing a concession agreement with a private P3 entity, if a P3 delivery method is selected in Stage 1. 

n.a.: not applicable. 

** The Major Project financial plan for Major Projects being carried out through a P3 agreement must include a detailed VfM analysis or similar 

comparative analysis. This analysis is submitted as part of the initial financial plan, or subsequent financial plan annual update where appropriate. Project sponsors of Major Projects under 23 U.S.C. 106(h) should consider whether their project also meets the requirements of the other 

VfM requirements detailed in this guidance. If so, their projects would also be subject to the additional VfM requirements detailed in this 

guidance. 

5. Compliance Guidelines 

This section details and clarifies 

aspects of the P3 evaluation 

requirements. Public sponsors and their 

projects often have unique attributes 

and circumstances that require in-depth 

analysis and review that might differ 

from the general descriptions herein. 

We encourage you to discuss your 

projects and applicable requirements 

directly with the Bureau and FHWA 

staff. Email us at BuildAmerica@dot.gov 

or FHWAMajorProjects@dot.gov. 

A. Early Phase P3 Evaluation (Stage 

1). Outlining of strategies for the 

business case early in the project 

lifecycle, i.e., project identification and 

screening, is critical for successful 

project delivery selection. During 

project identification and screening, 

public sponsors should engage relevant 

stakeholders through brainstorming and 

risk assessment workshops and may use 

any tool for qualitative or high-level 

quantitative analysis to compare the 

most suitable public project delivery 

option and the appropriate P3 option. 

Project sponsors seeking credit 

assistance under TIFIA and RRIF for all 

projects procured as P3s (regardless of 

size) are required to complete VfM or 

comparable analysis prior to deciding to 

advance the project as a P3.19 Because 

the decision to advance a project as a P3 

is made at Stage 1, public sponsors that 

anticipate either seeking TIFIA or RRIF 

credit assistance directly or that TIFIA 

or RRIF might be part of their ultimate 

preferred bidder’s financing package, 

must conduct VfM at Stage 1. 

Information available at Stage 1 is often 

limited, so the Bureau anticipates VfMs 

conducted at this stage would comprise 

a screening analysis for conventional 

P3s and any project required to perform 

detailed VfM analysis under BIL Section 

70701. 

If the public sponsor cannot define a 

workable public delivery option (e.g., in 

a transit-oriented development project 

for which a private entity already owns 

the land or has secured development 

rights), VfM or comparable analysis 

might not be feasible. In such cases, the 

public sponsor can demonstrate 

compliance with statutory requirements 

by documenting before signing a 

concession agreement why it cannot 

complete a meaningful VfM or 

comparable analysis and why it decided 

to use a P3 delivery option. 

B. Progressive P3 Procurement (Stage 

1A). In a progressive P3 procurement, 

the public sponsor selects a private 

developer and executes a predevelopment agreement to design and 

de-risk the project collaboratively. Then, 

the private developer negotiates and 

submits a firm price proposal for 

delivering the project. If the public 

sponsor accepts the proposal, the parties 

sign a concession agreement. 

The Bureau expects public sponsors 

using a progressive P3 procurement to 

conduct a qualitative VfM before signing 

a pre-development agreement and a 

detailed VfM prior to signing a 

concession agreement. Similar to the 

discussion of Stage 1 above, the Bureau 

expects the VfM at Stage 1A will be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
89698 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 

20Public Law 117–58, sec. 70701(a) (2021). 

21 Including where the public sponsor is not itself 

directly seeking TIFIA or RRIF credit assistance but 

anticipates that its preferred bidder might do so. 

22BIL section 70701(c) requires public sponsors 

to post the results of the analysis on the website of 

the project. 

23 49 U.S.C. 116(e)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv) and Public 

Law 117–58, sec. 11508(b) (2021). 

24Public Law 117–58, sec. 11508(b). 

qualitative with limited information 

available regarding the project. After the 

private developer submits a committed 

bid price pursuant to the predevelopment agreement, the Bureau 

would expect the public sponsor to 

update and finalize the VfM based on 

the terms and conditions of the 

proposed P3 agreement. At this point, 

the Bureau expects the public sponsor 

to conduct a detailed P3 evaluation 

prior to signing a concession agreement. 

C. Subsequent P3 Evaluations (Stage 

2). The Bureau expects this Stage 2 

detailed analysis to be done once the 

project sponsor has additional details on 

project cost, funding/financing, and risk 

allocation. However, the Bureau expects 

that the Stage 2 analysis would be 

completed before signing the concession 

agreement. If the Stage 1 analysis 

resulted in the selection of a non-P3 

delivery method, a Stage 2 analysis will 

not be required. 

The detailed Stage 2 evaluation must 

include: 

i. the life-cycle cost and project delivery 

schedule; 

ii. the costs of using public funding versus 

private financing for the project; 

iii. a description of the key assumptions 

made in developing the analysis, including— 

a. an analysis of any Federal grants or loans 

and subsidies received or expected 

(including tax depreciation costs); 

b. the key terms of the proposed publicprivate partnership agreement, if applicable 

(including the expected rate of return for 

private debt and equity), and major 

compensation events; 

c. a discussion of the benefits and costs 

associated with the allocation of risk; 

d. the determination of risk premiums 

assigned to various project delivery 

scenarios; 

e. assumptions about use, demand, and any 

user fee revenue generated by the project; 

and 

f. any externality benefits for the public 

generated by the project; 

iv. a forecast of user fees and other 

revenues expected to be generated by the 

project, if applicable; and 

v. any other information the Secretary of 

Transportation determines to be 

appropriate.20

Project sponsors may choose any tool 

that provides analysis of items (i), (ii), 

and (iii), including items (iii)(a) through 

(f), above to meet the requirements for 

detailed VfM. The Bureau recommends 

public sponsors document the basis for 

the analysis, project goals and 

objectives, and the underlying 

assumptions and rationale and then 

make such analysis and documentation 

available for public review. Any 

enhancements or adjustments such as 

risk premiums should be based on 

actual data, to the extent possible, and 

reasonably verifiable. 

The Bureau strongly encourages 

public sponsors of P3 projects that 

anticipate seeking TIFIA or RRIF credit 

assistance to undertake both (a) a 

screening analysis at Stage 1 or a 

qualitative analysis at Stage 1A and (b) 

a detailed VfM or comparable analysis 

at Stage 2. The Bureau will evaluate the 

type of VfM conducted at each stage to 

determine whether a public sponsor has 

satisfied all applicable requirements. In 

doing so, the Bureau will seek to ensure 

the public sponsor used information 

appropriate for the stage at which the 

analysis was conducted and that the 

VfM was thorough. The Bureau 

therefore expects to see a bifurcated 

analysis as described above and that 

public sponsors of P3 projects seeking 

Bureau credit assistance 21 conduct a 

detailed VfM that includes evaluation of 

the elements in BIL Section 70701. The 

Bureau is unlikely to find a public 

sponsor satisfied these requirements if a 

P3 project of any size or a project with 

an anticipated cost of more than $750 

million that generates user fees or other 

revenues in states with P3 laws did not 

undergo a screening VfM at Stage 1 (or 

qualitative VfM for a progressive P3 at 

Stage 1A) and a detailed VfM at Stage 

2 (for projects selected for delivery as a 

P3 as a result of Stage 1 analysis) that 

evaluates the elements in BIL Section 

70701. 

If the public sponsor cannot define a 

workable public delivery option, the 

public sponsor can demonstrate 

compliance with statutory requirements 

by documenting before signing a 

concession agreement why it cannot 

complete a meaningful VfM or 

comparable analysis and why it decided 

to use a P3 delivery option. 

D. Auditing and Public Information. 

Transparency is an integral part of 

proper public sector decision making, 

particularly for long term commitments. 

The Bureau recommends public 

sponsors conduct an independent audit 

prior to signing contracts, such as 

concession agreements. An entity that 

has no ties to the project should conduct 

the audit and should ensure all 

processes have been followed and all 

major risks are properly identified, 

documented, and shared with decision 

makers and stakeholders. It should also 

ensure all local and federal approvals 

needed prior to execution of the 

concession agreement are in place and 

execution of the agreement will not 

impose any undisclosed major risks to 

the public. 

In addition to the foregoing, 49 U.S.C. 

116(e)(3) requires public sponsors to 

make the analysis and key terms of the 

concession agreement publicly available 

at an appropriate time. The Bureau 

believes the appropriate time is as early 

as possible after signing the concession 

agreement, subject to any statutory 

limitations on a public sponsor’s ability 

to make this information public. The 

Bureau expects public sponsors to make 

the analysis and key terms of the 

concession agreement (for P3 projects) 

publicly available (including on the 

website of the project, for projects 

described in BIL Section 70701 22) 

shortly after commercial close and prior 

to financial close. The Bureau does not 

expect to reach financial close on TIFIA 

or RRIF credit assistance for P3 projects 

or projects with anticipated costs of 

more than $750 million that generate 

user fees or other revenues in states 

with P3 laws if the requisite information 

has not yet been made public. 

6. P3 Post-Implementation Review 

Requirements 

The FAST Act and BIL require project 

sponsors to conduct postimplementation reviews of the private 

partners’ compliance with concession 

agreement terms, as a condition for 

receiving TIFIA and RRIF credit 

assistance.23 BIL directs the Secretary to 

require the public sponsor of title 23 P3 

projects costing $100,000,000 or more 

that receive federal financial assistance, 

including Bureau credit assistance, not 

later than three years after the date of 

opening of the project to traffic, to: 

• Review the project, including the 

private partner’s compliance with the 

terms of the concession agreement; 

• Certify to the Secretary that the 

private partner is meeting terms of the 

concession agreement for the project or 

notify the Secretary about the private 

partner’s non-compliance, including a 

brief description of each violation of the 

concession agreement; and 

• Make publicly available the above 

certification or notification without 

disclosing proprietary or confidential 

business information.24

Section 116(e)(3)(A)(iii) of title 49 

establishes a similar review requirement 

for any P3 project receiving TIFIA or 

RRIF credit assistance and further 

requires the public sponsor to provide a 

publicly available summary of total 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 89699 

federal financial assistance in the 

project. 

To satisfy these statutory review and 

disclosure requirements, the Bureau 

will require a public sponsor to sign a 

direct agreement with the Bureau prior 

to closing on Bureau credit assistance 

that memorializes the public sponsor’s 

obligation to conduct and disclose the 

results of such review. A public sponsor 

should incorporate into its concession 

agreement the public sponsor’s 

obligation to evaluate the 

concessionaire’s performance and report 

as the law requires. The Bureau’s loan 

agreement with the concessionaire will 

reference the relevant concession 

agreement and applicable statutory 

requirements and trigger a default in the 

event the public sponsor does not 

comply with its statutory obligations. 

Appendix: Statutory References to 

Value for Money or Comparable 

Analysis Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

(Pub. L. 117–58, 11508) 

Sec. 11508. Requirements for Transportation 

Projects Carried Out Through Public-Private 

Partnerships 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) PROJECT.—The term ‘‘project’’ means a 

project (as defined in section 101 of title 23, 

United States Code) that— 

(A) is carried out, in whole or in part, using 

Federal financial assistance; and 

(B) has an estimated total cost of 

$100,000,000 or more. 

(2) PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.— 

The term ‘‘public-private partnership’’ means 

an agreement between a public agency and a 

private entity to finance, build, and maintain 

or operate a project. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS 

CARRIED OUT THROUGH PUBLICPRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.—With respect to 

a public-private partnership, as a condition 

of receiving Federal financial assistance for a 

project, the Secretary shall require the public 

partner, not later than 3 years after the date 

of opening of the project to traffic— 

(1) to conduct a review of the project, 

including a review of the compliance of the 

private partner with the terms of the publicprivate partnership agreement; 

(2)(A) to certify to the Secretary that the 

private partner of the public-private 

partnership is meeting the terms of the 

public-private partnership agreement for the 

project; or 

(B) to notify the Secretary that the private 

partner of the public-private partnership has 

not met 1 or more of the terms of the publicprivate partnership agreement for the project, 

including a brief description of each 

violation of the public-private partnership 

agreement; and 

(3) to make publicly available the 

certification or notification, as applicable, 

under paragraph (2) in a form that does close 

any proprietary or confidential business 

information. 

(c) NOTIFICATION.—If the Secretary 

provides Federal financial assistance to a 

project carried out through a public-private 

partnership, not later than 30 days after the 

date on which the Federal financial 

assistance is first obligated, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

a notification of the Federal financial 

assistance made available for the project. 

(d) VALUE FOR MONEY ANALYSIS.— 

(1) PROJECT APPROVAL AND 

OVERSIGHT.—Section 106(h)(3) of title 23, 

United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

at the end; 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 

subparagraph (E); and 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 

following: ‘‘(D) for a project in which the 

project sponsor intends to carry out the 

project through a public-private partnership 

agreement, shall include a detailed value for 

money analysis or similar comparative 

analysis for the project; and’’. 

(2) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK 

GRANT PROGRAM.—Paragraph (21) of 

section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code 

(as redesignated by section 1109(a)(1)(C)), is 

amended by inserting ‘‘, including 

conducting value for money analyses or 

similar comparative analyses,’’ after 

‘‘oversight’’. 

(3) TIFIA.—Section 602(a) of title 23, 

United States Code, is amended by adding at 

the end the following: ‘‘(11) PUBLICPRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.—In the case of a 

project to be carried out through a publicprivate partnership, the public partner shall 

have—‘‘(A) conducted a value for money 

analysis or similar comparative analysis; and 

‘‘(B) determined the appropriateness of the 

public-private partnership agreement.’’. 

(e) APPLICABILITY.—This section and the 

amendments made by this section shall only 

apply to a public-private partnership 

agreement entered into on or after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Pub. L. 117– 

58, 70701) 

Title VII—Public–Private Partnerships 

Sec. 70701. Value For Money Analysis 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, in the case of a project 

described in subsection (b), the entity 

carrying out the project shall, during the 

planning and project development process 

and prior to signing any Project Development 

Agreement, conduct a value for money 

analysis or comparable analysis of the 

project, which shall include an evaluation 

of— 

(1) the life-cycle cost and project delivery 

schedule; 

(2) the costs of using public funding versus 

private financing for the project; 

(3) a description of the key assumptions 

made in developing the analysis, including— 

(A) an analysis of any Federal grants or 

loans and subsidies received or expected 

(including tax depreciation costs); 

(B) the key terms of the proposed publicprivate partnership agreement, if applicable 

(including the expected rate of return for 

private debt and equity), and major 

compensation events; 

(C) a discussion of the benefits and costs 

associated with the allocation of risk; 

(D) the determination of risk premiums 

assigned to various project delivery 

scenarios; 

(E) assumptions about use, demand, and 

any user fee revenue generated by the project; 

and 

(F) any externality benefits for the public 

generated by the project; 

(4) a forecast of user fees and other 

revenues expected to be generated by the 

project, if applicable; and 

(5) any other information the Secretary of 

Transportation determines to be appropriate. 

(b) PROJECT DESCRIBED.—A project 

referred to in subsection (a) is a 

transportation project— 

(1) with an estimated total cost of more 

than $750,000,000; 

(2) carried out— 

(A) by a public entity that is a State, 

territory, Indian Tribe, unit of local 

government, transit agency, port authority, 

metropolitan planning organization, airport 

authority, or other political subdivision of a 

State or local government; and 

(B) in a State in which there is in effect a 

State law authorizing the use and 

implementation of public-private 

partnerships for transportation projects; and 

(3)(A) that intends to submit a letter of 

interest, or has submitted a letter of interest 

after the date of enactment of this Act, to be 

carried out with—(i) assistance under the 

TIFIA program under chapter 6 of title 23, 

United States Code; or (ii) assistance under 

the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing Program of the Federal Railroad 

Administration established under chapter 

224 of title 49, United States Code; and 

(B) that is anticipated to generate user fees 

or other revenues that could support the 

capital and operating costs of such project. 

(c) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) PROJECT REPORTS.—For each project 

described in subsection (b), the entity 

carrying out the project shall— 

(A) include the results of the analysis 

under subsection (a) on the website of the 

project; and 

(B) submit the results of the analysis to the 

Build America Bureau and the Secretary of 

Transportation. 

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The 

Secretary of Transportation, in coordination 

with the Build America Bureau, shall, not 

later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

of this Act— 

(A) compile the analyses submitted under 

paragraph (1)(B); and 

(B) submit to Congress a report that— 

(i) includes the analyses submitted under 

paragraph (1)(B); 

(ii) describes— 

(I) the use of private financing for projects 

described in subsection (b); and 

(II) the costs and benefits of conducting a 

value for money analysis; and 

(iii) identifies best practices for private 

financing of projects described in subsection 

(b). 

(d) GUIDANCE.—The Secretary of 

Transportation, in coordination with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
89700 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2024 / Notices 

Build America Bureau, shall issue guidance 

on performance benchmarks, risk premiums, 

and expected rates of return on private 

financing for projects described in subsection 

(b). 

United States Code, Title 23, Section 106(h) 

(h) Major Projects.— 

(1) In general.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a recipient of 

Federal financial assistance for a project 

under this title with an estimated total cost 

of $500,000,000 or more, and recipients for 

such other projects as may be identified by 

the Secretary, shall submit to the Secretary 

for each project— 

(A) a project management plan; and 

(B) an annual financial plan, including a 

phasing plan when applicable. 

(2) Project management plan.—A project 

management plan shall document— 

(A) the procedures and processes that are 

in effect to provide timely information to the 

project decisionmakers to effectively manage 

the scope, costs, schedules, and quality of, 

and the Federal requirements applicable to, 

the project; and 

(B) the role of the agency leadership and 

management team in the delivery of the 

project. 

(3) Financial plan.—A financial plan— 

(A) shall be based on detailed estimates of 

the cost to complete the project; 

(B) shall provide for the annual submission 

of updates to the Secretary that are based on 

reasonable assumptions, as determined by 

the Secretary, of future increases in the cost 

to complete the project; 

(C) may include a phasing plan that 

identifies fundable incremental 

improvements or phases that will address the 

purpose and the need of the project in the 

short term in the event there are insufficient 

financial resources to complete the entire 

project. If a phasing plan is adopted for a 

project pursuant to this section, the project 

shall be deemed to satisfy the fiscal 

constraint requirements in the statewide and 

metropolitan planning requirements in 

sections 134 and 135; 

(D) for a project in which the project 

sponsor intends to carry out the project 

through a public-private partnership 

agreement, shall include a detailed value for 

money analysis or similar comparative 

analysis for the project; and 

(E) shall assess the appropriateness of a 

public-private partnership to deliver the 

project. 

United States Code, Title 49, Section 116(e) 

(e) Innovative Financing Best Practices.— 

(1) In general.—The Bureau shall work 

with the modal administrations within the 

Department, eligible entities, and other 

public and private interests to develop and 

promote best practices for innovative 

financing and public-private partnerships. 

(2) Activities.—The Bureau shall carry out 

paragraph (1)— 

(A) by making Federal credit assistance 

programs more accessible to eligible 

recipients; 

(B) by providing advice and expertise to 

eligible entities that seek to leverage public 

and private funding; 

(C) by sharing innovative financing best 

practices and case studies from eligible 

entities with other eligible entities that are 

interested in utilizing innovative financing 

methods; and 

(D) by developing and monitoring— 

(i) best practices with respect to 

standardized State public-private partnership 

authorities and practices, including best 

practices related to— 

(I) accurate and reliable assumptions for 

analyzing public-private partnership 

procurements; 

(II) procedures for the handling of 

unsolicited bids; 

(III) policies with respect to noncompete 

clauses; and 

(IV) other significant terms of publicprivate partnership procurements, as 

determined appropriate by the Bureau; 

(ii) standard contracts for the most 

common types of public-private partnerships 

for transportation facilities; and 

(iii) analytical tools and other techniques 

to aid eligible entities in determining the 

appropriate project delivery model, including 

a value for money analysis. 

(3) Transparency.—The Bureau shall— 

(A) ensure the transparency of a project 

receiving credit assistance under a program 

referred to in subsection (d)(1) and procured 

as a public-private partnership by— 

(i) requiring the sponsor of the project to 

undergo a value for money analysis or a 

comparable analysis prior to deciding to 

advance the project as a public-private 

partnership; 

(ii) requiring the analysis required under 

subparagraph (A), and other key terms of the 

relevant public-private partnership 

agreement, to be made publicly available by 

the project sponsor at an appropriate time; 

(iii) not later than 3 years after the date of 

completion of the project, requiring the 

sponsor of the project to conduct a review 

regarding whether the private partner is 

meeting the terms of the relevant publicprivate partnership agreement; and 

(iv) providing a publicly available 

summary of the total level of Federal 

assistance in such project; and 

(B) develop guidance to implement this 

paragraph that takes into consideration 

variations in State and local laws and 

requirements related to public-private 

partnerships. 

(4) Support to project sponsors.—At the 

request of an eligible entity, the Bureau shall 

provide technical assistance to the eligible 

entity regarding proposed public-private 

partnership agreements for transportation 

facilities, including assistance in performing 

a value for money analysis or comparable 

analysis. 

Duane Callender, 

Acting Executive Director, Build America 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26210 Filed 11–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

RIN 1506–AB54 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Real Estate 

Reports 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: FinCEN invites all interested 

parties to comment on the proposed 

information collection associated with 

the requirement to report information 

about certain residential real estate 

transfers, as required by the Anti-Money 

Laundering Regulations for Residential 

Real Estate Transfers final rule 

published on August 29, 2024. The 

details included in the information 

collection are listed below. This request 

for comment is made pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments are welcome 

and must be received on or before 

January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal E-rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Refer to Docket Number FINCEN–2024– 

0019 and the specific Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1506–0080. 

• Mail: Policy Division, Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 

39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket 

Number FINCEN–2024–0019 and OMB 

control number 1506–0080. 

Please submit comments by one 

method only. Comments will be 

reviewed consistent with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and 

applicable OMB regulations and 

guidance. Comments submitted in 

response to this notice will become a 

matter of public record. Therefore, you 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

FinCEN’s Regulatory Support Section at 

1–800–767–2825 or electronically at 

frc@fincen.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions 

The legislative framework generally 

referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act 

(BSA) consists of the Currency and 

Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 

1970, as amended by the Uniting and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1