Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74449 

Column A Column B Column C 

Approved critical uses Approved critical user and location of use 

Limiting critical conditions that exist, or that the approved critical 

user reasonably expects could rise without methyl bromide 

fumigation: 

(b) Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres ......... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation, or moderate to severe pythium root and collar rots. 

Moderate to severe southern blight infestation, crown or root 

rot. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features. 

Strawberry Fruit .............. California growers ................................................... Moderate to severe black root rot or crown rot. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

Strawberry Nurseries ...... California growers ................................................... Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Tomatoes ........................ (a) Florida growers .................................................. Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical. 

features and soils not supporting seepage irrigation. 

(b) Georgia growers on fewer than 10 acres ......... Moderate to severe yellow or purple nutsedge infestation. 

Moderate to severe soilborne disease infestation. 

Moderate to severe nematode infestation. 

Restrictions on alternatives due to karst topographical features. 

POST-HARVEST USES 

Food Processing ............. (a) Rice millers in the U.S. who are members of 

the USA Rice Millers Association.

Moderate to severe beetle, weevil, or moth infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(b) Pet food manufacturing facilities in the U.S. 

who are members of the Pet Food Institute.

Moderate to severe beetle, moth, or cockroach infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

(c) Members of the North American Millers’ Association in the U.S..Moderate to severe beetle infestation. 

Presence of sensitive electronic equipment subject to corrosion. 

Time to transition to an alternative. 

Commodities ................... California entities storing walnuts, dried plums, 

figs, raisins, and dates (in Riverside county 

only) in California.

Rapid fumigation required to meet a critical market window, 

such as during the holiday season. 

Dry Cured Pork Products Members of the National Country Ham Association 

and the Association of Meat Processors, 

Nahunta Pork Center (North Carolina), and 

Gwaltney and Smithfield Inc.

Red legged ham beetle infestation. 

Cheese/ham skipper infestation. 

Dermested beetle infestation. 

Ham mite infestation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30225 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9759–1] 

RIN 2040–AF41 

Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Proposed Rule; Stay 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed stay. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to temporarily 

stay our regulation the ‘‘Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule’’ 

(inland waters rule) to November 15, 

2013. EPA’s inland waters rule currently 

includes an effective date of January 6, 

2013, for the entire regulation except for 

the site-specific alternative criteria 

provision, which took effect on 

February 4, 2011. This proposed stay of 

its regulations is until November 15, 

2013, does not affect or change the 

February 4, 2011, effective date for the 

site-specific alternative criteria 

provision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 28, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74450 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyright 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

202–566–1744 and the Docket address is 

OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this rulemaking, 

contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Water, Mailcode 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington 

DC 20460; telephone number 202–564– 

5257; email address: 

bone.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Florida may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and 

flowing waters of Florida could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards (WQS) 

are used in determining National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. Categories and 

entities that may ultimately be affected 

include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ..................................................................................................... Industries discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in the 

State of Florida. 

Municipalities ............................................................................................ Publicly-owned treatment works discharging pollutants to lakes and 

flowing waters in the State of Florida. 

Stormwater Management Districts ........................................................... Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in Florida. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for entities that may be affected by this 

action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table, such as nonpoint source 

contributors to nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution in Florida’s waters may be 

indirectly affected through 

implementation of Florida’s water 

quality standards program (i.e., through 

Basin Management Action Plans 

(BMAPs)). Any parties or entities 

conducting activities within watersheds 

of the Florida waters covered by this 

rule, or who rely on, depend upon, 

influence, or contribute to the water 

quality of the lakes and flowing waters 

of Florida, may be indirectly affected by 

this rule. To determine whether your 

facility or activities may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the language in 40 CFR 131.43, 

which is the final rule. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Background 

On December 6, 2010, EPA’s final 

inland waters rule, entitled ‘‘Water 

Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule,’’ was published in the 

Federal Register at 75 FR 75761, and 

codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final 

inland waters rule established numeric 

nutrient criteria in the form of total 

nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

nitrate+nitrite, and chlorophyll a for the 

different types of Florida’s inland 

waters to assure attainment of the 

State’s applicable water quality 

designated uses. More specifically, the 

numeric nutrient criteria translated 

Florida’s narrative nutrient provision at 

Subsection 62–302.530(47)(b), Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), into 

numeric values that apply to lakes and 

springs throughout Florida and flowing 

waters outside of the South Florida 

Region. (EPA has distinguished the 

South Florida Region as those areas 

south of Lake Okeechobee and the 

Caloosahatchee River watershed to the 

west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. 

Lucie watershed to the east of Lake 

Okeechobee.) The final inland waters 

rule seeks to improve water quality, 

protect public health and aquatic life, 

and achieve the long-term recreational 

uses of Florida’s waters, which are a 

critical part of the State’s economy. 

Two portions of EPA’s original inland 

waters rule—numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida’s streams and default 

downstream protection values (DPVs) 

for unimpaired lakes—were remanded 

to EPA on February 18, 2012 by the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Florida (FWF v. Jackson, 4:08–cv– 

00324–RH–WCS). Per the terms of a 

Consent Decree, EPA is required to sign 

proposed criteria for these remanded 

portions by November 30, 2012 and to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74451 

sign a notice of final rulemaking for 

such portions by August 31, 2013. 

III. Stay of 40 CFR 11.43 (a)–(d) 

A. Rationale for Staying 40 CFR 131.43 

(a)–(d) until November 15, 2013 

As stated in the rule itself (75 FR 

75761, December 6, 2010), the inland 

waters rule was originally scheduled to 

take effect on March 6, 2012, except for 

the site-specific alternative criteria 

(SSAC) provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), 

which took effect on February 4, 2011. 

However, after securing approval from 

the district court judge presiding over 

the Consent Decree, EPA published an 

extension of the March 6, 2012 effective 

date of the rule for four months to July 

6, 2012 (77 FR 13497) to provide time 

for the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) to 

adopt and submit its final nutrient rules 

to EPA for review and approval or 

disapproval under CWA section 303(c). 

FDEP officially submitted its final 

nutrient rules to EPA on June 13, 2012. 

On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39949), after 

securing approval from the district court 

judge presiding over the Consent 

Decree, EPA published a six-month 

extension of the July 6, 2012 effective 

date of the rule to January 6, 2013 in 

order to avoid the confusion and 

inefficiency that could occur should 

Federal criteria become effective while 

EPA reviewed the recently adopted and 

submitted State nutrient rules for 

approval or disapproval under CWA 

section 303(c). 

FDEP’s rules include numeric criteria 

for all freshwater lakes, all springs, 

some inland flowing waters, and certain 

estuaries, as well as narrative provisions 

addressing protection of downstream 

waters. EPA reviewed FDEP’s nutrient 

rules, in conjunction with the 

supporting documentation provided, 

and approved FDEP’s rules pursuant to 

section 303(c) of the CWA. EPA’s 

approval letter is available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/ 

florida_index.cfm. 

FDEP’s numeric nutrient criteria 

apply to a subset of flowing waters 

covered by EPA’s January 14, 2009 

determination and the Consent Decree; 

therefore, EPA must propose federal 

criteria for those flowing waters not 

covered by FDEP’s rule. In a separate 

action, EPA is re-proposing federal 

criteria that were remanded to EPA on 

February 18, 2012, that would apply 

only to those flowing waters not covered 

by Florida’s newly approved water 

quality standards. 

However, at this time, 

implementation of Florida’s EPAapproved rules is unclear. A provision 

included in Florida’s Rule, specifically 

subsection 62–302.531(9), F.A.C., casts 

some doubt as to whether the newly 

approved state water quality standards 

will go into effect if EPA proposes and 

promulgates numeric nutrient criteria 

for streams not covered by the State 

water quality standards. Therefore, it is 

unclear whether an EPA proposal to 

‘‘gap fill,’’ or establish numeric criteria 

for nutrients for Florida flowing waters 

that FDEP does not cover in its Rule, 

would trigger 62–302.531(9), F.A.C. and 

result in much of Florida’s newly 

approved state water quality standards 

not taking effect. See 62–302.531(9), 

F.A.C. In addition, due to a recent 

administrative challenge filed in the 

State of Florida Department of 

Administrative Hearings, there is 

uncertainty as to whether FDEP will be 

able to implement its newly approved 

state water quality standards consistent 

with FDEP’s ‘‘Implementation of 

Florida’s Numeric Nutrient Standards’’ 

(September 2012), a document 

describing how FDEP will implement its 

standards that EPA relied on in its 

approval. 

This stay would provide EPA time to 

clarify implementation of Florida’s rules 

approved by EPA under CWA section 

303(c) and take corresponding final 

action on EPA’s proposal for the 

remanded portions of the inland waters 

rule (streams and default downstream 

protection values (DPVs) for unimpaired 

lakes), for which a notice of final 

rulemaking action must be signed by 

August 31, 2013, and which EPA 

expects would take effect on or around 

November 15, 2013. In addition, the stay 

would provide EPA time to initiate 

rulemaking to withdraw the 

corresponding Federal criteria for 

freshwater lakes and springs if Florida’s 

criteria for freshwater lakes and springs 

will be implemented by the State, e.g., 

if 62–302.531(9), F.A.C. is not triggered. 

If, following consideration of public 

comment, EPA takes final action to stay 

these provisions, these provisions will 

be stayed until November 15, 2013. For 

more information on these actions, go to 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/wqs/ 

index.html. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), since it merely stays 

certain sections of an already 

promulgated rule, and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action 

does not impose any information 

collection burden, reporting or record 

keeping requirements on anyone. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of this action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This proposed rule does not establish 

any requirements that are applicable to 

small entities, but rather merely stays 

certain sections of already promulgated 

requirements. Thus, I certify that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. This proposed rule merely 

stays certain sections of an already 

promulgated regulation. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

proposed rule does not establish any 

requirements that are applicable to 

small entities, but rather merely stays 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74452 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

certain sections of already promulgated 

requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

merely stays certain sections of an 

already promulgated regulation. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has 

Tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by Tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

Tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

develops a Tribal summary impact 

statement. This proposed rule will 

neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

In the State of Florida, there are two 

Indian Tribes, the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida, with lakes and 

flowing waters. Both Tribes have been 

approved for treatment in the same 

manner as a State (TAS) status for CWA 

sections 303 and 401 and have federally 

approved WQS in their respective 

jurisdictions. These Tribes are not 

subject to this proposed rule. This rule 

will not impact the Tribes because it 

merely stays certain sections of already 

promulgated requirements. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866 and because the 

Agency does not believe this action 

includes environmental health risks or 

safety risks that would present a risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. This 

action is not subject to E.O. 12898 

because this action merely stays certain 

sections of already promulgated 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, Florida, 

Nitrogen/phosphorus pollution, 

Nutrients, Water quality standards. 

Dated: November 30, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 131 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

Subpart D—Federally Promulgated 

Water Quality Standards 

2. Effective [DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER OF FINAL 

RULE], 40 CFR 131.43(a)—(d) are stayed 

until November 15, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29800 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. FTA–2011–0015] 

RIN 2132–AB01 

Bus Testing: Calculation of Average 

Passenger Weight and Test Vehicle 

Weight 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that would have amended the Federal 

Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) bus 

testing regulation to increase the 

assumed average passenger weight value 

used for ballasting test buses from the 

current value of 150 pounds to a new 

value of 175 pounds. This increase was 

proposed to better reflect the actual 

weight of the average American adult 

and to provide accurate information to 

the transit agencies that purchase such 

vehicles. In light of recent legislation 

directing FTA to establish new pass/fail 

standards that require a more 

comprehensive review of its overall bus 

testing program, FTA is withdrawing 

the rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, Gregory Rymarz, 

Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of 

Research, Demonstration, and 

Innovation (TRI), (202) 366–6410, 

Gregory.rymarz@dot.gov. For legal 

information, Richard Wong, Office of 

the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366– 

0675, richard.wong@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 317 of the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100–17), now 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 5318, FTA 

established a bus testing program to 

ensure that buses procured with FTA 

financial assistance could endure the 

rigors of daily transit service. 

In a 2009 rulemaking, FTA 

established a procedure by which transit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with