from new air sensor instruments (such as low-cost air quality sensors)
should not be used in a regulatory context at this time unless those
instruments meet all applicable regulatory requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA Memorandum, ``Air Sensors,'' from Anne L. Idsal, Office
of Air and Radiation. June 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to systematically characterize air sensor measurements,
EPA is supporting research on sensor performance including the
development of non-regulatory performance targets and testing protocols
for supplemental and informational monitoring applications that
complement--but do not replace--existing regulatory programs and
requirements. These efforts are intended to provide regulators, outside
parties, and the public alike with streamlined, unbiased assessments of
sensor performance in the near-term and into the future.
    For more information on EPA's position on the use of air sensor
data for NAAQS compliance and the steps the Agency is taking to better
understand the data quality, interpretation, and management of sensor
data in the ambient environment, see the June 2020 EPA memorandum from
the EPA Office of Air and Radiation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the adequacy of Louisiana's monitoring network, the
monitoring network outlined in a state's Annual Air Monitoring Network
Plan (AAMNP) must meet federal statutory and regulatory requirements,
including technical requirements for siting. Ambient SO2
monitoring data are collected by state, local, and tribal monitoring
agencies in accordance with the monitoring requirements contained in 40
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. A monitoring network is generally designed to
measure, report, and provide related information on air quality data as
described in 40 CFR part 58. To ensure that the data from the network
are accurate and reliable, the monitors in the network must meet a
number of requirements including the use of monitoring methods that EPA
has approved as Federal Reference Methods (FRM) or Federal Equivalent
Methods (FEM). The FRM/FEM instruments must meet rigorous standards for
accuracy and reliability (see 40 CFR part 53 for details).
    Louisiana's Statewide Air Quality Surveillance Network was approved
by EPA on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005). EPA also approved into the
Louisiana SIP provisions that require air quality monitoring be
conducted consistent with EPA guidelines (54 FR 9783, March 8, 1989).
In July 2021, LDEQ submitted its 2021 AAMNP that included the plan for
the SO2 NAAQS; EPA approved the LDEQ's 2021 AAMNP in October
2021.
    The LDEQ's AAMNP goes through public notice and comment each year.
Information on LDEQ public notices is provided at https://deq.louisiana.gov/public-notices. The 2022 LDEQ AAMNP comment period
was open from April 22, 2022, to May 26, 2022. The EPA notes that in
LDEQ's response to one of the comments received regarding front-line
communities and environmental justice concerns, LDEQ stated the
following: ``To help foster relationships with under-served
communities, LDEQ has been placing the Temporary Located Community
(TLC) Air Monitoring Program air monitors in ``front-line community''
neighborhoods to collect ambient air quality data. This real-time data
is relayed to LDEQ's website . . . LDEQ has plans to place a TLC Air
Monitor in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans later this year. For
more information, see the Environmental Justice Consideration section
of the

2022 Louisiana Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan.'' EPA acknowledges
and encourages the use of the TLC program as part of LDEQ's efforts to
address EJ concerns in the States' communities.

E. Other Comments on the NAAQS and Designations

    Comment: Commenters recommended the EPA consider using the World
Health Organization's updated standard of 40 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour mean,
stating that a greater degree of protection than the EPA's 2010
SO2 standard of 75 ppb is needed.
    Response: We note that this comment is outside the scope of this
rulemaking, but to better aid and inform the public, the following
response is provided.
    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review,
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS for each criteria air
pollutant to provide protection for the nation's public health and the
environment. The CAA requires periodic review of the science upon which
the standards are based and the standards themselves. Reviewing the
NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases:
(1) planning, (2) integrated science assessment (ISA), (3) risk/
exposure assessment (REA), (4) policy assessment (PA), and (5)
rulemaking. More information on the NAAQS review process can be found
at this link: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards.
    Additionally, the 75 ppb standard for the primary one-hour
SO2 NAAQS is based on the 99th percentile of daily maximum
one hour average concentrations, averaged over 3 years, and is
calculated differently from a 24-hour mean. See 40 CFR 50.17. The 75
ppb standard is not calculated by averaging the daily concentration of
SO2, it is calculated by determining the highest
concentration within a one-hour period in a given day and is aimed
towards preventing acute short-term exposure to SO2 in order
to better protect public health. As provided in the final rule
promulgating the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the rationale for the
establishment of the 75 ppb standard focused primarily on respiratory
morbidity following short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) exposure to
SO2, for which the ISA (Integrated Science Assessment for
Oxides of Sulfur-Health Criteria) found a causal relationship.\38\ The
maximum daily one-hour SO2 values from four days each year
from 3 consecutive years determines whether the area will attain; as a
result, a very small number of monitored exceedances can result in a
violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Section II of the final rule ``Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide'', for more details (June
22, 2010, 75 FR 35519).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 179(c)(1)-(2), the EPA is making a determination
that the St. Bernard Parish SO2 nonattainment area has
failed to attain the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb by
the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This determination
is based upon consideration of and review of all available information
for the St. Bernard area leading up to the area's attainment date of
October 4, 2018, including (1) emissions and monitoring data, (2) the
state's air quality modeling demonstration, which showed the emission
limits and stack parameters required at Rain, the primary source of
SO2 emission in the area, compliance with which were
necessary to provide for the area's attainment, and (3) Rain's
available compliance records between the period when the AOC limits
became effective (August 2, 2018) and the area's attainment date. After
publication of this final rule, the State of Louisiana is required
under CAA section 179(d) to submit revisions to the SIP for the St.
Bernard area. The required SIP revision for the area must, among other
elements, demonstrate expeditious attainment of the SO2
standard within the time period prescribed by CAA section 179(d) and
such additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe
that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological
achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-
related health and environmental impacts. The SIP revisions required
under CAA section 179(d) would be due for submittal to the EPA no later
than one year after the publication date of this final action. At this
time, we are not prescribing additional measures for the SO2
SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d)(2). This final action also
triggers the implementation of contingency measures adopted in this
area under CAA section 172(c)(9).

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \39\ EPA is providing
additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this
action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information to the
public, not as a basis of our final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA conducted a screening analysis using EJSCREEN, an environmental
justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and
demographic indicators.\40\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\41\ An individual CBG is a
cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally
contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for
performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that
provides an initial representation of indicators related to
environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying
data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data
which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported
data).\42\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized
EJSCREEN data within St. Bernard Parish, which covers multiple block
groups and represents the average resident within the Parish. We
present EJSCREEN environmental indicators to

help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher
overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with
the same total population. These indicators of overall pollution burden
include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and
ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume,
percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores
for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan (RMP) sites, and
hazardous waste facilities.\43\ EJSCREEN also provides information on
demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of
color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school education. The
EPA prepared an EJSCREEN report covering the St. Bernard Parish
SO2 nonattainment area, which covers the entire Parish.
Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's screening-level
analysis for the St. Bernard area compared to the U.S. as a whole (the
detailed EJSCREEN reports are provided in the docket for this
rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \41\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \42\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error),
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.
    \43\ For additional information on environmental indicators and
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,''
Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf.

          Table 1--St. Bernard Parish EJSCREEN Analysis Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 St. Bernard
          Variables                 Parish                U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
    Particulate matter         8.35 [mu]g/m\3\  8.74 [mu]g/m\3\ (--)
     (PM2.5), annual average.   (43rd %ile).
    Ozone, summer seasonal     38.6 ppb (24th   42.6 ppb (--)
     average of daily 8-hour    %ile).
     max.
    Traffic proximity and      400 (63rd %ile)  710 (--)
     volume score *.
    Lead paint (percentage     0.16% (48th      0.28% (--)
     pre-1960 housing).         %ile).
    Superfund proximity score  0.1 (66th %ile)  0.13 (--)
     *.
    RMP proximity score *....  2.5 (93rd %ile)  0.75 (--)
    Hazardous waste proximity  2.6 (76th %ile)  2.2 (--)
     score *.
Demographic Indicators:
    People of color            38% (55th %ile)  40% (--)
     population.
    Low-income population....  45% (75th %ile)  31% (--)
    Linguistically isolated    2% (53rd %ile).  5% (--)
     population.
    Population with less than  20% (79th %ile)  12% (--)
     high school education.
    Population under 5 years   7% (67th %ile).  6% (--)
     of age.
    Population over 64 years   11% (34th %ile)  16% (--)
     of age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by
  daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The
  Superfund proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity
  indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts
  divided by distance in kilometers.

    This final rule formalizes EPA's determination that the St. Bernard
Parish SO2 nonattainment area has failed to attain the 2010
one-hour SO2 standard of 75 ppb by the applicable attainment
date of October 4, 2018, in accordance with section 179(c)(1)-(2) of
the CAA. This action provides notice to the public that the area has
failed to attain the NAAQS and informs the State of Louisiana of CAA
requirements the State needs to meet so that air quality in the area
will undergo further improvements. After publishing this final rule,
the State of Louisiana is required under CAA section 179(d) to submit
revisions to the SIP for the St. Bernard area within one year. The
required SIP revision for the area must, among other elements,
demonstrate expeditious attainment of the SO2 standard
within the time period prescribed by CAA section 179(d) and such
additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe that
can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological
achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-
related health and environmental impacts. At this time, we are not
prescribing additional measures for the SO2 SIP revisions
under CAA section 179(d)(2). This final rule is not anticipated to have
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns because it
is not anticipated to result in or contribute to emissions increases in
Louisiana.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed action, if finalized, would require the state to adopt and
submit SIP revisions to satisfy CAA requirements and would not itself
directly regulate any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This action proposes to determine that the St.
Bernard Parish SO2 nonattainment area failed to attain the
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. If finalized,
this determination would trigger existing statutory timeframes for the
State to submit SIP revisions. Such a determination in and of itself
does not

impose any federal intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The proposed finding of failure to attain the
SO2 NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the proposed
rule would not impose a burden on Indian reservation lands or other
areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction within the St. Bernard Parish SO2
nonattainment area. Thus, this proposed 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.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this proposed
action, if finalized, would be to trigger additional planning
requirements under the CAA. This proposed action does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
effect of this proposed action, if finalized, would be to trigger
additional planning requirements under the CAA.

K. 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).

L. 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 December 5, 2022. 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 may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: September 26, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Subpart T is amended by adding Sec.  52.978 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.978  Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur dioxide.

    (a) Determination of failure to attain. Effective November 4, 2022,
the EPA has determined that the St. Bernard Parish nonattainment area
failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This determination
triggers the requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the State of
Louisiana to submit a revision to the Louisiana SIP for the St. Bernard
Parish nonattainment area to the EPA by October 5, 2023. The SIP
revision must, among other elements, provide for attainment of the 1-
hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the St. Bernard Parish
SO2 nonattainment area as expeditiously as practicable but
no later than October 5, 2027.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2022-21249 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44736-44738]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20445]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0426; FRL-9966-86-Region 9]

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required
for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS; California; Sacramento Metro

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action finding that the state of California has failed to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to satisfy certain requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``standards''). Under the CAA and EPA's
implementing regulations, states with nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate, Serious, Severe or Extreme were required to submit by July
20, 2016, SIPs demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP) and
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the applicable dates established in the
implementing regulations. States were also required to submit
contingency plans to be triggered if attainment or RFP milestones were
not met. The EPA is by this action making a finding of failure to
submit attainment demonstration, attainment demonstration contingency,
RFP, and RFP contingency SIPs for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment
area. If the EPA has not affirmatively found that the state has
submitted the required plans within 18 months, the offset sanction
applies in the area. If within 6 additional months the EPA has still
not affirmatively determined that the state has submitted the required
plan, the highway funding sanction applies in the area. No later than 2
years after the EPA makes the finding, if the state has not submitted,
and EPA has not approved, the required SIP, the EPA must promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan.

DATES: This action will be effective on October 26, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when
an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for
making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the
CAA, where states have made no submission or incomplete submissions, to
meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are
unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

I. Background and Overview

A. Statutory Requirements

    On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued its final action to revise the
NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards.\1\ In that action,
the EPA promulgated identical revised primary and secondary ozone
standards, designed to protect public health and welfare, of 0.075
parts per million (ppm).\2\ Those standards are met when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436.
    \2\ Since the 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are
identical, for convenience, we refer to both as ``the 2008 ozone
NAAQS'' or ``the 2008 ozone standard.''
    \3\ 40 CFR 50.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA
to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable for the standards. For the ozone NAAQS, this also
involves classifying any nonattainment areas at the time of
designation.\4\ Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the
severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the area's
``design value,'' which represents air quality in the area for the most
recent three years). The possible classifications for ozone
nonattainment areas are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and
Extreme.\5\ Nonattainment areas with a ``lower'' classification have
ozone levels that are closer to the standard than areas with a
``higher'' classification.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).
    \5\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.1103 for the design value thresholds for each
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, the EPA issued rules designating
areas throughout the country as nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective July 20, 2012, and
establishing classifications for the

designated nonattainment areas.\7\ The Sacramento Metro \8\ area was
designated nonattainment with a classification of Severe. Areas
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to the general
nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and also to
the ozone-specific planning requirements of CAA section 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) and 77 FR 34221 (June 11, 2012).
    \8\ The Sacramento Metro area consists of Sacramento and Yolo
counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter
counties. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of
the Sacramento Metro area, see 40 CFR 81.305. Sacramento County is
under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District. Yolo County and the eastern portion of Solano
County comprise the Yolo-Solano AQMD. Sutter County is part of the
Feather River AQMD. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District
and the El Dorado County AQMD have jurisdiction over their
respective counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have
fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control
requirements than those in higher classifications. For a Marginal area,
a state is required to submit a baseline emission inventory, a rule
requiring emissions statements from stationary sources, and a
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for the relevant ozone
standard.\9\ For each higher ozone nonattainment classification, a
state needs to comply with all lower area classification requirements,
plus additional emissions controls and more expansive NNSR offset
requirements. For areas classified Serious and above, a state needs to
comply with the Marginal and Moderate area requirements, plus
additional submittal requirements, including: A demonstration (based on
photochemical modeling) showing the area will attain by the applicable
attainment date; a demonstration that the area will reduce emissions by
certain prescribed percentages averaged over each consecutive 3-year
period until the attainment date; and contingency plans that are
triggered in the event that the attainment date or an RFP milestone is
not met.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CAA section 182(a).
    \10\ CAA sections 172(c)(9), 182(c)(2)(A) and (B), and
182(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2015, the EPA established a final implementation rule
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (``2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule'').\11\
The purpose of that action was to detail the requirements applicable to
ozone nonattainment areas and provide specific deadlines for SIP
submittals. For areas classified Serious and above, the required
submission of SIP revisions providing for an attainment demonstration,
RFP demonstrations, and attainment and RFP contingency measures was due
4 years after the effective date of area designation (i.e., July 20,
2016).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 80 FR 12264.
    \12\ 40 CFR 51.1108(b) and 40 CFR 51.1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    For plan requirements under subpart D, title I of the CAA, such as
those for ozone nonattainment areas, if the EPA finds that a state has
failed to make the required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is
incomplete, then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences,
including the eventual imposition of mandatory sanctions for the
affected area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation
under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than
2 years from the finding of failure to submit a complete SIP, if the
affected state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the
required SIP submittal.
    If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has
submitted a complete SIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis
for the finding within 18 months of the effective date of this
rulemaking, then pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR
52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will
apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that the state has submitted a complete SIP
addressing the deficiency that is the basis for the finding within 6
months after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding
sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment area, in accordance
with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. If the state does not make
the required SIP submittal and the EPA does not take final action to
approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these
findings, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP, pursuant to CAA
section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31 for the affected nonattainment area.

II. Final Action

    We have yet to receive the required ozone SIP revision submittal
from California for the Sacramento Metro area, and the submittal is
more than six-months past due. The EPA is finding that California has
failed to submit a SIP revision providing for an attainment
demonstration, RFP demonstrations, and contingency measures (for
attainment or RFP) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro
area as required under subparts 1 and 2 of part D of title 1 of the CAA
and the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. The consequences of this
finding is discussed above in section I.B. of this document.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from what is already required
by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to
submit SIPs under sections 172 and 182 which address the statutory
requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for the
ozone NAAQS.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The rule is
a finding that California has not submitted the necessary SIP
revisions.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that California has failed to
submit SIP revisions that satisfy certain

nonattainment area planning requirements under sections 172 and 182 of
the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area. No
tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan
under section 172 or under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the CAA.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a finding that California has failed to submit certain
SIP revisions that satisfy the nonattainment area planning requirements
under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
Sacramento Metro area and does not directly or disproportionately
affect children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations. In finding that California has failed to
submit SIP revisions that satisfy certain nonattainment area planning
requirements under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro area, this action does not directly
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    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. The 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).

L. 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 November 27, 2017. 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 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.

    Dated: August 14, 2017.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-20445 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37650-37651]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2701-060]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed

with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-Capacity Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2701-060.
    c. Date Filed: June 11, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.
    e. Name of Project: West Canada Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on West Canada Creek in the
towns of Trenton and Russia, in Oneida and Herkimer counties, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason Zehr, Brookfield Renewable, 399 Big
Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> and email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2701-060. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.
(licensee) proposes to remove the existing 7.5-foot-high wooden
flashboard system located atop the approximately 160-foot-long concrete
auxiliary spillway at the Trenton Development and replace it with a
pneumatic flashboard system (rubber dam). The purpose of the proposed
pneumatic flashboard system is to address the issue of debris, which
currently becomes stuck on the vertical support members of the
trippable flashboards during high flow events and reduces the ability
of the project to pass flows downstream. The pneumatic flashboard
system would improve the licensee's operational control at the
auxiliary spillway and provide clear passage for debris during high
flow events.
    The licensee's proposal would require minor modifications to the
existing auxiliary spillway crest in order to install the rubber
bladder, and the crest elevation would remain at 1,016.2 feet. When
inflated, the rubber dam would have a top elevation of 1,023.9 feet,
which is the existing normal reservoir elevation. The proposed work
would also include the installation of conduits, anchors, drain pipes,
electrical components, a control building, and new concrete along the
spillway crest and abutments. The proposed amendment would not change
the existing project operations, the reservoir elevation, or the
spillway capacity.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting, or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: June 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13443 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35888-35890]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14723]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0634; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-016-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Model P-180 airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as jamming of the external bearing of the
screwjack drive gear, which resulted in failure of the main wing
outboard flap external actuator. We are issuing this proposed AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A--Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi
Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39 010
6481881; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/aftersales/service-support. You may review
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0634;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-016-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2012-0066, dated April 24, 2012 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Failures of the Main Wing Outboard Flap external actuator have
been reported by P.180 operators.
    The investigation revealed that due to jamming of the external
bearing, the screwjack drive gear disengaged from its seat and the
external actuator stopped, while the inner one continued its run.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetrical
flap actuators operation and cause an interference between the flap
and adjacent aileron, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
installation of a covering cage on the screwjack, as a temporary
corrective action, which does not allow the disengagement of the
affected gear.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. has issued Service Bulletin No. 80-
0318, dated October 24, 2011; Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision 1,
dated February 3, 2012; and Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision 2,
dated March 28, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 110 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $2,770 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $360,800, or $3,280 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A: Docket No. FAA-2012-0634; Directorate
Identifier 2012-CE-016-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 30, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P-180
airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 1002 and 1004 through 1223,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, before the effective date of this AD,
following the Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero Industries
S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision 2, dated
March 28, 2012, do the following actions:
    (1) For S/Ns 1002 and 1004 through 1135:
    (i) For aircraft with less than 1,500 hours total time-in-
service (TIS) at the effective date of this AD: Within 1,500 hours
TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 12 calendar months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install
covering cages on both left and right wing outboard flap external
screwjacks. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision
2, dated March 28, 2012.
    (ii) For aircraft with 1,500 hours total TIS but less than 2,800
hours total TIS at the effective date of this AD: Upon or before
reaching a total of 3,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD or within 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, install covering cages on both left and
right wing outboard flap external screwjacks. Follow the
Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision 2, dated March 28,
2012.
    (iii) For aircraft with 2,800 hours total TIS or more at the
effective date of this AD: Within 200 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD or within 12 calendar months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install covering cages on
both left and right wing outboard flap external screwjacks. Follow
the Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision 2, dated March 28,
2012.
    (2) For S/Ns 1136 through 1223 (inclusive): Within 1,500 hours
TIS after the effective date of this AD or within 12 calendar months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install
covering cages on both left and right wing outboard flap external
screwjacks. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision
2, dated March 28, 2012.

    Note to paragraph (f) of this AD: S/Ns 1224 and subsequent have
covering cages on both left and right wing outboard flap external
screwjacks installed during production.

(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD provides credit for the actions required in this AD if
already done before the effective date of this AD following Service
Bulletin No. 80-0318, dated October 24, 2011; Service Bulletin No.
80-0318, revision 1, dated February 3, 2012; and Service Bulletin
No. 80-0318, revision 2, dated March 28, 2012.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2012-0066, dated April 24, 2012; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, dated October 24, 2011;
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-
0318, revision 1, dated February 3, 2012; and Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0318, revision
2, dated March 28, 2012, for related information. For service
information related to this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries
S.p.A--Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-
Italy; phone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/aftersales/service-support. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 11, 2012.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-14723 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32515-32520]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 260

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0061]
RIN 2130-AB91

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
(TEA-21) established the Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
(RRIF) Program. The program authorizes the Secretary of Transportation
to issue direct loans and loan guarantees to state and local
governments, railroads, interstate compacts, and other specified
organizations to finance the development of railroad infrastructure.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act
of 2005: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended and expanded the
program. SAFETEA-LU increased the principal amount of the RRIF program
up to $35.0 billion, and of that amount, $7.0 billion is reserved for
freight railroads other than Class I carriers. This NPRM proposes
amending eligibility and application form and content criteria to
ensure the long-term sustainability of the program, promote competition
in the railroad industry, and reduce the risk of default for applicants
and the Government.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. FRA-2008-0061 and may
be submitted the following ways:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This Web site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket ID, FRA-2008-0061, at
the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail,
submit two copies. To receive confirmation that FRA received your
comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may
submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov. Note: Comments are
posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act
discussion in the Supplementary Information section of this NPRM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kern, Attorney-Advisor, Office of
the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    You may submit or retrieve comments online through http://
www.regulations.gov, which is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are
available under the help section of the Web site.
    An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from
Office of the Federal Register's home page at http://www.archives.gov/
federal--register and the Government Printing Office's Web page at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

Background

    Section 7203 of TEA-21, Public Law 105-178 (June 9, 1998),
established the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
(RRIF) Program. This program revised and replaced the pre-existing
railroad financing program established under Title V of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. In 2000, the FRA
promulgated a rule implementing the RRIF program (65 FR 41838, July 6,
2000) found in 49 CFR Part 260 (``RRIF Rule''). In 2005, SAFETEA-LU
further amended and expanded the RRIF program, establishing additional
priorities, increasing the loan principal, and eliminating any
requirement for collateral under the program.
    The RRIF program authorizes the Secretary to provide direct loans
and loan guarantees to state and local governments, interstate compacts
consented to by Congress, government-sponsored authorities and
corporations, railroads, joint ventures that include one railroad, and
limited option rail freight shippers that own or operate a plant or
other facility that is served by no more than a single railroad.
SAFETEA-LU did not amend the types of eligible projects, so they remain
the same as under TEA-21: (1) Acquisition, improvement, or
rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or facilities (including
tracks, components of tracks, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops);
(2) refinancing outstanding debt incurred for these purposes; or (3)
development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities.
Direct loans and loan guarantees issued under this section cannot be
used for railroad operating expenses.
    SAFETEA-LU increased the authorized, aggregate unpaid principal
amount of obligations under direct loans and loan guarantees from $3.5
billion under TEA-21 to $35.0 billion. Of this amount, SAFETEA-LU
increased the amount available solely for projects primarily benefiting
freight railroads other than Class I carriers to $7.0 billion.
Furthermore, SAFETEA-LU prescribed that the Secretary shall not
establish any limit on the proportion of the unused amount authorized
that may be used for one loan or loan guarantee.
    The Secretary has delegated her authority under the RRIF program to
the FRA Administrator. TEA-21 required FRA to give priority
consideration to projects that: (1) Enhance public safety; (2) enhance
the environment; (3) promote economic development; (4) enable United
States companies to be more competitive in international markets; (5)
are endorsed by plans prepared under 23 U.S.C. 135 by the state or
states in which they are located; or (6) preserve or enhance rail or
intermodal service to small communities or rural areas. SAFETEA-LU
amended these priority considerations to include projects that: (7)
Enhance service and capacity in the national rail system or (8) would
materially alleviate rail capacity problems which degrade the provision
of service to shippers and would fulfill a need in the national
transportation system.
    Pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.) and OMB Circular No. A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs
and Non-Tax Receivables, the Federal government must manage the RRIF
program to ensure that the goals of the program are met while
minimizing the risk of borrower default. The Federal government is
responsible for making estimates of the costs of direct loan and loan
guarantees. The goal of the RRIF program is to address a perceived gap
between the railroad industry's financial needs and the lack of private
financial sources willing to provide the necessary long-term, low-
capital loans. Additionally, a goal of the program shall be to assist
small railroads that lack access to capital and financing for making
capital improvements in support of the priority considerations listed
in section 260.7. The program shall also strive to encourage the
private sector to invest in railroads and to provide financing for the
types of projects underwritten by the RRIF program. The proposed
amendments will further these goals and priorities.
    The NPRM proposes to amend the RRIF rule to incorporate a number of
program features which FRA believes will improve the administration and
effectiveness of the RRIF program. FRA's beliefs are based on its
experience gained while administering the RRIF program and its
knowledge of the railroad industry, as well as congressional findings
and General Accountability Office recommendations, which will be
discussed later in the preamble. The NPRM proposes substantive
amendments to the existing rule that will ensure the long-term
sustainability of the program, promote competition in the railroad
industry, and reduce the risk of default for applicants and the
Government.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes

Section 260.21 Eligibility

    The NPRM proposes to establish an equity contribution requirement
for applicants who are larger than small entities. The FRA believes
that by requiring borrowers to invest a certain percentage of non-RRIF
funds to finance a project, this will ensure that borrowers are
themselves financially invested in the project. Equity contribution
requirements are a common practice among financial lenders. The FRA's
intent is to reduce the risk of borrower default, and subsequent
Government loss, by having an applicant contribute to the assets
financed by the loan.
    The NPRM proposes that an applicant be required to have and
maintain a minimum equity contribution of the total costs of the
project being financed by the federal assistance. Furthermore, the FRA
proposes to establish a required equity contribution ratio that is a
function of the creditworthiness of the applicant, the degree of
leverage in the project represented by the amount of federal assistance
requested, the size of the loan as compared with the overall financial
resources of the applicant, and whether the applicant is requesting a
direct loan or loan guarantee. Finally, the FRA proposes that direct
loan and loan guarantee applications for less than $20 million will be
exempt from the equity contribution requirement.
    Applicants with a low credit rating, which the FRA proposes to
define as below ``investment grade,'' represent a riskier investment
for the federal government. Applicants requesting a large amount of
financial assistance as compared with the overall financial resources
of the applicant will also represent a greater risk to the federal
government, since more of the federal government's resources will be
dependent on the outcome of the project.
    Additionally, the Department believes applicants whose debt
(including the

federal assistance applied for) to equity ratio exceeds 1.0 also pose
an increased risk to the federal government since borrowers whose debt
exceeds equity generally have an increased risk of default. Finally,
direct loans create more risk to the federal government than loan
guarantees do, since loan guarantees have the added protection of
having an independent financial lender assessing project risk. In cases
where applicants and projects create an increased risk to the federal
government, applicants will be required to have invested a greater
proportion of the total project costs to offset the increased risk to
the government.
Direct Loan Applicants
    The NPRM proposes that all direct loan applicants with either a
credit rating of less than investment grade or whose debt (including
the federal financial assistance applied for) to equity ratio exceeds
1.0 will be required to have and always maintain an equity contribution
of at least 20 percent of total project costs for direct loan
applications for less than $250 million and an equity contribution of
at least 30 percent of total project costs for direct loan applications
exceeding $250 million.
    The NPRM proposes that all direct loan applicants with a credit
rating of no less than investment grade and whose debt, including the
federal financial assistance applied for, to equity ratio does not
exceed 1.0 will be required to have and to always maintain an equity
contribution of at least 10 percent of total project costs for direct
loan applications for less than $250 million and an equity contribution
of at least 15 percent of total project costs for direct loan
applications exceeding $250 million.
Loan Guarantee Applicants
    The NPRM proposes that all loan guarantee applicants with either a
credit rating of less than investment grade or whose debt, including
the federal financial assistance applied for, to equity ratio exceeds
1.0 will be required to have and always maintain an equity contribution
of at least 20 percent of total project costs for loan guarantee
applications for less than $250 million and an equity contribution of
at least 25 percent of total project costs for loan guarantee
applications exceeding $250 million. The equity contribution required
for applications of direct loans and loan guarantees of less than $250
million is the same because FRA believes that the greater risk
presented by direct loans is only necessarily addressed in this program
in the context of very large direct loan amounts. Additionally, the
type of financial assistance requested is one of many factors that the
FRA used to determine the appropriate level of equity contribution for
each financial assistance amount category.
    The NPRM proposes that all loan guarantee applicants with a credit
rating of no less than investment grade and whose debt, including the
federal financial assistance applied for, to equity ratio does not
exceed 1.0 will be required to have and to always maintain an equity
contribution of at least 10 percent of total project costs for loan
guarantee applications for less than $250 million and an equity
contribution of at least 12.5 percent of total project costs for loan
guarantee applications exceeding $250 million.
    The FRA requests comments on the equity contribution requirement
and the amounts proposed.
    Finally, the NPRM proposes a limitation on the cumulative
outstanding balance to a single borrower. The SAFETEA-LU amendments to
RRIF state that the Secretary shall not establish ``any limit on the
proportion of the unused amount authorized under this subsection that
may be used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.'' However, FRA believes that
placing a limit on the cumulative amount of direct loans and loan
guarantees to any one borrower is within the FRA's authority since the
proposed limit is an absolute limit and not based on a proportion of
unused funds. 45 U.S.C. 822(d). As Congress could have chosen instead
to explicitly prohibit all limitations, regardless of whether or not
the limitation is based on the proportion of unused funds, FRA
interprets the language as written to indicate that Congress did not
intend to prohibit all limitations but only limitations based on the
proportion of the unused amount authorized.
    In an October 2006 report, the GAO recommended that the Department
``consider strategies to sustain the role of competitive market forces
by creating a level playing field for all freight modes.'' \1\ The GAO
report found that over the past 30 years, the railroad industry has
become more concentrated. The number of Class I railroad systems
decreased from 30 railroads in 1976 to 7 railroads in operation today.
Of those, four railroads account for over 89% of the industry's
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO, Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but
Concerns about Competition and Capacity Should Be Addressed, GAO-07-
94, October 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA believes a sufficiently large direct loan or loan guarantee to
one borrower could potentially further increase concentration in the
railroad industry. A sufficiently large direct loan or loan guarantee
to one railroad may have the potential to allow it to obtain a
preferential standing in the marketplace over its competitors. The FRA
believes that the RRIF program can be an effective means of updating
and improving railroad infrastructure to meet modern needs. Congress
also established that it is a priority of the program to focus on
providing capital to smaller railroads by requiring that twenty percent
of the program's total funding be set aside for these smaller
railroads. Therefore, the FRA believes that limiting the cumulative
amount that any one applicant may borrow is proper federal direct loan
and loan guarantee policy and would be in keeping with Congressional
intent to ensure that a few large projects do not dominate the entire
funding for the program.
    In order to ensure that the direct loans and loan guarantees are
spread evenly throughout the railroad industry, the NPRM proposes
limiting the amount of any cumulative outstanding balance to a single
borrower. The NPRM proposes $500 million as an appropriate limit for
any cumulative loan guarantee and direct loan for any single borrower
and seeks comment on the suitability of this figure. In particular,
commenters who believe this figure is insufficient for their project
needs should comment on whether any greater amount would be more
suitable.

Section 260.23 Form and Content of Application Generally

    First, if the amount of financial assistance requested exceeds a
defined threshold, the NPRM proposes adding a requirement for
applicants to obtain a credit rating or assessment that takes into
account the proposed project. This will result in better informed
decisions by the government and ensure that the credit risk to the
Government is minimized for the largest direct loan and loan guarantee
requests. The NPRM proposes a threshold of $250 million as an
appropriate amount and invites comments on the suitability of this
figure.
    Second, the NPRM proposes adding a requirement that applicants
submit electronic copies of their audited financial statements. This
requirement will reduce application review costs and credit risk for
the Government and ensure more efficient processing of loan
applications. As this requirement may be overly burdensome on small
railroad operations, the NPRM proposes excluding applicants with annual

revenues of less than $20 million from this requirement, as well as
applications for direct loans or loan guarantees for less than $20
million.
    Pursuant to its authority under the Small Business Act to define
``small entities,'' FRA published a final statement of agency policy
that formally establishes ``small entities'' as railroads that meet the
line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.  See 68 FR
24891 (May 9, 2003), as codified at part 209, appendix C of this
chapter. The $20 million limit (adjusted annually for inflation) is
based on the Surface Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III
railroad carrier, which is adjusted by applying the railroad revenue
deflator adjustment (49 CFR parts 1201). The NPRM proposes to use this
definition for this rulemaking.
    Third, the NPRM proposes adding a requirement for applicants to
identify and quantify the public benefit to be attained by the
financial assistance. A GAO report from 2003 discussing the financing
limitations of freight transportation recommended the DOT promote the
use of benefit analyses, including external benefits.\2\ The report
found that by evaluating the benefits of competing alternatives,
applicants would have to apply systematic analytical methods as part of
their investment decision-making process, leading to a better
understanding of the tradeoffs among competing alternative solutions.
Additionally, by determining clear and tangible benefits, applicants
would be better able to garner support for projects from private firms.
The proposed rule will reduce the credit risk to the Government by
encouraging participation from private financial sources, reduce
application review costs, and improve government decision-making
through better information. Furthermore, the NPRM proposes giving
priority consideration to applications that have the highest benefit to
loan value in order to make economically efficient use of limited
government resources and to further reduce the risk to the Government
of default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address
Planning and Financing Limitations, GAO-04-165, December 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and U.S. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and determined to be significant under both
Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
Feb. 26, 1979). We have prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory
evaluation addressing the economic impact of this proposed rule. FRA
invites comments on this regulatory evaluation.
    This regulation will affect only those entities that voluntarily
elect to apply for a direct loan or loan guarantee and those who
receive a direct loan or loan guarantee under the program. It will not
impose any direct, involuntary, or un-reimbursed costs on those
entities not applying for the program. The only costs imposed on the
applicants are the costs associated with completing an application. The
costs associated with the proposed rule would also not differ
materially from the current applications costs. The proposed rule
codifies and regularizes many requirements already in effect. Although
we have not provided a detailed cost of the application, many of these
costs would be incurred with or without the rule. FRA specifically
solicits comment on the total and incremental application costs of this
proposed rule.
    FRA has also concluded that the railroad rehabilitation and
improvement loan program could generate both direct and indirect
benefits. By codifying existing application review practices, the
proposed rule will result in a more efficient and consistent use of
government resources. Additionally, the proposed rule will provide for
greater governmental transparency in codifying how applications will be
reviewed. Furthermore, applicants will have the benefit of knowing
their applications contain all the information necessary for review.
The regulatory evaluation contains a more detailed discussion of the
costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
    This rule is not anticipated to adversely affect, in a material
way, any sector of the economy. This rulemaking sets forth criteria for
project applications in the RRIF program, which will result in only
minimal additional cost to program applicants. This rule would also not
create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or
materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small
entities. FRA does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For this
proposed rule, the relevant definition of small entities is based on
the applicant's annual revenue. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
has provided FRA with the authority to establish a definition for small
entities. FRA has published a final policy that formally establishes
small entities as railroads that meet the line haulage revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad, which is currently annual
operating revenues of $20 million or less. The $20 million limit is
based on the Surface Transportation Board's threshold of a Class III
railroad carrier.
    FRA has not conducted a regulatory flexibility assessment of this
proposed rule's impact on small entities. Small entities are largely
exempt from the new application and equity contribution requirements in
order to avoid a scenario where additional costs imposed could have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Additionally, FRA notes that this is a voluntary loan program, and the
proposed rule will not have any effect on small entities that do not
apply for direct loans or loan guarantees. FRA invites comment on the
economic effect of the proposed rule on small entities. However, FRA
believes the proposed rule will benefit small entities by providing
them with greater access to capital and capital markets. FRA has,
therefore, concluded that there are no substantial economic impacts for
small entities of government, business, or other organizations.
    FRA requests public comments that will clarify what the impacts
will be for the affected small entities. FRA especially encourages
political subdivisions that may be considered to be small entities to
participate in the comment process and submit written comments to the
docket.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(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).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any 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 one year,

and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of
proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written
statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
    This loan program is not an ``unfunded mandate.'' This NPRM will
not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of $132,000,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) or
more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not
required.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FRA has analyzed this NPRM in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, issued on August 4,
1999, which directs Federal agencies to exercise great care in
establishing policies that have federalism implications. See 64 FR
42355. This NPRM will not have a substantial effect on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government. This NPRM will not have federalism implications that impose
any direct compliance costs on state and local governments. There will
be minor costs associated with the submission of applications, but they
are discretionary and will only be incurred should a state or local
government wish to apply for funding. Otherwise, this NPRM directs how
Federal funds will go to the states, and thus, there are no federalism
implications.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
addresses the collection of information by the Federal government from
individuals, small businesses and state and local governments and seeks
to minimize the burdens such information collection requirements might
impose. A collection of information includes providing answers to
identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or record-keeping
requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the United States. In accordance
with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies may not
conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to,
an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. FRA is requesting
comment on a proposed information collection. FRA is also giving notice
that the proposed collection of information has been submitted to OMB
for review and approval.
    Section 260.23 of the NPRM contains additional information
requirements that would apply to railroads, states or political
subdivisions of states that file applications for Federal funding for
railroad rehabilitation and improvement projects.
    This NPRM proposes to include requirements for applicants for loans
and loan guarantees to provide certain information with their
application in order to assess their financial health. Specifically, in
Sections 260.23(4)(p)-(r), FRA proposes to require: Credit ratings or
assessments for loan and guarantee applications for more than $250
million; electronic copies of audited financial statements to be
submitted with applications from other than small entities for loans or
guarantees of more than $20 million; and, that applicants must identify
and quantify the public benefit that would accrue from the completion
of the proposed project. FRA believes that any burden on applicants
from formally incorporating these proposed requirements would be
negligible because there are exceptions made for small loan and
guarantee amounts as well as for small entities in general. For all
other scenarios, the documentation requested would be required for any
sort of financing that an applicant would seek, be it public or
private, in order to assess the risk of granting financing. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether
these information collection requirements are necessary for FRA to
properly perform its functions, including whether the information has
practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collecting information on those who are to respond, including through
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its
procedures for ensuring full consideration of the potential
environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and related
directives (see FRA Policy Statement on Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545). FRA has concluded that the
issuance of this NPRM, which proposes to amend regulations governing
the provisions of loan guarantees and direct loans for railroad
rehabilitation and improvement projects, does not have a potential
impact on the environment and does not constitute a major Federal
action requiring an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' See
66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates
or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That 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) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. The FRA has
evaluated this NPRM in accordance with Executive Order 13211. The FRA
has determined that this NPRM is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Consequently, FRA has determined that this NPRM is not a ``significant
energy action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 260

    Loan programs--Transportation; Railroads.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority
of 45 U.S.C. 822, FRA proposes to amend Part 260 of chapter II,
subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:

PART 260--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  45 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823; 49 CFR 1.49.

    2. Revise section 260.21 to read as follows:

Sec.  260.21  Eligibility.

    (a) The Administrator may make a direct loan to an Applicant, or
guarantee the payment of the principal balance and any interest of an
obligation of an Applicant prior to, on, or after the date of execution
or the date of disbursement of such obligation, if the proceeds of such
direct loan or obligation shall be, or have been, used by the Applicant
for the eligible purposes listed in Sec.  260.5(a)(1), (2), and (3).
    (b) Except for railroads that are small entities as provided in
part 209, appendix C of this chapter and are seeking loans not in
excess of $20 million, an Applicant applying for financial assistance
must make an equity contribution to the costs of the project being
financed, in part, by the federal assistance, based on the
creditworthiness of the Applicant and the degree of leverage in the
project represented by the federal assistance.
    (c) An Applicant for a direct loan that is greater than $20 million
but less than $250 million shall have and always maintain an equity
contribution of at least 20 percent of total project costs. An
Applicant for a direct loan that is greater than $250 million shall
have and always maintain an equity contribution of at least 30 percent
of total project costs.
    (d) An Applicant for a loan guarantee that is greater than $20
million but less than $250 million shall have and always maintain an
equity contribution of at least 20 percent of total project costs. An
Applicant for a loan guarantee that is greater than $250 million shall
have and always maintain an equity contribution of at least 25 percent
of total project costs.
    (e) An Applicant for a direct loan or loan guarantee with a credit
rating of no less than investment grade and whose debt to equity ratio
that does not exceed 1.0, shall be required to have and always maintain
an equity contribution of half of the amounts prescribed in paragraphs
(c) or (d), respectively.
    (f) The cumulative outstanding balance of loans and loan guarantees
to a single borrower shall not exceed $500 million.
    3. Section 260.23 is amended by adding new paragraphs (p), (q), and
(r) to read as follows:

Sec.  260.23  Form and content of application generally.

* * * * *
    (p) A credit rating or assessment if the application for financial
assistance is in excess of $250 million.
    (q) Electronic copies of their audited financial statements, unless
the Applicant has revenues of less than $20 million or the application
for financial assistance is less than $20 million.
    (r) Identification and quantification of the public benefit to be
obtained by the financial assistance requested, including, but not
limited to, the priorities listed in 49 U.S.C. 822(c). Priority
consideration will be given to those applications that have the highest
benefit to loan value, consistent with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 822.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 3, 2008.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-12811 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P