[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86644-86647]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-38]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
March 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR to
Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer at email:
exception occurred on : 2020-28832.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-28832.htm
hoda[email protected] or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please refer to the
assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA will
summarize comments received in response to this notice in a subsequent
notice and include them in its information collection submission to OMB
for approval.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.

    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Conductor Certification.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0596.
    Abstract: FRA's conductor certification regulation (49 CFR part
242) requires railroads to have a formal program for certifying
conductors. As part of that program, railroads are required to have a
formal process for training prospective conductors and determining that
all persons are competent before permitting them to serve as a
conductor. FRA intended the regulation to ensure that only those
persons who meet minimum Federal safety standards serve as conductors.
FRA collects information to ensure that railroads and their employees
fully comply with all the requirements of part 242, including a
conductor certification/recertification program, fitness requirements,
initial and periodic testing of conductors, and territorial
qualifications.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (estimates) of a currently
approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 765 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                    Respondent        Total annual    Average time per     annual     Total cost
        CFR section \1\              universe          responses          response         burden     equivalent
                                                                                hours         \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
242.9--Waivers--petitions.....  765 railroads....  3 petitions......  3 hours.........            9         $693
242.103(b)--Approval of design  3 new railroads..  3 new conductor    8 hours.........           24        2,880
 of individual railroad                             certification
 programs by FRA--                                  programs.
 Certification programs for
 new railroads.
    --(c)(1) Conductor          765 railroads....  6 certification    15 minutes......            2          154
     certification submission--                     program
     Copies to rail labor                           submission
     organizations (RLOs).                          copies.
    --(c)(2) Affirmative        765 railroads....  6 affirmative      15 minutes......            2          154
     statements that copies of                      statements.
     submissions were sent to
     RLOs.
    --(d) Certified comments    765 railroads....  6 certified        4 hours.........           24        1,848
     on submissions.                                comments.
    --(g) Certification         765 railroads....  15 modified        3 hours.........           45        3,465
     programs disapproved by                        programs.
     FRA and then revised.
    --(h) Revised               765 railroads....  3 resubmitted      2 hours.........            6          462
     certification programs                         certification
     still not conforming and                       programs.
     then resubmitted.
    --(i)(2) Certification      765 railroads....  15 certificate     2 hours.........           30        2,310
     programs materially                            program material
     modified after initial                         modifications.
     FRA approval.
    --(i)(3) Materially         765 railroads....  3 modified         2 hours.........            6          462
     modified programs                              certification
     disapproved by FRA and                         programs.
     then revised.
242.107--Types of service--     35 railroads.....  400 records of     2 minutes.......           13          767
 reclassification to passenger                      trainings.
 conductor or RR imposes
 restrictions.
242.109--Opportunity for        765 railroads....  200 records + 200  30 minutes + 10           133        9,647
 certification candidates to                        comments.          minutes.
 review and comment on prior
 safety record, and RRs to
 retain/respond to comments.
242.111(b)--Prior safety        765 railroads....  16,200             10 minutes......        2,700      207,900
 conduct as motor vehicle                           eligibility
 operator--eligibility                              determinations.
 determinations.
    --(c) Initial               765 railroads....  150 initial        10 minutes......           25        1,925
     certification for 60 days.                     certifications.
    --(d) Recertification for   765 railroads....  125 re-            10 minutes......           21        1,617
     60 days.                                       certifications.
    --(h) Request to obtain     48,500 conductors  16,200 written     15 minutes......        4,050      238,950
     driver's license                               requests.
     information from
     licensing agency.
    --(k) Notification to RR    48,500 conductors  25 notices.......  10 minutes......            4          236
     by persons of never
     having a license.
    --(l) Report of motor       48,500 conductors  400 self-          10 minutes......           67        3,953
     vehicle incidents.                             reporting.
    --(m)-(n) Evaluation of     48,500 conductors  16,200 motor       5 minutes.......        1,350       79,650
     driving record.                                vehicle record
                                                    evaluations.
    --(o)(1) Drug and alcohol   765 railroads....  400 DAC referrals  5 minutes.......           33        3,960
     counselor (DAC) referral
     by RR after report of
     driving drug/alcohol
     incident.
    --(o)(2) DAC request and    765 railroads....  20 requests and    30 minutes......           10        1,200
     supply by persons of                           supplied records.
     prior counseling or
     treatment.
    --(o)(3) Conditional        765 railroads....  50 conditional     4 hours.........          200       24,000
     certifications                                 certification
     recommended by DAC.                            recommendations.
242.113--Prior safety conduct   48,500 conductors  360 requests +     15 minutes + 30           270       20,790
 as employee of a different                         360 records.       minutes.
 railroad.
242.115(b)--Determination that  48,500 conductors  16,200             2 minutes.......          540       31,860
 person meets eligibility                           determinations.
 requirements.
    --(c) Written documents     48,500 conductors  400 filed          30 minutes......          200       24,000
     from DAC that person is                        documents.
     not affected by a
     substance abuse disorder.
    --(d) Self-referral by      765 railroads....  30 self-referrals  10 minutes......            5          600
     conductors for substance
     abuse counseling.
    --(e) Certification         765 railroads....  16,200             10 minutes......        2,700      324,000
     reviews for occurrence/                        certification
     documentation of prior                         reviews.
     alcohol/drug conduct by
     persons/conductors.
    --(e)(3)(i) Written         765 railroads....  150 written        1 hour..........          150       18,000
     determination that most                        determinations.
     recent incident has
     occurred.
    --(e)(3)(ii) Notification   765 railroads....  300 notifications  30 minutes......          150       11,550
     to person that
     recertification has been
     denied.
    --(e)(4) Persons/           48,500 conductors  300 waived         10 minutes......           50        2,950
     conductors waiving                             investigations.
     investigation/de-
     certifications.
242.117(b)--Vision and hearing  765 railroads....  16,200 records...  2 minutes.......          540       64,800
 acuity--determination vision
 standards met.
    --(b) Determination         765 railroads....  16,200 records...  2 minutes.......          540       64,800
     hearing standards met.
    --(c)(1) Medical examiner   765 railroads....  16,200 medical     10 minutes......        2,700      324,000
     certificate that person                        examiner
     has been examined/passed                       certificates.
     test.
    --(c)(2)(i) Document        765 railroads....  100 written        30 minutes......           50        6,000
     standards met with                             documents.
     conditions.
    --(c)(2)(ii) Document       765 railroads....  100 written        30 minutes......           50        6,000
     standards not met.                             documents.

    --(e) Notation person       765 railroads....  5,000 certificate  10 minutes......          833       99,960
     needs corrective device                        notifications.
     (glasses/hearing aid).
    --(j) Request for further   765 railroads....  100 requests +     30 minutes + 10            67        4,950
     medical evaluation for                         100 records of     minutes.
     new determination.                             field tests.
    --(j) Request for second    765 railroads....  25 retest          30 minutes + 10            17        1,238
     retest and another                             requests + 25      minutes.
     medical evaluation.                            reviews.
    --(j) Consultations by      765 railroads....  100 consults +     30 minutes + 10            67        7,283
     medical examiners with                         100                minutes.
     railroad officer and                           certifications.
     issue of conditional
     certification.
    --(k) Notification by       765 railroads....  20 notifications.  10 minutes......            3          177
     certified conductor of
     deterioration of vision/
     hearing.
242.119(a)--Training--new       3 new railroads..  3 training         3 hours.........            9        1,080
 railroads--training program.                       programs.
    --(a) Modification to       765 railroads....  3 programs.......  30 minutes......            2          154
     training program.
    --(c) Completion of         765 railroads....  100 written        1 hour..........          100        7,700
     training program by                            documents.
     conductors/persons--
     documents.
    --(d)(5) Modified training  765 railroads....  24 modified        2 hours.........           48        3,696
     programs due to new laws,                      training
     regulations, orders,                           programs.
     technologies, procedures,
     or equipment.
    --(f) Employee              765 railroads....  1,000              15 minutes......          250       14,750
     consultation with                              consultations.
     qualified supervisory
     employee if given written
     test to demonstrate
     knowledge of physical
     characteristics of any
     assigned territory.
    --(i) Familiarization       765 railroads....  20 training        15 minutes......            5          295
     training for conductor of                      records.
     acquiring railroad from
     selling company/railroad
     prior to commencement of
     new operation.
    --(l) RR continuous         765 railroads....  16,200 training    15 minutes......        4,050      238,950
     education/training of                          records.
     conductors.
242.121(a)--Knowledge testing-- 765 railroads....  16,200             15 minutes......        4,050      238,950
 determining eligibility.                           examination
                                                    records.
    --(g) Retests/re-           765 railroads....  1,000 retests or   15 minutes......          250       14,750
     examinations.                                  reexamination
                                                    records.
242.123(c)--Monitoring          765 railroads....  16,200             10 minutes......        2,700      207,900
 operational performance --                         unannounced
 unannounced compliance tests                       compliance test
 and records.                                       records.
    --(f) Return to service     765 railroads....  1,000 unannounced  10 minutes......          167       12,859
     that requires unannounced                      compliance test
     compliance test/record.                        records.
242.125--Determination made by  765 railroads....  100                30 minutes......           50        2,950
 railroad relying on another                        determinations.
 railroad's certification.
242.127--Reliance on            765 railroads....  20 determinations  30 minutes......           10          590
 qualification requirements of
 other countries.
242.203(b)--Retaining           765 railroads....  16,200 record      15 minutes......        4,050      311,850
 information supporting                             retentions.
 determination--records.
    --(c) Amended electronic    765 railroads....  20 amended         30 minutes......           10          770
     records.                                       records.
242.209(a)--Maintenance of      765 railroads....  2,000 displayed    2 minutes.......           67        3,953
 certificates--request to                           certificates.
 display certificate.
    --(b) Notification by       765 railroads....  1,000              10 minutes......          167        9,853
     conductors that RR                             notifications.
     request to serve exceeds
     certification.
242.211--Replacement of         765 railroads....  500 temporary      5 minutes.......           42        3,234
 certificates.                                      replacement
                                                    certificates.
242.213(e)--Multiple            35 railroads.....  5 locomotive       10 minutes......       1 hour           70
 certificates--notification to                      engineer
 engineer that no conductor is                      notifications.
 on train.
    --(f) Notification of       765 railroads....  10 notifications.  10 minutes......            2          118
     denial of certification
     by individuals holding
     multiple certifications.
242.215(a)--Railroad oversight  53 railroads.....  53 reviews and     40 hours........        2,120      163,240
 responsibility--review and                         analyses.
 analysis of administration of
 certification program.
    --(d) Report of findings    765 railroads....  53 reports.......  4 hours.........          212       16,324
     by RR to FRA.
242.301(a)--Determinations--te  320 railroads....  1,000              15 minutes......          250       14,750
 rritorial qualification and                        determinations.
 joint operations.
    --(b) Notification by       320 railroads....  500 notifications  10 minutes......           83        4,897
     persons who do not meet
     territorial qualification.
242.401(a)--Denial of           765 railroads....  40 notices + 40    1 hour + 1 hour.           80        5,440
 certification--notification                        responses.
 to candidate of information
 that forms basis for denying
 certification.
    --(c) Written notification  765 railroads....  80 notifications.  1 hour..........           80        6,160
     of denial of
     certification, including
     the basis and response to
     any rebuttal from the
     candidate.
242.403--Criteria for revoking  765 railroads....  1,000              15 minutes......          250       14,750
 certification--review of                           certification
 compliance conduct.                                reviews.
242.405--Period of              765 railroads....  1,000 written      1 hour..........        1,000       59,000
 ineligibility--written                             determinations.
 determination that the most
 recent incident has occurred.
242.407(a)--Process for         765 railroads....  1,000 revoked      8 hours.........        8,000      960,000
 revoking certification --                          certifications.
 revocation for violations of
 Sec.   242.115(e).
    --(b)(1) Immediate          765 railroads....  1,000 suspended    1 hour..........        1,000       77,000
     suspension of certificate.                     certification
                                                    letters.
    --(b)(5) Determinations     765 railroads....  1,000              15 minutes......          250       14,750
     based on railroad hearing                      determinations.
     record.
    --(b)(7) Hearing record...  765 railroads....  1,000 records....  15 minutes......          250       19,250
    --(c) Written decisions by  765 railroads....  1,000 written      2 hours.........        2,000      240,000
     railroad official.                             decisions.
    --(c) Service of written    765 railroads....  1,000 served       10 minutes + 5            250       19,250
     decision on employee by                        written            minutes.
     RR and RR retains proof                        decisions +
     of service.                                    1,000 service
                                                    proofs.

    --(f) Written waiver of     48,500 conductors  700 written        10 minutes......          117        6,903
     right to hearing.                              waivers.
    --(g) Revocation of         765 railroads....  15 revoked         10 minutes......            3          360
     certification based on                         certifications.
     information that another
     railroad has done so.
    --(j) Placing relevant      765 railroads....  100 updated        1 hour..........          100        7,700
     information in record                          records.
     prior to suspending
     certification/convening
     hearing.
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals................  765 railroads....  222,386 responses  N/A.............       49,761    4,303,437
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 222,386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current inventory exhibits a total burden of 856,406
hours while the total burden of this notice is 49,761 hours. FRA
determined some of the burdens were outdated and already completed.
Other burdens were not derived from PRA requirements, thus leading
to the increased figures in the current inventory, which were
decreased accordingly in this notice. Also, totals may not add due
to rounding.
    \2\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 49,761 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$4,303,437.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-28832 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please see attached letter requesting an extension to the comment period.


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14506-14507]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Regulation S-X, SEC File No. 270,

OMB Control No. 3235-0009.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Information collected and information prepared pursuant to
Regulation S-X focus on the form and content of, and requirements for,
financial statements filed with periodic reports and in connection with
the offer and sale of securities. Investors need reasonably current
financial statements to make informed investment and voting decisions.
    The potential respondents include all entities that file
registration statements or reports pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-1 et seq.).
    Regulation S-X specifies the form and content of financial
statements when those financial statements are required to be filed by
other rules and forms under the federal securities laws. Compliance
burdens associated with the financial statements are assigned to the
rule or form that directly requires the financial statements to be
filed, not to Regulation S-X. Instead, an estimated burden of one hour
traditionally has been assigned to Regulation S-X for incidental
reading of the regulation. The estimated average burden hours are
solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of SEC rules or forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 11, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5356 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12516-12522]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05876]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578; FRL-9975-87-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Warren Area'' or ``Area''). The Warren
Area is comprised of a portion of Warren County (Conewango Township,
Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) in
Pennsylvania surrounding the United Refining Company (hereafter
referred to as ``United Refining''). The SIP submission is an
attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an
analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2
attainment, contingency measures, and a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program for the Warren Area. As part of approving the attainment
plan, EPA is also proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP new
SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for
United Refining. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan
and concludes that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the
plan meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0578 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. 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: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Warren Area
III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Warren
Area
    A. Pollutants Addressed
    B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
    C. Air Quality Modeling
    D. RACM/RACT
    E. RFP Plan
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. New Source Review
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520
(June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also revoked the
existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject to certain
conditions.\1\ EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence
and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects
are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions
ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory
effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty
breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more
information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please
refer to the June 22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to
designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section
107(d)(1) of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air
quality designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78
FR 47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on
violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011,
where there were sufficient data to support a nonattainment
designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's June 22, 2010, final action revoked the two 1971
primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30
ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520.
However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained.
Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for
certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2,
2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
13-cv-03953-SI (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source United Refining
and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-123-
0004). The October 4, 2013 final designation triggered a requirement
for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for
how the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in
accordance with CAA section 172(b).
    For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a
notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states
had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan by
this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a
deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new
source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to
Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent
letter dated October 5, 2017, to Pennsylvania finding the submittal
complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these
sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of
Pennsylvania's having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally,
under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggers a
requirement that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP)
within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that
time, the state has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has
approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP
obligation will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action
proposed here by April 18, 2018.
    Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. The required
components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c)
of Title I, part D of the CAA. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued
recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory
requirements for SO2 attainment plans.\3\ In this guidance,
EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which
include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions
for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area
(172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that includes a modeling
analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures taken by the state will provide for expeditious
attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2));
implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR requirements
(172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area
(172(c)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Warren Area

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions
inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2)
an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the
following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of
emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS;
a determination that the control strategy for the primary
SO2 source within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/
RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy
for the primary SO2 source (United Refining), which also
accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background
concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the
October 4, 2018, attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining
the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the
assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets
the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that
emission limitations and compliance parameters for United Refining be
incorporated into the SIP.

III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Warren
Area

    Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment area must include a
showing that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and
include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions
analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is
proposing to conclude that the attainment plan submitted by
Pennsylvania meets all applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA is
proposing to approve the plan submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure
ongoing attainment in the Warren Area.

A. Pollutants Addressed

    Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates
SO2 emissions for the area within the portion of Warren
County (Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the
City of Warren) that is designated nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider for the
SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant that
arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are highest
relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater distances due
to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration patterns resemble
those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead, and differ from
those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants such as ozone.
Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered SO2
emissions for the Indiana Area.

B. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment
area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions
and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition,
inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that
attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions
inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching
federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions
inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory
System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to
build the National Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a ``comprehensive,
accurate and current'' inventory can be represented by a year that
contributed to the three-year design value used for the original
nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources
of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources
located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in
the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base
year. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the
Warren Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions
inventory requirement. The primary SO2-emitting point source
located within the Warren Area is United Refining, a petroleum
refinery. United Refining consists of 29 main SO2 emitters,
which include boilers, heaters, reboilers, compressors, and flares.
More information on the emissions inventory for the Warren Area can be
found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal as well as EPA's
emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be
found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and which provides
EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory.
    Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tons per year
(tpy), in the Warren Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source
category. The point source category includes all sources within the
nonattainment area.

   Table 1--2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Warren Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2
                  Emission source category                     Emissions
                                                                 (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................     993.095
Area........................................................      85.852
Non-road....................................................       0.337
On-road.....................................................       1.380
Total.......................................................   1,080.664
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory
for the Warren Area and has made the determination that this inventory
was developed in a manner consistent with EPA's guidance. Therefore,
pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Warren Area.
    The attainment demonstration also provides for a projected
attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all
emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the
nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain
the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory
for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory. The
projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 2. Pennsylvania's submittal
asserts that the SO2 emissions are expected to decrease by
approximately 436 tons, or 40%, by 2018 from the 2011 base year. More
information on the projected emissions for the Warren Area can be found
in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal, and EPA's analysis of
the emissions inventories can be found in EPA's emissions inventory
TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA
proposes to approve the 2011 base year inventory and the 2018 projected
inventory as they meet CAA requirements.

   Table 2--2018 Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for the Warren Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2
                  Emission source category                     Emissions
                                                                 (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................     511.199
Area........................................................      132.48
Non-road....................................................       0.170
On-road.....................................................       0.530
Total.......................................................     644.379
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Air Quality Modeling

    The SO2 attainment demonstration provides an air quality
dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate that control strategies
chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area
into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018.
The modeling analysis, following recommendations outlined in Appendix W
to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), is used for the attainment
demonstration to assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area
and establish emission limits that will provide for attainment. The
analysis requires five years of meteorological data to simulate the
dispersion of pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume
sources across the averaging times of interest. The modeling
demonstration typically also relies on maximum allowable emissions from
sources in the nonattainment area. Though the actual emissions are
likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have the ability to
run at higher production rates or optimize controls such that emissions
approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling analysis that
provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation for each
source must therefore consider the worst case scenario of both the
meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.) and
the maximum allowable emissions.

    PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's
Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance,
and was prepared using EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, the
American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (AERMOD). A more detailed discussion of PADEP's
modeling analysis for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's
September 29, 2017 submittal, and EPA's analysis of the modeling is
discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578.
    EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to
support the attainment demonstration for the Warren Area and has
determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements,
Appendix W, and EPA's guidance for SO2 attainment
demonstration modeling. The modeling properly characterized source
limits, local meteorological data, background concentrations, and
provided an adequate model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled
concentrations. Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2
NAAQS, the final modeled design value for the Warren Area is less than
75 ppb.\5\ Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine that the analysis
demonstrates that the source limits used in the modeling demonstration
comply with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the
modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can
be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA proposes to
conclude that the modeling provided in the attainment plan shows that
the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS by the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
AERMOD gives results in [micro]g/m\3\. The conversion factor for
SO2 (at the standard conditions applied in the ambient
SO2 reference method) is 1 ppb = approximately 2.619
[micro]g/m\3\. See Pennsylvania's SO2 Round 3
Designations proposed TSD at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures
(i.e., RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under
section 172, as measures that a state determines to be both reasonably
available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable
``for existing sources in the area.''
    Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and
state measures that will provide emission reductions leading to
attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With
regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites to its low sulfur fuel
rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39330).
Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to refineries,
pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage facilities, commercial
and industrial facilities, and facilities with unit burning regulated
fuel oil to produce electricity and for domestic home heaters. These
low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils used
in combustion units, thereby reducing SO2 emissions and the
formation of sulfates that cause decreased visibility. In terms of
federal measures, Pennsylvania explains that 19 sources at United
Refining are required to comply with the Boiler Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT), as well as four sources that are required to
comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries (the
Refinery MACT 2). EPA notes that although Pennsylvania incorporates by
reference the NESHAP and MACT, they are not in the Pennsylvania SIP.
    Pennsylvania's submittal discusses that enforceable emission
changes have been in place at United Refining since 2015 that reduce
the SO2 emissions from the facility. The facility switched
from high sulfur (2.8% sulfur) fuel oil to a lower sulfur fuel oil
(0.5% sulfur) in 11 combustion units and heaters. Also, in July 2015,
United Refining increased the amount of the flue gas desulfurization
additive (De-Sox) used for one of the emitting source's (Source ID
101A) catalyst, which prevents the formation of SO2 during
the catalyst regeneration process.
    Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section IV.C. Air
Quality Modeling, in order to ensure that the Warren Area demonstrates
attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, emission limits established
in a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) (see Appendix B of the September
29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and United Refining, will be used to
control SO2 emissions from United Refining. The collective
emission limits and related compliance parameters have been proposed
for incorporation into the SIP to make these changes federally
enforceable. The compliance parameters include United Refining burning
certain fuel types; monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting;
conducting emission testing; using De-Sox additive where appropriate;
and using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). PADEP asserts
that this proposed control strategy lowers the modeled SO2
impacts from United Refining and is sufficient for the Warren Area to
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The new emission limits for each
of the SO2-emitting sources at United Refining are listed in
Table 3. PADEP affirms that the implementation of new emission limits
and corresponding compliance parameters serve as RACM/RACT at United
Refining, and will enable the Warren Area to attain and maintain the
SO2 NAAQS.

              Table 3--United Refining New Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 Emission
                                                           limit (pounds
           Source ID                Source description      per hour or
                                                              lbs/hr)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
031, 032, 033..................  Boiler 1, 2, and 3.....           27.42
034............................  Boiler 4...............            7.21
036............................  Boiler 5B..............            0.24
042............................  FCC Heater.............            1.10
044............................  DHT Heater 1...........            0.10
049............................  East Reformer Heater...           22.42
050............................  Crude Heater--North....           27.78
050A...........................  Crude Heater--South....           27.78
051............................  Pretreater Heater......           11.00

052............................  West Reformer Heater...            2.20
053............................  Sat Gas Plant Reboiler.            0.40
054............................  Vacuum Process Heater..            0.80
055............................  DHT Heater 2...........            6.36
056............................  Prefactionator Reboiler            5.37
                                  2.
057............................  Volcanic Heater (T-241)            0.30
101A...........................  FCC Unit...............          131.50
102............................  Blowdown System--Combo             0.40
                                  Flare.
102............................  Blowdown System--FCC               0.10
                                  Flare.
105............................  Middle FCC KVG                     0.14
                                  Compressor.
106............................  East FCC KVG Compressor            0.14
107............................  Sat Gas KVG Compressor.            0.10
108............................  Claus Sulfur Plant 2...           12.00
108A...........................  Sulfur Plant 2 Hot Oil             0.10
                                  Heater.
211............................  Loading Rack Bottom                0.81
                                  Loading.
037............................  Boiler 6...............            4.60
1010...........................  SMR Hydrogen Plant.....           0.099
C1010..........................  Elevated Process Flare.            0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the
proposed SO2 control strategy at United Refining constitutes
RACM/RACT for that source in the Warren Area based on the modeling
analysis previously described. The Area is projected to begin showing
attaining monitoring values for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the
2018 attainment date. Furthermore, PADEP requests that the emission
limits listed in Table 3 and corresponding compliance parameters found
in the unredacted portions of the COA for United Refining will become
permanent and enforceable SIP measures to meet the requirements of the
CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes to approve Pennsylvania's September 29,
2017, SIP submittal as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of section
172(c) of the CAA.

E. RFP Plan

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
include a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e.,
RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through
generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1)
of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.'' As stated originally in the 1994 SO2
Guidelines Document \6\ and repeated in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition
is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and
diverse sources, where the relationship between particular sources and
ambient air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases,
emissions reductions may be required from various types and locations
of sources. The relationship between SO2 and sources is much
more defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control
nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted
RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule
in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The control measures for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in Pennsylvania's
submittal have been modeled to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The
permits and the adoption of specific emission limits and compliance
parameters require these control measures and resulting emission
reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable. As a result,
based on air quality modeling reviewed by EPA, this is projected to
yield a sufficient reduction in SO2 emissions from United
Refining resulting in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
for the Warren Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's
SO2 attainment plan fulfills the RFP requirements for the
Warren Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that the
Area will not meet the October 4, 2018, attainment date. EPA proposes
to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with respect to the RFP
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
Located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency
measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to
attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be
fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly
and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet
RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should
contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However,
SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final
2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520)
and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded
that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2
sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies
develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of
the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement.
    The United Refining COA (see Appendix B of the September 29, 2017
submittal) contains the following measures that are designed to keep
the Warren Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the
SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the SO2 emissions from the FCC
Unit (Source ID 101A) exceeds the validated lbs/hr permitted emission
limit listed in Table 3, the facility will

perform an audit of the unit's SO2 control additive system,
which will include injection of the proper amount of De-SOx additive,
and within 45 days of the exceedance, submit a report to PADEP; (2) If
the Warren Overlook SO2 ambient air quality monitor (ID 42-
123-0005) located within the nonattainment area measures a third daily
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration for any hour greater than
75 parts per billion (ppb) within a calendar year (if this occurs on
two days back-to-back, it will be counted as one; if there are three
days in a row, it will be counted as two), after verification and
notification by PADEP, within 90 calendar days, United Refining must
submit an investigative report to PADEP. If the report concludes that
SO2 emissions from one or more SO2-emitting
sources at the facility caused an exceedance, the report must include
proposed changes in the facility operations that would be needed in
order to avoid a violation of the SO2 NAAQS; (3) If PADEP
identifies a daily maximum SO2 concentration exceeding 75
ppb at a PADEP-operated SO2 ambient air quality monitor in
the Warren Area, within five days, PADEP will contact United Refining
to trigger the implementation of the daily exceedance report
contingency measure described above in (2); (4) Section 4(27) of the
Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take
any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement
of APCA and the rules and regulations promulgated under APCA. Such
actions include the issuance of orders and the assessment of civil
penalties.
    EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017
submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the
source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive
follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority as
necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures
submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.

G. New Source Review \7\

    \7\ The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of three
separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD),
Nonattainment NSR (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part
C of title I of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas and in
areas that meet the NAAQS-- ``attainment areas''--as well as areas
where there is insufficient information to determine if the area
meets the NAAQS--designated ``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR
program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies
in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment
areas.'' The Minor NSR program addresses construction or
modification activities that do not qualify as ``major'' and applies
regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is
located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR
programs. Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program for
preconstruction review of new major sources or major modifications
to existing sources, as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The
programmatic elements for NNSR include, among other things,
compliance with the lowest achievable emissions rate and the
requirement to obtain emissions offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a
fully implemented nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for
criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E,
which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR
64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision
pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of
Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's
2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to
Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These
rules provide for appropriate new source review as required by CAA
sections 175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources
undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area
without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA
concludes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section
172(c)(5) for this Area.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for the
Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of
SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and
contingency measures for the Warren Area, and is proposing that the
Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into
the Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits and
compliance parameters established for the SO2 source
impacting the Warren Area.
    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Warren County meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA and comports with EPA's
recommendations discussed in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment
plan for the Warren Area as submitted on September 29, 2017. EPA's
analysis for this proposed action is discussed in Section IV of this
proposed rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action. Final approval of this SIP submittal will remove
EPA's duty to promulgate and implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed 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 the portions of the Consent Order and
Agreement entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on
September 29, 2017, that are not redacted. This includes emission
limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and
reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact''
section of this preamble for more information).

VI. 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 proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 (Public Law 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, this proposed rule, concerning the SO2
attainment plan for the Warren nonattainment area in Pennsylvania, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-05876 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60323-60325]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27311]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

Hours of Service; Electronic Logging Devices; Limited 90-Day
Waiver for the Transportation of Agricultural Commodities

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

ACTION: Notification; grant of waiver.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA grants a limited 90-day waiver from the Federal hours-
of-service (HOS) regulations pertaining to electronic logging devices
(ELDs) for the transportation of agricultural commodities as defined in
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The Agency takes
this action in response to a waiver request from the National Pork
Producers Council (NPPC) on behalf of eight organizations representing
transporters of livestock and other agricultural commodities, as
defined in the FMCSRs. The Agency has determined that the waiver is in
the public interest and would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption, based on the terms and conditions imposed. The waiver
will also through notice and public comment, provide FMCSA with time to
consider certain exemption applications from segments of the
agricultural industry concerning the use of ELDs to document drivers'
hours of service and clarify applicability of the requirements and the
need for certain carriers to begin using ELDs by the December 18, 2017,
deadline.

DATES: This waiver is applicable beginning December 18, 2017, and
expires on March 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Email: [email protected]. Phone:
(614) 942-6477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub.
L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) provides the Secretary of
Transportation (the Secretary) the authority to grant waivers from any
of the FMCSRs issued under Chapter 313 of Title 49 of the United States
Code or 49 U.S.C. 31136, to a person(s) seeking regulatory relief. (49
U.S.C. 31136(e), 31315(a)). The Secretary must make a determination
that the waiver is in the public interest, and that it is likely to
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the waiver.
Individual waivers may be granted only for a specific unique, non-
emergency event, for a period up to three months. TEA-21 authorizes the
Secretary to grant waivers without requesting public comment, and
without providing public notice.
    The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87(e) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49
U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor
vehicle programs and safety regulation.

Background

    The FMCSA received an application for an exemption and waiver from
the NPPC on behalf of eight organizations that represent transporters
of livestock and other agricultural commodities. Notice of the request
for exemption from the requirement that a motor carrier require each of
its drivers to use an electronic logging device (ELD) no later than
December 18, 2017, to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS), was
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50358).
Comments to that document were due by November 30, 2017
(www.regulations.gov, Docket FMCSA-2017-0297).
    The NPPC focused on the impact of the ELD requirement on its
members, given unique aspects of its industry, including ``exposed
incompatibilities between the HOS rules and the . . . industry . . .
causing disruption . . . and endangering the health and welfare of . .
. animals transported . . .''
    FMCSA has also received from the Agricultural Retailers Association
(ARA) an exemption, waiver, and petition document dated October 25,
2017, requesting that transporters of agricultural commodities and farm
supplies not be required to use ELDs during an exemption period. That
exemption request has not yet been published for comment. While this
waiver is issued in response to the application submitted by the NPPC,
it also applies to other eligible motor carriers, including ARA
members, to the extent they are handling agricultural commodities as
defined under 49 CFR 395.2, as discussed in the Terms and Conditions of
the Waiver section below.
    In addition to NPPC's request, FMCSA received numerous inquiries
from parties involved in the transport of agricultural commodities
about the correct application of the HOS agricultural exception in 49
CFR 395.1(k)(1), leading to an ongoing review of the exception. FMCSA
is considering providing new guidance on the agricultural exception in
the near future.

Safety Determination

    In an October 6, 2010, Federal Register document (75 FR 61626),
FMCSA granted a limited 90-day waiver from the HOS requirements for the

distribution of an agricultural supply--anhydrous ammonia. At that
time, the Agency compared safety performance data for agricultural
carriers then operating under the statutory HOS agricultural exception
in 49 CFR 395.1(k) to non-agricultural carriers that were not exempt
from HOS regulations to determine whether the waiver would be likely to
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the waiver.
The data were collected as part of a study, ``Agricultural Commodity
and Utility Carriers Hours of Service Exemption Analysis.'' The final
report from the study is available online.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/42000/42700/42776/FMCSA-RRA-10-048.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 compared the safety
performance of agricultural and non-agricultural carriers for the
period 2005 through 2008, and also examined two additional industries,
livestock and utility carriers, whose operations were not exempt from
HOS regulations prior to the passage of SAFETEA-LU. The Phase 1
analysis used carrier registration, inspection and crash data from
FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). The study
used cargo classification information on the FMCSA Motor Carrier
Identification Report (Form MCS-150) \2\ in MCMIS to identify the
carrier's industry group (agricultural, livestock, or utility carrier),
and used MCS-150 information to identify carriers operating within and
beyond a 100-air-mile radius. The operating radius information was used
to create two agricultural carrier subgroups: (1) Agricultural carriers
with 100 percent of drivers operating within a 100-air-mile radius; and
(2) agricultural carriers with 100 percent of drivers operating beyond
a 100-air-mile radius. The analysis used the first subgroup as
representative of agricultural carriers exempt from the HOS
requirements, and the second subgroup as representative of agricultural
carriers not exempt from the HOS requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This registration form has subsequently been replaced with
Form MCSA-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Phase 2 analysis, inspection data of agricultural commodity
and utility carriers (which are also exempt from HOS regulations) were
collected during an FMCSA special study of a sample of States. These
data included only those inspections occurring during the States'
planting and harvesting seasons and indicated both the commodity being
transported and whether the driver was operating within or beyond the
100-air-mile radius exempt from HOS regulations. The Phase 2 analysis
assessed the safety performance of the HOS exempt agricultural
commodity and utility service carriers identified in the survey in
comparison with non-HOS exempt carriers based on their out of service
(OOS) violation rates and crash rates.
    For the purposes of considering whether to issue a limited waiver,
FMCSA focused on the crash rate data from the study. The Agency placed
less emphasis on the out-of-service (OOS) rates because there were no
HOS violation data to consider given that the agricultural carriers for
which data were available were operating under a statutory exemption
from the HOS rule. Differences between the OOS rates for other issues
such as driver qualifications and vehicle defects and deficiencies,
while important in considering overall safety management controls of
the carriers, were not necessarily related to the potential safety
impact of the waiver.
    The Phase 1 analysis indicated that nationally, agricultural
carriers operating within a 100-air-mile radius had lower crash rates
per 100 power units than those operating beyond this radius, except in
2008, when there was no difference in the crash rates.
    To provide additional validation of the crash analysis, which uses
power unit data reported on the Form MCS-150, a separate analysis was
performed using data only for carriers domiciled in States
participating in the Performance and Registration Information Systems
Management (PRISM) program that enforces MCS-150 updating. PRISM links
State motor vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in
order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. The PRISM State
carriers are required to update their MCS-150 annually. By contrast,
non-PRISM State carriers are required by FMCSA to update their MCS-150
biennially. As a result, the PRISM State data are considered more
current and reliable than non-PRISM State data where there is no direct
implication for not updating the data. Data from PRISM States that
enforce MCS-150 updating show that agricultural carriers operating
within a 100-air-mile radius had more varied results, with crash rates
higher than carriers operating beyond a 100-air-mile radius in 2008,
lower in 2006 and 2007, and nearly the same in 2005.
    The Phase 2 analysis indicated that in the four States
participating in the survey (ID, KS, MD, MI), agricultural carriers
that were subject to the HOS requirements had higher crash rates per
100 power units than agricultural carriers exempt from the HOS
requirements.
    Although this study was conducted in 2010 and relied upon data from
2005 through 2008, FMCSA has no reason to believe that the conclusions
would be different if updated using more recent data. Although these
studies did not focus on benefits achieved by use of ELDS, given the
limited population of motor carriers affected by the waiver and the
brief period of time a waiver is in effect, FMCSA believes that the
level of safety maintained by haulers of agricultural commodities will
be equivalent to the safety of operations that would be obtained absent
the granting of a waiver. Furthermore, the Agency believes the sense of
urgency in this matter requires a decision based on the best available
data, albeit dated, rather than delaying a decision until a new study
can be conducted.

FMCSA Determination

    Considering the above study, the ongoing review of the HOS
agricultural commodities exception, and the pending exemption request
from NPPC, FMCSA has determined that it is in the public interest to
provide a limited waiver from the use of ELDs for interstate motor
carriers engaged in the transportation of agricultural commodities as
defined in 49 CFR 395.2. This waiver will allow FMCSA time to evaluate
the HOS exception applicable to the transport of agricultural
commodities and review the concerns unique to the agricultural industry
identified by NPPC and others. FMCSA grants the waiver requested by
NPPC, but also extends it to all motor carriers transporting an
agricultural commodity.

Terms and Conditions of the Waiver

    (1) Duration of the waiver. This waiver is applicable December 18,
2017, through March 18, 2018.
    (2) Motor carriers transporting agricultural commodities under the
provisions of 49 CFR 395.1(k)(1), are exempt from the ELD requirements
in 49 CFR 395.8(a) during the period of this waiver, regardless of the
distance traveled.
    (3) Carriers operating under this waiver must comply with all other
applicable requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(49 CFR parts 390 through 399), including the preparation of records of
duty status (RODS) for operations which are currently considered to be
subject to the HOS rules and the record retention requirements
associated with those RODs and supporting documents.

    (4) Motor carriers operating under this waiver must have a
``satisfactory'' safety rating from FMCSA or be unrated; motor carriers
with ``conditional'' or ``unsatisfactory'' safety ratings are
prohibited from taking advantage of the waiver.
    (5) Drivers operating under this waiver must carry a copy of this
Federal Register notification and present it to motor carrier safety
enforcement officials upon request.
    (6) Crash Notification to FMCSA
    Carriers operating under this waiver must notify FMCSA within 5
business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving
any of the motor carrier's drivers operating under the terms of this
waiver. The notification must include the following information:
    (a) Identity of Waiver: ``AG''
    (b) Date of the accident,
    (c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    (d) Driver's name and license number,
    (e) Co-driver's name and license number (if applicable),
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number,
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    (h) Number of fatalities,
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    (k) The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to
the accident.
    Accident notifications must be emailed to [email protected].

Safety Considerations

    Considering the limited period of this waiver and that it does not
alter any of the HOS regulations other than the method of recording
HOS, and the Agency's previous review of data concerning the safety
performance of motor carriers engaged in the transportation of
agricultural commodities, the Agency has determined that the waiver
from the ELD requirements for 90 days is likely achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by the current regulation.
    FMCSA expects that any drivers and their employing motor carrier
operating under the terms and conditions of the exemption will maintain
their safety record. Should any safety problems be discovered, however,
FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest. Use
of this waiver is voluntary, and FMCSA will immediately revoke the
waiver for any interstate driver or motor carrier for failure to comply
with the terms and conditions of the waiver.

Preemption of State Requirements

    Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), this waiver preempts
inconsistent State or local requirements applicable to interstate
commerce.

    Issued on: December 13, 2017.
 Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-27311 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P