[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78684-78685]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0128]

Pipeline Safety: Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working
Group Nominations

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Request for member nominations; voluntary information-sharing
system working group.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is seeking nominations for individuals to serve as
members for three-year terms on the Voluntary Information-Sharing
System (VIS) Working Group. This is a newly created working group
established in accordance with section 10 of the Protecting our
Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2016
(Pub. L. 114-183), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5
U.S.C., App. 2, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) must convene a working group by December 19,
2016 to consider the development of a voluntary information-sharing
system to encourage collaborative efforts to improve inspection
information feedback and information sharing with the purpose of
improving gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facility
integrity risk analysis. PHMSA intends to comply with section 10 of the
PIPES Act of 2016 by convening a working group by December 19, 2016.

DATES: Nominations must be received on or before November 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: All nomination material should be emailed to the Advisory
Committee Program Manager Cheryl Whetsel at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
mailed to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, E24-445, Washington, DC 20590, to
the attention of Cheryl Whetsel, Advisory Committee Program Manager,
PHP-30.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Whetsel at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Duties

    The VIS Working Group will consider and provide recommendations to
the Secretary as specifically outlined in section 10 of the PIPES Act
of 2016:
    (a) The need for, and the identification of, a system to ensure
that dig verification data are shared with in-line inspection operators
to the extent consistent with the need to maintain proprietary and
security-sensitive data in a confidential manner to improve pipeline
safety and inspection technology;
    (b) Ways to encourage the exchange of pipeline inspection
information and the development of advanced pipeline inspection
technologies and enhanced risk analysis;
    (c) Opportunities to share data, including dig verification data
between operators of pipeline facilities and in-line inspector vendors
to expand knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the
different types of in-line inspection technology and methodologies;
    (d) Options to create a secure system that protects proprietary
data while encouraging the exchange of pipeline inspection information
and the development of advanced pipeline inspection technologies and
enhanced risk analysis;
    (e) Means and best practices for the protection of safety- and
security-sensitive information and proprietary information; and
    (f) Regulatory, funding, and legal barriers to sharing the
information described in paragraphs (a) through (d).

The Secretary must publish the VIS Working Group's recommendations on a
publicly available Department of Transportation Web site. The VIS
Working Group will fulfill its purpose once its recommendations are
published online.

II. Membership

    The VIS Working Group will consist of no more than 30 members
appointed by the Secretary, including representatives from:
    (a) PHMSA;
    (b) Industry stakeholders, including:
     Operators of pipeline facilities,
     Inspection technology, coating, and cathodic protection
vendors, and
     Pipeline inspection organizations;
    (c) Safety advocacy groups;
    (d) Research institutions;
    (e) State public utility commissions or State officials responsible
for pipeline safety oversight;
    (f) State pipeline safety inspectors;
    (g) Labor representatives; and
    (h) Other entities, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

III. Terms of Service

     Each member serves a three-year term unless the member
becomes unable to serve, resigns, ceases to be qualified to serve, is
removed by the Secretary, or if the VIS Working Group fulfills its
purpose before the term ends. The Secretary may reappoint a member to
serve additional terms.
     All Group members must be able to attend approximately
four meetings each year in Washington, DC, other designated locations,
or by teleconference.
     Members serve without compensation although travel
expenses, including per diem, may be reimbursed for those performing
committee duties away from their homes and regular places of business.
     A member appointed for his or her individual views or
advice must be appointed as a Special Government Employee (SGE). Other
members will serve as Representatives or Regular Government Employees.
SGEs are subject to certain Federal conflict of interest laws.

IV. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the VIS Working Group. Self-nominations
are also accepted. The PHMSA Administrator, on behalf of the Secretary,
is seeking individuals with diverse experiences and expertise in
research and development, academia, human factors, large scale data
management, standards for data exchanges, secure information sharing,
risk management and risk analysis, natural gas or hazardous liquid
pipeline safety, in-line inspection, pipeline anomaly assessment and
remediation, pipeline inspection technology, software system
development, integrity management, or other related experience.
     Nominations must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] including business address and home address,
telephone number, email address, education, professional or business
experience, present occupation, and membership on other working groups
or advisory committees, past or present.
     Nominations must include a short biography identifying
each nominee's qualifications and expertise.
     Nominations for non-industry positions on the VIS Working
Group should highlight relevant experience on panels that dealt with
transportation safety, information-sharing systems, technology
development, data management, software development, or detail their
interest in the subject matter that will be considered by the
committee.
     Nominations must acknowledge that the nominee is aware of
the nomination unless self-nominated.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-26905 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 139)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41268-41271]
[DOCID:fr18jy08-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120; FRL-8693-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for
Marine Vessel and Barge Loading

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision establishes and
requires reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the control
of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from marine vessel and
barge loading. EPA is approving this SIP revision in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, 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
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 through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection 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 Maryland
Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705,
Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20234), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of the control of VOC emissions from marine vessel and barge loading by
establishing RACT requirements. The formal SIP revision was submitted
by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on October 24,
2007.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The Maryland Department of the Environment submitted this revision
to the SIP to establish reasonably available control technology
requirements for marine vessel and barging loading. The SIP revision
includes amendments to Regulation .01 and adoption of new Regulation
.08 under COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic
Compound Storage and Handling. The amendment to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>
consists of a new definition that defines a marine vessel as any tank
ship or barge that transports VOCs in bulk as cargo. The new regulation
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> requires owners or operators of barge loading
facilities in Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert,
Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and
Prince George's Counties to reduce capture of VOC vapors by 90 percent
if emissions from the barge loading equal or exceed 25 tons per year
(TPY). In the rest of the state (Allegheny, Caroline, Dorchester,
Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Washington,
Wicomico, and Worchester Counties), controls are required if emissions
are equal to or exceed 50 TPY.
    The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. On April 15, 2008, EPA received a
comment on the April 15, 2008 NPR. A summary of the comment submitted
and EPA's response is provided in section III of this document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response

    Comment: A single commenter questions why the state is establishing
a RACT standard for marine vessel and barge loading instead of a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) or Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standard. The commenter also claims that established
BACT and MACT standards would achieve greater control than the proposed
RACT standard, though at cost ranging from somewhat less than estimated
by the state.
    Response: These amendments, submitted by the State of Maryland
establishing RACT requirements for VOC emissions from marine vessel and
barge loading, are being approved by EPA because EPA has determined
that they properly represent RACT for this source category. Since the
1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the lowest
emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. See, e.g., 72 FR
20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Maryland submitted this SIP revision
request pursuant to the RACT requirements of sections 182 and 184 of
the CAA. Other provisions of the CAA may require BACT or MACT level
controls for sources. However, these are generally considered to be
more stringent than RACT, and thus, the controls necessary to meet BACT
or MACT requirements may not be the same as controls that would meet
the RACT requirement.
    Maryland is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that was
created by section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all VOC sources
that have the potential to emit 50 TPY or more. In addition, section
182(b)(2) requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all
major sources of VOC in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas
within the State. Major VOC sources are those with the potential to
emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in serious areas, and
25 TPY in severe areas.
    BACT, on the other hand, is a case-by-case emissions limitation
based on the maximum degree of reduction of a regulated pollutant
emitted from a major new source or a major modification of an existing
source, as determined by application of EPA's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration regulations, 40 CFR 52.21, which are authorized by
sections 160-169 of the CAA. BACT, therefore, is determined by a
different standard than RACT and does not apply to unmodified existing
sources that would be covered by the RACT rule.
    Similarly, MACT is also a distinct legal requirement and is
determined through a different standard than RACT. MACT standards are
designed to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions to a maximum
achievable degree, taking into account factors such as cost and energy
requirements, as set forth at 40 CFR 63.41, and as authorized by
section 112 of the CAA. Although EPA has promulgated a standard for
barge loading (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Y), as with BACT, not every
source required to be covered by the Maryland RACT rule would be
required to have a MACT limit, and the definition of MACT takes into
account factors that are not required for RACT.
    In sum, RACT, MACT, and BACT are potentially overlapping emissions
limitation requirements, authorized by different provisions of the CAA,
directed to remedy distinct problems (RACT, in this case, to help
attain the federal ozone standard by controlling emissions of VOC, an
ozone precursor; BACT to prevent significant deterioration in areas
attaining a federal standard through permitting of new and modified
sources; and MACT to control emissions of listed hazardous air
pollutants), covering different (but potentially overlapping) subsets
of sources, and based on different control standards.
    The commenter's failure to document and support either cost data
provided in the comment, or the methodology the commenter used to
determine BACT/MACT, prevents EPA from ascertaining whether or not the
commenter has properly determined BACT/MACT for these operations, the
relative costs compared to the RACT adopted by the State, where the
cost data supplied in the comment comes from, or if it is valid. Mere
assertions, without analysis, that EPA's proposal is wrong are an
insufficient basis for EPA to disapprove this SIP. See International
Fabricare Inst. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
    EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP submittal and determined that the
Maryland regulation meets the requirements for RACT. Because this SIP
revision meets the criteria for RACT, as well as the other
approvability criteria, EPA must approve this SIP revision. See section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see also, Union Elec. Co.
v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976).

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the control of volatile organic compound emissions
by establishing reasonably available control technology requirements
for marine vessel and barge loading as a revision to

the Maryland SIP which was submitted on October 24, 2007. This
regulation will result in the reduction of VOC emissions from the
affected sources.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action pertaining to Maryland's amendments
to the control of volatile organic compound emissions by establishing
RACT requirements for marine vessel and barge loading may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 2, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and adding the entry for COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c)* * *

                                                      EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Code of Maryland administrative                               State                                              Additional explanation/citation at 40
   regulations (COMAR) citation         Title/subject      effective date             EPA approval date                         CFR 52.1100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>.......................  Definitions..........         10/8/07  07/18/08 [Insert page number where the
                                                                            document begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>.......................  Control of VOC                10/8/07  07/18/08 [Insert page number where the  New regulation
                                     Emissions from                         document begins].
                                     Marine Vessel
                                     Loading.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-16272 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15837-15838]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0729; FRL-10021-69-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Part 9 Miscellaneous Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to Michigan's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
submittal, by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and
Energy (EGLE) on December 18, 2020, incorporates administrative changes
to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules, Part 9, ``Emissions
Limitations and Prohibitions--Miscellaneous''. This revision will
continue with the consolidation of all the adoption by reference
materials used by EGLE in other rules in Michigan's SIP into one
location in Part 9.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2020-0729 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What did EGLE submit?

    On December 18, 2020, EGLE submitted to EPA a request to revise
Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules, Part 9. Specifically, the state
requested that we approve a revision to R 336.1902, Adoption of
standards by reference. The current SIP-approved version of R 336.1902
includes material that is adopted by reference and is cited by EGLE in
other SIP-approved rules. The adopted by reference materials include,
but are not limited to, the Code of Federal Regulations, emission test
methods, and other technical

documents. On March 30, 2018 (83 FR 30571), EPA approved the
consolidation of adopted by reference materials in Part 9, R 336.1902
into the Michigan SIP.

II. EPA's Analysis of EGLE's Submittal

    In the December 18, 2020 submission, EGLE revised R 336.1902 to
include additional reference materials to maintain consistency between
rules contained in the SIP and Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules.
The changes to Part 9 are administrative, revising R 336.1902 to
include more adoption by reference material aforementioned by adding
the following subrules to R 336.1902: (1)(b)(ii), (1)(b)(vi), (1)(o),
(1)(o)(vi), (1)(r) to (u), (2)(d), (3)(b), (4)(g) to (k), (6)(a) to
(d), and (10) (See tables 1-14 of EGLE's submission for details). Also,
the changes to R 336.1902 reflect the most up-to-date version of the
materials adopted by reference currently approved in Michigan's SIP.

Section 110(l) Analysis of the State's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve the revision to Part 9, as discussed
above because it meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Furthermore, EGLE has shown that the revision to Part 9 does
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement,
consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Under Section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171 of the CAA) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
The proposed SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable CAA
requirements based on the technical analysis submitted by EGLE. In Part
9, R 336.1902 contains materials that are adopted by reference and are
strictly administrative in nature. Thus, the revision will have no
effect on actual or allowable emissions.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revision to Part 9 into Michigan's
SIP, as submitted on December 18, 2020.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules, Chapter 336, Part 9,
R 336.1902 ``Adoption by reference'', effective on November 18, 2018.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 22, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-06165 Filed 3-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38805-38807]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-194-000]

Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North-South
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting and Onsite Environmental Reviews

June 24, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the North-South Project, involving
construction and operation of facilities by Central New York Oil and
Gas Company, LLC (CNYOG) in Bradford County, Pennsylvania and Tioga
County, New York. This EA will be used by the Commission in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be

evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on
July 26, 2010.
    Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the
public scoping meeting scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       FERC Public Scoping Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           North-South Project
                        July 15, 2010, at 7 p.m.
         Treadway Inn and Conference Center 1100 State Route 17C
                          Owego, New York 13827
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff will also conduct two environmental site
reviews of the proposed compressor station locations in Bradford
County, Pennsylvania and Tioga County, New York. All interested parties
planning to attend must provide their own transportation. Those
attending should meet at the following locations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           FERC Environmental Site Reviews North-South Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Compressor Station NS2--Bradford County, Pennsylvania
                        July 14, 2010, at 2 p.m.
             Tennessee Gas Pipeline's Station 319 (driveway)
                   Turkey Path Road (State Route 1004)
                      Wyalusing, Pennsylvania 18853
             Compressor Station NS1--Tioga County, New York
                        July 15, 2010, at 8 a.m.
               Treadway Inn and Conference Center (Lobby)
                          1100 State Route 17C
                          Owego, New York 13827
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the proposed project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this project
and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement
negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could
initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be
determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice CNYOG provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is
also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    CNYOG proposes to construct and operate one new compressor station
in both Tioga County, New York (NS1) and Bradford County, Pennsylvania
(NS2). The North-South Project is associated with CNYOG's existing
Stagecoach Storage Project and would increase the firm throughput
capacity of CNYOG's North Lateral to 560 million cubic feet per day
(MMcf/d) and South Lateral to 728 MMcf/d. According to CNYOG, its
project would provide service between receipt and delivery points at
the existing interconnects as well as from intermediate receipt points
along both laterals.
    The North-South Project would consist of the following facilities:
     One electric-driven 13,400-horsepower (hp) centrifugal
compressor at the NS1 compressor station;
     One electric-driven 15,300-hp Solar C45 centrifugal
compressor at the NS2 compressor station;
     Expansion of metering facilities at the interconnects
between CNYOG's North and South Laterals and Millennium Pipeline
Company's pipeline and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's (TGP) Line 300
pipeline, respectively,
     Two 30-inch natural gas pipelines about 900 feet long from
NS2 to the interconnect with TGP.
     An electric substation at the NS1 compressor station; and
     An 1,800-foot-long nonjurisdictional powerline at the NS2
compressor station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would temporarily disturb
about 54.3 acres of land for the proposed compressor stations and
powerline. Following construction, 5 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the NS1 compressor station in Tioga County, and
5 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the NS2
compressor station in Bradford County. About 2 acres would be
maintained for access roads, about 1 acre would be utilized for
pipeline right-of-way, and about 7 acres would be utilized for the
powerline right-of-way. The remaining land would be restored and
allowed to revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the

public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA is published for
review. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are
considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section below.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations, we are using this notice to solicit the views
of the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\3\ We will document our findings on the impacts on cultural
resources and summarize the status of consultations under section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act in our EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 26,
2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please
reference the project docket number (CP10-194-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's website.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-194). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16279 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date:	February 19, 2015

To:	Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738

From:	Andrew Bouchard

Subject:	Meeting Record for February 19, 2015 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and The Dow Chemical Company

On February 19, 2015, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a conference call with The Dow Chemical Company. The purpose of the call was to discuss the initial MPGF AMEL notice and process for submitting comments to the docket. See Attachment 1 for the names and affiliations of the meeting participants.

Attachment 1

Participants in February 19, 2015 EPA/Dow Meeting

The Dow Chemical Company Representatives

Russell Wozniak

Jarod Davis

Vance Varner

U.S. EPA Representatives

Andrew Bouchard

Brenda Shine

Susan Stahle

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76972-76973]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13878-000]

Kahawai Power 1, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

December 3, 2010.
    On November 12, 2010, Kahawai Power 1, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Hanalei River
Hydroelectric Project (Hanalei River) to be located on the Hanalei
River, Pekoa Stream, Kaapahu Stream, and Kaiwa Stream in the vicinity
of Hanalei, Hawaii. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project will consist of the following: (1) A 80-foot-
long, 15-foot-high concrete diversion weir and intake structure on the
Hanalei River creating a reservoir with a storage capacity of 7.7-acre-
feet; (2) a 23,500-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter main steel penstock
running from the Hanalei diversion weir to the powerhouse; (3) a 35-
foot-long, 5-foot-high concrete diversion weir with intake structure
located on the Kaiwa Stream creating a reservoir with a storage
capacity of less than 0.25 acre-feet; (4) a 1,100-foot-long, 2-foot-
diameter steel feeder penstock from the Kaiwa intake structure to the
main penstock; (5) a 35-foot-long, 5-foot-high concrete diversion weir
with intake structure located on the Kaapahu Stream creating a
reservoir with a storage capacity of less than 0.25 acre-feet; (6) a
2,800-foot-long, 2-foot-diameter steel feeder penstock from the Kaapahu
intake to the main penstock; (7) a 35-foot-long, 5-foot-high concrete
diversion weir with intake structure located on the Pekoa Stream
creating a

reservoir with a storage capacity of less than 0.25 acre-feet; (8) a
1,700-foot-long, 2-foot-diameter steel feeder penstock from the Pekoa
intake to the main penstock; (9) a 60-foot-long, 40-foot-wide
reinforced concrete powerhouse containing one 3.5-megawatt two-jet
turgo turbine; (10) a substation with a 4.16/25-kilovolt (kV) three
phase step-up transformer; (11) a one-mile-long, 25kV transmission
line; and (12) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation
of the Hanalei River project would be 12.25 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Kahawai Power 1, LLC, 33
Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13878-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31019 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9219-9222]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 225

[FRA-2008-0136, Notice No. 10]
RIN 2130-ZA16

Monetary Threshold for Reporting Rail Equipment Accidents/
Incidents for Calendar Year 2018

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA's accident/incident reporting regulations require
railroads to report to the agency all rail equipment accidents/
incidents above the monetary reporting threshold (reporting threshold)
for that calendar year (CY). There is no change to the CY 2017
reporting threshold ($10,700) for CY 2018 as the overall increase in
wages and equipment costs were not great enough to cause the threshold
to change when rounded to the nearest $100.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 5, 2018. This final rule is
applicable January 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kebo Chen, Staff Director, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Safety Analysis, RRS-22, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, Room
W33-314, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-
493-6079); or Senya Waas, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, RCC-10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-223, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A ``rail equipment accident/incident'' is a collision, derailment,
fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of
railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving) that results in
damages to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track
structures, or roadbed, including labor costs and the costs for
acquiring new equipment and material, greater than the reporting
threshold for the year in which the event occurs. See 49 CFR 225.19(c).
A railroad must report each rail equipment accident/incident to FRA
using the Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54).
See 49 CFR 225.19(b), (c), 225.21(a). Paragraphs (c) and (e) of 49 CFR
225.19 further provide that FRA will adjust the dollar figure
constituting the reporting threshold, if necessary, every year under
the procedures in 49 CFR part 225 Appendix B to reflect any cost
increases or decreases.
    Approximately one year has passed since FRA reviewed the reporting
threshold. See 81 FR 94271, Dec. 23, 2016. Consequently, FRA has
recalculated the reporting threshold under 49 CFR 225.19(c), using
updated costs for labor and equipment. FRA has determined the current
reporting threshold of $10,700, which applies to rail equipment
accidents/incidents that occur during CY 2017, should remain the same
for rail equipment accidents/incidents that occur during CY 2018. The
specific inputs to the equation set forth in Appendix B (Tnew = Tprior
* [1 + 0.4(Wnew - Wprior)/Wprior + 0.6(Enew - Eprior)/100]) are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tprior                  Wnew                  Wprior                  Enew                 Eprior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          $10,700              $29.77918              $29.99942              203.83333              203.33333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where:

Tnew = New threshold;
Tprior = Prior threshold (with reference to the threshold, ``prior''
refers to the previous threshold rounded to the nearest $100, as
reported in the Federal Register);
Wnew = New average hourly wage rate, in dollars;
Wprior = Prior average hourly wage rate, in dollars;
Enew = New equipment average Producer Price Index (PPI) value;
Eprior = Prior equipment average PPI value.

See 49 CFR part 225 Appendix B. Using the above figures, the calculated
new threshold, represented as Tnew, is $10,700.64, which is rounded to
the nearest $100 for a final reporting threshold of $10,700 for CY
2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wage statistics are available from the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), ``Quarterly Wage Form A&B,'' at https://www.stb.gov/stb/industry/econ_reports.html (visited December 5,
2017). The average hourly wage rate is determined by dividing the
compensation for time worked at straight time rates by the service
hours worked at straight time rates (yielding dollars per hour). FRA
averages the second-quarter data reported for the Group No. 300
Maintenance of Way and Structures employees, and the Group No. 400
Maintenance of Equipment and Stores employees.
    The equipment PPI is available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), U.S. Department of Labor, ``PPI Databases: Commodity Data,'
at https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ (visited December 5, 2017). Select Group
14 Transportation Equipment, then Item 144 Railroad Equipment,
followed by checking Not Seasonally Adjusted. The complete Series ID
is WPU144, base date 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA intends to publish a rulemaking (RIN 2130-AC49) to reexamine
its method for calculating the reporting threshold in 2018 because more
accurate methodologies for calculating the threshold are available. FRA
believes updating its methodology will ensure the reporting threshold
reflects changes in equipment and labor costs as accurately as
possible.

Notice and Comment Procedures

    FRA is proceeding directly to a final rule as it finds public
notice and comment to be unnecessary per the ``good cause'' exemption
in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FRA made this finding because it: (1) Is
required under current regulations to establish the monetary reporting
threshold; (2) Is utilizing a formula developed after notice and
comment in a final rule published in 2005 (70 FR 75414, Dec. 20, 2005);
and (3) is not exercising any discretion in calculating and applying
the monetary threshold for 2018.

Regulatory Evaluation

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    FRA evaluated this final rule under existing policies and
procedures, and determined it is non-significant under both Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR
11034, Feb. 26, 1979. Furthermore, this final rule is exempt from the
regulatory budgeting and two-for-one requirements of Executive Order
13771 as it has been determined to be non-significant.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FRA developed this rule under Executive Order 13272, Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking, and DOT's
procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) to ensure potential impacts of rules on small
entities are properly considered. See E.O. 13272; 5 U.S.C. 601.
    The RFA requires an agency to review regulations to assess their
impact on small entities, unless the Secretary certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Under Section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), Federal agencies
may adopt their own size standards for small entities in consultation
with both the Small Business Administration and public comment. Under
that authority, FRA has published a final statement of agency policy
formally establishing, for FRA's regulatory purposes, that ``small
entities'' are railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers
that meet the revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth
in 49 CFR 1201.1-1 ($20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual
revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions
that serve populations of 50,000 or less). See 49 CFR part 209 Appendix
C. FRA used this definition for the current rulemaking.
    About 748 of the approximately 799 railroads in the United States
are considered small entities by FRA. FRA certifies this final rule
will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. To the extent this rule has any impact on small
entities, the impact will be neutral or insignificant. The frequency of
rail equipment accidents/incidents, and therefore also the frequency of
required reporting, is generally proportional to the size of the
railroad. A railroad employing thousands of employees and operating
trains millions of miles is exposed to greater risks than one with a
substantially smaller operation. Small railroads may go for months at a
time without having a reportable occurrence of any type, and even
longer without having a rail equipment accident/incident. Class III
reported rail equipment accidents/incidents for a five-year period are
shown below.

                 Rail Equipment Accident/Incidents (Train Accidents) Reported by Small Railroads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent  Class
                                                                                III train
                          Year                            Class III train      All railroad      accidents/all
                                                             accidents       train accidents     railroad train
                                                                                accidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012...................................................                289              1,766                 16
2013...................................................                307              1,853                 17
2014...................................................                272              1,887                 14
2015...................................................                288              1,936                 15
2016...................................................                249              1,646                 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FRA Safety Data website at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.aspx (visited December
  8, 2017), Agency query.

    On average over those five calendar years, small railroads reported
about 15% (ranging from 14% to 17%) of the total number of rail
equipment accidents/incidents. FRA notes that these data are subject to
minor changes due to additional reporting.
    The monetary reporting threshold, when rounded, did not increase
for CY 2018. In general, however, absent this rulemaking (i.e., absent
increasing the reporting threshold in future years), the number of
reportable accidents/incidents in future years would likely increase,
as keeping the same threshold in place would not allow it to keep pace
with the likely increases in wages and rail equipment repair costs.
(Note that the calculated monetary threshold (before rounding) for CY
2017 was $10,698 versus $10,701 for CY 2018.) Therefore, this rule will
be neutral in effect (i.e., accidents/incidents reportable by railroads
in CY 2017 will be reportable in CY 2018). Any recordkeeping burden
will not be significant, and will affect the large railroads more than
the small railroads due to the higher proportion of reportable rail
equipment accidents/incidents experienced by large entities.
    Furthermore, FRA has determined the RFA does not apply to this
rulemaking. As this rule updates the reporting threshold for CY 2018
using the formula developed through notice and comment rulemaking and
published in Appendix B to 49 CFR part 225, FRA finds notice and public
comment is unnecessary and would serve no public benefit. The Small
Business Administration's A Guide for Government Agencies: How to
Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, p. 55 (2017) provides:

    If, under the APA or any rule of general applicability governing
federal grants to state and local governments, the agency is
required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
the RFA must be considered [citing 5 U.S.C. 604(a)] . . . . If an
NPRM is not required, the RFA does not apply.

    As this rulemaking does not require a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the RFA does not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new or additional information collection requirements
associated with this final rule. FRA's collection of accident/incident
reporting and recordkeeping information is currently approved under OMB
No.

2130-0500. Therefore, FRA is not required to provide an estimate of a
public reporting burden in this document.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999) requires FRA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' See E.O. 13132. Policies that have
federalism implications are defined in Executive Order 13132 to include
regulations that 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.'' See E.O. 13132. Under Executive Order 13132, the
agency may not issue a regulation with federalism 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 State and local
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the regulation. See E.O.
13132. Where a regulation has federalism implications and preempts
State law, the agency seeks to consult with State and local officials
in the process of developing the regulation.
    FRA analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria in
Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship between the national government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and the
responsibilities among the various levels of government. See Executive
Order 13132. In addition, FRA determined this rule does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments.
Accordingly, FRA concluded the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply, and preparation of a federalism
assessment is not required.

Environmental Impact

    FRA evaluated this final rule under its Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (FRA Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and related
regulatory requirements. FRA has determined this final rule is not a
major FRA action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment because it is categorically
excluded from detailed environmental review under FRA Procedures
Section 4(c)(20), which addresses the promulgation of railroad safety
rules and policy statements that do not result in significantly
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise or increased
traffic congestion in any mode of transportation. See 64 FR 28547, May
26, 1999.
    Consistent with FRA Procedures Section 4(c)(20), FRA concluded that
no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this regulation
that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review.
As a result, FRA finds this rule is not a major Federal action that
significantly affects the quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Reform Act) (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations
incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law). See 2 U.S.C.
1531 Section 201. Section 202 of the Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further
requires each agency to prepare a comprehensive written statement for
any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year . . . .\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Guidance--Threshold
of Significant Regulatory Actions under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995,'' April 4, 2016, https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/threshold-significant-regulatory-actions-under-unfunded-mandat-0, as accessed December 12, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule will not result in the expenditure of more than
$156,000,000 (the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 2015 dollars) by
the public sector in any one year. Thus, preparation of such a
statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001. Under Executive Order 13211, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates, or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of, a final rule or regulation (including a
notice of inquiry, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of
proposed rulemaking) that: (1)(i) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
See E.O. 13211. FRA has evaluated this rule under Executive Order
13211. FRA has determined this rule will not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and, thus, is not
a ``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211.

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, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, FRA encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name
of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If one wishes to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 225

    Investigations, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 225 of chapter
II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 225-[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901-02,
21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
2. In Sec.  225.19, revise the first sentence of paragraph (c), and
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  225.19  Primary groups of accidents/incidents.

* * * * *
    (c) Group II--Rail equipment. Rail equipment accidents/incidents
are collisions, derailments, fires, explosions, acts of God, and other
events involving the operation of on-track equipment (standing or
moving) that result in damages higher than the current reporting
threshold (i.e., $6,700 for calendar years 2002 through 2005, $7,700
for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for
calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009, $9,200 for calendar
year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500 for calendar year
2012, $9,900 for calendar year 2013, $10,500 for calendar year 2014,
$10,500 for calendar year 2015, $10,500 for calendar year 2016, and
$10,700 for calendar years 2017 and beyond, until revised) to railroad
on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed,
including labor costs and the costs for acquiring new equipment and
material.
* * * * *
    (e) The reporting threshold is $6,700 for calendar years 2002
through 2005, $7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year
2007, $8,500 for calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009,
$9,200 for calendar year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500
for calendar year 2012, $9,900 for calendar year 2013, $10,500 for
calendar year 2014, $10,500 for calendar year 2015, $10,500 for
calendar year 2016, and $10,700 for calendar years 2017 and beyond,
until revised. The procedure for determining the reporting threshold
for calendar years 2006 and beyond appears as paragraphs 1-8 of
appendix B to part 225.
* * * * *

Juan D. Reyes, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-04349 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P