Moreno Valley City Council
August 6, 2024

While the details and configuration of
this flexibility vary widely across
recipient governments, calculating
revenue loss on a source-by-source or
fund-by-fund basis would not capture
how recipient governments balance
their budgets in the regular course of
business. Accordingly, the final rule
maintains the requirement that revenue
loss is to be calculated on an aggregate
basis.

Calculation Dates
Public Comment: Under the interim
final rule, recipients calculate revenue
loss as of the end of the calendar year.

Treasury received many comments
requesting that recipients be permitted
to calculate revenue loss as of the end
of their fiscal year. Commenters argued
that doing so would be simpler and less
burdensome on recipients and that
financial data as of the end of the fiscal
year is audited and therefore more
reliable. Commenters also argued that
recipients’ fiscal years are structured
around the timing of major revenue
sources, and that the Census Bureau
uses fiscal years in its Annual Survey.

Treasury also received comments
about the use of multiple calculation
dates. Several Tribal governments stated
that they would not see ongoing revenue
losses due to the COVID–19 public
health emergency and asked to be able
to determine revenue loss as of the first
calculation date. Several commenters
asked whether revenue loss is
determined independently for each
year, so that a gain in one year does not
offset a loss in another, or whether
revenue loss is cumulative from the
beginning of the pandemic.

Treasury Response: In the final rule,
Treasury has made adjustments to give
recipients more flexibility with respect
to calculation dates and to clarify
certain elements. Specifically, the final
rule provides recipients the option to
choose whether to calculate revenue
loss on a fiscal year or calendar year
basis, though they must choose a
consistent basis for loss calculations
throughout the period of performance.

Treasury has also clarified in the final
rule that revenue loss is calculated
separately for each year such that the
calculation of revenue lost in one year
does not affect the calculation of
revenue lost in prior or future years.

Presumption That Revenue Loss Is Due
to the Pandemic
As stated above, sections 602(c)(1)(C)
and 603(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security
Act provide that SLFRF funds may be
used ‘‘for the provision of government
services to the extent of the reduction in
revenue of such . . . government due to
the COVID–19 public health emergency
relative to revenues collected in the
most recent full fiscal year of the . . .
government prior to the emergency.’’ As
discussed in the interim final rule,
although revenue may decline for
reasons unrelated to COVID–19, in order
to minimize the administrative burden
on recipients in calculating revenue loss
and take into consideration the
devastating effects of the COVID–19
public health emergency, any reduction
in revenue relative to the counterfactual
estimate was presumed in the interim
final rule to be considered revenue lost
due to the pandemic.

Treasury stated in the Supplementary
Information to the interim final rule that
it was considering when, if ever, during
the period of performance it would be
appropriate to reevaluate the
presumption that all losses are
attributable to the public health
emergency. Treasury also sought
comment on whether to take into
account other factors, including actions
taken by the recipient as well as the
expiration of the COVID–19 public
health emergency, in determining
whether to presume that revenue losses
are ‘‘due to’’ the COVID–19 public
health emergency.

Public Comment: Treasury received
many comments in support of the
presumption, as well as some opposed.

Some commenters argued that the
presumption eases the administrative
burden on recipients because, without
it, it would be difficult to identify which
losses are attributable to the COVID–19
public health emergency. Many
commenters also argued that Treasury
should maintain the presumption
because recipients are likely to
experience losses due to the public
health emergency even after the end of
the public health emergency. Treasury
also received comments asking that it
adjust any revenue loss calculation to
account for tax changes enacted by the
recipient. In particular, some
commenters noted that some recipients
had increased taxes in order to meet
additional demands for government
services or to address declines in
revenue due to the pandemic. These tax
increases have in some cases offset some
or all of the actual revenue loss
attributable to the public health
emergency. Because the interim final
rule calculates revenue loss by reference
to actual revenue collected, commenters
argued that the calculation of revenue
loss ‘‘due to’’ the public health
emergency needs to take into
consideration the effects of tax increases
by deducting the effect of these tax
increases from actual revenue collected.

Treasury Response: In the final rule,
Treasury has maintained the
presumption that a reduction in a
recipient’s revenue is due to the public
health emergency with certain
adjustments to respond to comments
and to better account for revenue loss
‘‘due to the COVID–19 public health
emergency.’’ The final rule makes
adjustments to the presumption to take
into account certain government actions
to change tax policy. In particular,
Treasury is adjusting the presumption to
account for changes to tax policy by
providing that changes in revenue that
are caused by tax increases or decreases
adopted after the issuance of the final
rule will not be treated as due to the
public health emergency.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4406 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 294 See also sections 602(a)(1) and 603(a) of the
Social Security Act (appropriating the funds for
payment to recipients in order to ‘‘mitigate the
fiscal effects stemming from the public health
emergency’’).
295 U.S. Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory
Comm’n, 640 F.3d 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see Kimber
v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092, 1100 (10th Cir.
1999); Adams v. Director, OWCP, 886 F.2d 818, 821
(6th Cir. 1989).
296 Treasury considered whether to also eliminate
the presumption with respect to losses resulting
from other changes in policy, such as decreases in
user fees or fines. However, the effects of these
changes are more minor overall and would be more
challenging to accurately identify and quantify, so
the administrability benefit of the presumption for
recipients outweighs whatever distortion there
might be as a result of not reflecting such changes.
297 See generally, National Association of State
Budget Officers, Budget Processes in the States,
(2021), available at https://higherlogicdownload.
s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-
b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Budget%20
Processess/NASBO_2021_Budget_Processes_in_the_
States_S.pdf.

Presumption of Revenue Loss ‘‘Due To’’
the Pandemic
In enacting sections 602(c)(1)(C) and
603(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act,
Congress provided that a state, local
government, or Tribal government could
use funds to ‘‘cover costs . . . for the
provision of government services,’’ but
only ‘‘to the extent of the reduction in
revenue . . . due to the COVID–19
public health emergency relative to
revenues collected in the most recent
full fiscal year . . . prior to the
emergency.’’ In doing so, Congress
recognized that the pandemic was
causing significant disruption to
economic activity and sought to
minimize the impact of associated
revenue losses on the ability of the
recipient to provide government
services when such services were
needed most.
294 The text of the statute
itself reinforces this important context:

The law specifically limits funds to
cover revenue losses that both are ‘‘due
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency’’ and could impact ‘‘the
provision of government services.’’
Courts have recognized that the
phrase ‘‘due to’’ can refer to various
causal standards.
295 Here, in the context
of Congress’s addressing economic
disruptions caused by the COVID–19
pandemic that could impact both
revenues and government services, the
key consideration is whether a revenue
loss experienced by the recipient
resulted from the exogenous impacts of
the public health emergency (and were
thus ‘‘due to’’ the pandemic) or instead
from the recipient’s own discretionary
actions (and, in this context, were not
‘‘due to’’ the pandemic). Reductions in
revenue due to the public health
emergency does not cover revenue
reductions that resulted from a
recipient’s own discretionary actions.

In the interim final rule, Treasury
included a presumption that all revenue
loss is due to the pandemic in order to
minimize the administrative burden on
recipients discussed above and take into
consideration the devastating effects of
the COVID–19 public health emergency.

Based on comments, Treasury believes
that the reasons for the presumption
continue to be valid and has determined
to maintain the presumption in the final
rule with certain modifications. In
particular, at this point in the course of
the pandemic, with the fiscal pressure
on state and local governments having
been significantly reduced, it is
appropriate for Treasury to reassess
aspects of this presumption. As
discussed below, the final rule requires
recipients to exclude the value of tax
policy changes adopted after January 6,
2022.

Recipients of the SLFRF range from
states to the smallest local governments.

At the time that the interim final rule
was adopted, it was important for
recipients to be able to calculate with
ease and certainty their amount of
revenue loss so that they could begin
deploying these funds to continue to
maintain essential government services.

To this end, the presumption in the
interim final rule provided a relatively
simple formula for all recipients to use,
but the exigent need for recipients to
immediately deploy funds for the
provision of government services has
decreased and the benefit of the
presumption in reducing administrative
burden is less relevant for those
governments that are not likely to avail
themselves of the standard allowance
described above.

Consistent with these considerations,
the final rule requires recipients to
exclude revenue loss due to tax changes
adopted after January 6, 2022.

Eliminating revenue loss due to tax
changes from the presumption is
appropriate given the significance of tax
revenue as a portion of all revenue for
state and local governments, the direct
impact of tax policy decisions on
revenue collected, and the relative ease
with which recipients can isolate the
estimated effect of a tax change on
revenue.
296 Most state budgeting
processes require a ‘‘budget score,’’
often developed through a consensus
process with executive and legislative
branch experts,
297 and Treasury expects
that larger localities, those most likely to
utilize the revenue loss formula rather
than the standard allowance, also
regularly use revenue or budget
estimates when considering changes to
tax policies. As such, in many cases,
recipients already prepare estimates of
the impact of tax changes on revenue,
and as discussed below, Treasury will
generally permit recipients to rely on
such estimates in adjusting their
revenue loss calculations.

Reductions in revenue that are not
attributable to tax changes would
continue to be subject to the
presumption. A requirement that
recipients evaluate the revenue effect of
changes in discretionary policy actions
other than tax changes would be more
difficult for recipients than evaluating
the changes attributable to tax changes
given that state and local governments
do not generally prepare estimates of the
revenue effects of other actions. Finally,
as noted above, taxes are the single
largest source of revenue for state and
local government recipients in the
aggregate.

Revisions to Presumption To Address
Tax Reductions
For these reasons, Treasury is
providing in the final rule that changes
in general revenue that are caused by
tax cuts adopted after the date of
adoption of the final rule (January 6,
2022) will not be treated as due to the
public health emergency, and the
estimated fiscal impact of such tax cuts
must be added to the calculation of
‘‘actual revenue’’ for purposes of
calculation dates that occur on or after
April 1, 2022. Tax cuts include final
legislative or regulatory action or a new
or changed administrative interpretation
that reduces any tax (by providing for a
reduction in a rate, a rebate, a
deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or
delays the imposition of any tax or tax
increase and that the recipient assesses
has had the effect of reducing tax
revenue relative to current law. This
includes the phase-in or taking effect of
any statute or rule if the phase-in or
taking effect was not prescribed prior to
the issuance of the final rule.

In assessing whether a tax change has
had the effect of reducing tax revenue,
recipients may either calculate the
actual effect on revenue or rely on
estimates prepared at the time the tax
change was adopted. More specifically,
recipients may rely on information
typically prepared in the course of
developing the budget (e.g., expected
revenues) and/or considering tax
changes (e.g., budget scores, revenue
notes) to determine the amount of
revenue that would have been collected
in the absence of the tax cut, as long as
those estimates are based on reasonable
assumptions and do not use dynamic
methodologies that incorporate the
projected effects of macroeconomic
growth, given that macroeconomic
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4407 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 298 The final rule does not permit recipients to
reflect the effects of other changes in policy, such
as increases in fees adopted after adoption of the
final rule. Treasury understands that the main
beneficiaries of such a change would be those
recipients that will benefit from the standard
allowance provided for in the final rule and that for
other recipients the administrative burden on
recipients needed to calculate these adjustments
would outweigh the benefit of having a somewhat
larger amount of funds available for government
services.
299 The final rule also addresses the possibility
that some recipients may have fiscal years ending
during the period between January 6, 2022 and
April 1, 2022; such recipients’ election to reflect tax changes from prior periods would also apply to
changes during this period with respect to the
calculation date in this period.
growth is accounted for in the
counterfactual growth assumptions.

Recipients that choose to calculate the
actual effect of a tax change on revenue
must similarly base their calculations on
reasonable estimates that do not use
dynamic methodologies. Recipients
should apply this adjustment in
determining their actual revenue totals
at Step 3 in the revenue loss calculation
described above.

Revisions to Presumption To Address
Tax Increases
As noted above, the calculation
methodology in the interim final rule
implicitly assumed that recipients did
not experience a reduction in revenue
due to the public health emergency if
they did not experience a reduction in
aggregate revenue relative to the
counterfactual estimate. Treasury
recognizes that some recipients may
have experienced a reduction in
revenue due to the public health
emergency that was offset by other
revenue, particularly in the case of
increases to tax revenue resulting from
a tax increase. The final rule requires
recipients that increased taxes to deduct
the amount of increases to revenue
attributable to such tax increase. This
change is also consistent with the
incorporation in the interim final rule
and final rule of a counterfactual growth
rate, which effectively permits
recipients to count revenue losses due
to the public health emergency that are
offset by increased tax revenue resulting
from organic growth.

For these reasons, Treasury is
providing in the final rule that
recipients must subtract from their
calculation of actual revenue the effect
of tax increases adopted after the date of
adoption of this final rule (January 6,
2022) for purposes of calculation dates
that occur on or after April 1, 2022. This
change and the change to the final rule
described above treat tax changes in a
consistent manner: In the case of
reduction in revenue resulting from a
tax cut, a recipient must add the amount
of that reduction to its calculation of
actual revenue, and in the case of an
increase in revenue resulting from a tax
increase, a recipient must subtract the
amount of additional revenue collected
as a result of the tax increase from its
calculation of actual revenue.
298
As is the case with tax cuts, discussed
above, tax increases that must be
reflected in the calculation of revenue
include final legislative or regulatory
action or a new or changed
administrative interpretation that
increases any tax and that the recipient
assesses has had the effect of increasing
tax revenue relative to current law. In
assessing whether a tax change has had
the effect of increasing tax revenue,
recipients may either calculate the
actual effect on revenue or rely on
estimates prepared at the time the tax
change was adopted. Recipients may
rely on information typically prepared
in the course of developing the budget
(e.g., expected revenues) and/or
considering tax changes (e.g., budget
scores, revenue notes) to determine the
amount of revenue that was collected as
a result of the tax increase as long as
those estimates are based on reasonable
assumptions and do not use dynamic
methodologies that incorporate the
projected effects of macroeconomic
growth, given that macroeconomic
growth is accounted for in the
counterfactual growth assumptions.

Recipients that choose to calculate the
actual effect of a tax change on revenue
must similarly base their calculations on
reasonable estimates that do not use
dynamic methodologies. Recipients
should apply this adjustment in
determining their actual revenue totals
at Step 3 in the revenue loss calculation
described above.

Previously Adopted Tax Changes
As discussed above, the final rule will
not require recipients to reflect the
revenue effects of tax increases or
decreases adopted prior to the adoption
of the final rule. Recipients that adopted
a tax change in a previous period will
not be required to recalculate the
amount of revenue loss as of prior
calculation dates or to reflect the fiscal
impacts of such tax changes in
calculation dates after the effective date
of the final rule. However, the final rule
will permit recipients to elect to reflect
the revenue effects of their tax changes
adopted between the beginning of the
public health emergency and the
adoption of the final rule.
299 If a
recipient elects to do so, it must do so
with respect to all of its tax changes
adopted between the beginning of the
public health emergency and the
adoption of the final rule. Treasury
intends to revise its reporting
requirements to permit recipients to
amend their previously reported
calculation periods to reflect such
changes.

Determination of the Base Year
Under the ARPA and interim final
rule, SLFRF funds may be used ‘‘for the
provision of government services to the
extent of the reduction in revenue . . .
relative to revenues collected in the
most recent full fiscal year’’ of the
recipient. Therefore, the base year for
the revenue loss calculation is the most
recent full fiscal year prior to the
COVID–19 public health emergency.

Public Comment: Treasury received
multiple comments asking for flexibility
in determining base year revenues. For
instance, some commenters asked to use
a different base year than the ‘‘most
recent full fiscal year’’ prior to the
pandemic for calculating revenue loss;
others asked to be able to average prior
years. Commenters stated that, for
various reasons, revenue was artificially
low in the last full fiscal year prior to
the public health emergency, and,
therefore, using revenue in that year as
the base year did not accurately reflect
expected revenue in a normal year. For
example, several Tribes stated that
unforeseeable weather events resulted
in forced closure of casinos which, in
turn, artificially deflated revenues in the
base year. Other commenters indicated
that one-time anomalies in the timing of
tax collection in that year artificially
pushed revenue into the following fiscal
year. Similarly, a few commenters noted
that tax changes that took effect in the
middle of the base year may artificially
skew the size of the revenue loss
experienced by the recipient
government.

Treasury Response: Treasury
understands that recipients may have
experienced events in the base year that
led to lower or higher revenues than
what they otherwise would have
collected. The ARPA provides that
revenue loss is to be determined with
respect to revenue in the most recent
full fiscal year prior to the pandemic,
and therefore the final rule maintains its
incorporation of the statutory definition.

In calculating revenue loss, recipients
may use data on a cash, accrual, or
modified accrual basis, provided that
recipients are consistent in their choice
of methodology throughout the covered
period, which might help recipients
adjust to certain delays in revenue
receipt. Both the standard allowance
and elements of the formula (e.g.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4408 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 300 Pay-go infrastructure funding refers to the
practice of funding capital projects with cash-on-
hand from taxes, fees, grants, and other sources,
rather than with borrowed sums.
counterfactual growth rate) incorporate
generous assumptions to give recipients
flexibility and to account for variation
among recipients’ experiences during
the pandemic.

Government Services
The
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION to the
interim final rule provided a non-
exhaustive list of examples of services
that are government services. The
interim final rule also discussed why
neither payment of debt service nor
replenishing financial reserves
constitutes government services, as
these expenditures do not provide
services but relate to the financing of
such services. Similarly, government
services under the interim final rule did
not include satisfaction of any
obligation arising under or pursuant to
a settlement agreement, judgment,
consent decree, or judicially confirmed
debt restructuring in a judicial,
administrative, or regulatory
proceeding, unless the judgment or
settlement required the provision of
government services.

Public Comment: Treasury received
several comments requesting further
clarification regarding the scope of
government services, including asking
for either a specific definition of
government services or that a specific
use be expressly deemed to be a
government service. Some commenters
disagreed with the exclusions from
government services in the interim final
rule. For instance, many of the
comments Treasury received suggested
that replenishing reserve funds and at
least certain types of debt service should
be treated as providing governmental
services. Some commenters also
suggested that a recipient should be able
to use funds for costs incurred before
March 3, 2021. Other commenters asked
Treasury to maintain the prohibition on
using the funds to pay debt service.

Treasury Response: Treasury
continues to believe that the lists of
activities that either are or are not
providing government services are
accurate but is clarifying here that,
generally speaking, services provided by
the recipient governments are
‘‘government services’’ under the
interim final rule and final rule, unless
Treasury has stated otherwise.

Government services include, but are
not limited to, maintenance or pay-go
funded building
300 of infrastructure,
including roads; modernization of
cybersecurity, including hardware,
software, and protection of critical
infrastructure; health services;
environmental remediation; school or
educational services; and the provision
of police, fire, and other public safety
services.

The aforementioned list of
government services is not exclusive.

However, recipients should be mindful
that other restrictions may apply,
including those articulated in the
section Restrictions on Use. In the final
rule, Treasury is maintaining the
limitations on government services
included in the interim final rule and
has addressed and responded to public
commenters on these issues in the
section Restrictions on Use.

D. Investments in Water, Sewer, and
Broadband Infrastructure
Summary of Interim Final Rule
Under the ARPA, recipients may use
funds to make necessary investments in
water, sewer, and broadband
infrastructure. The interim final rule
provided recipients with the ability to
use funds for a broad array of uses
within these categories.

The interim final rule discussed two
general provisions that apply across all
water, sewer, and broadband
infrastructure investments. First, the
interim final rule addressed the
meaning of ‘‘necessary’’ investments as
meaning those designed to provide an
adequate minimum level of service and
unlikely to be made using private
sources of funds. Second, the interim
final rule encouraged recipients to use
strong labor standards in water, sewer,
and broadband projects, as discussed
below.

Necessary Investments
The statute limits investments to
those that are necessary. As discussed in
more detail below, Treasury determined
that the types of water and sewer
projects that were authorized under the
interim final rule by reference to
existing Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) programs would in all
cases be necessary investments given
the conditions applicable to such EPA
programs. Similarly, the interim final
rule’s definition of eligible broadband
projects as those designed to provide a
certain standard of service to those
households and businesses with limited
existing service was based on the
statutory requirement that investments
in water, sewer, and broadband must be
‘‘necessary.’’
As discussed further below, Treasury
has expanded the scope of what is an
eligible water and sewer infrastructure
project to include additional uses. In
particular, the final rule permits use of
SLFRF funds for certain dam and
reservoir restoration projects and certain
drinking water projects to support
population growth. The nature of these
additional uses is such that additional
factors must be considered in
determining whether one of these
additional uses is a necessary project. In
addition, Treasury recognizes that there
may be a need for improvements to
broadband beyond those households
and businesses with limited existing
service as defined in the interim final
rule. Treasury has replaced this specific
requirement based on an understanding
that broadband investments may be
necessary for a broader set of reasons.

Given this expansion of what is
considered in scope as a water, sewer,
or broadband infrastructure project, the
final rule provides a further elaboration
of Treasury’s understanding of the
conditions under which an
infrastructure project will be considered
to be a necessary investment. Treasury
considers a necessary investment in
infrastructure to be one that is (1)
responsive to an identified need to
achieve or maintain an adequate
minimum level of service, which may
include a reasonable projection of
increased need, whether due to
population growth or otherwise and (2)
a cost-effective means for meeting that
need, taking into account available
alternatives. In addition, given that
drinking water is a resource that is
subject to depletion, in the case of
investments in infrastructure that
supply drinking water in order to meet
projected population growth, the project
must be projected to be sustainable over
its estimated useful life.

Not included in the list of criteria
above is the requirement in the interim
final rule that the project be unlikely to
be made using private sources of funds.

Given that it may be difficult to assess
in a particular case what the probability
of private investment in a project would
be, Treasury has eliminated this
standard from the meaning of necessary
but still encourages recipients to
prioritize projects that would provide
the greatest public benefit in their
respective jurisdictions.

Strong Labor Standards in Water, Sewer,
and Broadband Construction
As stated in the Supplementary
Information to the interim final rule,
Treasury encourages recipients to carry
out investments in water, sewer, or
broadband infrastructure in ways that
produce high-quality infrastructure,
avert disruptive and costly delays, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4409 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 301 Treasury received several comments related to
its encouragement of certain wage and labor
standards in the Supplementary Information to the
interim final rule. Some commenters opposed this
encouragement, arguing that even encouragement
and reference to PLAs and prevailing wage laws
could lead to confusion or make it more likely that
recipients would apply labor standards in ways that
would discourage competition and raise project
costs. Conversely, some commenters supported the
encouragement of the use of certain standards,
including giving preference to employers that meet
certain employment standards (e.g., those that
maintain high safety and training standards)
because it would support the goal of completing
water, sewer, and broadband projects efficiently
and safely. As in the interim final rule, this
encouragement does not impose a legally binding
restriction on recipients.
302 See U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Compliance and Reporting Guidance, 21 (June 24,
2021), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/
SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-Guidance.pdf.
promote efficiency.301 Treasury
encourages recipients to use strong labor
standards, including project labor
agreements (PLAs) and community
benefits agreements that offer wages at
or above the prevailing rate and include
local hire provisions. Treasury also
recommends that recipients prioritize in
their procurement decisions employers
who can demonstrate that their
workforce meets high safety and
training standards (e.g., professional
certification, licensure, and/or robust in-
house training), that hire local workers
and/or workers from historically
underserved communities, and who
directly employ their workforce or have
policies and practices in place to ensure
contractors and subcontractors meet
high labor standards. Treasury further
encourages recipients to prioritize
employers (including contractors and
subcontractors) without recent
violations of federal and state labor and
employment laws.

Treasury believes that such practices
will promote effective and efficient
delivery of high-quality infrastructure
projects and support the economic
recovery through strong employment
opportunities for workers. Such
practices will also reduce the likelihood
of potential project challenges like work
stoppages or safety accidents, while
ensuring a reliable supply of skilled
labor and minimizing disruptions, such
as those associated with labor disputes
or workplace injuries. That will, in turn,
promote on-time and on-budget
delivery.

Furthermore, among other
requirements contained in 2 CFR 200,
Appendix II, all contracts made by a
recipient or subrecipient in excess of
$100,000 with respect to water, sewer,
or broadband infrastructure project that
involve employment of mechanics or
laborers must include a provision for
compliance with certain provisions of
the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 3702 and 3704,
as supplemented by Department of
Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5).

Treasury will continue to seek
information from recipients on their
workforce plans and water, sewer, and
broadband projects undertaken with
SLFRF funds. This reporting will
support transparency and competition
by enhancing available information on
the services being provided. Since
publication of the interim final rule,
Treasury has provided recipients with
additional guidance and instructions on
the reporting requirements.
302
Environmental and Other Generally
Applicable Requirements
Treasury cautions that, as is the case
with all projects engaged in using the
SLFRF funds, all projects must comply
with applicable federal, state, and local
law. In the case of infrastructure
projects in particular, this includes
environmental and permitting laws and
regulations. Likewise, as with all capital
expenditure projects using SLFRF
funds, projects must be undertaken and
completed in a manner that is
technically sound, meaning that they
must meet design and construction
methods and use materials that are
approved, codified, recognized, fall
under standard or acceptable levels of
practice, or otherwise are determined to
be generally acceptable by the design
and construction industry.

1. Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Sections 602(c)(1)(D) and Section
603(c)(1)(D) of the Social Security Act
provide that recipients may use the
SLFRF funds ‘‘to make necessary
investments in water [and] sewer . . .
infrastructure.’’ The interim final rule
permitted a broad range of necessary
investments in projects that improve
access to clean drinking water and
improve wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure systems. As discussed
below, after review of comments
received on the interim final rule,
Treasury has made changes in the final
rule to expand the scope of eligible
water and sewer projects.

Summary of Interim Final Rule and
Final Rule Structure
Background: In the interim final rule,
Treasury aligned eligible uses of the
SLFRF with the wide range of types or
categories of projects that would be
eligible to receive financial assistance
through the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) or Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). By referring to these existing
programs, with which many recipients
are already familiar, Treasury intended
to provide flexibility to recipients to
respond to the needs of their
communities while facilitating
recipients’ identification of eligible
projects. Furthermore, by aligning
SLFRF eligible uses with these existing
programs, Treasury could ensure that
projects using the SLFRF are limited to
‘‘necessary investments.’’
Public Comment: Treasury received
many comments responding to the
water and sewer infrastructure
provisions of the interim final rule from
state, local, and Tribal governments,
industry trade associations, public
interest groups, private individuals, and
other interested parties. Commenters
requested that Treasury provide a wider
set of eligible uses for water and sewer
infrastructure beyond those uses
articulated by the DWSRF and CWSRF,
suggesting that Treasury expand the
definition of necessary water and sewer
infrastructure.

Treasury Response: In response to
commenters, Treasury is expanding the
eligible use categories for water and
sewer infrastructure, discussed in
further detail below. Because the
interim final rule aligned the definition
of necessary water and sewer
infrastructure with the eligible uses
included in the DWSRF and CWSRF,
Treasury is reflecting in the final rule a
revised standard for determining a
necessary water and sewer
infrastructure investment for eligible
water and sewer uses beyond those uses
that are eligible under the DWSRF and
CWSRF.

Interpretation of Necessary Investments
and Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Necessary Investments: As discussed
above, Treasury considers an
investment in infrastructure to be
necessary if it is (1) responsive to an
identified need to achieve or maintain
an adequate minimum level of service,
which for some eligible project
categories may include a reasonable
projection of increased need, whether
due to population growth or otherwise
and (2) a cost-effective means for
meeting that need, taking into account
available alternatives. In addition, in the
case of investments in drinking water
service infrastructure to supply drinking
water to satisfy a projected increase in
population, the project must also be
projected to be sustainable over its
estimated useful life. As detailed further
below, DWSRF and CWSRF eligible
projects continue to be presumed to be
necessary investments under the final
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4410 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 303 See 40 CFR 35.3520(b)(2)(vi).
304 In such cases, either the projects are
presumptively cost-effective (e.g., lead projects
would always be considered cost-effective given the
costs imposed by lead poisoning) or a cost-
effectiveness test is less relevant given the lack of
available alternatives or the relatively low cost of
the project.
305 In many jurisdictions, stormwater flows into
the sewer system rather than into a separate
stormwater system. The separate inclusion of
‘‘water’’ and ‘‘sewer’’ infrastructure also makes
clear that ‘‘water’’ in this context cannot refer to all uses relevant to water. Given that sewer systems
carry wastewater (and often stormwater), if water
infrastructure were to refer to all water-related
infrastructure in this context, it would make the
inclusion of sewer infrastructure redundant.
rule, with the exception of projects for
the rehabilitation of dams and
reservoirs, which the EPA has permitted
in certain circumstances under the
DWSRF and, as discussed below, are
addressed separately in the final rule.

In evaluating whether a project would
respond to a need to achieve or
maintain an adequate minimum level of
service, a recipient should consider
whether it would meet the needs of the
population to be served and would
satisfy applicable standards. For
example, a drinking water project must
be sized such that it provides an
adequate volume of water to households
and other customers and must meet
applicable standards for drinking water
quality under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). Similarly, a centralized
wastewater treatment project should be
designed to manage updated estimated
flow rates and comply with Clean Water
Act requirements. These requirements
are already reflected in the eligibility
criteria of the DWSRF and CWSRF,
respectively.

In evaluating whether a project is a
cost-effective means of providing the
water or sewer service, the recipient
should consider the need for the project,
the costs and benefits of the project
compared to alternatives, and the
effectiveness of the project in meeting
the identified need. Recipients are not
required to conduct a full cost-benefit
analysis; however, they should consider
and analyze relevant factors. For
example, a recipient may not use funds
to pursue a costly dam rehabilitation to
provide drinking water to a community
if it could provide the same service with
a significantly smaller investment by
drawing water from another available
reservoir, assuming that doing so would
meet the other requirements of the final
rule. As detailed further below,
recipients are only required to assess
cost-effectiveness of projects for the
creation of new drinking water systems,
dam and reservoir rehabilitation
projects, or projects for the extension of
drinking water service to meet
population growth needs.

Certain DWSRF eligibilities are
already subject to a cost-effectiveness
test. Specifically, projects that create
new drinking water systems must be a
cost-effective solution to addressing the
identified problem.
303 The EPA also
imposes a cost-effectiveness condition
on dam and reservoir rehabilitation
projects undertaken pursuant to its class
deviation from the DWSRF rule. These
projects are particularly expensive and,
unlike in the case of other types of
eligible projects, there are often
available alternatives to conducting
these projects. Projects for the extension
of drinking water service to meet
population growth needs are also often
particularly expensive, and there are
often different ways to meet the needs
of expanding populations. Treasury will
accordingly require that recipients
engage in a cost-effectiveness analysis
when engaging in projects for the
creation of new drinking water systems,
dam and reservoir rehabilitation
projects, or projects for the extension of
drinking water service to meet
population growth needs. Other types of
eligible water or sewer projects will not
be subject to this cost-effectiveness test,
including lead line replacement and
lead remediation.
304
In the case of projects that expand
drinking water service infrastructure to
satisfy a projected increase in
population, the project must also be
sustainable, meaning that the project
can continue providing the adequate
minimum level of service for its
estimated useful life, taking into
account projected impacts of changes to
the climate and other expected demands
on the source of water. For example, a
reservoir rehabilitation project may not
be pursued if the reservoir will no
longer be able to provide an adequate
source of drinking water before the end
of the estimated useful life of the
improvements to the reservoir. In areas
currently impacted by drought or where
drought conditions are expected to be
more frequent or more severe in the
future, sources of drinking water may be
diminished more quickly than in prior
periods. In considering how much of a
source of water will be available in the
future for the drinking water project, a
recipient must consider that a source of
water may be drawn upon or otherwise
used for other current and expected
uses, including use by fish and other
wildlife.

The final rule applies this
sustainability condition to projects that
expand drinking water service
infrastructure to satisfy a projected
increase in population but not to other
drinking water projects. When a new
source of water is required to remedy an
existing threat to public health, as in the
case of source projects eligible under the
DWSRF, sustainability should be a
consideration, but in some cases, the
need to replace a contaminated source
may mean that a less sustainable choice
may be made. When faced with such an
issue, such as in the case of a
contaminated well system, a project to
replace the contaminated source can be
said to be ‘‘necessary’’ even if the
replaced source is not sustainable over
the long term. Expediency may dictate
that a shorter-term solution is pursued
if it is cost-effective and will prevent
health issues while a longer-term
solution can be found. In contrast, an
expansion to accommodate population
growth cannot be said to be necessary if
it is not sustainable over its estimated
useful life.

Not included in the list of criteria
above is the requirement in the interim
final rule that the project be unlikely to
be made using private sources of funds.

Given that it may be difficult to assess
in a particular case what the probability
of private investment in a project would
be, Treasury has eliminated this
standard from the meaning of necessary
but nevertheless encourages recipients
to apply funds to projects that would
provide the greatest public benefit.

Water and Sewer Infrastructure: As
stated above, Congress provided that
SLFRF funds are available for
‘‘necessary water, sewer, and broadband
infrastructure.’’ Treasury interprets the
reference to water and sewer uses
consistent with the inclusion of
broadband uses. Water, sewer, and
broadband infrastructure all involve the
provision of essential services to
residents, businesses, and other
consumers. As the pandemic has made
clear, access to broadband has itself
become essential for individuals and
businesses to participate in education,
commerce, work, and civic matters and
to receive health care and social
services.

Water and sewer services provided
broadly to the public as essential
services include the provision of
drinking water and the removal,
management, and treatment of
wastewater and stormwater.
305
Although governments are engaged in
other infrastructure related to water,
including irrigation projects,
transportation projects, and recreation
projects, such projects go beyond the
scope of what is provided to all
residents as an essential service.

Provision of drinking water and
removal, management, and treatment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4411 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 306 In addition, Treasury interprets the eligible
uses of SLFRF funds against the background of the
Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), for which the
SLFRF funds are, in part, a successor. CRF
recipients expressed great interest in using the CRF
to pursue water infrastructure projects, including
provision of drinking water and internal plumbing
on Tribal lands and in Alaskan villages, and
broadband projects throughout the country;
Treasury permitted these projects given the
connection to the public health emergency (see
Coronavirus Relief Fund for States, Tribal
Governments, and Certain Eligible Local
Governments, 86 FR 4182, 4190, 4192 (Jan. 15,
2021), but the short deadline for use of funds made
it difficult to use CRF funds in this way. Congress’
inclusion of the water, sewer, and broadband clause
in the ARPA, along with the SLFRF funds’ longer
eligible use date, is responsive to this unmet need.

As discussed below, Congress in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act amended sections 602(c)
and 603(c) of the Social Security Act to add a new
paragraph as sections 602(c)(4) and 603(c)(5),
respectively, providing that SLFRF funds may be
used to meet non-federal matching requirements of
any authorized Bureau of Reclamation project. This
authority was added as a separately enumerated
eligible use regardless of whether the underlying
project would be an eligible use of SLFRF funds
under the water and sewer infrastructure eligible
use category.
307 See, e.g., section 502 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362), defining
‘‘green infrastructure’’ as ‘‘the range of measures
that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement
or other permeable surfaces or substrates,
stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to
store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and
reduce flows to sewer systems or to surface waters.’’
308 Specifically, this would include desalination
projects that decrease the burden on aquifers where
there is causal relationship between aquifer
withdrawals and saltwater intrusion if the projects
implement a nonpoint source pollution
Continued
wastewater and stormwater are the
typical responsibilities of ‘‘water and
sewer’’ authorities throughout the
country, and there is a tremendous need
for improvements to the ability of state,
local, and Tribal governments to
provide such services, including to
address the consequences of deferred
maintenance and additional resiliency
needed to adapt to changes to the
climate.
306
Although the meaning of water and
sewer infrastructure for purposes of
sections 602(c)(1)(D) and 603(c)(1)(D) of
the Social Security Act does not include
all water-related uses, Treasury has
made clear in this final rule that
investments to infrastructure include a
wide variety of projects. Treasury
interprets the word ‘‘infrastructure’’ in
this context broadly to mean the
underlying framework or system for
achieving the given public purpose,
whether it be provision of drinking
water or management of wastewater or
stormwater.
307 As discussed below, this
can include not just storm drains and
culverts for the management of
stormwater, for example, but also
bioretention basins and rain barrels
implemented across a watershed,
including on both public and private
property, that together reduce the
amount of runoff that needs to be
managed by traditional infrastructure.

Further, Treasury understands that
investments in infrastructure include
improvements that increase the capacity
of existing infrastructure and extend the
useful life of existing infrastructure.

Accordingly, water and sewer
infrastructure investment projects
include those that conserve water,
thereby reducing pressure on
infrastructure for the provision of
drinking water, and that recycle
wastewater and stormwater, thereby
reducing pressure on the infrastructure
for treating and managing wastewater
and stormwater.

As with other infrastructure projects
and capital expenditure projects that are
permitted as responses to the public
health emergency and its negative
economic impacts, costs for planning
and design and associated pre-project
costs are eligible uses of SLFRF funds.

Costs for the acquisition of land are also
eligible, but only if needed for the
purposes of locating eligible project
components. Recipients should ensure
that they have the technical, financial,
and managerial capability to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the
SDWA, or that the assistance will
ensure compliance and the owners or
operators of the systems will undertake
feasible and appropriate changes in
operations to ensure compliance over
the long-term.

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
and Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Background: As stated above, in the
interim final rule, Treasury included
eligible uses of the DWSRF and the
CWSRF as eligible uses of the SLFRF in
the water and sewer infrastructure
category. By providing that projects
eligible under the DWSRF and the
CWSRF are also eligible uses of SLFRF
funds, the interim final rule permitted a
broad range of projects that improve
drinking water infrastructure, such as
building or upgrading facilities and
transmission, distribution, and storage
systems, including replacement of lead
service lines. With respect to clean
water and wastewater infrastructure, the
interim final rule provided that
recipients may use SLFRF funds to
construct publicly owned treatment
infrastructure, manage and treat
stormwater or subsurface drainage
water, and facilitate water reuse, among
other uses. Consistent with the DWSRF
and the CWSRF, the interim final rule
provided that SLFRF funds may be used
for cybersecurity needs to protect water
or sewer infrastructure, such as
developing effective cybersecurity
practices and measures at drinking
water systems and publicly owned
treatment works.

Use of DWSRF and CWSRF to Support
Climate Change Adaptations. Many of
the types of projects eligible under
either the DWSRF or CWSRF also
support efforts to address climate
change. For example, by taking steps to
manage potential sources of pollution
and preventing these sources from
reaching sources of drinking water,
projects eligible under the DWSRF and
CWSRF may reduce energy required to
treat drinking water. Similarly, projects
eligible under the DWSRF and CWSRF
include measures to conserve and reuse
water, for example through projects to
reuse or recycle wastewater, stormwater,
or subsurface drainage water. Treasury
encourages recipients to consider green
infrastructure investments and projects
to improve resilience to the effects of
climate change. For example, more
frequent and extreme precipitation
events combined with construction and
development trends have led to
increased instances of stormwater
runoff, water pollution, and flooding.

Green infrastructure projects that
support stormwater system resiliency
could include bioretention basins that
provide water storage and filtration
benefits, and green streets, where
vegetation, soil, and engineered systems
are combined to direct and filter
rainwater from impervious surfaces. In
cases of a natural disaster, recipients
may also use SLFRF funds for water
infrastructure to provide relief, such as
interconnecting water systems or
rehabilitating existing wells during an
extended drought.

Public Comment: Many commenters
expressed support for the interim final
rule’s alignment of the use of funds for
water and sewer infrastructure under
the SLFRF with the project categories
provided through the EPA’s DWSRF and
CWSRF programs.

Many commenters also provided
recommendations about the specific
types of water infrastructure projects
that should be eligible under the final
rule. In many of these cases,
commenters recommended that
Treasury include project types that are
already eligible under the DWSRF and
CWSRF and thus eligible under the
interim final rule and final rule. For
example, several commenters requested
that aquifer recharge projects, or other
groundwater protection and restoration
projects, be included as eligible uses of
SLFRF when certain aquifer recharge
projects that (1) implement a nonpoint
source pollution management
program
308 or (2) constitute reuse of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4412 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations management program under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act. This could include projects in
which desalinated seawater is injected into the
aquifer to mitigate or prevent salt water intrusion,
as well as projects in which brackish water is
removed from an aquifer, desalinated, and returned
to the aquifer.
309 See 42 U.S.C. 300j–12(a)(2)(B) (limiting
financial assistance used by a public water system
to expenditures (including expenditures for
planning, design, siting, and associated
preconstruction activities, or for replacing or
rehabilitating aging treatment, storage, or
distribution facilities of public water systems, but
not including monitoring, operation, and
maintenance expenditures of a type or category
which the Administrator of the EPA has
determined, through guidance, will facilitate
compliance with national primary drinking water
regulations applicable to the system under 42
U.S.C. 300g–1 or otherwise significantly further the
health protection objectives of the SWDA); See also
40 CFR 35.3520(b).
310 See 40 CFR 35.3520(d)(1).
311 See id at § 35.3520(e)(2)–(4).
312 33 U.S.C. 1383(c).
313 33 U.S.C. 1292.
314 33 U.S.C. 1329.
315 33 U.S.C. 1330.
wastewater, stormwater, or subsurface
drainage water are in fact eligible uses
under the CWSRF. Furthermore, under
the DWSRF, eligible projects include
certain aquifer storage and recovery
systems for water storage.

Treasury Response: Eligible projects
articulated in the DWSRF and CWSRF
continue to be eligible uses of SLFRF
funds under the final rule. Recognizing
that recipients have faced challenges
interpreting eligible use categories
under the interim final rule or cross-
referencing EPA program materials to
interpret eligible project types, Treasury
is including in this Supplementary
Information additional information on
the types of projects eligible under the
DWSRF and CWSRF. Treasury
emphasizes that this further clarification
does not represent a change in
eligibility. Treasury encourages
recipients to reference EPA handbooks
for the DWSRF and CWSRF, which
provide further information and detail
about the types of projects eligible
under those programs and thus under
the final rule.

Eligible projects under the DWSRF.

Eligibilities under the DWSRF, the
interim final rule, and the final rule
include projects that address present or
prevent future violations of health-based
drinking water standards. These include
projects needed to maintain compliance
with existing national primary drinking
water regulations for contaminants with
acute and chronic health effects.

Projects to replace aging infrastructure
are also eligible uses if they are needed
to maintain compliance or further the
public health protection objectives of
section 1452 of the SDWA.
309 The
following project categories are eligible
under the DWSRF, were eligible under
the interim final rule, and continue to
be eligible under the final rule:
(i) Treatment projects, including
installation or upgrade of facilities to
improve the quality of drinking water to
comply with primary or secondary
standards and point of entry or central
treatment under section 1401(4)(B)(i)(III)
of the SDWA.
(ii) Transmission and distribution
projects, including installation or
replacement of transmission and
distribution pipes to improve water
pressure to safe levels or to prevent
contamination caused by leaks or breaks
in the pipes.
(iii) Source projects, including
rehabilitation of wells or development
of eligible sources to replace
contaminated sources.
(iv) Storage projects, including
installation or upgrade of eligible
storage facilities, including finished
water reservoirs, to prevent
microbiological contaminants from
entering a public water system.
(v) Consolidation projects, including
projects needed to consolidate water
supplies where, for example, a supply
has become contaminated or a system is
unable to maintain compliance for
technical, financial, or managerial
reasons.
(vi) Creation of new systems,
including those that, upon completion,
will create a community water system to
address existing public health problems
with serious risks caused by unsafe
drinking water provided by individual
wells or surface water sources. Eligible
projects are also those that create a new
regional community water system by
consolidating existing systems that have
technical, financial, or managerial
difficulties. Projects to address existing
public health problems associated with
individual wells or surface water
sources must be limited in scope to the
specific geographic area affected by
contamination. Projects that create new
regional community water systems by
consolidating existing systems must be
limited in scope to the service area of
the systems being consolidated.

Ineligible projects under the DWSRF.

Federally-owned public water systems
and for-profit noncommunity water
systems are not eligible to receive
DWSRF funds and therefore SLFRF
funds.
310 The acquisition of water
rights, laboratory fees for routine
compliance monitoring, and operation
and maintenance expenses are not costs
associated with investments in
infrastructure and thus would not be
eligible under the final rule.
311 Projects
needed primarily to serve future
population growth are also ineligible
under the DWSRF; the treatment of such
projects under the final rule is discussed
separately below under ‘‘Expansion of
Drinking Water Service.’’ Projects
eligible under the DWSRF must be sized
only to accommodate a reasonable
amount of population growth expected
to occur over the useful life of the
project.

Eligible projects under the CWSRF.

The final rule continues to allow the use
of SLFRF funds for projects eligible
under the CWSRF, consistent with the
interim final rule. Under the CWSRF, a
project must meet the criteria of one of
the following CWSRF eligibilities to be
eligible for assistance. Section 603(c) of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)
312 provides
that the CWSRF can provide assistance:
(i) to any municipality, intermunicipal,
interstate, or state agency for construction of
publicly owned treatment works (as defined
in section 212 of the CWA);
313
(ii) for the implementation of a
management program established under
section 319 of the CWA;
314
(iii) for the development and
implementation of a conservation and
management plan under section 320 of the
CWA;
315
(iv) for the construction, repair, or
replacement of decentralized wastewater
treatment systems that treat municipal
wastewater or domestic sewage. Eligible
projects include, but are not limited to, the
construction of new decentralized systems
(e.g., individual onsite systems and cluster
systems), as well as the upgrade, repair, or
replacement of existing systems.
(v) for measures to manage, reduce,
treat, or recapture stormwater or
subsurface drainage water. Publicly and
privately owned, permitted and
unpermitted projects that manage,
reduce, treat, or recapture stormwater or
subsurface drainage water are eligible.

For example, projects that are
specifically required by a Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
permit are eligible, regardless of
ownership. Projects may include, but
are not limited to green roofs,
bioretention basins, roadside plantings,
porous pavement, and rainwater
harvesting.
(vi) to any municipality,
intermunicipal, interstate, or state
agency for measures to reduce the
demand for publicly owned treatment
works capacity through water
conservation, efficiency, or reuse.

Eligible projects include, but are not
limited to, the installation, replacement,
or upgrade of water meters; plumbing
fixture retrofits or replacement; and gray
water recycling. Water audits and water
conservation plans are also eligible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:28 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4413 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 316 33 U.S.C. 1274.

Equipment to reuse effluent (e.g., gray
water, condensate, and wastewater
effluent reuse systems) is eligible.
(vii) for the development and
implementation of watershed projects
meeting the criteria set forth in section
122 of the CWA.
316 Projects that
develop or implement a watershed pilot
project related to at least one of the six
areas identified in section 122 of the
CWA are eligible: Watershed
management of wet weather discharges,
stormwater best management practices,
watershed partnerships, integrated
water resource planning, municipality-
wide stormwater management planning,
or increased resilience of treatment
works.
(viii) to any municipality,
intermunicipal, interstate, or state
agency for measures to reduce the
energy consumption needs for publicly
owned treatment works. Projects may
include, but are not limited to, the
installation of energy efficient lighting,
HVAC, process equipment, and
electronic equipment and systems at
publicly owned treatment works.

Planning activities, such as energy
audits and optimization studies are also
eligible.
(ix) for reusing or recycling
wastewater, stormwater, or subsurface
drainage water. Projects involving the
reuse or recycling of wastewater,
stormwater, or subsurface drainage
water are eligible. This includes, as part
of a reuse project, the purchase and
installation of treatment equipment
sufficient to meet reuse standards. Other
eligible projects include, but are not
limited to, distribution systems to
support effluent reuse, including piping
the effluent on the property of a private
consumer, recharge transmission lines,
injection wells, and equipment to reuse
effluent (e.g., gray water, condensate,
and wastewater effluent reuse systems).
(x) for measures to increase the
security of publicly owned treatment
works. Security measures for publicly
owned treatment works might include,
but are not limited to, vulnerability
assessments, contingency/emergency
response plans, fencing, security
cameras/lighting, motion detectors,
redundancy (systems and power),
secure chemical and fuel storage,
laboratory equipment, securing large
sanitary sewers, and tamper-proof
manholes. The CWSRF cannot fund
operations and maintenance activities.

Therefore, maintaining a human
presence (i.e., security guards) and
monitoring activities are not eligible.

Other Clarifications of DSWRF and
CWSRF Eligible Project Categories
Public Comment: Several commenters
requested that Treasury provide
clarification of the requirements
associated with use of SLFRF funds for
necessary investments in water and
sewer infrastructure.

Treasury Response: After release of
the interim final rule, Treasury clarified
in further guidance that, while
recipients must ensure that water and
sewer infrastructure projects pursued
are eligible under the final rule,
recipients are not required to obtain
project pre-approval from Treasury or
any other federal agency when using
SLFRF funds for necessary water and
sewer infrastructure projects unless
otherwise required by federal law. For
projects that are being pursued under
the eligibility categories provided
through the DWSRF or CWSRF
programs, project eligibilities are based
on federal project categories and
definitions for the programs and not on
each state’s eligibility or definitions.

While reference in the final rule to the
DWSRF, CWSRF, or other federal water
programs is provided to assist recipients
in understanding the types of water and
sewer infrastructure projects eligible to
be funded with SLFRF, recipients do
not need to apply for funding from the
applicable state programs or through
any federal water program. Similarly,
besides eligible project categories, the
final rule does not incorporate other
program requirements or guidance that
attach to the DWSRF, CWSRF, or other
federal water programs. However, as
noted above, recipients should be aware
of other federal or state laws or
regulations that may apply to
construction projects or water and sewer
projects, independent of SLFRF funding
conditions, and that may require pre-
approval from another federal or state
agency.

Expanded Eligible Uses for Water and
Sewer Infrastructure
Summary
Public Comment: Many commenters
requested broader flexibility in the use
of SLFRF funds for water and sewer
infrastructure projects that are not
eligible under the DWSRF and CWSRF.

These commenters argued that localities
are best situated to identify the highest-
need water and sewer projects in their
communities. Several Tribal
government commenters noted that
Tribes have different water and sewer
infrastructure needs than states and
localities and that additional flexibility
in the use of funds would lift current
barriers to improving infrastructure on
Tribal lands.

To achieve additional flexibility,
commenters suggested a range of
options for broadening the eligible use
of SLFRF funds for necessary water and
sewer infrastructure. For example,
several commenters suggested Treasury
broaden the eligibilities provided under
the interim final rule to include project
types eligible under other federal water
and sewer programs.

Treasury Response: Treasury agrees
that additional flexibility for use of
SLFRF funds is warranted and is
providing expanded eligibilities as
described below, several of which
address specific areas of need outlined
by Tribal and rural communities.

As discussed below, Treasury has
incorporated into the final rule projects
that are eligible under certain programs
established by the EPA under the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation Act (WIIN Act). Other water-
related grant programs cited by
commenters include projects that are
otherwise already covered by the final
rule, for example because they are
covered as eligible under the DWSRF or
the CWSRF, or projects that are
ineligible under the final rule because
they are beyond the scope of the
meaning of water and sewer projects for
purposes of ARPA. To minimize the
need for recipients of SLFRF funds to
cross reference eligibilities across
multiple federal programs, which may
exacerbate current challenges to
understanding eligibility under SLFRF,
Treasury is providing detailed
information related to expanded
eligibilities within the text of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the
final rule.

Stormwater Infrastructure
Public Comment: Several commenters
requested that additional stormwater
infrastructure projects be included as
eligible uses of SLFRF funds under the
final rule. Commenters suggested that
culvert repair and resizing and
replacement of storm sewers is
necessary to address increased rainfall
brought about by a changing climate.

Other commenters noted that rural
communities that do not manage their
own sewer systems may rely on this
type of water infrastructure.

Treasury Response: The CWSRF
includes a broad range of stormwater
infrastructure projects, and as such
these projects were eligible under the
interim final rule and continue to be
eligible under the final rule. These
projects include gray infrastructure
projects, such as traditional pipe,
storage, and treatment systems. Projects
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4414 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 317 The White House, Updated Fact Sheet:

Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(August 2, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/02/
updated-fact-sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-
investment-and-jobs-act/.
318 See EPA Science Advisory Board, Evaluation
of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line
Replacements, (September 2011), https://
www.epa.gov/sdwa/science-advisory-board-
evaluation-effectiveness-partial-lead-service-line-
replacements (advising against partial lead service
line replacement).
319 Environmental Protection Agency, supra note
188.
320 Environmental Protection Agency, National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions, 86 FR 4198. 40 CFR 141.84,
and preamble at 4215, January 15, 2021, https://
www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-28691; scheduled
to become effective December 16, 2021,
Environmental Protection Agency, 86 FR 31939,
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12600.
321 Eligible uses of funds include those eligible
under the Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged
Communities Grant (Section 2104), Reduction in
Lead Exposure via Drinking Water Grant Program
(Section 2105) and Lead Testing in School and
Child Care Program Drinking Water Grant Program
(Section 2107).
322 Such testing and remediation programs would
be an eligible use of SLFRF funds given that they
that manage, reduce, treat, or recapture
stormwater or subsurface drainage water
are also eligible, including real-time
control systems for combined sewer
overflow management, and sediment
control. Culvert infrastructure projects
are eligible under the CWSRF if they (1)
implement a nonpoint source
management plan, (2) implement
National Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, or (3) implement a
stormwater management plan with the
goal of providing a water quality benefit.

Stormwater projects under the CWSRF
also encompass a number of eligible
green infrastructure categories, such as
green roofs, green streets, and green
walls, rainwater harvesting collection,
storage, management, and distribution
systems, real-time control systems for
harvested rainwater, infiltration basins,
constructed wetlands, including surface
flow and subsurface flow (e.g., gravel)
wetlands, bioretention/bioswales (e.g.,
bioretention basins, tree boxes),
permeable pavement, wetland, riparian,
or shoreline creation, protection, and
restoration, establishment or restoration
of urban tree canopy, and replacement
of gray infrastructure with green
infrastructure including purchase and
demolition costs.

In addition to the eligible uses under
the CWSRF, Treasury is expanding the
eligible uses under the final rule to
include stormwater system
infrastructure projects regardless of
whether there is an expected water
quality benefit from the project.

Treasury anticipates that this eligible
use will allow recipients to manage
increased volumes of stormwater as a
result of changes to the climate. For
example, the final rule now permits the
use of SLFRF funds for the repair,
replacement, or removal of culverts or
other road-stream crossing
infrastructure to the extent the purpose
of the project is to manage stormwater.

In addition, Treasury understands that
the repair, replacement, or removal of
culverts may necessitate the repair or
upgrade of roads. As noted in guidance
issued after the interim final rule,
recipients may use SLFRF funds for
road repairs and upgrades that interact
directly with an eligible stormwater
infrastructure project. All stormwater
infrastructure projects undertaken
should incorporate updated design
features and current best practices.

Private Wells and Septic Systems
Public Comment: Several commenters
requested that the scope of eligible
projects be expanded to allow for the
expenditure of SLFRF funds on private
wells or septic systems. Commenters
noted that wells may be contaminated
with dangerous substances, including
arsenic, lead, radon, and PFAS (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl). Commenters also
suggested that, because rural and
underserved communities are often
reliant on these infrastructure types for
their drinking water or wastewater
needs, lack of appropriate funding to
maintain these systems could present
health and safety issues that
disproportionately affect certain
communities.

Treasury Response: Consistent with
the CWSRF, the installation, repair, or
replacement of private septic units
continues to be an eligible use of SLFRF
funds under the final rule. For example,
eligible projects include those that
address groundwater contamination
resulting from faulty septic units and
those that would connect failing septic
systems to centralized wastewater
treatment. Consistent with the DWSRF,
connecting homes served by a private
well to a public water system is an
eligible use of SLFRF funds.

In addition, Treasury has provided in
the final rule that recipients may use
SLFRF funds for an expanded set of
infrastructure projects that improve
access to and provision of safe drinking
water for individuals served by
residential wells. Eligible projects under
this category include rehabilitation of
private wells, testing initiatives to
identify contaminants in wells, and
treatment activities and remediation
strategies that address contamination.

Remediating Lead in Water
Public Comment: Several commenters
emphasized the need to fully remediate
lead contamination, especially in
structures that serve the public or
populations like children that are
particularly vulnerable to the effects of
lead exposure, such as schools and
daycares. Many American households
and an estimated 400,000 schools and
childcare centers currently lack safe
drinking water.
317
Treasury Response: The replacement
of lead service lines, up to premise
plumbing, is an eligible use under the
DWSRF and continues to be an eligible
use of SLFRF funds. Such projects are
eligible regardless of the pipe material
of the replacement lines and ownership
of the property on which the service
line is located. Lead service line
replacement projects can serve
households, schools, or any other
entities. Given the lifelong impacts of
lead exposure for children and the
widespread prevalence of lead service
lines, Treasury encourages recipients to
consider projects to replace lead service
lines.

In addition, Treasury is providing in
the final rule that for lead service line
replacement projects, recipients must
replace the full length of the service
line, and not just a partial portion of the
service line. Some water utilities, when
replacing service lines, will only replace
the ‘‘public portion’’ of the service line
and physically slice through the lead
service line at the public/private line.

This action can result in elevated
drinking water lead levels for some
period of time after replacement,
suggesting the potential for harm, rather
than benefit during that time period.
318
Requiring replacement of the full length
of the service line is also consistent with
the requirements of the EPA’s Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions for water
systems that have an action level
exceedance for lead
319 and certain other
water systems.320
Treasury is expanding eligible uses of
SLFRF funds to include infrastructure
projects eligible under EPA grant
programs authorized by the WIIN
Act.
321 Eligible projects under these
programs include the installation or re-
optimization of corrosion control
treatment, replacing lead service lines,
replacing galvanized pipes downstream
of a lead service line (other than lead
pipes within a home as discussed
below), and maintaining an inventory of
the drinking water system’s service
lines. Water quality testing, compliance
monitoring, and remediation activities
in schools and other childcare facilities,
as well as activities necessary to
respond to a contaminant, are eligible
uses of SLFRF funds.
322 Remediation
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4415 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations would help a recipient determine whether an
infrastructure project, such as a lead line
replacement, is necessary. In contrast, as mentioned
above, the costs of continual testing that is part of
a drinking water or wastewater facilities’ operating
costs would not be considered part of an
infrastructure project.
323 See EPA, Approval of Class Exception from
the Regulatory Prohibitions on the Use of Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund for Rehabilitation of
Dams and Reservoirs (July 14, 2021), available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-
07/dwsrf-class-deviation-dam-reservoir-rehab-2021_

0.pdf.
324 As noted in the EPA’s class deviation,
examples of dam rehabilitation projects include
spillway reconstruction or repair; dam resurfacing,
patching, or other structural repairs, including
minimal height increases if needed to maintain the
structural integrity of the dam; grouting for seepage
control or liquefaction remediation (e.g., epoxy
resin, asphalt, or rock); repair or replacement of
drainage systems; and seismic stability efforts (e.g.,
anchors). Examples of reservoir rehabilitation
projects include sedimentation dredging and
reservoir lining.
activities such as replacement of
faucets, internal plumbing, and fixtures
in schools and childcare facilities are
also an eligible use of SLFRF funds.

Consistent with the EPA programs,
replacement of lead pipes within a
home is not eligible under the final rule
because the vast majority of lead
contamination cases can be solved by
replacing lead service lines (including
on public and private property) and
faucets and fixtures themselves. As
such, replacement of lead pipes within
a home would not be considered a cost-
effective means for achieving the
desired level of service and thus would
not be a ‘‘necessary’’ investment. The
provision of bottled water is also not an
eligible use of SLFRF funds under this
eligible use category, as it is not an
investment in infrastructure. However,
bottled water in areas with an action
level exceedance for lead in water may
be an eligible use of SLFRF funds under
a separate eligible use category for
‘‘remediation of lead paint and other
lead hazards;’’ see Assistance to
Households in Public Health and
Negative Economic Impacts.

Water filtration systems are eligible
under the EPA grant programs and the
final rule as long as they are installed as
a permanent part of a facility’s system
and not intended for temporary use.

Conducting remediation, follow-up
monitoring, and conducting public
education and outreach about the
availability of infrastructure programs,
such as water testing and fixture
replacement programs funded with
SLFRF funds or otherwise, are also
eligible projects. Finally, recipients
should note that ‘‘remediation of lead
paint and other lead hazards’’ is a
separate eligible use category and a
broader range of programs and services
may be eligible under that section,
including investments that are not
infrastructure; see the eligible use for
‘‘remediation of lead paint and other
lead hazards’’ in section Assistance to
Households in Public Health and
Negative Economic Impacts.

Dams and Reservoirs
Public Comment: Many commenters
requested that Treasury broaden
eligibilities to include dams and
reservoirs, infrastructure that
commenters noted may in its current
state be unsafe and could put
surrounding communities at risk. Some
commenters argued that dams and
reservoirs play an important role in
providing municipal water supply and
water to irrigate farmland, including in
areas impacted by recent droughts.

Other commenters noted that a large
number of dams are currently classified
as high-hazard structures, the failure of
which would have severe consequences
for public safety and the local
environment. With respect to reservoirs,
commenters articulated that changing
climate conditions have necessitated
upgrades to reservoir infrastructure to
ensure existing facilities can meet the
local water needs of a community.

Commenters noted that communities
facing drought may also need to adjust
or enhance reservoirs to maintain
adequate water supply.

In contrast, several commenters
suggested that infrastructure projects
related to dams and reservoirs should
not be considered eligible uses of SLFRF
funds. These commenters noted that
alternate sources of funding exist for
dam and reservoir projects and that
dams and reservoir infrastructure could
result in negative impacts to Tribal
communities and negative
environmental impacts, including harm
to wildlife habitats.

Treasury Response: Treasury
understands that many dams and
reservoirs in need of rehabilitation are
dams and reservoirs whose primary
purpose is to provide drinking water. As
discussed above, SLFRF funds are
available for projects related to the
provision of drinking water. Moreover,
since issuance of the interim final rule,
the EPA has adopted a class deviation
from the DWSRF regulations that
permits such dam and reservoir
rehabilitation projects in certain
circumstances.
323 In approving this
class deviation, the EPA recognized that
many dams used for drinking water are
aging and deteriorating and pose a
public health risk to communities; that
current dam conditions do not meet
state safety standards; and that reservoir
capacity has diminished and requires
dredging to meet drinking water needs
of the existing population.

Treasury’s final rule provides that
funds may be used for rehabilitation of
dams and reservoirs if the primary
purpose of the dam or reservoir is for
drinking water supply and the
rehabilitation project is necessary for
continued provision of drinking water
supply. In considering whether a dam or
reservoir project is necessary for the
provision of drinking water supply, a
recipient may take into consideration
future population growth in certain
circumstances, as discussed under
‘‘Expansion of Drinking Water Service
Infrastructure’’ below, but the project
must in any case be designed to support
no more than a reasonable level of
projected increased need. The recipient
must also determine that the project is
cost-effective, i.e., that there are not
significantly superior alternatives that
are available, taking into consideration
the relative costs and benefits of the
project as compared to those
alternatives.

This change to the final rule would
permit a wide variety of projects.
324 The
limitation in the final rule to
rehabilitation of existing dams and
reservoirs reflects the scope of the EPA
class deviation referenced above and
Treasury’s understanding of the
significant need for investments in
rehabilitation to address deterioration of
dams and the diminished capacity of
reservoirs. Further, Treasury expects
that in many cases it would be
considerably more difficult to
demonstrate that construction of a new
dam or reservoir would be necessary for
the purpose of the provision of drinking
water than is the case for rehabilitation
of dams and reservoirs already serving
that purpose for a particular population,
particularly given opportunities to meet
drinking water needs through water
reuse and conversation efforts. For these
reasons, and given that the relatively
short period of availability of the funds
makes new dam and reservoir
construction with these funds less
likely, Treasury has limited the scope of
the final rule to dam and reservoir
rehabilitation projects.

As discussed above, Treasury has
determined that ARPA does not
authorize the use of SLFRF funds for
uses other than the provision of
drinking water and the management of
wastewater and storm water. As such,
the final rule does not include
infrastructure projects related to dams
and reservoirs as eligible uses of SLFRF
funds unless they meet the conditions
discussed above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 325 See 40 CFR 35.3520(e)(5).
326 See Public Law 117–58, 40909(a)–(b) (Nov. 15,
2021).
327 See Public Law 117–58 § 40909(c).

Public Comment: Several commenters
requested that the removal of dams and
associated habitat restoration should be
eligible uses of SLFRF funds, noting that
in some cases, dam removal will
improve water quality while removing
long-term operational expenses for the
recipient.

Treasury Response: Dam removal
projects and associated stream and
habitat restoration projects are eligible
uses of the CWSRF and continue to be
eligible under the final rule when the
removal implements either a nonpoint
source management program plan or a
National Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan or when the removal
will provide a water quality benefit.

Habitat restoration projects more
generally may also be eligible under the
CWSRF and the final rule if they
constitute a form of stormwater
infrastructure.

Expansion of Drinking Water Service
Infrastructure
Public Comment: Commenters asked
for the ability to use funds for drinking
water projects for the purpose of
meeting needs arising from future
growth, which, given the restrictions
applicable to the DWSRF, was not
permitted under the interim final rule.

Treasury Response: As provided for in
the SDWA, the DWSRF is meant to
serve the public health needs of the
existing population. The EPA regulation
implementing the DWSRF program
provides that projects needed primarily
to serve future population growth are
not eligible uses of the DWSRF. A
project that is intended primarily to
address public health or regulatory
compliance issues for the existing
service population may be sized for a
‘‘reasonable’’ amount of population
growth over the useful life of the
project.
325
ARPA does not include the same
limitation as the SDWA. Accordingly,
the final rule provides that recipients
may use SLFRF funds for projects that
are needed to support increased
population in certain cases. ARPA
limits projects to those investments that
are ‘‘necessary.’’ As discussed above,
Treasury interprets this to mean that the
investments must be (1) responsive to
an identified need to achieve or
maintain an adequate minimum level of
service, which for some eligible project
categories may include a reasonable
projection of increased need, whether
due to population growth or otherwise
and (2) a cost-effective means for
meeting that need, taking into account
available alternatives. For this eligible
use category, expansion of drinking
water service infrastructure, the project
must also be projected to be sustainable
over its estimated useful life.

Investments must be determined to be
necessary when they are initiated.

Accordingly, Treasury is clarifying in
the final rule that the need identified for
a water or sewer project may include a
need arising from reasonable
expectations of future population
growth, provided that it is necessary at
the time the investment is initiated for
the recipient to make the investment to
meet this growth. For example, a
recipient expecting increased
population during the period of
performance may install a drinking
water treatment plant to meet that
growth. In addition, a recipient
expecting increased population growth
outside the period of performance may
install the treatment plant if the
planning and construction timeline for
the project would require work to begin
during the performance period in order
to meet the expected population growth.

A recipient may install transmission
lines as part of the development of new
housing occurring during the period of
performance. In this case, the housing
development must be in progress; a
recipient may not use the SLFRF funds
to install a water main, for example, to
an undeveloped tract in the expectation
that in the future that tract will be
developed with housing, because there
would be no need for that investment to
be made at the time it is initiated.

For the reasons discussed above, if a
project is undertaken to address
expected growth in population, the
project must also be sustainable,
meaning that the project can continue
providing the adequate minimum level
of service for its estimated useful life,
taking into account projected impacts of
changes to the climate and other
expected demands on the source of
water. In considering how much of a
source of water will be available in the
future for the drinking water project, a
recipient must consider that a source of
water may be drawn upon or otherwise
used for other current and expected
uses, including use by fish and other
wildlife. A drinking water project that is
designed to address a growing
population cannot be considered a
necessary investment if the source of
drinking water will cease to be available
to meet the population’s needs before
the end of the estimated useful life of
the project. In such a case, a recipient
should consider alternative sources for
drinking water. See ‘‘Interpretation of
Necessary Investments and Water and
Sewer Infrastructure’’ above for more
information.

Non-Federal Matching Requirements for
Authorized Bureau of Reclamation
Projects
The Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act amends sections 602(c) and
603(c) of the Social Security Act to add
an additional eligible use of SLFRF
funds, providing that SLFRF funds
‘‘may be used for purposes of satisfying
any non-Federal matching requirement
required for [an authorized Bureau of
Reclamation project].’’
326
This amendment permits the use of
SLFRF funds to meet non-federal
matching requirements of any
authorized Bureau of Reclamation
project, regardless of whether the
underlying project would be an eligible
use of SLFRF funds under the water and
sewer infrastructure eligible use
category. These amendments are
effective as of March 11, 2021, as if
included in the ARPA at the time of its
enactment.
327 Treasury will provide
further guidance to recipients on the
scope of Bureau of Reclamation water
projects and expenses covered by this
provision.

Floodplain Management and Flood
Mitigation Projects
Public Comment: Several commenters
requested that projects to address
floodwater, including floodplain
management and flood mitigation
projects, be included as an eligible use
of SLFRF funds. Within this category of
floodplain management and flood
mitigation infrastructure, several
commenters requested that the
installation of levees, flood walls, sea
walls, elevation projects, dredging, or
nature-based flood mitigation projects
be included as eligible projects.

Treasury Response: Treasury notes
that some floodplain management and
flood mitigation infrastructure projects,
including green infrastructure designed
to protect treatment works from flood
waters and flood impact are currently
eligible under the CWSRF and therefore
continue to be eligible under the final
rule.

Treasury has not included floodplain
management and flood mitigation
projects more generally as eligible under
the final rule. Although floodplain
management and flood mitigation are
functions of many state and local
governments, they are not the sort of
generally-provided essential services
included within the meaning of water
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4417 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 328 See FAQ 6.8, 6.9, 6.11. Coronavirus State and
Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked
Questions, as of July 19, 2021; https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
329 See FAQ 6.10. Id.
330 See FAQ 6.12. Id.
331 See FAQ 6.16. Id.
332 See FAQ 6.4, 6.17. Id.
and sewer projects under the ARPA, as
discussed above.

Irrigation
Public Comment: Some commenters
requested that irrigation projects be an
eligible use because they consider such
projects to be critical infrastructure.

Several commenters supported this
request by noting that irrigation systems
may be used to replenish aquifers and
recharge wells, in addition to delivering
water for irrigation. One commenter also
noted that the national irrigation system
is antiquated and in need of repair.

Treasury Response: Some irrigation
projects were eligible under the interim
final rule and continue to be eligible
under the final rule as a result of their
inclusion as eligible projects under the
CWSRF. For example, water efficient
irrigation equipment that reduces the
runoff of nutrients and implements a
management program established under
section 319 of the CWA and/or a
conservation and management plan
under section 320 of the CWA are
eligible uses under the CWSRF and
therefore continue to be an eligible use
of SLFRF funds under the final rule.

Likewise, projects to receive and
distribute reclaimed water for irrigation
systems or other agricultural use are
eligible under the CWSRF and therefore
continue to be an eligible use under the
final rule. Unlike projects for the
improvement of irrigation systems
generally, these reclaimed water
projects are related to wastewater
treatment and stormwater management,
which are within the scope of the
meaning of water and sewer
infrastructure for purposes of ARPA.

Treasury considered commenter
requests for inclusion of additional
irrigation infrastructure and determined
that irrigation projects more generally
are not permitted under the final rule.

Although these types of projects may be
water-related infrastructure, they are not
the sort of generally-provided essential
services included within the meaning of
water and sewer projects under ARPA,
as discussed above.

Consumer Incentive Programs
Public Comment: One commenter
requested that consumer incentive
programs in the areas of water use
efficiency, conservation, green
infrastructure, reuse, and other
distributed solutions be an allowable
use of SLFRF.

Treasury Response: The DWSRF and
CWSRF eligibilities include the
development and implementation of
incentive and educational programs that
address and promote water
conservation, source water protection,
and efficiency related to infrastructure
improvements, e.g., incentives such as
rebates to install green infrastructure
such as rain barrels or promote other
water conservation activities. Treasury
clarifies that such project types were
eligible under the interim final rule and
continue to be eligible under the final
rule.

2. Broadband Infrastructure
Under the ARPA, recipient
governments may use SLFRF funds to
make ‘‘necessary investments in . . .
broadband infrastructure.’’ In the
Supplementary Information to the
interim final rule, Treasury interpreted
necessary investments in infrastructure
as investments ‘‘designed to provide an
adequate minimum level of service and
[that] are unlikely to be made using
private sources of funds.’’ Treasury
explained that, with respect to
broadband specifically, such necessary
investments include projects that
‘‘establish [ ] or improve [ ] broadband
service to underserved populations to
reach an adequate level to permit a
household to work or attend school, and
that are unlikely to be met with private
sources of funds.’’
Summary of Interim Final Rule, Public
Comments, and Treasury Response
Summary of Interim Final Rule: In
implementing the ARPA, the interim
final rule provided that eligible
broadband infrastructure investments
are limited to those that are designed to
provide service to unserved or
underserved households or businesses,
defined as those that lack access to a
wireline connection capable of reliably
delivering at least minimum speeds of
25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.

The interim final rule also provided that
eligible projects under the SLFRF are
limited to those that are designed to
deliver, upon project completion,
service that reliably meets or exceeds
symmetrical upload and download
speeds of 100 Mbps. In instances where
it would not be practicable for a project
to deliver such service speeds because
of the geography, topography, or
excessive costs associated with such a
project, the interim final rule provided
that the project would be required to be
designed to deliver, upon project
completion, service that reliably meets
or exceeds 100 Mbps download speed
and between at least 20 Mbps and 100
Mbps upload speeds and be scalable to
a minimum of 100 Mbps symmetrical
for download and upload speeds.

In addition, Treasury, in the
Supplementary Information to the
interim final rule, encouraged recipients
to pursue a number of other objectives.

First, Treasury encouraged recipients to
prioritize investments in fiber-optic
infrastructure wherever feasible and
focus on projects that deliver a physical
broadband connection by prioritizing
projects that achieve last-mile
connections. Second, Treasury
encouraged recipients to integrate
affordability options into their program
design. Third, Treasury encouraged
recipients to prioritize support for local
networks owned, operated, or affiliated
with local governments, nonprofits, and
cooperatives. Fourth, Treasury
encouraged recipients to avoid investing
in locations with existing agreements to
build reliable wireline service with
minimum speeds of 100 Mbps
download and 20 Mbps upload by
December 31, 2024, in order to avoid
duplication of efforts and resources.

Finally, following release of the interim
final rule, Treasury provided further
guidance clarifying some aspects of
broadband infrastructure eligibility,
specifically on flexibility for recipients
to determine eligible areas to be
served,
328 middle-mile projects,329 pre-
project development costs,330
broadband connections to schools or
libraries,
331 and the applicability of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Davis-Bacon Act.
332
Summary of Public Comments:

Treasury received several comments on
the interim final rule’s requirements
regarding eligible areas for investment
and build-to speed standards, as well as
Treasury’s encouragements in the
Supplementary Information of the
interim final rule. Many commenters
found the interim final rule’s
requirement to limit projects to those
designed to provide service to unserved
or underserved households or
businesses to be appropriately focused
on hard-to-reach areas. In contrast, other
commenters argued that this
requirement was too restrictive and that
it would limit the ability for some
recipients, particularly local
governments, to invest in broadband
infrastructure.

Separately, some commenters
supported the interim final rule’s
requirement that eligible projects be
built to reliable speeds of 100 Mbps
symmetrical, with an exception for areas
where it was impracticable, and
encouragement that projects be built
with fiber-optic infrastructure, while a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4418 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 333 See FAQ 6.10. Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked
Questions, as of July 19, 2021; https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
334 See FAQ 6.12. Id.
335 See FAQ 6.16. Id.
336 See FAQ 6.4, 6.17. Id.
337 In the remainder of this Supplementary
Information, ‘‘25/3 Mbps’’ refers to broadband
infrastructure that is designed to reliably meet or
exceed at least 25 Mbps download speeds and 3
few others argued that the interim final
rule should remain technology-neutral
and that lower speed standards would
be more appropriate for today’s usage
needs.

Summary of Treasury Response: In
response to the comments, the final rule
expands eligible areas for investment by
requiring recipients to invest in projects
designed to provide service to
households and businesses with an
identified need for additional
broadband infrastructure investment,
which would include but not be limited
to a lack of broadband service reliably
delivering certain speeds. In addition, as
discussed further below, the final rule
further supports the expansion of
affordable access to broadband service
for households by requiring that
recipients use a provider that
participates in a qualifying affordability
plan. Treasury encourages recipients to
prioritize projects that are designed to
provide service to locations not
currently served by a wireline
connection that reliably delivers at least
100 Mbps of download speed and 20
Mbps of upload speed.

The final rule maintains the interim
final rule’s requirement that eligible
projects be designed to, upon
completion, reliably meet or exceed
symmetrical 100 Mbps download and
upload speeds. As was the case under
the interim final rule, in cases where it
is not practicable, because of the
excessive cost of the project or
geography or topography of the area to
be served by the project, eligible
projects may be designed to reliably
meet or exceed 100 Mbps download
speed and between at least 20 Mbps and
100 Mbps upload speed and be scalable
to a minimum of 100 Mbps download
speed and 100 Mbps upload speed.

Treasury continues to encourage
recipients to prioritize investments in
fiber-optic infrastructure wherever
feasible and to focus on projects that
will achieve last-mile connections,
whether by focusing directly on funding
last-mile projects or by ensuring that
funded middle-mile projects have
commitments in place to support new
and/or improved last-mile service.

The final rule requires recipients to
address the affordability needs of low-
income consumers in accessing
broadband networks funded by SLFRF,
given that such a project cannot be
considered a necessary investment in
broadband infrastructure if it is not
affordable to the population the project
would serve. Recipients must require
the service provider for a completed
broadband infrastructure investment
project that provides service to
households to either participate in the
Federal Communications Commission’s
(FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP), or otherwise provide access to a
broad-based affordability program to
low-income consumers in the proposed
service area of the broadband
infrastructure that provides benefits to
households commensurate with those
provided under the ACP.

Treasury also recognizes the
importance of affordable broadband
access for all consumers beyond those
that are low-income. As part of their
project selection process, recipients are
encouraged to consult with the
community on the general affordability
needs of the target markets in the
proposed service area. Additionally,
recipients are encouraged to require that
services provided by a broadband
infrastructure project include at least
one low-cost option offered without
data usage caps and at speeds that are
sufficient for a household with multiple
users to simultaneously telework and
engage in remote learning. Recipients
will be required to report speed, pricing,
and any data allowance information as
part of mandatory reporting to Treasury.

The final rule also clarifies that
subsidies to households and
communities impacted by the pandemic
to access the internet, broadband
adoption programs, digital literacy
programs, and device programs are
eligible programs to respond to the
public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic under sections
602(c)(1)(A) and 603(c)(1)(A). See
section Assistance to Households in
Negative Economic Impacts.

Treasury continues to encourage
recipients to prioritize support for
broadband networks owned, operated
by, or affiliated with local governments,
nonprofits, and cooperatives. In
addition, to the extent recipients are
considering deploying broadband to
locations where there are existing
enforceable federal or state funding
commitments for reliable service at
speeds of at least 100 Mbps download
speed and 20 Mbps upload speed,
recipients must ensure that SLFRF
funds are designed to address an
identified need for additional
broadband investment that is not met by
existing federal or state funding
commitments. Recipients must also
ensure that SLFRF funds will not be
used for costs that will be reimbursed by
the other federal or state funding
streams. Further, Treasury highlights
that recipients are subject to the
prohibition on use of grant funds to
procure or obtain certain
telecommunications and video
surveillance services or equipment as
outlined in 2 CFR 200.216 and 2 CFR
200.471 and clarifies that modernization
of cybersecurity for existing and new
broadband networks are eligible uses of
funds under sections 602(c)(1)(D) and
603(c)(1)(D).

Finally, this Supplementary
Information to the final rule
incorporates and confirms guidance
issued by Treasury following the
interim final rule regarding middle-mile
projects,
333 pre-project development
costs,334 broadband connections to
schools or libraries,335 and applicability
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and Davis-Bacon Act.
336
The remainder of this section
provides additional details on the final
rule. Specifically, these sections
address: (1) Eligible areas for
investment; (2) build-to speed
standards; (3) affordability; (4) public
networks; (5) duplication of efforts and
resources; (6) cybersecurity; and (7) use
of funds to meet non-federal match
under the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act.

Eligible Areas for Investment
The interim final rule limited eligible
broadband investments to projects
focused on delivering service to
unserved or underserved locations,
defined as households or businesses
that lack access to a wireline connection
capable of reliably delivering at least
minimum speeds of 25 Mbps download
and 3 Mbps upload. This targeted
approach was generally consistent with
certain speed thresholds used in other
federal programs to identify eligible
areas for federal investment in
broadband infrastructure, such as the
FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(RDOF) program and the National
Telecommunication and Information
Administration’s (NTIA’s) Broadband
Infrastructure Program, and generally
aligns with the FCC’s benchmark for an
‘‘advanced telecommunications
capability’’ for wireline broadband
services.

Public Comment: Many commenters
discussed the disadvantages of such an
approach. Some commenters, including
several local government recipients,
argued that limiting investments to
locations without access to reliable
wireline 25/3 Mbps
337 was too
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4419 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations Mbps upload speeds. ‘‘100 Mbps’’ symmetrical
refers to broadband infrastructure that is designed
to reliably meet or exceed at least 100 Mbps
download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds.
338 See FAQ 6.11. Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked
Questions, as of July 19, 2021; https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
339 Legacy technologies such as copper telephone
lines (typically using Digital Subscriber Line
technology) and early versions of cable system
technology (DOCSIS 2.0 or earlier) typically lag on
speeds, latency, and other factors, as compared to
more modern technologies like fiber-optic. See, e.g.,
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/tech_
transitions_network_upgrades_that_may_affect_
your_service.pdf (comparing copper to fiber and
noting that copper wire networks have ‘‘limited
speeds,’’ are ‘‘susceptible to signal interference/
loss,’’ and have a ‘‘relatively short life’’); https:// Continued
restrictive because some urban
jurisdictions are already mostly or
entirely covered by a network with at
least 25/3 Mbps speeds yet lack
widespread broadband adoption for
various reasons. Commenters suggested
that recipients would benefit from
greater flexibility to provide necessary
investments in broadband access in
areas that are nominally covered by
speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps, such as to
provide affordable broadband access in
low-income areas or to address service
quality and reliability issues. Further,
commenters argued that Treasury’s
requirement that new projects meet
minimum reliable speeds of 100 Mbps
symmetrical was inconsistent with the
requirement that broadband
infrastructure projects focus on those
with access to significantly lower
speeds, and further noted that several
states have already expanded the focus
of their broadband programs beyond
those without reliable access to speeds
of 25/3 Mbps. Commenters argued that
if the limitation to unserved and
underserved households and businesses
were maintained, the definition of
unserved and underserved households
and businesses should be revised to
include households and businesses
currently served by higher standards.

Commenters proposed a number of
alternative cutoff speeds, including 25/
25 Mbps, 50/10 Mbps, and 100 Mbps
symmetrical. Others expressed support
for providing flexibility for recipients to
make their own determination on
eligible areas for investment. These
commenters referenced studies
indicating that 25/3 Mbps is inadequate
for today’s modern household or
business needs.

Some commenters advocated for
unserved and underserved areas to be
prioritized while providing flexibility
for recipients to serve areas beyond
those designated as unserved or
underserved. Reflecting the perceived
restrictiveness of the interim final rule
approach, some commenters asked for
assurance that projects conducted under
other categories of SLFRF eligible uses,
specifically to respond to the public
health and negative economic impacts
of the pandemic under sections
602(c)(1)(A)–(C) and 603(c)(1)(A)–(C),
were not barred by the presence of 25/
3 Mbps service, including ‘‘gap
networks,’’ which are networks
designed to offer low-cost or no-cost
internet access for lower-income
households with low broadband
adoption rates.

Commenters suggested additional
factors to be incorporated in the
consideration of locations that are
eligible to be served. Many commenters
suggested that affordability should be
considered a key factor when
determining whether a community has
access to broadband, as the presence of
25/3 Mbps service does not necessarily
mean the service is financially
accessible to the area’s residents.

Commenters noted that surveys indicate
that affordability, not lack of coverage,
is the most significant barrier for most
Americans who do not have robust
broadband service in their households.

Some advocated that the final rule allow
for investments in areas with existing
reliable wireline access at or above
25/3 Mbps as long as existing broadband
service has been unaffordable for a
certain segment of the population;
others advocated that Treasury presume
eligibility when investments are made
in certain areas, such as Qualified
Census Tracts or neighborhoods with
persistent poverty, or are made by Tribal
governments. Separately, some
commenters noted that Treasury should
provide more clarification on what
constitutes a ‘‘reliabl[e]’’ connection,
including providing details as to
latency, jitter, and other technical
specifications that would meet that
standard, and what it means for certain
technologies, such as copper and other
outdated technologies, to be deemed
presumptively unreliable.

Other commenters supported the
interim final rule’s approach on eligible
areas for investment or suggested
tightening eligibility even further. They
argued that higher speed thresholds
beyond 25/3 Mbps would likely lead to
investments in or building of new
broadband infrastructure in areas
already served by broadband at speeds
these commenters considered sufficient;
these areas, commenters suggested, are
less in need of federal assistance and
permitting investments here could
divert funding away from rural areas to
more densely populated areas.

Treasury Response: The final rule
expands eligible areas for investment by
requiring recipients to invest in projects
designed to provide service to
households and businesses with an
identified need for additional
broadband infrastructure investment.

Recipients have flexibility to identify a
need for additional broadband
infrastructure investment: Examples of
need include lack of access to a
connection that reliably meets or
exceeds symmetrical 100 Mbps
download and upload speeds, lack of
affordable access to broadband service,
or lack of reliable broadband service.

Recipients are encouraged to prioritize
projects that are designed to provide
service to locations not currently served
by a wireline connection that reliably
delivers at least 100 Mbps of download
speed and 20 Mbps of upload speed, as
many commenters indicated that those
without such service constitute hard-to-
reach areas in need of subsidized
broadband deployment.

Households and businesses with an
identified need for additional
broadband infrastructure investment do
not have to be the only ones in the
service area served by an eligible
broadband infrastructure project.

Indeed, serving these households and
businesses may require a holistic
approach that provides service to a
wider area, for example, in order to
make ongoing service of certain
households or businesses within the
service area economical.

Consistent with further guidance
issued by Treasury,
338 in determining
areas for investment, recipients may
choose to consider any available data,
including but not limited to
documentation of existing broadband
internet service performance, federal
and/or state collected broadband data,
user speed test results, interviews with
community members and business
owners, reports from community
organizations, and any other
information they deem relevant.

In evaluating such data, recipients
may take into account a variety of
factors, including whether users
actually receive internet service at or
above the speed thresholds at all hours
of the day, whether factors other than
speed such as latency, jitter, or
deterioration of the existing connections
make their user experience unreliable,
and whether the existing service is
being delivered by legacy technologies,
such as copper telephone lines
(typically using Digital Subscriber Line
technology) or early versions of cable
system technology (DOCSIS 2.0 or
earlier),
339 and other factors related to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4420 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-
america/2020/2020-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-
America-Report.pdf (comparing fiber with DSL and
cable technologies on a number of dimensions);
https://www.eff.org/wp/case-fiber-home-today-why-
fiber-superior-medium-21st-century-broadband
(providing a technical background comparing fiber
technology to other legacy technologies).
340 Using the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) Broadband Speed Guide, a
household with two telecommuters and two to
three remote learners today is estimated to need 100
Mbps download to work simultaneously. See
Federal Communications Commission, Broadband
Speed Guide, available at https://www.fcc.gov/
consumers/guides/broadband-speed-guide (last
visited October 28, 2021).
341 United States’ Mobile and Broadband Internet
Speeds—Speedtest Global Index, available at
https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-
states#fixed.
342 Bennett Cyphers, The Case for Fiber to the
Home, Today: Why Fiber is a Superior Medium for
21st Century Broadband, Electronic Frontier
Foundation (October 16, 2019), https://www.eff.org/
wp/case-fiber-home-today-why-fiber-superior-
medium-21st-century-broadband.
343 See FAQ 6.10, Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked
Questions, as of July 19, 2021; https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
the services to be provided by the
project. In addition, recipients may
consider the actual experience of
current broadband customers when
making their determinations; whether
there is a provider serving the area that
advertises or otherwise claims to offer
broadband at a given speed is not
dispositive.

Build-To Speed Standards
The interim final rule provided that a
recipient may use funds to make
investments in broadband infrastructure
that is designed to, upon completion,
reliably meet or exceed symmetrical 100
Mbps download and upload speeds. In
cases where it is not practicable,
because of the excessive cost of the
project or the geography or topography
of the area to be served by the project,
eligible projects may be designed to
reliably meet or exceed 100 Mbps
download speed and between at least 20
Mbps and 100 Mbps upload speed, so
long as it is scalable to a minimum of
100 Mbps download speed and 100
Mbps upload speed. Relatedly, Treasury
in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to
the interim final rule encouraged
recipients to prioritize investments in
fiber-optic infrastructure wherever
feasible and to prioritize projects that
achieve last-mile connections.

Public Comment: Many commenters
discussed the advantages of setting
minimum symmetrical download and
upload speeds of reliable 100 Mbps as
the speed threshold for new projects.

Some commenters indicated support for
the interim final rule’s standard as it
takes into account growing demands on
internet use resulting from pandemic
broadband usage and suggested that
such a standard will help to ensure that
networks built with SLFRF funds
remain valuable for years to come, even
as demands continue to accelerate,
particularly on upload speeds. Some
also indicated that the interim final rule
standard has the effect of prioritizing
the use of fiber-optic infrastructure to
deliver such speeds, which some noted
was a ‘‘gold standard’’ future-proof
technology, although some commenters
noted that other technologies like fixed
wireless have been shown to deliver
such speeds in certain circumstances.

Other commenters suggested that 100
Mbps symmetrical speeds were
unnecessary given current broadband
usage needs and that such high
standards may have the potential to
slow down expansion to unserved or
underserved rural areas. Some argued
that setting this symmetrical threshold
may limit the type of technologies that
can be used, thereby decreasing
competition and limiting flexibility to
recipients whose communities might be
better served by technologies such as
wireless solutions or inexpensive gap
networks. Commenters suggested
alternate minimum speeds, ranging from
25/3 Mbps (which some argued best
balances reaching all communities and
maximizing the impact of federal funds)
to 100/20 Mbps (which some argued
best serves the typical broadband usage
patterns of households and businesses,
including new pandemic-driven needs).

A few commenters suggested a higher
minimum speed, such as gigabit speeds,
advocating that such speeds were
necessary for a network to last at least
a decade.

Many commenters supported the
interim final rule’s lower speed
standards for projects where it is
impracticable to meet minimum reliable
speeds of 100 Mbps symmetrical, as it
provides flexibility for recipients to
invest in hard-to-reach areas, such as
those in mountainous regions. A few
commenters indicated that Treasury
should more clearly define the
characteristics of a location eligible for
this exception. Some indicated that the
minimum standard for all new projects
should be 100 Mbps symmetrical. In
contrast, others argued that scalability to
100 Mbps symmetrical should not be a
requirement to meet today’s demands,
particularly in hard-to-reach areas.

Some commenters requested that
Treasury clarify eligibility for middle-
mile projects as these projects
potentially provide connectivity to far-
reaching areas, while other commenters
suggested that last-mile projects
generally require more capital
investment and are therefore most in
need of government support.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains the interim final rule’s
requirement that eligible projects be
designed to, upon completion, reliably
meet or exceed symmetrical 100 Mbps
download and upload speeds, with the
interim final rule’s exception for
projects where it is impracticable to
build to such speeds due to excessive
cost, geography, or topography of the
area to be served by the project. Given
the build time associated with
broadband infrastructure projects, these
standards will enable SLFRF funds to
fund lasting infrastructure that will be
able to accommodate increased network
demand once the network is
complete,
340 while providing flexibility
for certain locations to meet lower speed
standards where 100 Mbps symmetrical
speeds are impracticable.

To illustrate the accelerating need for
higher upload speeds, by one measure,
mean upload speeds as of October 2021
increased to 75.21 Mbps as compared to

62.11 Mbps a year earlier.
341
Jurisdictions are increasingly
responding to the growing demands of
their communities for high speeds; for
example, Illinois requires 100 Mbps
symmetrical service as the construction
standard for their state broadband grant
programs. The 100 Mbps symmetrical
standard accounts for increased
pandemic internet usage and provides
adequate upload speeds for individuals
and businesses to accommodate
interactive applications such as virtual
learning and videoconferencing, while
also helping ensure that funding is
responsibly used to provide a true and
lasting benefit for years to come.

Treasury continues to encourage
recipients to prioritize investments in
fiber-optic infrastructure wherever
feasible, as such advanced technology
enables the next generation of
application solutions for all
communities and is capable of
delivering superior, reliable
performance and is generally most
efficiently scalable to meet future
needs.
342 In designing these projects,
recipients should ensure that the
broadband infrastructure provides
‘‘reliable’’ service at required speeds
and are not required to rely on
providers’ advertised speeds in their
assessments.

Consistent with further guidance
issued by Treasury,
343 while recipients
are permitted to make investments in
‘‘middle-mile’’ connections that
otherwise satisfy the requirements of the
final rule, Treasury continues to
encourage recipients to focus on
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4421 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 344 The Executive Office of the President,
Community-Based Broadband Solutions (January
2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/
default/files/docs/community-based_broadband_
report_by_executive_office_of_the_president.pdf.
projects that will achieve last-mile
connections—whether by focusing
directly on funding last-mile projects or
by ensuring that funded middle-mile
projects have commitments in place to
support new and/or improved last-mile
service.

Affordability
The interim final rule encouraged
recipients to consider ways to integrate
affordability options into their program
design but did not require recipients to
take particular actions. The interim final
rule also provided that assisting
households with internet access and
digital literacy is an eligible use of
SLFRF funds under sections
602(c)(1)(A) and 603(c)(1)(A) to respond
to the negative economic impacts of
COVID–19.

Public Comment: Many commenters
suggested that Treasury provide
recipients with a broader set of tools to
tackle what the commenters
characterized as an affordability crisis in
the broadband sector. As noted above,
some commenters proposed that
Treasury consider affordability when
determining whether an area is
unserved or underserved by broadband.

Some commenters indicated that the
final rule should allow for the
construction of broadband networks in
low-income neighborhoods including
low-cost or no-cost gap networks, even
in areas with existing service at the
speeds required under the interim final
rule. Other commenters voiced support
for direct subsidies to low-income
communities to afford broadband
service, which would provide
additional incentives for providers to
serve these communities.

Treasury Response: In response to
many commenters that highlighted the
importance of affordability in providing
meaningful access to necessary
broadband infrastructure, the final rule
provides additional requirements to
address the affordability needs of low-
income consumers in accessing
broadband networks funded by SLFRF.

Recipients must require the service
provider for a completed broadband
infrastructure investment project that
provides service to households to:
• Participate in the Federal
Communications Commission’s (FCC)
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP);
or
• Otherwise provide access to a
broad-based affordability program to
low-income consumers in the proposed
service area of the broadband
infrastructure that provides benefits to
households commensurate with those
provided under the ACP.

Recipients must require providers to
participate in or provide access to these
programs through the life of the ACP.

This requirement will no longer apply
once the SLFRF-funded broadband
infrastructure is no longer in use.

Furthermore, Treasury also recognizes
the importance of affordable broadband
access for all consumers beyond those
that are low income. As part of their
project selection process, recipients are
encouraged to consult with the
community on the general affordability
needs of the target markets in the
proposed service area. Additionally,
recipients are encouraged to require that
services provided by a broadband
infrastructure project include at least
one low-cost option offered without
data usage caps at speeds that are
sufficient for a household with multiple
users to simultaneously telework and
engage in remote learning. Treasury will
require recipients to report speed,
pricing, and any data allowance
information as part of their mandatory
reporting to Treasury.

Further, Treasury is clarifying that, as
a response to the public health and
negative economic impacts of the
pandemic, recipients may provide
households and communities impacted
by the pandemic with subsidies to help
pay for internet service, digital literacy
programs, broadband adoption
programs, and device programs that
provide discounted or no-cost devices
for low-income households to access the
internet. For further discussion of this
eligible use category, see the section
internet Assistance in Assistance to
Households in Public Health and
Negative Economic Impacts.

Public Networks
The interim final rule encouraged
recipients to prioritize support for local
networks owned, operated, or affiliated
with local governments, nonprofits, and
cooperatives.

Public Comment: Many commenters
voiced their support for Treasury’s
encouragement that recipients work
with governmental or community
entities to establish local networks,
arguing that they have been shown to
effectively provide broadband access to
areas that would otherwise be left with
unaffordable or insufficient service.

These commenters suggested that, since
these entities are less driven by
financial returns to investment than
private providers, in some
circumstances they may be able to
provide robust service at a lower price
as compared to private providers, along
with potentially increasing local
competition in a service area.

Other commenters argued against
Treasury’s encouragement, remarking
that private businesses have a robust
track record of serving hard-to-reach
customers. These commenters argued
that commercial providers have greater
technical and operational expertise in
deploying and operating broadband
networks and may be able to construct
broadband networks with greater
efficiency. Additionally, some
commenters argued that providing what
they considered an unfair competitive
advantage for government- or
community-owned or operated
networks may hurt consumers over
time.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains the interim final rule’s
encouragement for recipients to
prioritize support for broadband
networks owned, operated by, or
affiliated with local governments,
nonprofits, and cooperatives, given that
these networks have less pressure to
generate profits and a commitment to
serve entire communities.
344 This
encouragement provides flexibility for
recipients to select providers that best
fit their needs, while noting the critical
role that networks owned, operated, or
affiliated with local governments and
community organizations can play in
providing sufficient coverage, affordable
access, or increased competition in the
broadband sector.

Duplication of Efforts and Resources
Public Comment: Some commenters
raised concerns that Treasury’s
encouragement in the interim final rule
that recipients avoid funding projects in
locations with an existing agreement to
provide service that reliably delivers
100/20 Mbps by December 31, 2024 was
too restrictive. Commenters noted that
many plans do not always lead to a
successful and complete deployment, as
issues may arise that prevent such
infrastructure from deploying on time or
at all, and that several existing federal
grants were designed and awarded
before the onset of the COVID–19
pandemic and do not meet the critical
broadband needs highlighted by the
pandemic. Other commenters argued
that Treasury’s encouragement to avoid
duplication of resources should be
strengthened, as investing in areas with
existing agreements would be an
inefficient duplication of efforts.

Treasury Response: Given the final
rule’s revised requirements on eligible
areas for investment, this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 345 For more on the importance of cybersecurity
to the reliability and resiliency of broadband
networks, see: Federal Communications
Commission, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-10-63A1.doc; Brookings Institute,
Protecting the Cybersecurity of America’s Networks
(February 11, 2021), https://www.brookings.edu/
blog/techtank/2021/02/11/protecting-the-
cybersecurity-of-americas-networks/.
346 See Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117–58 (2021).

Supplementary Information to the final
rule also modifies the interim final
rule’s requirements around duplication
of resources. Since recipients must
ensure that the objective of the
broadband projects is to serve locations
with an identified need for additional
broadband investment, the final rule
provides that, to the extent recipients
are considering deploying broadband to
locations where there are existing
enforceable federal or state funding
commitments for reliable service at
speeds of at least 100 Mbps download
speed and 20 Mbps upload speed,
recipients must ensure that SLFRF
funds are designed to address an
identified need for additional
broadband investment that is not met by
existing federal or state funding
commitments. Recipients must also
ensure that SLFRF funds will not be
used for costs that will be reimbursed by
the other federal or state funding
streams.

Cybersecurity
Public Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about the
cybersecurity of new broadband projects
funded with SLFRF funds and urged
Treasury to prohibit recipients from
utilizing SLFRF funds to procure
equipment from certain providers from
the People’s Republic of China that may
pose a national security risk. These
commenters pointed out that the 2019
National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) and the FCC’s Universal
Service Fund have similar prohibitions.

Further, several commenters requested
that Treasury explicitly include
cybersecurity costs as an eligible use for
broadband infrastructure investment
given the growing threat of cyber-attacks
and cyber-intrusions into the nation’s
infrastructure.

Treasury Response: Treasury
highlights that investments in
broadband infrastructure must be
carried out in ways that comply with
applicable federal laws, including the
2019 NDAA. Among other requirements
contained in 2 CFR part 200, 2 CFR
200.216 implements certain provisions
of the NDAA and contains prohibitions
on the use of federal financial assistance
to procure or obtain certain
telecommunications and video
surveillance services or equipment
provided or produced by designated
entities, including certain entities
owned or controlled by the People’s
Republic of China. In addition, 2 CFR
200.471 provides that certain
telecommunications and video
surveillance costs associated with 2 CFR
200.216 are unallowable.

Further, the final rule allows for
modernization of cybersecurity for
existing and new broadband
infrastructure as an eligible use under
sections 602(c)(1)(D) and 603(c)(1)(D) as
such investments are necessary for the
reliability and resiliency of broadband
infrastructure.
345 Recipients may
provide necessary investments in
cybersecurity, including modernization
of hardware and software, for existing
and new broadband infrastructure
regardless of their speed delivery
standards. The final rule maintains the
interim final rule’s provision that allows
for broader modernization of
cybersecurity, including hardware,
software, and protection of critical
infrastructure as an eligible provision of
government services, to the extent of
revenue loss due to the pandemic,
under sections 602(c)(1)(C) and
603(c)(1)(C).

Use of Funds To Meet Non-Federal
Match Under the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act
The Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act specifies that, except as
otherwise provided, an entity using
funding under section 60102 of the law
for broadband deployment ‘‘shall
provide, or require a subgrantee to
provide, a contribution, derived from
non-Federal funds (or funds from a
Federal regional commission or
authority) . . . of not less than 25
percent of project costs.’’
346 It further
states that the matching contribution
may include funds provided to an
eligible entity or subgrantee under the
American Rescue Plan Act for the
purpose of deployment of broadband
service, which includes funds provided
under the SLFRF program.

SLFRF and the program established
under section 60102 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
are separate programs with separate
requirements. While section 60102
allows states and other eligible entities
to use SLFRF funds as the source of
matching funds for broadband
deployment, the requirements of the
SLFRF program still apply. As such,
recipients that use SLFRF funds to meet
the section 60102 matching requirement
will continue to be subject to the
requirements of the SLFRF program.

III. Restrictions on Use
While recipients have considerable
flexibility to use funds to address the
diverse needs of their communities,
some restrictions on use of funds apply.

The ARPA includes two statutory
provisions that further define the
boundaries of the statute’s eligible uses.

First, section 602(c)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act provides that states and
territories may not ‘‘use the funds . . .
to either directly or indirectly offset a
reduction in . . . net tax revenue . . .
resulting from a change in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation during the covered period
that reduces any tax . . . or delays the
imposition of any tax or tax increase.’’
Second, sections 602(c)(2)(B) and
603(c)(2) prohibit all recipients, except
Tribal governments, from using funds
for deposit into any pension fund. These
restrictions support use of funds only
for the congressionally permitted
purposes described in the Eligible Uses
section by providing a backstop against
the use of funds for purposes outside of
the eligible use categories provided for
in the statute.

In addition to the restrictions on use
of funds provided for in the ARPA
statute, the interim final rule noted that
several uses of funds would be
ineligible under any eligible use
category, including as a response to the
public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic or as a
‘‘government service’’ under the
revenue loss eligible use category.

Specifically, use of funds for debt
service, to replenish financial reserves,
or to satisfy an obligation arising from
a judicial settlement or judgment were
ineligible uses of funds under the
eligible use categories for public health
and negative economic impacts and
revenue loss. These restrictions apply to
all recipients.

Recipients should note that
restrictions on use of funds for debt
service, to replenish financial reserves,
or to satisfy an obligation arising from
a judicial settlement or judgment apply
to all eligible use categories, not just the
eligible use categories in which they
were discussed in the interim final rule.

Recipients are also subject to other
restrictions on use of funds in the
ARPA, the Award Terms and
Conditions, and other federal laws. As
discussed further below, uses of funds
may not conflict with the overall
statutory purpose of the ARPA to reduce
the spread of COVID–19. Per the Award
Terms and Conditions, recipients must
adopt and abide by policies to prevent
conflicts of interest. Finally, recipients
are reminded that other federal laws
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4423 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 347 In this sub-section, ‘‘recipient governments’’
refers only to states and territories. In other
sections, ‘‘recipient governments’’ refers more
broadly to eligible governments receiving funding
from the SLFRF.
348 For brevity, this phrase is referred to as
‘‘changes in law, regulation, or interpretation’’ for
the remainder of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
also apply to uses of funds, including
environmental and civil rights laws.

To enhance clarity, this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the
final rule consolidates these restrictions
on use of funds into one section and
makes clear that they apply to all
eligible use categories and any use of
funds under the program by recipients
to whom each specific restriction
applies.

This section discusses the
aforementioned restrictions, public
comments received, and Treasury’s
response to these comments. For clarity,
Treasury has divided the following
discussion into (A) statutory restrictions
under the ARPA, which include (1)
offsetting a reduction in net tax revenue,
and (2) deposits into pension funds, and
(B) other restrictions on use, which
include (1) debt service and
replenishing reserves, (2) settlements
and judgments, and (3) general
restrictions.

A. Ineligible Uses of Funds Under the
ARPA Statute

1. Offset a Reduction in Net Tax
Revenue
For states and territories (recipient
governments
347), section 602(c)(2)(A)—
the offset provision—prohibits the use
of SLFRF funds to directly or indirectly
offset a reduction in net tax revenue
resulting from a change in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation
348 during the covered
period. If a state or territory uses SLFRF
funds to offset a reduction in net tax
revenue resulting from a change in law,
regulation, or interpretation, the ARPA
provides that the state or territory must
repay to Treasury an amount equal to
the lesser of (i) the amount of the
applicable reduction attributable to the
impermissible offset and (ii) the amount
of SLFRF funds received by the state or
territory. A state or territory that uses
SLFRF funds to offset a reduction in net
tax revenue does not forfeit its entire
allocation of SLFRF funds (unless it
misused the full allocation to offset a
reduction in net tax revenue) or any
non-SLFRF funding.

The interim final rule implements
these conditions by establishing a
framework for states and territories to
determine the cost of changes in law,
regulation, or interpretation that reduce
tax revenue and to identify and value
the sources of funds that will offset—
i.e., cover the cost of—any reduction in
net tax revenue resulting from such
changes. The interim final rule
recognizes three sources of funds that
may offset a reduction in net tax
revenue other than SLFRF funds:

Organic revenue growth, increases in
revenue due to policy changes (e.g., an
increase in a tax rate), and certain cuts
in spending.

Specifically, the interim final rule
establishes a step-by-step process for
determining whether, and the extent to
which, SLFRF funds have been used to
offset a reduction in net tax revenue,
based on information reported by the
recipient government:
• First, each year, each recipient
government will identify and value the
changes in law, regulation, or
interpretation that would result in a
reduction in net tax revenue, as it would
in the ordinary course of its budgeting
process. The sum of these values in the
year for which the government is
reporting is the amount it needs to ‘‘pay
for’’ with sources other than SLFRF
funds (total value of revenue reducing
changes).
• Second, the interim final rule
recognizes that it may be difficult to
predict how a change would affect net
tax revenue in future years and,
accordingly, provides that if the total
value of the changes in the year for
which the recipient government is
reporting is below a de minimis level,
as discussed below, the recipient
government need not identify any
sources of funding to pay for revenue
reducing changes and will not be
subject to recoupment.
• Third, a recipient government will
consider the amount of actual tax
revenue recorded in the year for which
it is reporting. If the recipient
government’s actual tax revenue is
greater than the amount of tax revenue
received by the recipient for the fiscal
year ending 2019, adjusted annually for
inflation, the recipient government will
not be considered to have violated the
offset provision because there will not
have been a reduction in net tax
revenue.
• Fourth, if the recipient
government’s actual tax revenue is less
than the amount of tax revenue received
by the recipient government for the
fiscal year ending 2019, adjusted
annually for inflation, in the reporting
year the recipient government will
identify any sources of funds that have
been used to permissibly offset the total
value of covered tax changes other than
SLFRF funds. These are:

Æ State or territory tax changes that
would increase any source of general
fund revenue, such as a change that
would increase a tax rate; and
Æ Spending cuts in areas not being
replaced by SLFRF funds.

The recipient government will
calculate the value of revenue reduction
remaining after applying these sources
of offsetting funding to the total value of
revenue reducing changes—that is, how
much of the tax change has not been
paid for. The recipient government will
then compare that value to the
difference between the baseline and
actual tax revenue. A recipient
government will not be required to
repay to Treasury an amount that is
greater than the recipient government’s
actual tax revenue shortfall relative to
the baseline (i.e., fiscal year 2019 tax
revenue adjusted for inflation). This
‘‘revenue reduction cap,’’ together with
Step 3, ensures that recipient
governments can use organic revenue
growth to offset the cost of revenue
reductions.
• Finally, if there are any amounts
that could be subject to recoupment,
Treasury will provide notice to the
recipient government of such amounts
along with an explanation of such
amounts. This process is discussed in
greater detail in section Remediation
and Recoupment of this Supplementary
Information.

Together, these steps allow Treasury
to identify the amount of reduction in
net tax revenue that both is attributable
to covered changes and has been
directly or indirectly offset with SLFRF
funds.

Overview of Comments: Many
commenters supported the framework
established under the interim final rule.

These commenters argued that the offset
provision, and the interim final rule’s
implementation of the offset provision,
was essential to ensuring SLFRF funds
are used in a manner consistent with the
statute’s defined eligible uses and, in
particular, to support the use of SLFRF
funds to build public sector capacity.

Several commenters argued that the
framework should be made more
restrictive; for example, some comments
advocated that the offset provision be
applied to local governments.

Other commenters argued that the
offset provision and the interim final
rule’s implementation of the offset
provision is too restrictive, with some
asserting that the offset provision
prohibits states from making changes to
reduce taxes. Many of these commenters
argued that the offset provision presents
constitutional concerns. These
commenters asserted that the offset
provision is ambiguous and the
restriction is unrelated to the purpose of
the ARPA. These commenters also
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4424 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 349 See, e.g., State of West Virginia v. U.S.

Department of the Treasury, No. 7:21–cv–00465–
LSC, 2021 WL 2952863 (N.D. Ala. Jul. 14, 2021);
State of Ohio v. Yellen, No. 1:21–cv–181, 2021 WL
2712220 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 1, 2021).
350 National Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
(NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 580 (2012) (plurality opinion);
see, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206–
208 (1987); Gruver v. Louisiana Bd. of Supervisors
for Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 959
F.3d 178, 183 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 901
(2020). For additional discussion of these issues,
see, e.g., Brief Reply for Appellants, Ohio v. Yellen,
No. 21–3787 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021).
351 Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 608
(2004).
352 The new federal funds offered by the
Affordable Care Act totaled $100 billion per year.

Even the dissenting Justices agreed that ‘‘Congress
could have made just the new funding provided
under the ACA contingent on acceptance of the
terms of the Medicaid Expansion,’’ although they
disagreed with the majority about whether that
funding condition was severable. NFIB at 687–688
(joint dissent).
353 For example, a state law that sets its earned
income tax credit (EITC) at a fixed percentage of the
federal EITC will see its EITC payments
automatically increase—and thus its tax revenue
reduced—because of the federal government’s
expansion of the EITC in the ARPA See, e.g., Tax
argued that the generous amount of
SLFRF funds provided to those
governments gave recipient
governments little choice as to whether
to accept the SLFRF funds and, as a
result, the offset provision is coercive.

In describing these concerns and
arguments, several of these commenters
referenced litigation regarding the offset
provision.
349 Many of these commenters
also expressed concern regarding the
interim final rule’s implementation of
the offset provision. Some of these
commenters argued that Treasury lacked
the authority to implement the
provision, asserting that the significance
of the provision required Congress to
make an explicit delegation of
rulemaking authority and provide
clearer principles by which Treasury
should implement the provision.

Finally, one commenter argued that the
offset provision should only apply if the
recipient expressly and intentionally
uses SLFRF funds to offset a reduction
in revenue, arguing that the term
‘‘offset’’ implies a deliberate use SLFRF
funds to ‘‘pay for’’ a tax cut.

As discussed in the interim final rule,
the offset provision does not prevent a
recipient government from enacting a
broad variety of tax changes. Rather, the
offset provision prevents a recipient
government from using SLFRF funds to
offset a revenue reduction resulting
from a tax cut. A recipient government
would only be considered to have used
SLFRF funds to offset a reduction in net
tax revenue resulting from changes in
law, regulation, or interpretation if, and
to the extent that, the recipient
government could not identify sufficient
funds from sources other than SLFRF
funds to offset the reduction in net tax
revenue. Only if sufficient funds from
other sources cannot be identified to
cover the full cost of the reduction in
net tax revenue resulting from changes
in law, regulation, or interpretation, will
the remaining amount not covered by
these sources be considered to have
been offset by SLFRF funds, in
contravention of the offset provision.

Consistent with the statutory text, the
approach taken in the interim final rule
recognizes that, because money is
fungible, even if SLFRF funds are not
explicitly or directly used to cover the
costs of changes that reduce net tax
revenue, those funds may be used in a
manner inconsistent with the statute by
indirectly being used to substitute for
the state’s or territory’s funds that
would otherwise have been needed to
cover the costs of the reduction. As
discussed below, the scope of changes
in law, regulation, or interpretation is
further limited to those that the
recipient government voluntarily
enacted during the covered period.

Congress has the authority under the
Spending Clause in Article I, section 8
of the Constitution to specify the
permissible and impermissible uses of
federal grants. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly ‘‘upheld Congress’s authority
to condition the receipt of funds on the
States’ complying with restrictions on
the use of those funds, because that is
the means by which Congress ensures
that the funds are spent according to its
view of the ‘general Welfare.’ ’’
350 ‘‘The
power to keep a watchful eye on
expenditures . . . is bound up with
congressional authority to spend in the
first place.’’
351 Assertions that the
amount of SLFRF funds are sufficiently
large to be coercive are inconsistent
with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in
NFIB, which distinguished between
conditions placed on new federal funds
and conditions placed on existing
federal funds and not based on the size
of funds.
352 Further, the conditions
placed on the use of SLFRF funds under
the ARPA—both the eligible uses and
additional limitations on deposits into
pension funds and the offset
provision—were well known to
recipient governments prior to recipient
governments requesting to receive
SLFRF funds. Finally, the ARPA
provides Treasury with the express
authority ‘‘to issue such regulations as
may be necessary or appropriate to carry
out’’ section 602, which includes the
offset provision.

A number of commenters expressed
concern regarding the burden associated
with complying with the offset
provision and the interim final rule.

Similarly, other commenters argued that
the framework provided in the interim
final rule complicated implementation
of the offset provision. Treasury took
several steps to minimize burden for
recipient governments in the interim
final rule. For example, the interim final
rule incorporates the types of
information and modeling already used
by states and territories in their own
fiscal and budgeting processes. By
incorporating existing budgeting
processes and capabilities, states and
territories will be able to assess and
evaluate the relationship of tax and
budget decisions to uses of SLFRF funds
based on information they likely have or
can readily obtain. This approach
ensures that recipient governments have
the information they need to understand
the implications of their decisions
regarding the use of SLFRF funds—and,
in particular, whether they are using the
funds to directly or indirectly offset a
reduction in net tax revenue resulting
from a change in law, regulation, or
interpretation, making the funds
potentially subject to recoupment. To
further reduce burden, Treasury is
considering whether the scope of
reporting requirements can be further
tailored.

As described in greater detail below,
Treasury is finalizing its
implementation of the offset provision
largely without change. This approach
is consistent with the text of the ARPA.

The remainder of this section discusses
and responds to comments on specific
aspects of the framework.

1. Definitions
Covered change. The offset provision
is triggered by a reduction in net tax
revenue resulting from ‘‘a change in
law, regulation, or administrative
interpretation.’’ Consistent with this
language, the interim final rule defines
a ‘‘covered change’’ to include any final
legislative or regulatory action, a new or
changed administrative interpretation,
and the phase-in or taking effect of any
statute or rule where the phase-in or
taking effect was not prescribed prior to
the start of the covered period. Thus, the
offset provision applies only to actions
for which the change in policy occurs
during the covered period; it excludes
regulations or other actions that
implement a change or law
substantively enacted prior to March 3,
2021. For example, covered changes do
not include a change in rate that is
triggered automatically and based on
statutory or regulatory criteria in effect
prior to the covered period.
353 Changed
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4425 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations Policy Center, How do state earned income tax
credits work?, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/
briefing-book/how-do-state-earned-income-tax-
credits-work/ (last visited May 9, 2021).
354 Assistance must be consistent with eligible
uses of SLFRF funds. See section Eligible Uses of
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
355 See Statement on State Fiscal Recovery Funds
and Tax Conformity, April 7, 2021, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/
jy0113.
356 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State
and Local Government Finances Glossary, https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/state/about/
glossary.html (last visited Apr. 30, 2021).
administrative interpretations would
not include corrections to replace prior
inaccurate interpretations; such
corrections would instead be treated as
changes implementing legislation
enacted or regulations issued prior to
the covered period. The operative
change in those circumstances is the
underlying legislation or regulation that
occurred prior to the covered period.

Moreover, only changes within the
control of the state or territory are
considered covered changes. Finally,
covered changes do not include changes
that simply conform with recent
changes in federal law (including those
to conform to recent changes in federal
taxation of unemployment insurance
benefits and taxation of loan forgiveness
under the Paycheck Protection
Program).

Scope of Covered Changes
Public Comment: Several commenters
argued that the definition of covered
change, and thus the limitations of the
offset provision, should apply to
subsidies for businesses. Similarly,
other commenters requested that
Treasury clarify that the offset provision
applies to tax abatements and
reductions in corporate taxes, even if
administered by a sub-unit of the
recipient government. Citing to
empirical research and other evidence,
these commenters argued that these
types of economic development policies
were poorly administered, reduced
public sector capacity, and were
ineffective at achieving stated objectives
of creating jobs, increasing income, and
increasing economic growth. On the
other hand, some commenters argued
that, because subsidies were
economically similar to some tax cuts,
neither action should be considered a
covered change and subject to the offset
provision. Finally, other commenters
requested that Treasury clarify whether
covered changes must be broad-based
policies or whether administrative
decisions applicable to individuals
would be considered covered changes.

Treasury Response: Section
602(c)(2)(A) applies to any change that
‘‘reduces any tax (by providing for a
reduction in a rate, a rebate, a
deduction, a credit, or otherwise or
delays the imposition of any tax or tax
increase.’’ Accordingly, and consistent
with this statutory text, the final rule
applies to covered changes that reduce
any tax, which can include tax
abatements, but does not apply to loans,
grants, or other types of interventions
that do not reduce tax revenue.
354 In
addition, by including changes in
regulation or administrative
interpretation, in addition to changes in
law, within the scope of the offset
provision, the ARPA recognizes that a
recipient government may make a
covered change through its legislature or
may delegate the authority to make a
covered change including, but not
limited to, to a sub-unit of government.

Treasury has revised the definition of
‘‘covered change’’ in the final rule using
the statutory language above to make
clear that the offset provision only
applies to such changes in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation. With respect to the
question of whether covered changes
could include administrative decisions
applicable to individuals, as discussed
above, a covered change includes a
change in law, regulation, or
administrative interpretation that
reduces any tax. Such changes may
apply to one or more individuals or
entities, provided that—consistent with
the statutory text—they result from a
change in law, regulation, or
administrative interpretation.

Prior Enactment and Phase-In
Public Comment: A number of
commenters expressed concern, or
requested clarification, regarding
changes that were enacted prior to the
covered period but take effect or phase-
in during the covered period. Several
commenters argued that the definition
of covered change should include
changes that were made prior to the
covered period but that phase-in during
the covered period.

Treasury Response: As discussed
above, the offset provision is triggered
by a reduction in net tax revenue
resulting from ‘‘a change in law,
regulation, or administrative
interpretation’’ made during the covered
period. Consistent with the statutory
text, ‘‘covered change’’ is defined to
include any final legislative or
regulatory action, a new or changed
administrative interpretation, and the
phase-in or taking effect of any statute
or rule where the phase-in or taking
effect was not prescribed prior to the
start of the covered period.

Conformity
Public Comment: A number of
commenters requested clarification on
the scope of covered changes.

Specifically, several commenters
requested clarification on the scope of
changes that would be considered as
conforming to recent changes in federal
law. These commenters requested that
Treasury clarify whether actions to
selectively conform with federal law
would be considered covered changes
and requested clarification regarding the
extent to which changes would be
considered ‘‘recent.’’ For example, these
commenters requested clarification
regarding conformance with the Global
Intangible Low-Taxed Income provision
of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Some
commenters further argued that changes
that selectively conform or decouple
from the Internal Revenue Code should
be included within scope of covered
changes and thus subject to the offset
provision.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains the treatment of changes that
simply conform with recent changes in
federal law, such as those to conform to
recent changes in federal taxation of
unemployment insurance benefits and
taxation of loan forgiveness under the
Paycheck Protection Program
355 and
including other changes over the past
several years. Regardless of the
particular method of conformity and the
effect on net tax revenue, Treasury
views such changes as permissible
under the offset provision.

Accordingly, and for the reasons
discussed above, Treasury is
maintaining the definition of covered
change without change.

Tax revenue. The interim final rule’s
definition of ‘‘tax revenue’’ is based on
the Census Bureau’s definition of taxes,
used for its Annual Survey of State
Government Finances.
356 It provides a
consistent, well-established definition
with which states and territories will be
familiar and is consistent with the
approach taken in section Revenue Loss
of this

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
describing the implementation of
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of
the Social Security Act regarding
revenue loss. A number of commenters
expressed concern and requested
clarification regarding the definition of
‘‘tax revenue.’’ These comments and
responses are discussed in section
Revenue Loss of this Supplemental
Information and, for the reasons
discussed above, Treasury is finalizing
the definition of tax revenue without
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4426 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 357 As discussed in section Revenue Loss of this
Supplementary Information, for purposes of
measuring revenue lost due to the pandemic under
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C), recipients
must adjust the amount of revenue lost to reflect
changes that resulted from a tax increase or
decrease. These adjustments do not apply to or
affect the definition of tax revenue.
358 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, GDP Price Deflator, https://
www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-
deflator (last visited Apr. 30, 2021). The FY 2019
baseline revenue is adjusted annually for inflation
to allow for direct comparison of actual tax revenue
in each year (reported in nominal terms) to baseline
revenue in common units of measurement; without
inflation adjustment, each dollar of reported actual
tax revenue would be worth less than each dollar
of baseline revenue expressed in 2019 terms.
359 Economy Statement by Catherine Wolfram,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Economy Policy, for
the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee
November 1, 2021 (Nov. 1, 2021), available at
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/
jy0453.
360 One commenter requested clarification that
references to fiscal year refer to the fiscal year of
the recipient. ‘‘Reporting year’’ is defined in the
interim final rule and final rule to mean ‘‘a single
year or partial year within the covered period,
aligned to the current fiscal year of the State or
Territory during the covered period.’’
361 By permitting recipient governments to use
actual or estimated values, the interim final rule
and final rule provide flexibility to recipients and
thus minimizes burden.
change and maintaining a consistent
definition of ‘‘tax revenue.’’357
Baseline. For purposes of measuring a
reduction in net tax revenue, the interim
final rule measures actual changes in tax
revenue relative to a revenue baseline
(baseline). The baseline is calculated as
fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) tax revenue
indexed for inflation in each year of the
covered period, with inflation
calculated using the Bureau of
Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price
Deflator.
358
Public Comment: Some commenters
expressed concern regarding the choice
of FY 2019 as the baseline, arguing that
the choice lacked justification and
would make the offset provision more
restrictive as applied to recipient
governments that experienced a decline
in revenue independent of making any
covered changes.

Treasury Response: Measuring a
‘‘reduction’’ in net tax revenue requires
identification of a baseline. In other
words, a ‘‘reduction’’ can be assessed
only by comparing two amounts. The
Act defines ‘‘covered period’’ to begin
on March 3, 2021, and thus the baseline
year must end prior to March 3, 2021.

As discussed in the interim final rule,
FY 2019 is the last full fiscal year prior
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency, and thus is consistent with
the statutory definition and does not
include the extraordinary effects of the
pandemic that began in 2020. Further,
as discussed above, the interim final
rule recognizes three potential ways that
a recipient government may offset or
‘‘pay for’’ a reduction in net tax revenue
due to a covered change: Increases in
taxes, decreases in spending, and
organic revenue growth. U.S. gross
domestic product rebounded to exceed
its pre-pandemic level in 2021,
359
suggesting that an FY 2019 pre-
pandemic baseline is a reasonable
comparator for future revenue levels
and provides recipients with flexibility
to identify organic growth as a
permissible offset. Finally, this baseline
year is consistent with the approach
directed by sections 602(c)(1)(C) and
603(c)(1)(C), which identify the ‘‘most
recent full fiscal year of the [state,
territory, or Tribal government] prior to
the emergency’’ as the comparator for
measuring revenue loss. For these
reasons, Treasury is finalizing the
definition of ‘‘baseline’’ without change.

The interim final rule includes several
other definitions that are applicable to
the implementation of the offset
provision, such as the term ‘‘reporting
year.’’
360 Commenters did not express
concern regarding other definitions in
the interim final rule.

2. Framework
The interim final rule provides a step-
by-step framework, to be used in each
reporting year, to determine whether a
state or territory used SLFRF funds to
offset a reduction in net tax revenue.

Consistent with section 602(c)(2) and
the interim final rule, the final rule
applies to states and territories:
(1) Covered changes that reduce tax
revenue. Under the interim final rule, a
recipient government identifies and
values covered changes that the
recipient government predicts will have
the effect of reducing tax revenue in a
given reporting year, similar to the way
it would in the ordinary course of its
budgeting process. The interim final
rule states that the value of these
covered changes may be reported based
on estimated values produced by a
budget model, incorporating reasonable
assumptions, that aligns with the
recipient government’s existing
approach for measuring the effects of
fiscal policies, and that measures these
effects relative to a current law baseline.

If the recipient would prefer, the
covered changes may also be reported
based on actual values using a statistical
methodology to isolate the change in
year-over-year revenue attributable to
the covered change(s), relative to the
current law baseline prior to the
change(s).
361 Further, estimation
approaches may not use dynamic
methodologies that incorporate the
projected effects of macroeconomic
growth because macroeconomic growth
is accounted for separately in the
framework.

Estimation
Public Comment: A number of
commenters expressed concern that
estimating the value of covered changes
required a number of assumptions and
that the actual effects of covered
changes on tax revenue would be
difficult to predict. Several commenters
expressed support for the interim final
rule’s approach to dynamic scoring
methodologies, and one commenter
argued that the final rule should
prohibit the use of prior cash balances
in calculations of permissible tax cuts.

Treasury Response: Treasury
recognizes that estimating the effects of
covered changes requires assumptions
and that many other factors influence
the amount of tax revenue received. The
interim final rule addresses these
concerns in several ways. First, in
general and where possible, reporting
should be produced by the agency of the
recipient government responsible for
estimating the costs and effects of fiscal
policy changes. This approach offers
recipient governments the flexibility to
determine their reporting methodology
based on their existing budget scoring
practices and capabilities. In addition,
by relying on scoring methodologies
that do not incorporate projected effects
of macroeconomic growth, the
estimation of the value of covered
changes relies on fewer assumptions
and thus provide greater consistency
among states and territories. Finally, as
discussed below, the interim final rule
includes a de minimis threshold, below
which the sum of covered changes will
be deemed not to have any revenue-
reducing effects.

Timing of the Impact of Covered
Changes
Public Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that recipient
governments, to evade the offset
provision, may backload the costs of
certain covered changes outside of the
covered period, and advocated that
covered changes be instead evaluated as
the net present value in the year that the
covered change is enacted. These
commenters argued that some tax cuts
could have effects on tax revenue for
many decades or could be structured to
take effect after the end of the covered
period.

Treasury Response: As discussed in
section Timeline for Use of SLFRF
Funds, SLFRF funds must be used to
cover costs incurred prior to December
31, 2024. Accordingly, SLFRF funds
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4427 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 362 Data provided by the Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center for state-level EITC changes for 2004–
2017.
generally would not be able to offset a
reduction in net tax revenue occurring
after December 31, 2024.

For these reasons, Treasury is
maintaining this element of the interim
final rule without change.
(2) In excess of the de minimis. Under
the framework established in the
interim final rule, after establishing that
a covered change occurred, the recipient
government next calculates the total
value of all covered changes in the
reporting year resulting in revenue
reductions, identified in Step 1. If the
total value of the revenue reductions
resulting from these changes is below
the de minimis level, the recipient
government is deemed not to have any
revenue-reducing changes for the
purpose of determining the recognized
net reduction. If the total is above the de
minimis level, the recipient government
must identify sources of in-year revenue
to cover the full costs of changes that
reduce tax revenue. Under the interim
final rule, the de minimis level is
calculated as 1 percent of the reporting
year’s baseline.

Public Comment: Many commenters
supported the inclusion of the de
minimis, noting that the de minimis
protects recipients from penalty
resulting from minor or incidental
changes, minimizes administrative
burden, and enhances predictability of
the application of the offset provision.

Some commenters expressed concern
that the fixed threshold could result in
cliff effects.

Treasury Response: A clear de
minimis threshold supports recipient
governments’ compliance with the offset
provision. A de minimis level
recognizes the inherent challenges and
uncertainties that recipient governments
face, and thus allows relatively small
reductions in tax revenue without
consequence. In other words, states and
territories may make many small
changes to alter the composition of their
tax revenues or implement other
policies with marginal effects on tax
revenues. They may also make changes
based on projected revenue effects that
turn out to differ from actual effects,
unintentionally resulting in minor
revenue changes that are not fairly
described as ‘‘resulting from’’ tax law
changes. However, a de minimis does
not automatically result in
consequences under the offset
provision, since a recipient government
could demonstrate that other, non-
SLFRF funds to offset a net reduction in
tax revenue. Accordingly, any cliff
effects associated with a clear de
minimis threshold are mitigated by
other aspects of the framework.

Public Comment: Commenters
expressed a range of views regarding the
amount of the de minimis. Some
commenters argued that the de minimis
was too generous, noting that the choice
of 1 percent could, in some cases,
permit reductions in net tax revenue of
hundreds of millions of dollars. These
commenters advocated that the de
minimis be lowered (e.g., to 25 basis
points) or be tied to a fixed amount.

Other commenters argued that the
choice of de minimis was not well
supported by the statute, advocated for
a larger de minimis and suggested that
the amount be tied to the recipient
government’s total expenditures in the
prior fiscal year.

Treasury Response: Treasury adopted
a de minimis threshold as an
administrative accommodation for the
reasons discussed above. As discussed
in the interim final rule, Treasury
determined that the 1 percent de
minimis level reflects the historical
reductions in revenue due to minor
changes in state fiscal policies and was
determined by assessing the historical
effects of state-level tax policy changes
in state EITCs implemented to effect
policy goals other than reducing net tax
revenues.
362
For these reasons, Treasury is
adopting the 1 percent de minimis
without change.
(3) Safe harbor. Next, under the
interim final rule, if the revenue
reduction caused by the covered
changes exceeds the 1 percent de
minimis threshold, the recipient
government compares the reporting
year’s actual tax revenue to the baseline.

If actual tax revenue is greater than the
baseline, Treasury will deem the
recipient government not to have any
recognized net reduction for the
reporting year, and therefore to be in a
safe harbor and outside the ambit of the
offset provision. This approach is
consistent with the ARPA, which
contemplates recoupment of SLFRF
funds only in the event that such funds
are used to offset a reduction in net tax
revenue. If net tax revenue has not been
reduced, the offset provision does not
apply. In the event that actual tax
revenue is above the baseline, the
organic revenue growth that has
occurred, plus any other revenue-raising
changes, by definition must have been
enough to offset the in-year costs of any
covered changes. One commenter
argued that the offset for organic growth
be adjusted to reflect population growth.

To minimize administrative burden, and
for the reasons discussed above,
Treasury is maintaining the
measurement of actual tax revenue
without adjustment for population
growth.
(4) Consideration of other sources of
funding. The recipient government will
then identify and calculate the total
value of changes that could pay for
revenue reduction due to covered
changes and sum these items. This
amount can be used to pay for up to the
total value of revenue-reducing changes
in the reporting year. These changes
consist of two categories:
(a) Tax and other increases in
revenue. The recipient government must
identify and consider covered changes
in policy that the recipient government
predicts will have the effect of
increasing general revenue in a given
reporting year. Recipient governments
should use the same approach to
identify and value covered changes that
increase tax revenue as applied to
covered changes that reduce tax
revenue. For the reasons discussed
above, Treasury is adopting these
aspects of identifying and valuing
covered changes without change.
(b) Covered spending cuts. A recipient
government also may cut spending in
certain areas to pay for covered changes
that reduce tax revenue, up to the
amount of the recipient government’s
net reduction in total spending as
described below. These changes must be
reductions in government outlays in an
area where the recipient government has
not spent SLFRF funds. To better align
with existing reporting and accounting,
the interim final rule considers the
department, agency, or authority from
which spending has been cut and
whether the recipient government has
spent SLFRF funds on that same
department, agency, or authority. If the
recipient government has not spent
SLFRF funds in a department, agency,
or authority, the full amount of the
reduction in spending counts as a
covered spending cut, up to the
recipient government’s net reduction in
total spending. If they have spent SLFRF
funds in such department, agency, or
authority, the SLFRF funds generally
would be deemed to have replaced the
amount of spending cut and only
reductions in spending above the
amount of SLFRF funds spent on the
department, agency, or authority would
count. This approach—allowing only
spending reductions in areas where the
recipient government has not spent
SLFRF funds to be used as an offset for
a reduction in net tax revenue—aims to
prevent recipient governments from
using SLFRF funds to supplant state or
territory funding in the eligible use
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4428 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 363 This cap is applied in section 35.8(c) of the
final rule, calculating the amount of funds used in
violation of the tax offset provision.
364 See Reporting Guidance, Section C.11,
available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/
136/SLFRF-Compliance-and-Reporting-
Guidance.pdf.
areas, and then using those state or
territory funds to offset tax cuts. Such
an approach helps ensure that SLFRF
funds are not used to ‘‘indirectly’’ offset
revenue reductions due to covered
changes.

Department, Agency, or Authority
Public Comment: Several commenters
supported the interim final rule’s
approach to considering spending cuts
at the department, agency, or authority
level, on the basis that this approach is
supported by the statutory language
prohibiting SLFRF funds from being
used to ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ offset a
reduction in net tax revenue. On the
other hand, some commenters argued
that the methodology for identifying
offsetting spending cuts was too
restrictive; specifically, that
measurement at the agency or
department-level may not adequately
account for the size and various
programs that could occur in one agency
or department. One commenter argued
that recipient governments should
instead be permitted to consider
spending cuts on a more granular sub-
unit of a department but noted that this
additional flexibility would come at the
cost of transparency and clarity.

Treasury Comment: Treasury
recognizes that some recipients may
vary in their budgeting processes, with
some budgeting on a department level
and others budgeting at more or less
granular sub-units of government.

Relying on spending at a department,
agency, or authority level allows
recipient governments to report how
SLFRF funds have been spent using
reporting units already incorporated
into their budgeting process.

Spending Cuts Baseline
Under the interim final rule, to
calculate the amount of spending cuts
that are available to offset a reduction in
tax revenue, the recipient government
must first consider whether there has
been a reduction in total net spending,
excluding SLFRF funds (net reduction
in total spending). This approach
ensures that reported spending cuts
actually create fiscal space, rather than
simply offset other spending increases.

A net reduction in total spending is
measured as the difference between
total spending in each reporting year,
excluding SLFRF funds spent, relative
to total spending for the recipient’s
fiscal year ending in 2019, adjusted for
inflation. Measuring reductions in
spending relative to 2019 reflects the
fact that the fiscal space created by a
spending cut persists so long as
spending remains below its original
level, even if it does not decline further,
relative to the same amount of revenue.

Public Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern regarding the
measurement of spending cuts relative
to the recipient’s FY 2019, for example
arguing that the choice did not take into
account increases in spending in 2020.

As one commenter noted, the fiscal year
2020 required extraordinary
intervention by recipient governments
and the ongoing public health
emergency continues to require
extraordinary intervention.

Treasury Response: FY 2019 provides
a reasonable and relatively generous
baseline for considering spending
because it is the last full fiscal year prior
to the COVID–19 public health
emergency and governments’
extraordinary efforts to address the
impact of the pandemic. This approach
also aligns with the FY 2019 baseline for
measuring revenue loss. Measuring
spending cuts from year to year would,
by contrast, not recognize any available
funds to offset revenue reductions
unless spending continued to decline,
failing to reflect the actual availability of
funds created by a persistent change and
limiting the discretion of states and
territories.

For the reasons discussed above,
Treasury is adopting the approach taken
in the interim final rule without change.
(5) Identification of amounts subject
to recoupment. If a recipient
government (i) reports covered changes
that reduce tax revenue (Step 1); (ii) to
a degree greater than the de minimis
(Step 2); (iii) has experienced a
reduction in net tax revenue (Step 3);
and (iv) lacks sufficient revenue from
other, permissible sources to pay for the
entirety of the reduction (Step 4), then
the recipient government will be
considered to have used SLFRF funds to
offset a reduction in net tax revenue, up
to the amount that revenue has actually
declined. That is, the maximum value of
the reduction revenue due to covered
changes that a recipient government
must cover is capped at the difference
between the baseline and actual tax
revenue.
363 In the event that the
baseline is above actual tax revenue but
the difference between them is less than
the sum of revenue reducing changes
that are not paid for with other,
permissible sources, organic revenue
growth has implicitly offset a portion of
the reduction. The revenue reduction
cap implements this approach for
permitting organic revenue growth to
cover the cost of tax cuts.

Finally, a recipient government may
request reconsideration of any amounts
identified in a notice from Treasury as
subject to recoupment under this
framework. Comments and responses to
the recoupment process are discussed in
section Remediation and Recoupment of
this Supplemental Information.

3. Reporting
To facilitate the implementation of
the framework above, and in addition to
reporting required on eligible uses,
recipient governments are required to
report certain information. The interim
final rule indicated that Treasury would
provide additional guidance at a later
date and that, on an annual basis, it
expected each recipient government
would be required to provide the
following information:
• Actual net tax revenue for the
reporting year;
• Each revenue-reducing change
made to date during the covered period
and the in-year value of each change;
• Each revenue-raising change made
to date during the covered period and
the in-year value of each change; and
• Each covered spending cut made to
date during the covered period, the in-
year value of each cut, and
documentation demonstrating that each
spending cut is covered as prescribed
under the interim final rule.

Since the adoption of the interim final
rule, Treasury has provided guidance on
reporting regarding eligible uses and has
required recipient governments to
indicate whether they have made
covered changes and the value of such
changes.
364
Reporting Burden
Public Comment: Some commenters
argued that the framework for
identifying and reporting impermissible
offsets was burdensome and that the
burdens should be accounted for under
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism,
August 4, 1999).

Treasury Response: Taking into
consideration comments received
regarding burden, Treasury is
considering a tiered approach to
reporting on the offset provision.

Specifically, under this approach, a
recipient would only be required to
report information to the extent needed
to determine whether SLFRF funds had
been used to offset a reduction in net tax
revenue. For example, a recipient
government would be required to report
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4429 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 365 ‘‘[G]overnment services would not include
interest or principal on any outstanding debt
instrument, including, for example, short-term
revenue or tax anticipation notes, or fees or
issuance costs associated with the issuance of new
debt. For the same reasons, government services
would not include satisfaction of any obligation
arising under or pursuant to a settlement agreement,
judgment, consent decree, or judicially confirmed
debt restructuring in a judicial, administrative, or
regulatory proceeding, except if the judgment or
settlement required the provision of government
services.’’ 86 FR 26796–97 (May 17, 2021).
information regarding permissible
offsets only if it had also reported
covered changes that were in excess of
the de minimis and had reported a net
reduction in tax revenue. Treasury will
provide additional guidance and
instructions on the reporting
requirements at a later date.

As discussed in section Regulatory
Analyses of this Supplemental
Information, Treasury maintains that the
final rule does not have federalism
implications within the meaning of
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism,
August 4, 1999). In the ARPA, Congress
requires states and territories to repay
the Secretary for amounts used in
violation of the prohibition on using
SLFRF funds to offset reductions in net
tax revenue, and it authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations to carry
out this limitation and other
requirements of the statute. Section 6(b)
of Executive Order 13132 contemplates
that certain regulations will be required
by statute, as is the case with the
interim final rule and the final rule, in
which case section 6(b)(2)(B)’s
requirement to include a federalism
summary impact statement in the
Supplementary Information to the
regulation does not apply.

Notwithstanding the above, Treasury
has engaged in efforts to consult and
work cooperatively with affected state,
local, and Tribal government officials
and associations in the process of
developing the interim final rule.

Reporting Transparency
Public Comment: Several commenters
argued that information supporting the
net tax offset calculation should be
publicly available. Some of these
commenters requested that reporting be
made available in a machine-readable
format, and others advocated that
recipient governments disclose this
information on their local budget
agency’s website. These commenters
argued that making information
regarding tax changes publicly available
would increase transparency and
accountability. Further, several
commenters suggested that Treasury
provide a mechanism for citizens to
register their concerns about particular
tax actions.

Treasury Response: As discussed in
other sections, reporting requirements
promote transparency and
accountability for the general public and
constituents of recipient governments to
understand how state, local, and Tribal
governments have used SLFRF funds.

Since the publication of the interim
final rule, Treasury issued
supplementary reporting guidance in
the Compliance and Reporting Guidance
and in the User Guide: Treasury’s Portal
for Recipient Reporting (User Guide),
which addresses the particular content
and form of required reporting. Treasury
will continue to issue updated guidance
prior to each reporting period clarifying
any modifications to requested report
content and will continue to consider
how reporting can best support
transparency and accountability while
minimizing recipient administrative
burden. Further, as discussed in the
section Remediation and Recoupment,
Treasury may address potential
violations of this final rule based on
both information submitted from
recipients, either through quarterly
reports or self-reporting, and from other
sources of information (e.g., information
submitted from the public).

2. Deposit Into Pension Funds
Background: Subsection 602(c)(2)(B)
of the Social Security Act provides that
‘‘[n]o State or territory may use funds
made available under this section for
deposit into any pension fund.’’
Similarly, subsection 603(c)(2) of the
Social Security Act provides that ‘‘[n]o
metropolitan city, nonentitlement unit
of local government, or county may use
funds made available under this section
for deposit into any pension fund.’’
For purposes of this restriction on
pension deposits, the interim final rule
defined deposit to mean ‘‘an
extraordinary payment of an accrued,
unfunded liability.’’ The interim final
rule also specified that a deposit does
not include routine contributions made
as part of a payroll obligation, such as
the normal cost component of a pension
contribution or the component that
consists of amortization of unfunded
liabilities calculated by reference to the
employer’s payroll costs. The interim
final rule applied the restriction on
pension deposits to all recipients.

Public Comment: Several commenters
observed that the statutory restriction on
deposits into pension funds does not
apply to Tribal governments.

Treasury Response: In response,
Treasury is clarifying in the final rule
that the pension restriction does not
apply to Tribal governments.

Public Comment: Treasury also
received a comment expressing concern
that the interim final rule permitted
recipients to make a larger than usual
pension contribution, so long as the
timing of that contribution aligns with
the historical timing of contributions.

Treasury Response: The interim final
rule prohibited the use of SLFRF funds
from the ARPA to make extraordinary
payments, and the

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION to the interim final rule
said that a payment would be an
extraordinary payment if it reduces a
liability incurred prior to the start of the
COVID–19 public health emergency and
occurs outside the recipient’s regular
timing for making the payment. At the
same time, however, as suggested by the
comment Treasury received, a payment
made at the regular time for pension
contributions may very well be an
extraordinary payment, for example, if it
is larger than a regular payment would
have been. Such a payment would be a
restricted use.

Public Comment: Other commenters
asked which pension contributions are
permitted.

Treasury Response: To be an eligible
use of SLFRF funds, a use must (1) be
eligible under one of the eligible use
categories and (2) not contravene any of
the applicable restrictions on uses of
funds. Some pension contributions may
be eligible because they both fit within
an eligible use category and do not
contravene the restriction on deposits
into pension funds (i.e., they are not an
extraordinary payment of an accrued,
unfunded liability). For example,
payroll and covered benefits for public
health and safety staff responding to
COVID–19 are an eligible use of funds
to respond to the public health and
negative economic impacts of the
pandemic; routine pension
contributions as part of an employee’s
regular covered benefits are permissible
under that eligible use category.

B. Other Restrictions on Use of Funds

1. Debt Service and Replenishing
Financial Reserves
The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to
the interim final rule provided that debt
service is not an eligible use of funds
either to respond to the public health
emergency or its negative economic
impacts or as a provision of government
services to the extent of revenue loss.
365
The interim final rule also provided that
replenishing financial reserves (e.g.,
rainy day funds) is not an eligible use
of funds either to respond to the public
health emergency or its negative
economic impacts or as a provision of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4430 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 366 ‘‘In addition, replenishing financial reserves
(e.g., rainy day or other reserve funds) would not
be considered provision of a government service,
since such expenses do not directly relate to the
provision of government services.’’
367 Table Z.1 of the Financial Accounts of the
United States, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, and Table 1.1.5 of National Income
and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
government services to the extent of
revenue loss.366
As explained in greater detail below,
Treasury, in the final rule, has retained
these restrictions and is clarifying that
these restrictions on the use of SLFRF
funds apply to all eligible use
categories.

Public Comments
Several commenters suggested that
debt service and reserve replenishment
should qualify as the provision of a
government service and be an eligible
use of funds, up to the amount of
revenue loss due to the pandemic. Many
commenters indicated that they had
been forced to borrow money or dip into
reserve funds to continue providing
government services during the public
health emergency and that using SLFRF
funds for resulting debt service or
reserve replenishment costs should
therefore be considered a government
service.

Many comments from Tribal
governments noted that their
governments depend on revenue from
Tribal enterprises to pay government
debts and provide services. The
comments suggest that it should be an
eligible use of SLFRF to replace lost
revenue from these enterprises that
would typically be used to pay debt
service costs. Other commenters argued
that paying the interest or principal on
debt should in some cases be considered
provision of government services and an
eligible use of funds as such
expenditures facilitate the provision of
government services.

Some commenters argued that debt
costs or reserve drawdowns during the
public health emergency constitute a
negative economic impact to recipient
governments, and thus debt service or
reserve replenishment should be an
eligible use to respond to that negative
economic impact. For example, several
commenters suggested that there should
be a specific carve-out allowing the use
of SLFRF funds for debt service on debt
incurred for government services after
January 27, 2020, the start of the public
health emergency, or short-term debt
incurred for this purpose. Others
suggested that recipient governments
should be able to service debt, up to the
amount of debt incurred in direct
response to the pandemic. These
commenters generally reasoned that the
cost of responding to the public health
emergency and its negative economic
impacts prior to APRA’s passage
constitutes a negative economic impact
of the pandemic.

Some commenters argued that the
specific impacts of the pandemic on the
travel, tourism, and hospitality sector
had affected their ability to meet debt
service costs. For example, some
commenters explained that specific tax
streams (e.g., hotel room taxes) or
revenue sources (e.g., hospitality
generally) are tied to specific debt
instruments and that these revenue
sources had declined during the public
health emergency; commenters argued
that this constitutes a negative economic
impact that SLFRF funds should be
permitted to address.

Finally, some commenters questioned
why servicing debt incurred after March
3, 2021 for an otherwise eligible project
(e.g., a broadband infrastructure project)
would not be an eligible use of funds.

On the other hand, many commenters
expressed support for the interim final
rule’s prohibition on use of funds for
debt service and reserve replenishment.

These commenters largely argued that
SLFRF funds should be used to provide
current services to communities in
response to the public health emergency
and that use of funds for debt service or
reserve replenishment represented,
respectively, payment for past costs or
savings for potential future costs. In
addition to the prohibition on debt
service and reserve replenishment, some
commentors suggested that the final rule
should also prevent funds from being
used for state UI trust fund
replenishment or for paying off debt
owed through UI trust funds. One
commenter argued that Treasury should
further restrict recipient governments,
for example by preventing recipients
from making cuts to an allowable budget
item, filling the budget gap with SLFRF
funds, and then using the savings from
the initial cut for debt service or reserve
replenishment.

Treasury Response
The final rule maintains the
restriction on the use of funds for debt
service or reserve replenishment for the
reasons described below and clarifies
that this restriction applies to all eligible
use categories.

First, debt service and reserve
replenishment costs do not constitute
the provision of services to constituents.

As noted in the interim final rule,
financing expenses—such as issuance of
debt or payment of debt service—do not
provide services or aid to citizens.

Similarly, contributions to rainy day
funds and similar financial reserves
constitute savings for future spending
needs. As such, these expenses do not
respond to the current and ongoing
public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic, nor do they
provide a government service.

Second, payments from the SLFRF are
intended to be used prospectively (see
section Timeline for Use of SLFRF
Funds). The interim final rule provided
that funds may be used for costs
incurred beginning on March 3, 2021,
which Treasury has maintained in the
final rule. Use of funds for debt service
on indebtedness issued prior to March
3, 2021 necessarily entails using funds
for costs incurred during prior time
periods, rather than the present
response to the public health emergency
and its negative economic impacts or to
provide government services.

Third, SLFRF funds provide
recipients with substantial latitude to
use funds to support the diverse needs
in their communities. With SLFRF
resources available, recipients have less
need to incur debt for otherwise-eligible
SLFRF uses.

Finally, given the strong performance
of overall revenues and low municipal
bond yields, state and local
governments generally do not face high
levels of fiscal stress. Limits on debt
service or replenishment of reserves
would not have a substantial impact on
recipients’ ability to provide services.

The ratio of state and local debt-to-GDP,
which spiked briefly during the
pandemic, has recovered to its pre-
pandemic level and remains well below
levels seen during the Great
Recession.
367

2. Settlements and Judgments
The interim final rule also provided
that satisfaction of any obligation arising
under or pursuant to a settlement
agreement, judgment, consent decree, or
judicially confirmed debt restructuring
in a judicial, administrative, or
regulatory proceeding would not be an
eligible use of funds to respond to the
public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic or as a
government service provided under the
revenue loss eligible use category.

However, if the judgment or settlement
requires the recipient to provide
services that are otherwise eligible
under an SLFRF eligible use category,
specifically if the settlement or
judgment requires the recipient to
provide services to respond to the
COVID–19 public health emergency or
its negative economic impacts or to
provide government services, then those
costs are eligible uses of SLFRF funds.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4431 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 368 See Sec. 602(a)(1); 603(a)(1); 602(c)(1);
603(c)(1).
369 See 35.6(b); Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds, 86 FR at 26786.
370 Specifically, the Award Terms and Conditions
provide that ‘‘[r]ecipient understands and agrees it
must maintain a conflict of interest policy
consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c), and that such
conflict-of-interest policy is applicable to each
activity funded under this award. Recipients and
subrecipients must disclose in writing to Treasury
or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any
potential conflict of interest affecting the awarded
funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.112.’’
371 An exception is statutes that do not apply
unless explicitly stated, including, e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act and the Davis-Bacon Act.

In other words, satisfaction of a
settlement or judgment itself is not itself
an eligible use of funds, unless the
settlement requires the recipient to
provide services or incur other costs
that are eligible uses of SLFRF funds.

In the final rule, Treasury is
maintaining the interim final rule
approach and clarifying that it applies
to all eligible use categories and any use
of funds under the SLFRF program.

3. General Restrictions
In addition to the above restrictions,
there are three general restrictions that
apply to SLFRF funds. These
restrictions, which reflect existing laws
and regulations, the Award Terms and
Conditions, and application of the
ARPA statute, applied under the interim
final rule, and they continue to apply
under the final rule.

A primary purpose of the SLFRF in
the ARPA is to support efforts to stop
the spread of COVID–19.
368 As
discussed above, recipients of SLFRF
funds are required to comply with the
Award Terms and Conditions
established for the use of such funds.

The interim final rule and final rule
implement this objective by, in part,
providing that recipients may use
SLFRF funds for COVID–19 mitigation
and prevention.
369 See section Public
Health in Public Health and Negative
Economic Impacts.

The CDC has provided
recommendations and guidelines to
help mitigate and prevent COVID–19
and has identified vaccines and masks
as two of the best tools to prevent the
spread of COVID–19. The interim final
rule and final rule help support
recipients in stopping the spread of
COVID–19 through these
recommendations and guidelines.

Consistent with the purpose of the
ARPA and as implemented through the
interim final rule and final rule, a
recipient may not use SLFRF funds for
a program, service, or capital
expenditure that includes a term or
condition that undermines efforts to
stop the spread of COVID–19. A
program or service that imposes
conditions on participation or
acceptance of the service that would
undermine efforts to stop the spread of
COVID–19 or discourage compliance
with recommendations and guidelines
in CDC guidance for stopping the spread
of COVID–19 is not a permissible use of
SLFRF funds.

In other words, recipients may not use
funds for a program that undermines
practices included in the CDC’s
guidelines and recommendations for
stopping the spread of COVID–19. This
includes programs that impose a
condition to discourage compliance
with practices in line with CDC
guidance (e.g., paying off fines to
businesses incurred for violation of
COVID–19 vaccination or safety
requirements), as well as programs that
require households, businesses,
nonprofits, or other entities not to use
practices in line with CDC guidance as
a condition of receiving funds (e.g.,
requiring that businesses abstain from
requiring mask use or employee
vaccination as a condition of receiving
SLFRF funds).

Second, a recipient may not use
SLFRF funds in violation of the conflict
of interest requirements contained in
the Award Terms and Conditions or the
Office of Management and Budget’s
Uniform Guidance, including any self-
dealing or violation of ethics rules.

Recipients are required to establish
policies and procedures to manage
potential conflicts of interest.
370
Treasury may provide further guidance
on the types of activities or conflicts
that the recipient’s policies and
procedures must cover.

Lastly, recipients should also be
cognizant that federal, state, and local
laws and regulations, outside of SLFRF
program requirements, may apply.

Recipients may not use revenue loss
funds, for instance, to violate other
background laws that limit the scope of
activities that may be conducted as
‘‘government services,’’ including other
state and federal laws. State and local
procurement, contracting, and conflicts-
of-interest laws and regulations may
include applicable requirements,
including, for example, required
procurement processes for contractor
selection or competitive price setting.

Furthermore, recipients are also
required to comply with other federal,
state, and local background laws,
including environmental laws
371 and
federal civil rights and
nondiscrimination requirements, which
include prohibitions on discrimination
on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, (including sexual orientation
and gender identity), religion, disability,
or age, or familial status (having
children under the age of 18).

IV. Program Administration Provisions
The interim final rule included
several sections that described the
processes and requirements for
administering the program on an
ongoing basis, specifically: Distribution
of funds, transfer of funds, use of funds
for program administration, reporting on
the use of funds, and remediation and
recoupment of funds used for ineligible
purposes.

To enhance clarity, this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the
final rule organizes these issues into one
section on Program Administration
Provisions. Recipients should also
consult Treasury’s Compliance and
Reporting Guidance for additional
information on program administration
processes and requirements, including
the applicability of the Uniform
Guidance.

A. Payments in Tranches to Local
Governments and Certain States
Section 602(b)(6)(A)(ii) of the Social
Security Act authorizes the Secretary to
withhold payment of up to 50 percent
of the amount allocated to each state
and territory for a period of up to 12
months from the date on which the state
or territory provides its statutorily-
required certification to the Secretary.

The Social Security Act requires any
such withholding be based on the
unemployment rate in the state or
territory as of the date of the
certification.

Under the interim final rule, Treasury
provided that it would withhold 50
percent of the amount allocated from
any state that had an unemployment
rate less than two percentage points
above its unemployment rate in
February 2020 as of the date the state
submitted its initial certification for
payment of funds pursuant to section
602(d)(1) of the Social Security Act.

Based on data available at the time of
the issuance of the interim final rule,
this threshold was expected to result in
a majority of states being paid in two
tranches. Treasury did not split the
payments of any territories.

Public Comment: One commenter
asked Treasury to allow a state to
request release of the portion of the
state’s second tranche payment after the
state could demonstrate that it had
allocated the entirety of the first
tranche, a need to continue ongoing
programs, and a desire to avoid
borrowing costs. Another commenter
asked Treasury to clarify whether states
that received half their funding in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4432 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 372 Treasury’s Update on Interpretation for the 75
Percent Budget Cap Calculation can be found at:
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/NEU-
Update-75-Percent-Budget-Cap.pdf.
373 The Guidance on Distribution of Funds to
Nonentitlement Units of Local Government can be
found at this link: https://home.treasury.gov/
system/files/136/NEU_Guidance.pdf. The
Nonentitlement Unit of Local Government
Definitional and Data Methodology can be found at
this link: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/
136/NEU_Methodology.pdf.
374 Treasury has interpreted NEU to generally
include both incorporated places and MCDs with
active functioning governments, subject to the state
determining, in the case of weak-MCD States, that
a weak MCD has the legal and operational capacity
to accept SLFRF funds and provides a broad range
of services that would constitute eligible uses under
ARPA. More details can be found in the
Nonentitlement Unit of Local Government
Definitional and Data Methodology, available at
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/NEU_
Methodology.pdf.
first payment would receive their
second half payment within 12 months.

Similarly, some recipients requested
clarification on whether they could
obligate second tranche funds before
receipt or use second tranche funds for
costs incurred prior to receipt.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains the approach in the interim
final rule with two modifications. As
described in the interim final rule,
splitting payments for most states
provides consistency with payments to
local governments and encourages states
to adapt their use of funds to
developments that arise in the course of
the economic recovery. Moreover,
SLFRF funds may be used for costs
incurred during the period of
performance. Recipients may use their
jurisdiction’s budgeting and
procurement practices and laws to
determine how and when second
tranche funds may be obligated.

The final rule makes two adjustments
for operational purposes. First, the final
rule provides that Treasury expects to
make all second tranche payments to
states available beginning 12 months
from the date that funding was first
made available by Treasury (May 10,
2021) regardless of when each
individual state submitted its initial
certification. This should increase
clarity and consistency on the timing of
second tranche payments for both states
and Treasury. Second, also to ease
recipient states’ administrative burden,
the final rule strikes a requirement from
the interim final rule that states must
certify for their second tranche
payments and file all required reports at
least 30 days prior to the date on which
their second payment is made available.

The final rule simply requires that states
certify for their second tranche payment
and file all required reports before
receiving their second tranche payment,
with no 30 day wait period required.

B. Payments to Nonentitlement Units of
Local Government (NEUs) and Units of
Local Government (UGLGs) Within Non-
UGLG Counties
The interim final rule established
requirements related to distributions of
SLFRF funds by states and territories to
NEUs and UGLGs within non-UGLG
counties. Specifically, the interim final
rule provided that the total distribution
to an NEU cannot exceed 75 percent of
the most recent budget for the NEU (the
75 percent budget cap); a requirement
set forth in section 603(b)(2)(C)(iii) of
the Social Security Act. The interim
final rule

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
defined the NEU’s budget for purposes
of calculating the 75 percent budget cap
as the NEU’s ‘‘most recent annual total
operating budget, including its general
fund and other funds, as of January 27,
2020.’’ The interim final rule further
provided that states and territories must
permit NEUs without formal budgets as
of January 27, 2020 to self-certify their
most recent annual expenditures as of
January 27, 2020 for the purpose of
calculating the 75 percent budget cap.

Further, the interim final rule
prohibited states and territories from
placing additional conditions or
requirements on distributions to NEUs
beyond those required by the statute,
the interim final rule, or Treasury’s
guidance and from offsetting any debt
owed by such NEUs against such
distributions.

Commenters predominantly focused
on the definition of an NEU’s budget for
purposes of calculating the 75 percent
budget cap, NEU allocations and
eligibility, and the prohibition on states
and territories imposing additional
conditions or requirements in the NEU
distribution process.

Definition of NEU Budget
Public Comment: Commenters
suggested that Treasury provide greater
clarification on the definition of an
NEU’s ‘‘most recent budget’’ for
purposes of the 75 percent budget cap
calculation. Treasury provided updated
guidance on its interpretation of the 75
percent budget cap on June 30, 2021,
and a commenter suggested that
Treasury incorporate such updated
interpretation into the

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of the final rule.

Treasury Response: Consistent with
the Update on Interpretation for the 75
Percent Budget Cap Calculation
published on June 30, 2021,
372 the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the final
rule defines an NEU’s budget for
purposes of calculating the 75 percent
budget cap as its total annual budget,
including both operating and capital
expenditure budgets, in effect as of
January 27, 2020. The guidance also
gives states and territories flexibility to
provide further guidance to their NEUs
to operationalize the 75 percent budget
cap. Given the variance in local
financial accounting, this updated
definition will better facilitate states’
and territories’ distribution of SLFRF
funds to NEUs.

Allocations and Eligibility
Public Comment: Many commenters
provided feedback on specific allocation
calculations and eligibility of local
governments for NEU funding.

Commenters addressed how a locality
was classified as an NEU or
metropolitan city, deviations between
Treasury’s allocation calculations and
earlier estimates from other sources,
treatment of unincorporated areas,
sources for population data, and
Treasury’s allocation of NEU funding to
states and territories based on the
population of a state and territory
outside of its metropolitan cities. Two
commenters proposed that Treasury
provide an appeal process for localities
that were not identified on the List of
Local Governments used by states and
territories as part of the process in
which a state or territory determines the
eligibility of an NEU in accordance with
Treasury guidance, or for Minor Civil
Divisions (MCDs) that were denied
funding as part of a facts-and-
circumstances test undertaken by a
weak-MCD state.

Treasury Response: Neither the
interim final rule nor the final rule
addresses eligibility or allocations
issues, and comments on these topics
are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

These questions are addressed in other
Treasury guidance, including the
Guidance on Distribution of Funds to
Non-entitlement Units of Local
Government and Non-entitlement Unit
of Local Government Definitional and
Data Methodology guidance documents
available on Treasury’s website.
373
Because Treasury interpreted the
definition of an NEU
374 in accordance
with the statute and established an NEU
distribution process in May 2021, the
final rule does not incorporate an
appeals process regarding the
definitions or the facts-and-
circumstances test used for eligibility
determinations.

Prohibition on Additional Conditions or
Requirements in the NEU Distribution
Process
Public Comment: One commenter
expressed support for Treasury’s
prohibition on states and territories
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4433 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations placing additional conditions or
requirements on distributions to NEUs.

This prohibition restricts states and
territories from imposing limitations on
NEUs’ use of SLFRF funds based on an
NEU’s proposed spending plan or other
policies, offsetting any debt owed by an
NEU against the NEU’s distribution, or
providing funding on a reimbursement
model. In particular, the commenter
noted that a reimbursement model
would lead to inequities in accessing
SLFRF funds.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains and finalizes the prohibition
on states and territories placing
additional conditions or requirements
on distributions to NEUs as well as to
any UGLGs within counties that are
non-UGLGs. Such conditions or
requirements may contravene the
statutory requirement that states and
territories make distributions based on
population and within the statutorily
defined timeframe.

Other Provisions
Treasury did not receive substantive
comments on the requirement that states
and territories permit NEUs without
formal budgets as of January 27, 2020 to
self-certify their most recent annual
expenditures as of January 27, 2020 for
the purpose of calculating the 75
percent budget cap, or Treasury’s
interpretation of the 75 percent budget
cap applying only to a consolidated
government’s NEU allocation under
section 603(b)(2) but not to a
consolidated government’s county
allocation under section 603(b)(3).

Further, Treasury did not receive
substantive comments on the interim
final rule’s allowance that states and
territories be able to use SLFRF funds
under section 602(c)(1)(A) to fund
expenses related to administering
payments to NEUs and units of general
local government. As such, the final rule
maintains these provisions as written in
the interim final rule without
modification.

Treasury received some comments
that are not addressed because they are
beyond the scope of the NEU provision
of the interim final rule or not
authorized by the statute, including
comments related to state accounting
practices, re-allocations of NEU
allocations that exceed the 75 percent
budget cap, and concerns around
eligible uses under SLFRF that small
local governments may find particularly
salient.

C. Timeline for Use of SLFRF Funds
The interim final rule provided that
‘‘[a] recipient may only use funds to
cover costs incurred during the period
beginning March 3, 2021 and ending
December 31, 2024.’’ The interim final
rule also provides that the period of
performance will run until December
31, 2026, which will provide recipients
an additional two years during which
they may expend funds for costs
incurred (i.e., obligated).

As explained in more detail below, in
the final rule Treasury is maintaining
these time periods. Treasury will retain
March 3, 2021 as the first date when
costs may be incurred, to provide for
forward-looking or prospective use of
funds and to align with the start date of
the ‘‘covered period’’ as such term is
used in section 602(c)(2)(A). The
deadline for costs to be incurred—
which the final rule clarifies means
obligated—December 31, 2024, is
specified in the ARPA statute, and
Treasury will retain December 31, 2026
as the end of the period of performance
to provide a reasonable amount of time
for recipients to liquidate obligations
incurred by the statutory deadline.

Public Comments. Some commenters
expressed concerns about costs incurred
before March 3, 2021 not being covered
and recommended the ‘‘start date’’ be
changed to January 2020 to coincide
with the declaration of the public health
emergency. These commenters argued
that recipient governments began
incurring costs to respond to COVID–19
and its economic impacts in January
2020 and that prior federal fiscal relief,
such as relief provided in the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act, did not fully compensate
recipient governments for these costs.

These commenters recommended that
costs incurred before March 3, 2021 that
otherwise fit within eligible use
categories for SLFRF should be
permissible uses of funds.

Some commenters asked Treasury to
clarify whether local governments are
subject to the same covered period as
states and territories beginning March 3,
2021. Commenters noted that section
603(g) of the Social Security Act does
not contain the same definition of
‘‘covered period’’ as section 602(g)(1) of
the Social Security Act, which
references a statutory provision that
only applies to states and territories.

Many commenters requested that the
deadline for costs to be incurred and the
period of performance be extended due
to the longer timeline for completing
water and sewer projects. One
commenter requested that recipients be
able to split projects into different
phases so that funds could be expended
on larger, longer term projects (e.g., by
obligating funds on one portion of the
project by the statutory deadline). One
commenter recommended that the
period of performance be extended for
at least two additional years beyond the
expenditure deadline set forth in the
interim final rule, i.e., until December
31, 2028. One commenter wrote that the
final rule should allow for extended
projects (e.g., over a time horizon of
more than ten years) for recipients
working to develop long-term water
supplies to prepare for extreme drought.

Treasury Response. In the final rule,
Treasury is maintaining March 3, 2021
as the date when recipients may begin
to incur costs using SLFRF funds. As
described in the interim final rule, use
of SLFRF funds is forward looking and
the eligible use categories provided by
statute are all prospective in nature.

While recipients may identify and
respond to negative economic impacts
that occurred during 2020, the costs
incurred to respond to these impacts
remain prospective. Further, Treasury
considers the beginning of the covered
period for purposes of determining
compliance with section 602(c)(2)(A) to
be a relevant reference point for this
purpose that provides some flexibility
for recipients that began incurring costs
in the anticipation of enactment of the
ARPA or in advance of the issuance of
the interim final rule and receipt of
payment.

Finally, establishing an earlier start
date would permit governments to use
funds received in 2021 to satisfy
obligations incurred in 2020. This use
raises a substantial risk of SLFRF funds
being used to supplant other recipient
funds previously used to pay for such
2020 obligations, freeing funds for
recipients to use for any purpose rather
than eligible uses of SLFRF funds under
the ARPA. Permitting such usage would
undermine the provisions setting forth
permissible and impermissible uses in
the statute. Therefore, a reading of the
statute permitting use of funds prior to
March 3, 2021 would be inconsistent
with the statutory structure.

In the final rule, Treasury is also
maintaining the deadlines by which
funds must be obligated (i.e., December
31, 2024) and by which such obligations
must be liquidated (i.e., December 31,
2026). The December 31, 2024 deadline
by which eligible costs must be incurred
is established by statute. Treasury is
finalizing its interpretation of
‘‘incurred’’ to be equivalent to the
definition of ‘‘obligation,’’ based on the
definition used for purposes of the
Uniform Guidance. Treasury is also
maintaining the period of performance,
which will run through December 31,
2026, and provides the deadline by
which recipients must expend obligated
funds. Most recipients received SLFRF
funds in the spring and summer of 2021,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4434 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 375 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds, Frequently Asked Questions, as of July 19,
2021; https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/
SLFRPFAQ.pdf. 376 See FAQ 4.10. Id.
meaning that they have over three years
to obligate and over five years to expend
funds. This provides a sufficient amount
of time for recipients to plan and
execute projects.

D. Transfers of Funds
Under section 602(c)(3) of the Social
Security Act, a state, territory, or Tribal
government may transfer SLFRF funds
to a ‘‘private nonprofit organization . . .
a Tribal organization . . . a public
benefit corporation involved in the
transportation of passengers or cargo, or
a special-purpose unit of state or local
government.’’ Similarly, section
603(c)(3) authorizes a local government
to transfer SLFRF funds to the same
entities (other than Tribal
organizations). Separately, section
603(c)(4) authorizes a local government
to transfer SLFRF funds to the state in
which it is located.

Entities Eligible for a Transfer Under
Sections 602(c)(3) and 603(c)(3)
Regarding transfers permitted under
sections 602(c)(3) and 603(c)(3) of the
Act, the interim final rule
Supplementary Information clarified
that the lists of transferees in these
sections are not exclusive and that state,
local, territorial, and Tribal governments
may transfer funds to other constituent
units of government or private entities
beyond those specified in the statute.

Public Comment: Several commenters
supported Treasury’s interpretation of
eligible transferees in sections 602(c)(3)
and 603(c)(3) as nonexclusive. However,
many commenters asked for greater
clarity as to whether specific entities not
listed in Treasury’s examples of eligible
subrecipients, such as nonprofits and
Tribal governments, were eligible
transferees. One commenter also asked
whether a recipient may transfer SLFRF
funds to a higher level of government,
such as a locality to the county in which
it is located.

Treasury Response: The final rule
clarifies that, in addition to the entities
enumerated in sections 602(c)(3) and
603(c)(3), recipients may transfer SLFRF
funds to any entity to carry out as a
subrecipient an eligible use of funds by
the transferor, as long as they comply
with the Award Terms and Conditions
and other applicable requirements,
including the Uniform Guidance at 2
CFR 200.331–200.333. Eligible
subrecipients include, but are not
limited to, other units of government
(including Tribal governments),
nonprofits and other civil society
organizations, and private entities.

Further, the final rule clarifies that
transfers may be made to both
constituent or non-constituent units of
government. For example, county A
may transfer SLFRF funds to county B
as long as county B abides by the use
restrictions applicable to county A and
the transfer would constitute an eligible
use of the funds by county A. County A
must receive a benefit proportionate to
the amount transferred.

As detailed in the interim final rule
Supplementary Information, once
transfers are received, the transferee
must abide by the restrictions on use
applicable to the transferor under the
ARPA and other applicable law,
regulations, and program guidance.

Further, the transferor remains
responsible for monitoring and
overseeing the subrecipient’s use of
SLFRF funds and other activities related
to the award to ensure that the
subrecipient complies with the statutory
and regulatory requirements and the
Award Terms and Conditions.

Recipients also remain responsible for
reporting to Treasury on their
subrecipients’ use of payments from the
SLFRF for the duration of the award.

Pooling Funds
Public Comment: Several commenters
asked for clarification about whether
they may pool SLFRF funds for a project
with other recipients, including when
doing so involves a transfer to another
entity, such as a regional organization or
government that undertakes projects on
behalf of a number of local
governments. Commenters also asked
for clarification on the oversight and
reporting obligations that would result
from such transfers.

Treasury Response: Consistent with
guidance issued following the interim
final rule,
375 the final rule clarifies that
recipients may pool SLFRF funds for
projects, provided that the project is
itself an eligible use of SLFRF funds for
each recipient that is contributing to the
pool of funds and that recipients are
able to track the use of funds in line
with the reporting and compliance
requirements of the SLFRF. In general,
when pooling funds for regional
projects, recipients may expend funds
directly on the project or transfer funds
to another government or other entity
that is undertaking the project on behalf
of multiple recipients. To the extent
recipients undertake regional projects
via transfer to another organization or
government, recipients would need to
comply with the rules on transfers
specified in the final rule
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. A
recipient may transfer funds to a
government outside its boundaries (e.g.,
county transfers to a neighboring
county), provided that the transferor can
document that the transfer constitutes
an eligible expense of the transferor
government and that its jurisdiction
receives a benefit proportionate to the
amount transferred.

Blending and Braiding of Funds
Treasury is clarifying in the final rule
that, consistent with further guidance
issued by Treasury following the
interim final rule,
376 recipients may
fund a project with both SLFRF funds
and other sources of funding, provided
that the costs are eligible costs under
each source program and are compliant
with all other related statutory and
regulatory requirements and policies.

The recipient must comply with
applicable reporting requirements for all
sources of funds supporting the SLFRF
projects and with any requirements and
restrictions on the use of funds from the
supplemental funding sources and the
SLFRF program. Specifically,
• All funds provided under the
SLFRF program must be used for
projects, investments, or services that
are eligible under the SLFRF program.

SLFRF funds may not be used to fund
an activity that is not, in its entirety, an
eligible use under the SLFRF program.

For example:

Æ SLFRF funds may be used in
conjunction with other sources of funds
to make an investment in water
infrastructure that is eligible under
section 602 or 603 of the Social Security
Act and the final rule.

Æ SLFRF funds could not be used to
fund the entirety of a water
infrastructure project that was partially,
although not entirely, an eligible use
under Treasury’s final rule. However,
the recipient could use SLFRF funds
only for a smaller component project
that does constitute an eligible use,
while using other funds for the
remaining portions of the larger planned
water infrastructure project that do not
constitute an eligible use. In this case,
the ‘‘project’’ for SLFRF purposes under
this program would be only the eligible
use component of the larger project.
• In addition, because SLFRF funds
must be obligated by December 31,
2024, and recipients must expend all
funds under the award no later than
December 31, 2026, recipients must be
able to, at a minimum, determine and
report to Treasury on the amount of
SLFRF funds obligated and expended
and when such funds were obligated
and expended.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4435 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 377 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Recipient
Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities, as of
November 5, 2021; https://home.treasury.gov/
policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-
and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-
Continued
Scope of a 603(c)(4) Transfer
Unlike in the case of a transfer under
sections 602(c)(3) or 603(c)(3), the
interim final rule SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION specified that transfers
from a local government to the state
under section 603(c)(4) will result in a
cancellation or termination of the award
on the part of the transferor local
government and a modification of the
award to the transferee state.

Public Comment: Two commenters
suggested that Treasury expand section
603(c)(4) beyond transfers from
localities to the state to include transfers
from counties to their constituent local
governments, which would incentivize
counties to augment funds to address
the needs of local governments. These
commenters noted that counties are
disincentivized to make transfers under
section 603(c)(3), as is currently
allowed, as such transfers would require
that counties provide oversight and
monitoring over its subrecipients.

Treasury Response: Section 603(c)(4),
by its terms, applies only to transfers
from local governments to states.

Accordingly, the final rule must
maintain the interim final rule’s
limitation of section 603(c)(4) transfers
as applicable only to transfers from local
governments to states. Expansions of
section 603(c)(4) transfer authority
beyond transfers from local
governments to states were not
explicitly authorized by Congress. As
such, transfers under section 603(c)(4)
may only be made by local governments
to the state in which they are located.

Congress enumerated two separate
transfer provisions for local
governments—section 603(c)(3) and
section 603(c)(4)—that use different
language and were intended to operate
differently. Section 603(c)(4) contains
prefatory language (‘‘Notwithstanding
paragraph (1)’’—a reference to the
eligible SLFRF uses) that section
603(c)(3) does not. In other words,
section 603(c)(4) transfers are not
required to constitute an eligible use of
the funds from the perspective of the
transferor local government, but section
603(c)(3) transfers are required to
constitute an eligible use. A transfer to
accomplish an eligible use fits within
the recipient-subrecipient framework.

Further, treating section 603(c)(3)
transfers as leading to a cancellation of
the award for the transferor local
government would result in scenarios
that are inconsistent with the statutory
language. An award cancellation
pursuant to a section 603(c)(3) transfer
would result in either (1) non-
governmental entities becoming award
recipients under the program, which
would contravene the purpose of SLFRF
or (2) transfers to governmental and
non-governmental entities being treated
in a distinct and inconsistent manner.

That is, section 603(c)(3) transfers to
governmental entities would lead to
award cancellation but section 603(c)(3)
transfers to non-governmental entities
would lead to a recipient-subrecipient
relationship. Therefore, in the final rule,
Treasury maintains its distinct
treatment of a section 603(c)(3) transfer
and section 603(c)(4) transfer.

The final rule clarifies that a transfer
under section 603(c)(4) will result in a
modification, termination, or
cancellation of the award on the part of
the transferor local government and a
modification of the award to the
transferee state or territory. As detailed
in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to
the interim final rule, the transferor
must provide notice of the transfer to
Treasury in a format specified by
Treasury. Until the local government
provides such notice and Treasury
provides confirmation of its acceptance
of the notice, the local government will
remain responsible for ensuring that the
SLFRF award is being used in
accordance with the Award Terms and
Conditions, section 602 or 603 of the
Social Security Act, the final rule, and
program guidance including reporting
on such uses of the award funds to
Treasury.

A state that receives a transfer from a
local government under section
603(c)(4) will be bound, by statute, by
all of the use restrictions set forth in
section 602(c) with respect to the use of
those SLFRF funds, including the
prohibitions on use of such SLFRF
funds to offset certain reductions in
taxes or to make deposits into pension
funds. The state will be responsible as
the prime recipient for the use and
reporting on any funds transferred
under section 603(c)(4) by the local
government. Such transferred funds will
be subject to the Award Terms and
Conditions previously accepted by the
state in connection with its SLFRF
award.

Subrecipient Transfers
Public Comment: Commenters sought
clarification as to how funds may be
transferred from a recipient to another
entity. For instance, one commenter
requested that recipients be able to
advance funds to subrecipients as
opposed to reimbursing subrecipients
for expenses incurred.

Treasury Response: Treasury did not
specify in the interim final rule whether
recipients may advance funds to
subrecipients. This omission was not
intended to prevent recipients from
advancing funds to subrecipients,
consistent with the various methods
permitted under the Uniform Guidance.

Given the broad flexibility that
recipients have in selecting eligible uses
and the broad variety of potential
subrecipients, Treasury believes that
specifying a single method of
advancement or reimbursement would
add unnecessary administrative
difficulty to program administration.

Recipients may determine the optimal
payment structure for the transfer of
funds (e.g., advance payments,
reimbursement basis, etc.) from
recipients to subrecipients. Ultimately,
recipients must comply with the eligible
use requirements and any other
applicable laws or requirements and are
responsible for the actions of their
subrecipients.

E. Administrative Expenses
The interim final rule permitted,
under the heading ‘‘[e]xpenses to
improve efficacy of public health or
economic relief programs,’’ use of funds
for ‘‘[a]dministrative costs associated
with the recipient’s COVID–19 public
health emergency assistance programs,
including services responding to the
COVID–19 public health emergency or
its negative economic impacts, that are
not federally funded.’’
Following release of the interim final
rule, Treasury issued Compliance and
Reporting Guidance that provided that
‘‘recipients may use funds for
administering the SLFRF program,
including costs of consultants to
support effective management and
oversight, including consultation for
ensuring compliance with legal,
regulatory, and other requirements.

Further, costs must be reasonable and
allocable as outlined in 2 CFR 200.404
and 2 CFR 200.405. Pursuant to the
SLFRF Award Terms and Conditions,
recipients are permitted to charge both
direct and indirect costs to their SLFRF
award as administrative costs. Direct
costs are those that are identified
specifically as costs of implementing the
SLFRF program objectives, such as
contract support, materials, and
supplies for a project. Indirect costs are
general overhead costs of an
organization where a portion of such
costs are [sic] allocable to the SLFRF
award such as the cost of facilities or
administrative functions like a director’s
office.’’
377 Several commenters
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4436 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations recovery-funds/recipient-compliance-and-reporting-
responsibilities.
378 Id.
379 Coronavirus Relief Fund for States, Tribal
Governments, and Certain Eligible Local
Governments, 86 FR at 4192.
380 See FAQ 4.11. Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds, Frequently Asked
Questions, as of July 19, 2021; https://
home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf.
381 See U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third
Edition, Volume II, p. 10–99, GAO–06–382SP
(February 2006), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-
06-382sp.pdf.
requested clarity on which
administrative expenses are permissible
uses of funds and how recipients should
structure administrative costs.

In the final rule, Treasury is clarifying
that direct and indirect administrative
expenses are permissible uses of SLFRF
funds and are a separate eligible use
category from ‘‘[e]xpenses to improve
efficacy of public health or economic
relief programs,’’ which refers to efforts
to improve the effectiveness of public
health and economic programs through
use of data, evidence, and targeted
consumer outreach. For details on
permissible direct and indirect
administrative costs, recipients should
refer to Treasury’s Compliance and
Reporting Guidance.
378 Costs incurred
for the same purpose in like
circumstances must be treated
consistently as either direct or indirect
costs.

F. Treatment of Loans
The interim final rule allowed
recipients to use SLFRF funds to make
loans for uses that are otherwise eligible
(for example, for small business
assistance). Subsequent guidance
clarified how recipients must track and
dispose of program income from loans,
consistent with the statutory
requirements for the timing of SLFRF
expenditures.

SLFRF funds must be used to cover
‘‘costs incurred’’ by the recipient
between March 3, 2021 and December
31, 2024. The interim final rule
provided that SLFRF funds must be
obligated by December 31, 2024 and
expended by December 31, 2026. In
using SLFRF funds to make loans,
recipients must be able to determine the
amount of funds used to make a loan
and must comply with restrictions on
the timing of the use of funds and with
restrictions in the Uniform Guidance.

When SLFRF funds are used as the
principal for loans, there is an
expectation that a significant share of
the loaned funds will be repaid. Thus,
recipients may not simply consider the
full amount of loaned funds to be
permanently expended and must
appropriately account for the return of
loaned funds.

For loans that mature or are forgiven
on or before December 31, 2026, the
recipient must account for the use of
funds on a cash flow basis, consistent
with Treasury’s guidance regarding
loans made by recipients using
payments from the Coronavirus Relief
Fund.
379 Recipients may use SLFRF
funds to fund the principal of the loan
and in that case must track repayment
of principal and interest (i.e., ‘‘program
income,’’ as defined under 2 CFR 200).

When the loan is made, recipients must
report the principal of the loan as an
expense.

Repayment of principal may be re-
used only for eligible uses and is subject
to restrictions on the timing of the use
of funds. Interest payments received
prior to the end of the period of
performance will be considered an
addition to the total award and may be
used for any purpose that is an eligible
use of funds under the statute and final
rule. Recipients are not subject to
restrictions under 2 CFR 200.307(e)(1)
with respect to such payments.

For loans with maturities longer than
December 31, 2026, the recipient must
estimate the cost to the recipient of
extending the loan over the life of the
loan. In other words, at origination, the
recipient must measure the projected
cost of the loan and may use SLFRF
funds for the projected cost of the loan.

Recipients have two options for
estimating this amount: They may
estimate the subsidy cost (i.e., net
present value of estimated cash flows)
or the discounted cash flow under
current expected credit losses (i.e.,
CECL method). See further guidance
issued by Treasury for further
explanation.
380
Public Comment: Many commenters
asked for further clarification on the
treatment of loans and the calculation of
‘‘costs incurred.’’ Some commenters
requested that grants made for eligible
activities prior to December 31, 2024 to
a revolving loan fund, an economic
development corporation, a land bank,
or a similar facility should be
considered obligated and expended at
the time of the grant. This would allow
funds to be expended by the grantee
beyond the covered period and for
funds returned to the grantee to be re-
invested in further uses outside of the
covered period.

Treasury Response: The final rule
maintains the treatment of loans from
the interim final rule and subsequent
guidance, as discussed above. This
approach is consistent with the
statutory requirement that funds be used
for costs incurred for eligible purposes
by December 31, 2024 and is consistent
with standard accounting practices and
the Uniform Guidance.

G. Use of Funds for Match or Cost-Share
Requirements
As a general matter and as referenced
in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to
the interim final rule, funds provided
under one federal program may not be
used by a recipient to meet the non-
federal match or cost-share
requirements of another federal
program.

However, Treasury has since
determined that, consistent with this
general principle and the requirements
of the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR
200.306(b)(5), the funds available under
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of
the Social Security Act for the provision
of government services, up to the
amount of the recipient’s reduction in
revenue due to the public health
emergency, generally may be used to
meet the non-federal cost-share or
matching requirements of other federal
programs. Federal funds that constitute
revenue sharing to state and local
governments may generally be used to
meet non-federal match
requirements.
381 The broad eligible uses
of the SLFRF funds available under
sections 602(c)(1)(C) and 603(c)(1)(C) of
the Social Security Act, combined with
the purpose of these provisions (which
is to provide general fiscal assistance to
governments facing revenue losses due
to the public health emergency),
demonstrate that these funds are
revenue sharing. They thus should
generally be permitted to be used to
meet the non-federal match and cost-
share requirements of other federal
programs. As such, the SLFRF funds
available for the provision of
government services, up to the amount
of the recipient’s reduction in revenue
due to the public health emergency,
may be used to meet the non-federal
match requirements of the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund and Clean
Water State Revolving Fund programs
administered by the EPA, for example.

Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.306(b) of the
Uniform Guidance, if funds are legally
available to meet the match or cost-
share requirements of an agency’s
federal program, such awarding agency
is required to accept such funds for the
purpose of that program’s match or cost-
share requirements except in the
circumstances enumerated in that
section. The Office of Management and
Budget has authority under 2 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4437 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 382 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Recipient
Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities, as of
November 5, 2021; https://home.treasury.gov/
policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-
and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-
recovery-funds/recipient-compliance-and-reporting-
responsibilities.
383 Id.
200.102 of the Uniform Guidance to
issue waivers of this requirement on
request of the relevant awarding agency.

Analogous requirements and waiver
authorities may be present in other
regulations. If a recipient seeks to use
SLFRF funds to satisfy match or cost-
share requirements for a federal grant
program, it should first confirm with the
relevant awarding agency that no waiver
has been granted for that program, that
no other circumstances enumerated
under 2 CFR 200.306(b) would limit the
use of SLFRF funds to meet the match
or cost-share requirement, and that there
is no other statutory or regulatory
impediment to using the SLFRF funds
for the match or cost-share requirement.

Note that SLFRF funds may not be used
as the non-federal share for purposes of
a state’s Medicaid and CHIP programs
because the Office of Management and
Budget has approved a waiver as
requested by the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services pursuant to 2 CFR
200.102 of the Uniform Guidance and
related regulations.

SLFRF funds beyond those that are
available under sections 602(c)(1)(C) or
603(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act
for the provision of government services
may not be used to meet the non-federal
match or cost-share requirements of
other federal programs other than as
specifically provided for by statute. For
example, as discussed in other sections
of this final rule, section 40909 of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
provides that SLFRF funds may be used
to meet the non-federal match
requirements of any authorized Bureau
of Reclamation project, and section
60102 of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act provides that the SLFRF
may be used to meet the non-federal
match requirements of the broadband
infrastructure program authorized under
that section (see sections Water and
Sewer Infrastructure and Broadband
Infrastructure).

H. Reporting
The interim final rule established
Treasury’s authority to collect
information from recipients through
requested reports and any additional
requests for information. The interim
final rule also provided Treasury
flexibility to extend or accelerate
reporting deadlines and to modify
requested content for the Interim
Report, Project and Expenditure reports,
and Recovery Plan Performance reports.

The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of
the interim final rule provided initial
guidance on the reporting requirements
for the SLFRF funds. States (defined to
include the District of Columbia),
territories, metropolitan cities, counties,
and Tribal governments were required
to submit one interim report and
quarterly Project and Expenditure
reports thereafter. Non-entitlement units
of local government were not required
to submit an interim report. States,
territories, and metropolitan cities and
counties with a population greater than
250,000 residents were also required to
submit an annual Recovery Plan
Performance report to Treasury. The
Supplementary Information of the
interim final rule provided guidance on
the deadlines and content required for
each type of report.

Public Comment: Treasury received
many comments on the content and
specific data elements required of
program reporting. Some commenters
expressed enthusiasm for including
particular details in reporting to
promote transparency. Other
commenters requested that Treasury
streamline reporting requirements to
avoid imposing undue administrative
burdens and compliance costs. Many
commenters requested further
clarification on or amendments to
particular elements of reporting content.

Some commenters requested that
reports and specific reporting elements
be public, including a request for a
public website with a number of
programmatic data metrics about the use
of SLFRF funds. Some commenters
sought clarification and guidance for
using the reporting portal, which allows
recipients to upload the required
information, or requested user
modifications to the portal. Finally,
some commenters requested that
Treasury provide example materials and
reporting metrics to aid recipient
understanding.

Treasury Response: Since the
publication of the interim final rule,
Treasury issued supplementary
reporting guidance in the Compliance
and Reporting Guidance and in the User
Guide: Treasury’s Portal for Recipient
Reporting (User Guide).
382 Treasury has
addressed many of these comments in
the Compliance and Reporting Guidance
and User Guide and will continue to
issue updated guidance prior to each
reporting period clarifying any
modifications to requested report
content. Treasury notes that the interim
final rule did not address the specific
content and data elements required in
reporting, the reporting portal or
submission process, and the specific
form of reporting (e.g., example
templates, machine readability);
comments on these topics are outside
the scope of the final rule and, as noted,
are addressed instead in Compliance
and Reporting Guidance.

Reporting Deadlines
Public Comment: Treasury received
comments requesting various changes to
reporting deadlines to ease compliance
burdens. For example, Treasury
received several comments requesting
that Treasury delay early reporting
deadlines for various reasons, including
to align with the timeline for issuing a
final rule and to allow for more time for
recipients to determine SLFRF
allocations. Commenters also requested
changes to the immediacy of reporting,
for example requesting that Treasury
allow expenses to be reported with a lag
instead of the quarter in which they
were accrued or that reports be due 90
days after period close instead of 30
days after the close of a reporting
period. Some commenters requested
changes to the reporting frequency, for
example to report biannually rather than
quarterly.

Treasury Response: Treasury has
clarified reporting deadlines in the
Compliance and Reporting guidance.
383
Treasury is retaining the reporting
deadline of 30 days after the close of the
reporting period to ensure timely
accounting of the use of SLFRF funds;
this timeline also aligns with practices
in many other federal programs. The
final rule maintains Treasury’s
discretion to extend or delay reporting
deadlines.

Administrative Costs for Reporting and
Compliance
Public Comment: Many commenters
sought clarification about whether
various administrative costs related to
reporting and compliance were eligible
uses of funds and asked for clarification
on the limits of such use.

Treasury Response: Treasury notes
that administrative costs are generally
allowable uses of SLFRF funds,
including for reporting. For additional
information on administrative expenses,
please see section Administrative
Expenses under Program
Administration Provisions.

Uniform Guidance
Public Comment: The

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of the interim final rule
clarified that SLFRF funds were
generally subject to the provisions of the
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4438 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 384 Id.
385 Treasury will also consider the tax offset
provision on an annual basis.
386 Funds subject to recoupment cannot later be
returned.

Requirements for Federal Awards (2
CFR part 200) (the Uniform Guidance),
including the cost principles and
restrictions on general provisions for
selected items of cost. Treasury received
many comments requesting clarification
about or modifications to the
applicability of the Uniform Guidance
on various issues.

For example, one commenter
requested that Treasury remove
requirements that expenditures of funds
be made in conformance with the
Uniform Guidance, particularly in case
of expenditures made during period
from March 3, 2021 to the release of the
interim final rule, while other
comments requested that Treasury raise
the single-audit threshold from
$750,000 to $5 million. Commenters
sought clarification on items such as:

The applicability of the Uniform
Guidance for funds that are used for the
provision of government services, the
applicability of particular sections of the
cost principles provided in subpart E of
the Uniform Guidance, the applicability
of the procurement provisions of the
Uniform Guidance, and requirements
for subrecipient reporting.

Treasury Response: Recipients of
SLFRF funds are subject to the
provisions of the Uniform Guidance (2
CFR part 200) from the date of award to
the end of the period of performance on
December 31, 2026 unless otherwise
specified in this rule or program-
specific guidance. Costs must follow the
requirements in 2 CFR 200 Subpart E,
Cost Principles, including procurement
standards. Recipients that receive an
aggregate amount of federal financial
assistance in a given fiscal year that
exceeds the Single Audit threshold are
subject to the requirements in 2 CFR 200
Subpart F, Audit Requirements, unless
otherwise specified in program-specific
guidance.

SLFRF funds transferred to
subrecipients are also subject to
reporting and Uniform Guidance
requirements. Additional information
about the definition of subrecipients is
available in the section Distinguishing
Subrecipients versus Beneficiaries.

Recipients should refer to the
Assistance Listing for details on the
specific provisions of the Uniform
Guidance that do not apply to this
program. The Assistance Listing is
available on SAM.gov. Additional
changes to compliance and reporting
guidelines, including any clarifications
on Uniform Guidance requirements,
will be addressed in Compliance and
Reporting Guidance and the User
Guide.
384
I. Remediation and Recoupment
Sections 602(e) and 603(e) of the
Social Security Act provide the
Secretary with the power to recoup
‘‘funds used in violation’’ of the Social
Security Act. The interim final rule
implemented these provisions by
establishing a process for recoupment.

Treasury may identify funds used in
violation of the Social Security Act
based on information submitted by
recipients, including as part of reporting
requirements, as well as information
from other sources.
385 If a potential
violation is identified, Treasury will
provide the recipient an initial written
notice of the amount subject to
recoupment along with an explanation
of such amounts. A recipient then has
60 calendar days following receipt of a
recoupment notice to submit a request
for reconsideration containing any
information it believes supports its use
of funds. Within 60 calendar days of
receipt of the request for
reconsideration, the interim final rule
provided that a recipient will receive a
final notice of the Secretary’s decision
to affirm, withdraw, or modify the
recoupment notice. If the recipient did
not submit a request for reconsideration,
the initial notice of recoupment would
be deemed a final notice. A recipient
would then be required to repay any
amounts subject to recoupment within
120 calendar days of either the initial
recoupment notice, if the recipient does
not request reconsideration, or the final
recoupment notice, if the recipient does
request reconsideration.

Public Comments
Treasury received several comments
on the process for recoupment. For
instance, some commenters, including
many Tribal governments, requested
additional time to file a request for
reconsideration and submit repayment
to ensure that small entities have the
time necessary to carry out any
logistical steps and consult with
counsel. Treasury was also asked to
align its recoupment process with that
of the Office of the Inspector General
and other departmental administrative
processes to resolve findings, agency
decisions, and related timelines. One
commenter asked if the 120-calendar-
day time limit for repayment was based
on the initial notice, rather than a final
decision issued by the Secretary.

Several commenters expressed concern
regarding the recoupment process,
arguing that consideration of ‘‘all
relevant facts and circumstances’’
provided Treasury with too much
authority and created ambiguity. Other
commenters urged Treasury to establish
a robust enforcement and compliance
program and process and advocated for
the creation of a whistleblower
mechanism or public complaint process
to allow public and private entities to
report suspected misuses of funds.

Finally, some commenters requested
clarification regarding the process after
a violation is identified and becomes
final. One commenter also asked to
allow recipients to amend reports
deemed to contain ineligible expenses
and inform recipients how the agency
intends to resolve instances where a use
was later deemed unacceptable. Another
commenter asked if recouped funds
could be released back to the recipient.

Commenters also expressed concern
about Treasury’s authority to recoup
funds used in violation of the tax offset
provision. Some commenters requested
additional clarity around when tax cuts
would trigger Treasury’s recoupment
authority and the duration of Treasury’s
authority to seek recoupment of such
funds.

Treasury Response
The final rule largely preserves the
process established in the interim final
rule but includes several adjustments to
clarify certain elements.

Like the interim final rule, the final
rule provides that, after an initial
determination is made that a recipient
has used SLFRF funds in violation of
the law, a recipient may submit a
request for reconsideration concerning
any amounts identified in a notice
provided by Treasury. If a recipient
chooses to seek reconsideration of the
initial notice, the recipient must submit
a request for reconsideration as
provided under the final rule. If a
recipient does not request
reconsideration, the initial notice that
the recipient received will be deemed
the final notice.
386 Treasury has
clarified that a recipient must invoke
and exhaust the procedures available
under section 35.10 of the final rule
prior to seeking judicial review of a
recoupment decision. Consistent with
Section 602(b)(6)(A)(ii)(III) of the Social
Security Act, if a state or territory is
required to repay funds pursuant to the
Secretary’s recoupment authority, the
Secretary may reduce the amount
payable to the state or territory in a
second tranche payment by the amount
that the state or territory would be
required to repay as recoupment.

In the final rule, Treasury has
clarified that, if it identifies a potential
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4439 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 388 Treasury may address potential violations
based on information submitted from recipients,
either through quarterly reports or self-reported
information, and from other sources of information
as Treasury deems necessary and appropriate (e.g.,
press, information submitted from the public).
389 Treasury intends to work with recipients to
support the use of SLFRF funds consistent with the
law.
violation,387 it may request additional
information from a recipient before
initiating the recoupment process and,
where necessary, provide written notice
to the recipient along with an
explanation of such amounts potentially
subject to recoupment. Furthermore,
Treasury has also made clear that it
retains the ability to expedite or extend
timelines in any adjudication or pre-
adjudication process pursuant to section

35.4(b) of the final rule, although the
general timelines set forth in the interim
final rule are maintained in the final
rule.

This process is intended to provide
the recipient with an adequate
opportunity to present additional
information regarding its uses of funds
and provides flexibility for recipients to
determine the information relevant to
the particular facts and circumstances. It
is also flexible enough to align with
other adjudication procedures in other
ARPA recovery programs administered
by the Office of Recovery Programs at
Treasury. As discussed above, the initial
notice will provide recipients with an
explanation of the identified potential
violation in order to provide recipients
with a meaningful opportunity to
respond. Such initial notice will
generally include information regarding
the specific use of SLFRF funds and the
source of such information.
388 This
process also will allow the Secretary to
take into consideration the information
provided by recipients, along with other
relevant information, to ensure SLFRF
funds are used in a manner consistent
with the Social Security Act.

Finally, Treasury expects to work
with recipients to support the use of
SLFRF funds consistent with the law.

For example, Treasury may request
additional information from a recipient
before initiating the recoupment
process. In addition, Treasury may
pursue other forms of remediation and
monitoring in conjunction with, or as an
alternative to, recoupment.
389 These
efforts may include working with
recipients to identify and substitute
permissible uses of SLFRF funds or
amending uses of SLFRF funds to
comply with applicable restrictions.

In response to comments regarding
the amount of time provided to respond
to an initial notice, the final rule
clarifies that Treasury retains the ability
to expedite or extend timelines in any
adjudication or pre-adjudication process
pursuant to section 35.4(b) of the final
rule, although the general timelines set
forth in the interim final rule are
maintained in the final rule.

V. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Assessment
This final rule is a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 for the purposes
of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
because it is likely to have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.

As explained below, this regulation
meets a substantial need: ensuring that
recipients—states, territories, Tribal
governments, and local governments—
of SLFRF funds fully understand the
requirements and parameters of the
program as set forth in the statute and
deploy funds in a manner that best
reflects Congress’ intent to provide
necessary relief to recipient
governments adversely impacted by the
COVID–19 public health emergency.

Furthermore, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, Treasury has
weighed the costs and benefits of this
final rule and varying alternatives and
has reasonably determined that the
benefits of the final rule to recipients
and their communities far outweigh any
costs.

The rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in accordance with Executive
Order 12866.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Under Executive Order 12866, OMB
must determine whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and subject to review
by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a significant regulatory
action as an action likely to result in a
rule that may, among other things, have
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. This rule is likely to
have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more, and therefore,
it is subject to review by OMB under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Treasury has also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, section 1(b) of
Executive Order 13563 requires that an
agency: (1) Propose or adopt regulations
only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
its regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and (5)
identify and assess available alternatives
to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives—such as user fees
or marketable permits—to encourage the
desired behavior, or providing
information that enables the public to
make choices. Executive Order 13563
also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best
available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits
and costs as accurately as possible.’’
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has
emphasized that these techniques may
include ‘‘identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.’’
Based on the analysis that follows and
the reasons stated elsewhere in this
document, Treasury believes that this
final rule is consistent with the
principles set forth in Executive Orders
12866 and 13563. This Regulatory
Impact Analysis discusses the need for
regulatory action, the potential benefits,
and the potential costs. Treasury has
assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action, and
is issuing this final rule only on a
reasoned determination that the benefits
exceed the costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches,
Treasury selected those approaches that
would maximize net benefits.

Need for Regulatory Action
This final rule implements the $350
billion SLFRF program of the ARPA,
which Congress passed to help states,
territories, Tribal governments, and
localities respond to the ongoing
COVID–19 public health emergency and
its economic impacts. As the agency
charged with execution of these
programs, Treasury has concluded that
this final rule is needed to ensure that
recipients of SLFRF funds fully
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4440 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 390 See, e.g., Gabriel Chodorow-Reich et al., Does
state Fiscal Relief During Recessions Increase
Employment? Evidence from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 4 American
Economic Journal 118–145 (2012) http://dx.doi.org/

10.1257/pol.4.3.118.
391 See, e.g., Fitzpatrick, supra note 278.
understand the requirements and
parameters of the program as set forth in
the statute and deploy funds in a
manner that best reflects Congress’
mandate for targeted fiscal relief. This
final rule governs the use of $350 billion
in grant funds from the federal
government to states, territories, Tribal
governments, and localities, generating
a significant macroeconomic effect on
the U.S. economy. Treasury has sought
to implement the program in ways that
maximize its potential benefits while
minimizing its costs. It has done so by:
aiming to target relief in key areas
according to the congressional mandate;
offering clarity to states, territories,
Tribal governments, and localities while
maintaining their flexibility to respond
to local needs; and limiting
administrative burdens.

Analysis of Benefits
Relative to a pre-statutory baseline,
the SLFRF funds provide a combined
$350 billion to state, local, and Tribal
governments for fiscal relief and support
for costs incurred responding to the
COVID–19 pandemic. Treasury believes
that this transfer will generate
substantial additional economic
activity, although given the flexibility
accorded to recipients in the use of
funds, it is not possible to precisely
estimate the extent to which this will
occur and the timing with which it will
occur. Economic research has
demonstrated that state fiscal relief is an
efficient and effective way to mitigate
declines in jobs and output during an
economic downturn.
390 Absent such
fiscal relief, fiscal austerity among state,
local, and Tribal governments could
exert a prolonged drag on the overall
economic recovery, as occurred
following the 2007–2009 recession.
391
This final rule provides benefits
across several areas by implementing
the four eligible use categories, as
defined in statute: strengthening the
response to the COVID–19 public health
emergency and its negative economic
impacts; replacing lost revenue to ease
fiscal pressure on state, local, and Tribal
governments that might otherwise lead
to harmful cutbacks in employment or
government services; providing
premium pay to essential workers; and
making necessary investments in water,
sewer, and broadband infrastructure.

These benefits are achieved in the
final rule through a broadly flexible
approach that sets clear guidelines on
eligible uses of SLFRF funds and
provides state, local, and Tribal
government officials discretion within
those eligible uses to direct SLFRF
funds to areas of greatest need within
their jurisdiction. While preserving
recipients’ overall flexibility, the final
rule includes several provisions that
implement statutory requirements and
will help support use of SLFRF funds to
achieve the intended benefits.

Preserving flexibility for recipients not
only serves an important public policy
goal by allowing them to meet
particularized and diverse needs of their
local communities but also enhances the
economic benefits of the final rule by
allowing recipients to choose eligible
uses of funds that provide the highest
utility in their jurisdictions.

In implementing the ARPA, Treasury
has also prioritized supporting
underserved communities that have
been disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic. The SLFRF program as
implemented by the final rule provides
even greater flexibility to recipients for
uses of funds in underserved
communities, recognizing that pre-
existing health and economic disparities
in these communities amplified the
impact of the pandemic there. In
general, investments in improving
health outcomes and economic
opportunities provide high economic
returns, so this approach is likely to
achieve substantial near-term economic
and public health benefits, in addition
to the longer-term benefits arising from
the allowable investments in water,
sewer, and broadband infrastructure.

The remainder of this section clarifies
how Treasury’s approach to key
provisions in the final rule will
contribute to greater realization of
benefits from the program.

Public Health and Negative Economic
Impacts
The eligible use category for
responding to the public health and
negative economic impacts of the
pandemic covers a wide range of
eligible uses of funds. Treasury
addresses several key uses of funds in
this analysis, as well as ways that
Treasury has structured this eligible use
to minimize recipient administrative
burden while also maintaining targeting
of the funding to entities that
experienced negative impacts from the
pandemic.

Government Employment: In order to
bolster the government’s ability to
effectively administer services, the final
rule allows for a broader set of eligible
uses to restore and support public sector
employment relative to the interim final
rule. In particular, eligible uses include
hiring up to a pre-pandemic baseline
that is adjusted for historic
underinvestment in the public sector by
allowing funds to be used to pay for
payroll and covered benefits associated
with the recipient increasing its number
of employees up to 7.5 percent above its
pre-pandemic baseline. Eligible uses
also include providing additional funds
for employees who experienced pay
cuts or were furloughed, avoiding
layoffs, providing worker retention
incentives, and paying for ancillary
administrative costs related to hiring.

Treasury believes this expanded
approach, relative to the interim final
rule, provides useful flexibility to
recipients, which may increase a state or
local government’s ability to effectively
deliver services to its residents. While
the interim final rule already explicitly
permitted using funds to restore
recipients’ workforces up to pre-
pandemic levels, the final rule’s
inclusion of an upward adjustment
factor recognizes that, as the population
or economy of a jurisdiction grows over
time, more workers are generally needed
to effectively meet responsibilities. It
also provides recipients greater room to
employ funds toward building back the
public sector workforce after years of
chronic underinvestment since the
Great Recession. Treasury arrived at the

7.5 percent adjustment factor through an
analysis of data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics on state and local
government employment and data from
the Census Bureau on population to
estimate the extent of underinvestment
in the public sector since the onset of
the Great Recession. While Treasury
considered a range of methodologies
and point estimates to set the
adjustment factor, a 7.5 percent factor
errs on the side of recipient flexibility.

Treasury believes this adjustment
enhances recipients’ ability to identify
and meet the particularized needs of
their communities. Treasury also
believes that the additional enumerated
eligible uses for supporting the
workforce provide recipients several
means to help retain current workers,
decreasing turnover costs.

Identifying Eligible Populations
Treasury has provided several
methods for recipients to identify
households, populations, and
communities eligible for services that
respond to the public health and
negative economic impacts of the
pandemic. In general, these methods
seek to provide recipients options to
identify eligible populations with
minimal administrative burden, while
also maintaining targeting of the funds
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4441 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 392 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (last
visited November 9, 2021).
to entities impacted by the pandemic.

Recipients also retain flexibility to
identify and serve other populations
and entities that experienced pandemic
impacts, ensuring that recipients can
meet the particularized needs of their
local communities.

Defining Low and Moderate Income:

To streamline the provision of funds
relating to negative economic impacts
resulting from the pandemic, Treasury
has created an eligibility standard
making it easier for recipients to provide
assistance to low- and moderate-income
populations without needing to identify
and document a specific negative
economic impact. Populations falling
under the definition of low income are
presumed to have been
disproportionately impacted by the
pandemic, while those falling under the
definition of moderate income are
presumed to have been impacted by the
pandemic. In addition, the final rule
recognizes categorical eligibility for
certain enumerated programs and
populations if a recipient chooses to
implement categorical eligibility when
identifying impacted and
disproportionately impacted
populations. Treasury considered
several options for eligibility standards
that would reduce administrative
burdens for recipients when
determining who qualifies as low and
moderate income.

One option involved defining a
household as low income or moderate
income based only on FPG thresholds
and could use levels lower than those
selected. This option involved setting
uniform thresholds throughout the
country.

A second option took a broader
approach, defining a household as low
income if it has (i) income at or below
185 percent of the FPG for the size of
its household or (ii) income at or below
40 percent of the AMI for its county and
size of household. The option defined a
household as moderate income if it has
(i) income at or below 300 percent of the
FPG for the size of its household or (ii)
income at or below 65 percent of the
AMI for its county and size of
household. The combination of an FPG
floor with AMI allows for a regional
adjustment in areas with substantially
higher costs and incomes. Finally,
Treasury also considered a range of FPG
and AMI thresholds above and below
these levels.

Treasury chose the second option.

Treasury believes that the higher FPG
floor will ease administrative burdens
by making more households
presumptively eligible for funds meant
to address negative economic impacts in
a targeted manner. With respect to the
low-income cutoff, 185 percent of the
FPG for a family of four is $49,025,
which is approximately the wage
earnings for a two-earner household
where both earners receive the median
wage in occupations, such as waiters
and waitresses and hotel clerks, that
were heavily impacted by COVID–19.

As such, this cutoff is likely to include
more workers in industries heavily
impacted by COVID–19, who may be
most likely to face disproportionate
impacts of the pandemic, than a lower
threshold.
392 With respect to the
moderate-income cutoff, many
households with incomes between 200
percent and 300 percent of the FPG
struggle with a lack of economic
security, suggesting that 300 percent of
the FPG was an appropriate cutoff for
moderate income.

Treasury also considered relatively
higher thresholds for both an FPG and
AMI approach; however, increasing
income thresholds for presumed
eligibility increases the likelihood that
higher-income workers, who generally
experienced fewer economic impacts
from the pandemic, would become
presumed eligible for responsive
services. Providing services to
households that did not experience a
negative economic impact, or
experienced a relatively minimal
impact, would provide much less
benefit than serving households that
experienced more severe impacts,
diluting the benefits of the SLFRF
funds.

In all, Treasury anticipates that these
selected thresholds, combined with the
regional adjustment, will allow
resources to be targeted toward
individuals and households with the
greatest need while also reducing
administrative burdens on recipients.

Disproportionately Impacted
Populations: In the interim final rule,
Treasury enumerated a broader set of
eligible uses for disproportionately
impacted communities, in recognition
of the pre-existing health, economic,
and social disparities that contributed to
disproportionate pandemic impacts in
certain communities and that
addressing root causes of those
disparities constitutes responding to the
public health and negative economic
impacts of the pandemic. To identify
these communities and reduce
administrative burden, Treasury
allowed recipients to presume that
certain populations—those in QCTs and
those being served by Tribal
governments—were disproportionately
impacted. In the final rule, to further
decrease administrative burden and
enhance recipient flexibility, Treasury is
allowing recipients to also presume that
low-income households were
disproportionately impacted. Treasury
anticipates that adding low-income
households as a presumed eligible
population will maintain targeting of
funds to populations and communities
most likely to have experienced severe
pandemic impacts, while providing a
more flexible approach for recipients.

Identifying Impacted Classes: In the
final rule, Treasury reiterated its stance
in the interim final rule allowing
recipients to designate a class of
households or other entities as impacted
or disproportionately impacted and
provide responsive services. After
designating a class, recipients can serve
a household or entity by simply
identifying that the household or entity
is a member of the class. Relative to
restricting services to only presumed
eligible populations identified by
Treasury, this decision provides vital
administrative flexibility for recipients
that may identify particular impacted
classes in the context of their
jurisdiction. Treasury anticipates that
SLFRF funds will be targeted to
impacted or disproportionately
impacted communities, as recipients
must demonstrate that the designated
class experienced negative economic
impacts or meaningfully more severe
negative economic impacts. This
approach maintains the requirement
that entities served have to have
experienced a negative economic
impact, while simultaneously
minimizing any administrative costs
associated with meeting this
requirement.

Additional Enumerated Uses
The interim final rule enumerated
eligible uses of SLFRF funds to serve
both impacted and disproportionately
impacted communities. For example,
enumerated eligible uses to serve
impacted communities included food
assistance; rent, mortgage, or utility
assistance; and counselling and legal aid
to prevent eviction or homelessness.

Examples of enumerated eligible uses to
serve disproportionately impacted
communities included remediation of
lead paint or other lead hazards and
housing vouchers and assistance
relocating to neighborhoods with higher
levels of economic opportunity. In the
final rule, Treasury had the option to
retain, expand, or reduce enumerated
eligible uses, or shift use eligibility
between disproportionately impacted
and impacted communities. Many
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations public comments suggested potential
expansions of uses, including shifting
enumerated eligible uses for
disproportionately impacted
communities to serve a broader
population of impacted communities.

Taking these comments into account,
Treasury generally took this approach,
in anticipation that the benefits of the
program will increase while recipient
administrative costs in identifying and
justifying non-enumerated uses of funds
will decrease.

Specifically, Treasury added
enumerated eligible uses for impacted
populations including paid sick,
medical, or family leave; health
insurance subsidies; and services for the
unbanked and underbanked, on the
basis that impacts of the pandemic that
were broadly experienced by many
communities would be addressed by
these uses. Treasury also shifted some
eligible uses, formerly restricted only to
disproportionately impacted
communities, to impacted communities.

These uses included community
violence intervention, assistance
accessing or applying to public benefits
and services, affordable housing
development, and services to promote
healthy childhood environments like
childcare and early learning. These uses
were shifted on the basis that the
associated impacts of the pandemic
were experienced by a broader
population, and responses are,
accordingly, eligible to benefit a broader
population.

Additionally, the final rule clarified
that investments in parks and other
public outdoor recreation spaces are
enumerated eligible uses for
disproportionately impacted
communities. In including these uses,
Treasury took into account evidence on
the social determinants of health, or the
ways that social context, like the
neighborhood built environment,
impacts health outcomes. By taking a
more holistic approach to public health,
the final rule allows recipients to
respond more broadly to factors that
contributed to the pandemic’s health
impacts and more fully mitigate those
health impacts.

To balance administrative flexibility
with a maintenance of focus on impacts
of the pandemic, Treasury considered,
but did not include, other proposed
enumerated uses that did not respond to
the impacts of the pandemic or
responded to impacts that were not
experienced generally across the
country by many jurisdictions and
populations. For example, Treasury did
not include pollution remediation
broadly, a proposed enumerated eligible
use for disproportionately impacted
communities, on the basis that
associated projects would only respond
to disproportionate impacts of the
pandemic depending on the specific
issue addressed. In sum, Treasury
expanded enumerated eligible uses
while retaining a focus on broadly
experienced impacts of the pandemic.

Treasury anticipates that this will give
recipients further flexibility to presume
eligibility and respond to pandemic
impacts without increasing
administrative burden.

Capital Expenditures: In the interim
final rule, Treasury permitted funds to
be used for a limited number of capital
expenditures mostly related to the
COVID–19 public health response. This
decision granted recipients some
discretion to use SLFRF funds to
address COVID–19 prevention and
mitigation through certain investments
in equipment, real property, and
facilities, which Treasury recognized as
critical components of the public health
response. In the final rule, Treasury
considered maintaining the provisions
in the interim final rule or expanding
allowable capital expenditures to
provide recipients greater flexibility to
pursue other capital investments that
are responsive to the public health
emergency and its negative economic
impacts. While expanding allowable
capital expenditures may increase the
risk that recipients will undertake large
expenditures that do not sufficiently
address intended harms, or address
harms in a less cost-efficient manner
than an alternative investment (e.g., a
program or service), expanding
allowable capital expenditures would
likely help fill critical gaps in
recipients’ response to the pandemic
and provide equipment and facilities
that generate benefits beyond SLFRF’s
period of performance. To preserve
flexibility while mitigating risks, the
final rule allows recipients to undertake
an expanded set of capital expenditures
while requiring additional written
justifications for projects with an
expected total cost at or over $1 million.

Treasury believes this approach
balances the implementation of
appropriate risk-based compliance
requirements and the provision of
administrative convenience for smaller
capital expenditures, while generally
allowing recipients the flexibility to
undertake a greater variety of responsive
capital expenditures.

Revenue Loss
Revenue Loss Formula: In this final
rule, Treasury’s approach to revenue
loss allows recipients to compute the
extent of reduction in revenue by
comparing actual revenue to a
counterfactual trend representing what
could have plausibly been expected to
occur in the absence of the pandemic.

The counterfactual trend begins with
the last full fiscal year prior to the
public health emergency (as required by
statute) and projects forward with an
annualized growth adjustment. Treasury
has made several adjustments in the
final rule to decrease administrative
burden, reducing costs for recipients,
while still accurately capturing
reductions in revenue due to the
pandemic.

Under the interim final rule, Treasury
specified that recipients calculate
revenue loss on a calendar year basis. In
this final rule, Treasury is providing
recipients the option to calculate
revenue loss on a calendar year or fiscal
year basis, which will allow recipients
the administrative flexibility to
minimize administrative burdens based
on the data available to them.

Treasury’s decision to incorporate a
growth adjustment into the calculation
of revenue loss ensures that the formula
more fully captures revenue shortfalls
relative to recipients’ pre-pandemic
expectations. Recipients will have the
opportunity to calculate revenue loss at
several points throughout the program,
recognizing that some recipients may
experience revenue effects with a lag.

This option to re-calculate revenue loss
on an ongoing basis is intended to result
in more support for recipients to avoid
harmful cutbacks in future years. In
calculating revenue loss, recipients will
look at general revenue in the aggregate,
rather than on a source-by-source basis,
given that recipients may have
experienced offsetting changes in
revenues across sources. The final rule
also provides for removing the impact of
tax increasing or decreasing changes,
which affect the amount of revenue
collected but are not ‘‘due to’’ the
pandemic, from the calculation of
revenue loss due to the public health
emergency. Both of these components of
Treasury’s approach provide a more
accurate representation of the effect of
the pandemic on overall revenues.

Revenue Loss Standard Allowance: In
addition to largely preserving the
formula to calculate revenue loss from
the interim final rule, Treasury also
added an alternative ‘‘standard
allowance’’ option for the revenue loss
calculation to this final rule. Treasury’s
decision to elect to allow a fixed amount
of loss that can be used to fund
‘‘government services’’ allows recipients
the flexibility to use minimal
administrative capacity on the
calculation if desired. The decision also
benefits recipients by allowing them to
avoid expending administrative
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Jan 26, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JAR2.SGM 27JAR2lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2 4443 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 393 Further, the final rule encourages, but does not
require, that recipients pursue broadband
infrastructure projects in locations not currently
served by a wireline connection that reliably
delivers at least 100 Mbps of download speed and
20 Mbps of upload speed.
394 Data from the Federal Communications
Commission shows that as of June 2020, 9.07
percent of the U.S. population had no available
cable or fiber broadband providers providing greater
than 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload
speeds. Federal Communications Commission,
Fixed Broadband Deployment, https://
broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/ (last visited May 9, 2021).
395 See Federal Communications Commission,
Broadband Speed Guide, available at https://
www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadband-speed-
guide (last visited October 28, 2021).
resources to determine how unique
variations in revenue interact with the
revenue loss formula.

Premium Pay
Per the ARPA statute, recipients have
broad latitude to designate critical
infrastructure sectors and make grants to
third-party employers for the purpose of
providing premium pay. While the final
rule provides significant flexibility to
implement the statutory requirement
that premium pay respond to essential
workers, it requires recipients give
written justification in the case that
premium pay would increase a worker’s
annual pay above a certain threshold or
is awarded to an individual whose
annual pay is already above that
threshold. To set this threshold,
Treasury analyzed data from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics to determine a level
that would not require further
justification for premium pay to the vast
majority of essential workers, while
requiring higher scrutiny for provision
of premium pay to higher earners who,
even without premium pay, would
likely have greater personal financial
resources to cope with the effects of the
pandemic. Alternatively, a recipient
need not submit written justification to
Treasury if the worker receiving
premium pay is eligible for overtime
under the FLSA. Treasury believes this
alternative, which is an addition to the
final rule, will give recipients more
flexibility and will simplify application
of the final rule as employers, public
and private, are already legally required
to determine whether an employee is
eligible for overtime pay under the
FLSA. Treasury believes the threshold
and overtime eligibility provision in the
final rule strike the appropriate balance
between preserving flexibility and
helping encourage use of these
resources to help those in greatest need.

The final rule also requires that workers
eligible for premium pay have regular
in-person interactions or regular
physical handling of items that were
also handled by others. This
requirement will help encourage use of
financial resources for those who have
endured the heightened risk of
performing essential work.

Water and Sewer Infrastructure
In the interim final rule, Treasury
aligned eligible uses of funds for water
and sewer infrastructure to those
projects eligible to receive financial
assistance through the DWSRF and
CWSRF administered by the EPA.

The benefits of this approach
included giving recipients an existing
list that would provide them clarity as
well as flexibility in identifying eligible
projects, particularly given the broad
range of projects eligible under the
CWSRF and DWSRF. The approach also
ensured that projects would conform to
vetted project types from a widely used
program. Treasury received comments
from recipients requesting additional
project categories to be considered
eligible, indicating a potential cost to
maintaining alignment with the CWSRF
and DWSRF.

For the final rule, Treasury has
expanded eligibility to include several
additional project types beyond those
covered by the CWSRF and DWSRF.

Treasury believes that expanded
eligibility will benefit recipients by
allowing them additional flexibility to
pursue beneficial projects, including
project categories that support the
provision of drinking water and the
removal, management, and treatment of
wastewater and stormwater: Additional
stormwater management projects,
private well infrastructure, additional
projects that address lead in water, and
certain dam and reservoir rehabilitation
projects undertaken to address the
provision of drinking water. A potential
cost of this approach is that uses beyond
the CSWRF and DWSRF may have less
public guidance available to understand
project eligibilities. However, Treasury
anticipates that this eligibility
expansion will provide a net benefit to
recipients by allowing them to pursue
projects relevant to their goals that were
ineligible under the interim final rule.

The expansion to allow private well
infrastructure may also affect the
distributional impact of SLFRF. Private
wells disproportionately serve rural
Americans, including low-income
households, and expanding eligibility to
include this use may allow SLFRF funds
to benefit such households. While
distributional impacts are uncertain,
Treasury believes that the potential for
benefits to accrue to rural and low-
income households makes it important
to clarify that these types of projects are
eligible.

Broadband Infrastructure
In the final rule, Treasury expands
eligible areas for broadband investment
by requiring that recipients invest in
projects designed to provide service to
households and businesses with an
identified need for additional
broadband investment, including
increasing access to high-speed
broadband, increasing the affordability
of broadband services, and improving
the reliability of broadband service.
393
Treasury considered multiple
alternatives when selecting this
standard. The threshold for the interim
final rule allowed benefits to accrue in
a more targeted manner to the
approximately 9 percent of the country
with access to speeds under the 25/3
Mbps threshold.
394 However, since
SLFRF funds are distributed to tens of
thousands of governments across the
country with a variety of broadband
needs, Treasury believes that allowing
recipients greater flexibility to
determine locations to serve in their
jurisdictions—including considering
affordability and competition barriers—
will lead to greater long-term public
benefit. Further, given that many federal
broadband grant programs are focused
solely on unserved and underserved
areas, Treasury believes that the final
rule’s flexibility enables these funds to
fill an important role in the overall
federal broadband landscape.