[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33013-33014]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13129]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0014]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 18 individuals
for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0014 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2021-0014, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0014), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2021-0014. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0014, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 18 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a

hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Application for
Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf,'' (78 FR 7479), its
decision to grant requests from 40 individuals for exemptions from the
Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for
interstate CMV drivers. Since that time the Agency has published
additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf
individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification
standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Chris Anderson

    Mr. Anderson, 44, holds a class B license in Texas.

Milca Ceballos

    Ms. Ceballos, 34, holds a class C license in Texas.

Eleazar Contreras

    Mr. Contreras, 25, holds a class D license in Illinois.

Mark Howard

    Mr. Howard, 59, holds a class D license in New York.

Michael Hoyt

    Mr. Hoyt, 32, holds a regular operator's license in Washington.

Pete Kujawa

    Mr. Kujawa, 29, holds a class DM license in Wisconsin.

Richard Kujawa, Jr.

    Mr. Kujawa, Jr., 35, holds a class D license in Wisconsin.

Tia Matthews

    Ms. Matthews, 45, holds a class C license in Nevada.

Jess McMahon

    Mr. McMahon, 24, holds a class A license in Iowa.

John Mark Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell, 34, holds a class C license in California.

Joshua Moore

    Mr. Moore, 42, holds a class C license in Texas.

Richard Palfrey

    Mr. Palfrey, 65, holds a class A license in Florida.

Jonas Pittman

    Mr. Pittman, 44, holds a class A license in North Carolina.

Leroy Raine

    Mr. Raine, 22, holds a class D license in Alabama.

Troy Rolland

    Mr. Rolland, 60, holds a class AM license in Texas.

Shannon Schoenecker

    Mr. Schoenecker, 52, holds a class A license in Kansas.

Brandon Tucker

    Mr. Tucker, 50, holds a class CM license in Pennsylvania.

Jeremy Westmoreland

    Mr. Westmoreland, 43, holds a class DM license in South Carolina.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13129 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications under WIFIA
Response to Public Comments
April 2017

EPA received comments from eight commenters on the proposed rule, "Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications under WIFIA." The comments, including the Agency's responses, are below. Responses to the most significant comments are included in the preamble to the final rule.

Regarding EPA's proposed three alternative methods by which the Agency could allocate additional administrative funds to reduce fees, commenters made three suggestions. One commenter suggested that a combination of the three methods should be used. EPA should first reduce or eliminate credit processing fees charged to applicants for projects that primarily serve a population with a median household income of 80 percent or less of the state median household income. The commenter's rationale is that this approach will target fee relief toward communities that are likely facing some of the most significant water affordability challenges and whose residents could most benefit from both low-cost financing and fee relief. The commenter suggested that any remaining funding available after eliminating credit processing fees in these low-income communities should be used to reduce the credit processing fees for all of that year's remaining applicants by a pro-rata percentage of the total credit processing fees paid by the applicant and any forgiveness of credit processing fees should be calculated on the balance of these fees after the credit for payment of an application fee has been applied. Another commenter suggested that EPA should first reduce the credit processing fee for communities for whom the fees would impose the greatest financial hardship. The commenter stated that EPA should reduce the credit processing fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income. Once fees have been reduced for hardship communities, any remaining funds should be used to reduce credit processing fees by an equal amount per loan for projects serving communities with populations of under 25,000. Another commenter suggested that EPA reduce fees on a pro-rata share based on loan size.
EPA appreciates the comments received on this important issue and agrees that a combination of methods should be used to reduce the credit processing fees of applicants to the extent that Congress appropriates funds beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs. EPA also agrees that the most important use of these additional funds is to reduce the impact of the fees on the neediest applicants.  In order to reduce the impact of fees on those applicants most in need, EPA will reduce the credit processing fee, to the extent possible, by an equal amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income.  If funds remain, EPA will then reduce fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects serving a population of not more than 25,000.  If funds still remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount per loan for all remaining loans.  EPA cannot reduce fees as a percentage of the credit processing fee paid by an applicant, because the total credit processing fee for each loan will not be known until loan closing, making the determination of funds available to reduce fees across all applicants, or a class of applicants, impossible.
EPA appreciates the commenters suggestion to reduce fees on a pro-rata share based on loan size because the credit processing fee is not determined by loan amount; however, EPA will not adopt this suggestion.  The estimated range of the credit processing fee is based on the complexity of the underlying transaction and the difficulty or length of time of negotiations.  Therefore, between two applicants, one with a greater loan size may have a smaller fee. Providing greater relief to applicants charged a smaller fee, irrespective of need, does not align with the Agency's desire to provide relief to the neediest applicants.
With respect to the establishment of the application fee and the lower fee level set for projects serving small communities of under 25,000, one commenter suggested that EPA establish more than two levels for the application fee.  The commenter stated that as proposed, the application fee for a community of 50,000 would be the same as for a large metropolitan area.  The commenter also suggested an alternative to setting fee levels by population by basing the fee levels on project size.
EPA appreciates the commenters suggestions but will not adopt this suggestion. The application fee was established at $100,000 in order to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the Agency may be recovered.  The reduced fee was established based on the statutory allowance for projects serving communities of under 25,000 to apply for loans where total eligible costs are at least $5 million, as opposed to the minimum of $20 million required of all other applicants.  The reduced application fee allows small communities with fewer resources to begin the application process. Creating a reduced application fee for such communities logically follows the statutory allowance for reduced project size for such communities.  Setting application fee levels by project size does not correlate to the ability of an applicant to pay the application fee.  Small communities with large projects would struggle to pay a much higher application fee, while large metropolitan areas that can easily pay the application fee might see a reduced fee.
Another commenter stated that the WIFIA application fees should be waivable or greatly reduced for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is at least 80 percent or less of the state median household income in order to not discourage applications for projects serving low-income communities The commenter proposed that economically stressed communities regardless of size be eligible for application fee waivers or substantial application fee reduction.
EPA appreciates the commenter's proposal but will not adopt the proposal. As previously stated, the application fee was established at $100,000 in order to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the Agency may be recovered. A reduction or waiver of the application fee would remove the incentive for communities to proceed to closing by eliminating the risk of losing the application fee. EPA expects a greater amount of applicants will be able to show economic stress than will be small communities.  If a significant number of applicants receive an application fee waiver or reduction, EPA will be unable to begin the financial and legal analysis required for each project applicant due to limited resources.  As previously stated, if sufficient resources exist for EPA to reduce fees, such resources will be used to reduce the credit processing fees of applicants that serve a population with a median household income that is at least 80 percent or less of the state median household income.  Additionally, the recent WIFIA amendments in section 5008 of P.L. 114-322 allows borrowers to finance fees with the WIFIA loan.
Regarding § 35.10080(b) Adjustment of application fee, a commenter asks: "What is the `application cycle'? Clarifying this helps better understand the frequency with which EPA may adjust the application fees. If this translates to a fiscal year, then this should be clearly stated as such. If it is a timeframe within the fiscal cycle, then clarifying this could make the program more readily understood.
The "application cycle" referred to in this section is the process by which EPA requests and receives Letters of Interest.  Each "application cycle" begins with the issuance of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).  The NOFA may announce multiple rounds of funding within a year. EPA may change the application fee by publishing this change in the NOFA at the beginning of the "application cycle."
One commenter stated that It is not clear under what circumstances EPA might reasonably expect to waive the Credit Processing Fee.
EPA may reduce or waive the credit processing fee if Congress appropriates funds beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs.
One commenter had questions about the servicing fee.  In particular, the commenter asked whether the servicing fee paid for any form of evaluation, for service such as compliance monitoring, for outside consultants, or for internal staff.
The servicing fee covers the costs of servicing the credit instrument, such as collecting and processing loan principal and interest payments.
Another commenter asked whether the optional supplemental fee is an opportunity for the subsidy cost of a project to be paid for by, or on behalf of, an applicant, at a time when EPA does not have sufficient budgetary authority to execute a loan.
The optional supplemental fee allows the subsidy cost to the WIFIA program to be reduced by an applicant through payment of the fee.  This fee will only be charged if the applicant agrees.
One commenter suggests that reducing fees if Congress appropriates funds in any given year beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs is at odds with the purpose of the program and that these funds should be used to increase the amount of subsidy available.
While it is true that any increase in the allowance for administration may be used for subsidy, unless specifically targeted by Congress for administration only, EPA has determined that the best use of such additional funds, if they are available, is to reduce the fee burden of WIFIA borrowers.
Regarding the fee for extraordinary expenses, one commenter states, "In the event that "extraordinary expenses" might be incurred by the EPA in the processing of an application for credit assistance, it may be prudent to identify this possibility, to the extent practical, upon initial review of a proposed application. This would presumably be based on some anticipated circumstance(s), or uncertainty as to the complexity (technical, legal or financial) of the proposed project, and therefore, foreseeable. If this is not the case, then the "extraordinary expenses" allowance seems overly broad, or ill-defined, such that there is no certainty or clarity as to what an applicant might expect the EPA to impose under this provision. It is recommended that a clause be included which either: notes the anticipation, and the timing associated with that notice (i.e., upon proceeding to the application phase, beyond the initial letter of interest); or anticipates certain circumstances associated with the application which allows the applicant to address such known risks in the context of its proposal or application.
EPA appreciates the comment, and notes that the commenter mistakenly asserts that the extraordinary expenses fee may be charged to applicants.  This fee may only be charged to borrowers experiencing difficulty relating to technical, financial, or legal matters or other events (e.g., engineering failure or financial workouts) that require EPA to incur time or expenses beyond standard monitoring, after loan closing.
Regarding the application fee, one commenter states that the fee is in conflict with an amendment to WIFIA in section 5008 of P.L. 114-322 that allows fees to be financed as part of the loan. The commenter believes the final rule must clearly recognize that an applicant may elect to finance its application fees, and should also detail how an applicant would make this request to the agency.
EPA agrees that section 5008 of P.L. 114-322 amends WIFIA to allow fees to be financed as part of a WIFIA loan.  As this is now law, EPA has fully implemented this new feature as part of the WIFIA program.  However, this amendment does not need to be reflected in this rule.  The purpose of this rule is to establish the fee schedule for the WIFIA program and does not in any way intend to regulate or define the financing options or terms for the program.  EPA will issue further information and guidance as necessary related to financing fees.
One commenter suggests that the final rule should describe how an applicant that ultimately does not obtain a WIFIA loan would finance any application fee that it may still be required to pay.
EPA appreciates this suggestion. However, an applicant that ultimately does not obtain a WIFIA loan may not finance any fees paid with a WIFIA loan.  The language amending WIFIA in section 5008 of P.L. 114-322 states, "On request of an eligible entity, the Secretary or the Administrator, as applicable, shall allow the fees under subparagraph (A) to be financed as part of the loan." The language states that fees may be financed by the WIFIA loan.  This clearly references the WIFIA loan obtained to finance a project. There is no circumstance in which an entity that fails to obtain a WIFIA loan for a project may then receive a WIFIA loan to finance fees.
Regarding the application fee, one commenter suggests that any changes to the application fee, as allowed under subsection (b) of the rule, should be published in the Notice of Funding Availability for the fiscal year in which the change will apply.
EPA agrees and plans to issue such changes, if necessary, in the Notice of Funding Availability for the fiscal year in which the change will apply.
One commenter notes that application fees of $25,000 for projects serving communities of 25,000 people and below and $100,000 for projects serving all other communities are significant, but the fact that applicants will have the option to finance these fees rather than paying them in full at the time of application makes them somewhat less daunting than they would be otherwise. The commenter urges EPA to minimize these fees as much as practicable to promote widespread participation in the WIFIA program.
EPA agrees that the ability to finance fees provides relief to applicants but notes that the application fee must still be paid at the time of application.  The cost of the application fee will be reimbursable at the time of loan closing as part of the financing.  Additionally, as part of sound contracts management, EPA will ensure that fees are kept to a minimum necessitated by the review and negotiation of each individual loan.
Two commenters requested assurance and documentation that the fees charged by expert firms are competitive and fall within a reasonable market range and that EPA should select these firms through a competitive process and consider cost as a major selection criterion.
Federal Acquisitions Regulations require EPA to ensure that contract costs are fair and reasonable.  For the WIFIA contracts, awards will be made to the most technically proficient contractor at the lowest cost. The financial advisory and legal services will be procured as commercial services. This method of procurement puts less risk on the government as the contract pricing is set by the market. The engineering support services will be procured through a blanket purchase agreement (BPA). This procurement method utilizes GSA schedule rates that have been negotiated and pre-determined to be reasonable. When selecting the contract vehicle types, EPA worked to select contract mechanisms that ensure all costs fall within a reasonable market range.
Two commenters had questions and recommendations regarding servicing fees.  One commenter would like to know if the servicing fee will increase over the life of the loan due to inflation and would like the option to finance servicing fees. The second commenter recommends that the servicing fee be determined at closing with an inflation factor included and if the servicing fee should rise above the estimate at closing the borrower should receive at least 6 months' notice.
The servicing fee will be set at the time of closing and will be adjusted annually in proportion to the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index.
One commenter recommends that EPA seek to change the WIFIA program to allow the program to keep interest earnings on loan in order to pay for the cost of expert services, thereby reducing fees.
This type of change can only be made by Congress.
One commenter notes that the preamble discusses the use of other sources of financing for a project to pay for fees and recommends that EPA clearly state that since EPA is a federal agency, borrowers would only be able to pay for fees with cash on hand or taxable debt proceeds.
EPA understands that there may be limits on the uses of other sources of financing. However, the recent WIFIA amendments in section 5008 of P.L. 114-322 allowing the financing of fees should alleviate the need to finance fees from other sources.
One commenter notes that the extraordinary expenses fee may not be paid in the event of bankruptcy and recommends that EPA establish a reserve fund to cover these expenses in such circumstance, potentially funded by interest earnings on WIFIA loans.
EPA does not have authority to create a reserve fund to cover future extraordinary expenses.  However, EPA expects that in almost all circumstances it will be able to recover such costs.
One commenter recommends that EPA provide more detail on how the optional supplemental fee is calculated and request public comment on its affordability.  The commenter also asks whether a higher rated credit would be charged a lower fee.
The purpose of the optional supplemental fee is to allow applicants to buy down the subsidy rate in order to proceed to closing in the event there is insufficient appropriated funds to cover the subsidy cost.  This fee will only be charged with the consent of the applicant.  The cost of the fee is based on the availability of appropriated funds and the creditworthiness of the applicant.
One commenter recommends that EPA change the fee structure so that potential fees are more certain.  The commenter notes that EPA will not know if it will be able to reduce fees at the time of application.
EPA understands that costs related to fees may be uncertain at the time of application.  EPA estimates that total fee costs will be on average $350,000 to $700,000 per project.  The fee for each project will be set based on the costs incurred by EPA for that specific project and the amount is expected to vary among applicants.  This variation is a reflection of the amount of time taken to underwrite and negotiate a loan, which may not directly correlate with the size of the project. More complicated transactions with lengthy negotiations will have higher costs.  Despite the loan specific nature of the fee amount, EPA will strive to provide prospective borrowers with a more precise range based on the specific characteristics of the project prior to application.  In addition, it is important to note that the prospective borrower can have a major influence on the fee amount and can keep costs low by accepting standard EPA terms and conditions and reducing time in negotiations.
One commenter suggested that the high fees associated with WIFIA financing appear to be the result of the detailed review of the projects by EPA (often through hired contractors). The commenter suggests that EPA should consider alternative ways of ensuring credit worthiness and meeting the requirements of the statute and that EPA should evaluate the real value of performing independent reviews compared to the alternatives.
EPA has determined that the process by which it will evaluate and underwrite applications for financing is the preferred method.  It ensures that EPA is able to assess and mitigate risks and that the appropriate amount of subsidy is allocated for a loan loss reserve.   EPA will tailor the review process to the specific characteristics, needs, and riskiness of each individual loan.  Not all credits will require extensive review and negotiations, and in those instances, EPA expects fees will be comparatively low.
One commenter notes that an upfront, nonrefundable fee places significant financial burden on applicants who are likely using consultants to develop the documents required for the application and that fees will dissuade most public agencies from applying. The commenter suggests that a better solution would be to set aside a portion of the budgeted funds to cover EPA administrative costs, similar to what state run programs do.
Currently, Congress does not appropriate funding beyond what is needed for the WIFIA program's administrative expenses to reduce or eliminate fees.  To the extent Congress does provide additional appropriations EPA will use the remaining available administrative allowance (less any amount needed for future years' administration) to reduce fees.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 37839]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15461]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST--2014-0011]

National Freight Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meeting

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a public
meeting of its National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) to discuss
the freight provisions in the various surface transportation
reauthorization proposals, including the GROW AMERICA Act and the MAP-
21 Reauthorization Act. Meetings are open to the public and there will
be an opportunity for public comment on each day.

DATES: Dates and Times: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 15,
2014, from 9:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time and Wednesday,
July 16, 2014 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
    Location: On Tuesday, July 15, 2014, the meeting will be held in
the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room G-11 from 9:15 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167 from 1:30 p.m. to
4:30 p.m. On Wednesday, July 16, 2014, the meeting will be held at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drake, Designated Federal Officer
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the NFAC Web site at
www.dot.gov/nfac.

Additional Information

    Background: The NFAC was established to provides advice and
recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to freight
transportation in the United States, including (1) implementation of
the freight transportation requirements of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141); (2)
establishment of the National Freight Network; (3) development of the
Plan; (4) development of strategies to help States implement State
Freight Advisory Committees and State Freight Plans; (5) development of
measures of conditions and performance in freight transportation; (6)
development of freight transportation investment, data, and planning
tools; and (7) legislative recommendations. The NFAC operates as a
discretionary committee under the authority of the DOT, established in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. See DOT's NFAC Web site for
additional information about the committee's activities at www.dot.gov/nfac.
    Agenda: The two day agenda will include:
    (1) Welcome and opening remarks;
    (2) Congressional remarks;
    (3) Overview of freight provisions in surface transportation
reauthorization proposals;
    (4) Discussion on freight reauthorization proposals;
    (5) Public comment will occur at the end of each day.
    The meeting agenda will be posted on the NFAC Web site at
www.dot.gov/nfac in advance of the meeting.
    Public Participation: This meeting will be open to the public.
Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your name and affiliation no later than July 7,
2014, in order to facilitate entry and guarantee seating.
    Services for Individuals with Disabilities: The public meeting is
physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals
requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other
ancillary aids, are asked to notify John Drake, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>five (5) business days before the meeting.
    Written comments: Persons who wish to submit written comments for
consideration by the Committee must email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send them
to John Drake, Designated Federal Officer, National Freight Advisory
Committee, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W82-320, Washington, DC 20590 by
July 7, 2014 to provide sufficient time for review. All other comments
may be received at any time before or after the meeting.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
John Drake,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-15461 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Meeting Notes U. S. Borax/ MeadeWestvaco Meeting June 13, 2006 Attendees Walt Talrek   Consultant/ MeadeWestvaco Nathan Mottl   U. S. EPA/ SRRD Craig Bernard   U. S. Borax Laura Parsons   U. S. EPA/ SRRD Mark Manning   U. S. Borax Peter Caulkins U. S. EPA/ SRRD Sue Hubbard   Rio Tinto Minerals* Tim Leighton U. S. EPA/ AD Mike Harvass   Rio Tinto Minerals* Louis Scarano U. S. EPA/ HED Douglas Marcero MeadWestvaco Jeff Evans   US EPA/ HED Michael Lake MeadWestvaco Linnea Hansen   U. S. EPA/ HED Gregory Yvars MeadWestvaco Richard Gebken   U. S. EPA/ RD Tracy Branch   U. S. Borax * U. S. Borax is in the process of merging with other companies to form Rio Tinto Minerals.

The Agency had a meeting with U. S. Borax ( Rio Tinto Minerals), MeadWestvaco, and a representative from Nissus Corporation during Phase 4 of the 4 Phase Risk Mitigation process. These companies had all requested a meeting with EPA in advance to discuss their Phase 3 public comments submitted at the end of April. The agenda was as follows: 1) introductions; 2) objectives of the meeting and clarification of comments; 3) reregistration process for the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts TRED and timetables, risk mitigation proposals; 4) review of the toxicology data and differences from IRIS report; 5) clarification of exposure information supporting deck treatment, crack and crevice, and swimming pools. Most risks presented in the boric acid/ sodium borate salts risk assessment were associated with deck treatment, crack and crevice, carpet/ upholstery uses, and swimming pools. During the meeting both EPA and the registrants discussed the data needed to support this use and the data provided to EPA during the public comment period. During the meeting EPA mentioned that more data was required for these uses to support registration of these uses. U. S. Borax promised to provide new data to support these uses. EPA summarized the risk mitigation options during the meeting and discussed the next steps. .


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36471-36472]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15456]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0411; FRL-9321-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Adoption of the Revised Nitrogen Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of
adding the new 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard at a
level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) and updating the list of Federal
documents incorporated by reference. In the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0411 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0411, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
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-R03-OAR-
2011-0411. 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 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted 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 during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    For further information, please see the information provided in the
direct final action, with the same title, ``Approval and Promulgation
of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Adoption of the Revised
Nitrogen Dioxide Standards and Update of Appendices,'' that is located
in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register
publication.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-15456 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16113-16114]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-74]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1026; FRL-8816-2]

Bacillus subtilis; Registration Review Final Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's final
registration review decision for the pesticide Bacillus subtilis, case
6012. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can
perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse
effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA
is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current
scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health
and the environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information,
contact: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Kevin Costello, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-5026; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
costello.kevin @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a

wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm
worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1026. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In accordance with 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the
availability of EPA's final registration review decision for Bacillus
subtilis, case 6012. The Bacillus subtilis case consists of four
strains: Strain GB03; Strain MBI 600; Strain QST 713; and var.
amyloliquefaciens Strain FZB24. All four strains occur ubiquitously in
the environment: Bacillus subtilis strain GB03 is used to prevent,
control and suppress plant disease on barley, berries, bulb vegetables,
cole crops, cotton, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, herbs, leafy crops,
legumes, ornamental plants and cuttings, peanuts, root/tuber and corm
vegetables, soybeans, tomatoes, trees, tropical plants, turf, and
wheat. Bacillus subtilis strain GB03 is applied as an irrigation
application, pre-plant soak, overhead spray, soil drench, seed
dressing, tank mix, or hydroponic system treatment; Bacillus subtilis
strain MBI 600 is used to suppress disease organisms such as Botrytis,
Alternaria, Rhizoctonia, and Fusarium and is also used to promote more
effective nodulation by nitrogen-fixing bacteria to improve yields. It
is used as a seed and in-furrow treatment on cotton, seed and pod
vegetables, peanuts, soybeans, alfalfa, forage and turf grasses, wheat,
barley, corn, and canola. It is also used in greenhouses to treat peat
moss and soil intended for seeding, potting, or transplanting non-
bearing fruit and vegetable seedlings and as a foliar spray on
asparagus, cole crops, bulb vegetables, berry crops, cucurbits,
flowers, bedding plants, ornamentals, tropical plants, fruiting
vegetables, grape, leafy vegetables, pome fruit, stone fruit,
strawberry, tuber/root and corm vegetables, turf, sod, lawns, trees,
and shrubs. Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 is used to prevent or
reduce several types of fungal and bacterial pests on artichoke,
asparagus, avocado, beans, beets, berries, brassica crops, bulb
vegetables, celery, cereal grains, citrus, coffee, corn, cucurbits,
beans, eggplant, grapes, herbs/spices, hops, kiwi, kohlrabi, leafy
vegetables, legumes, melons, oil seed crops, oil palm, okra, peanuts,
peppers, pome fruit, rice, root/tuber crops, silage crops, stone
fruits, tomatoes, tree nuts, tropical fruits, field roses, forestry
seedlings, lawns, ornamental flowering plants, ornamental foliage
plants, ornamental trees and shrubs, seed production crops, sod,
tobacco, and turf. Bacillus subtilis var. amyloliquefaciens strain
FZB24 is used for plant strengthening, enhancing growth, increasing
yields and suppressing soil-borne fungal diseases such as Rhizoctonia
and Fusarium as a dip for seedlings, transplants, plugs, tubers, bulbs,
corms, cuttings and roots of ornamentals, shrubs and trees, and as a
spray over furrows for ornamentals, shrubs, trees, turf, vegetables,
herbs and spices, and other crops. It is also incorporated into soils,
soil-less growing media and mushroom spawn media and as a drench for
interiorscapes and potted orchids and ferns.
     In accordance with 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision
is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not
meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered
Bacillus subtilis in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The
Bacillus subtilis Final Decision document in the docket describes the
Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review final decision for
this pesticide.
     In addition to the final registration review decision document,
the registration review docket for Bacillus subtilis also includes
other relevant documents related to the registration review of this
case. The proposed registration review decision was posted to the
docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new
information. During the comment period, the public comments received
were not substantive and did not affect the Agency's final decision.
     In accordance with 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case
docket for Bacillus subtilis will remain open until all actions
required in the final decision have been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier
documents related to the registration review of this pesticide are
provided at: http:/www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/bacillus_
subtilis/index.htm.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Bacillus subtilis, Pesticide and pest,
Registration review.

    Dated: March 24, 2010.
 Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-7237 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S