[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79973-79980]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 214

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0074]
RIN 2130-AC78

Railroad Workplace Safety

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing railroad
workplace safety to: Allow for the use of alternative security
standards for electronic display systems used to view track authority
information for roadway worker safety, and exempt certain drone roadway
maintenance machines from existing environmental control requirements.
These proposals would reduce regulatory burdens on the railroad
industry while maintaining the existing level of safety.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 9, 2021. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
    FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to January 11, 2021, one will be scheduled
and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Register to
inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such
hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2019-0074 may
be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Website: Federal eRulemaking Portal, www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information.
Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Supplementary Information
section of this document for information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Hawks, Track Specialist, Office
of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Sam Gilbert, Attorney Adviser, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    To streamline and update existing rules, agencies periodically
review and propose amendments to their regulations. Various statues and
Executive Orders also encourage or require such review with an emphasis
on cost-savings. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 610; Executive Order 13771,
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, 82 FR 9339, Jan.
30, 2017.
    Increasingly, the railroad industry has also petitioned FRA to
amend its safety regulations to acknowledge and reflect technological
innovations that improve operational efficiencies. Within this context,
FRA reviewed its 49 CFR part 214--Railroad Workplace Safety
regulations. FRA identified potential amendments to subparts C and D of
part 214 addressing Roadway Worker Protection and On-Track Roadway
Maintenance Machines and Hi-Rail Vehicles, respectively, that would
lead to operational efficiencies and cost-savings. FRA expects these
amendments can be implemented without compromising safety. Accordingly,
FRA is proposing to amend Sec.  214.322 to allow the use of alternative
security standards for electronic display systems to view track
authority information, and amend Sec.  214.505 to exempt certain drone
roadway maintenance machines from environmental control requirements.
FRA expects that these proposals would reduce regulatory burdens on the
railroad industry without impacting safety.
    FRA estimates that railroads would experience approximately $5,900
in cost savings over the ten-year period of this analysis. The present
value (PV) \1\ of this

cost savings, when discounted at 3- and 7-percent, is approximately
$5,000 and $4,100, respectively. The annualized cost savings is
estimated to be approximately $590 at both discount rates. The table
below presents the estimated 10-year total cost savings associated with
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The present value of costs and cost savings flows are
calculated in this analysis (over a 10-year period) because PV
provides a way of converting future amounts into equivalent dollars
today. The formula used to calculate these flows is: 1/
(1+r)[supcaret]t, where ``r'' is the discount rate, and ``t'' is the
year. Discount rates of 3 and 7 percent are used in this analysis.

                                      Table I-1--Total 10-Year Cost Savings
                                                 [2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Present value    Present value
                                                     3%               7%         Annualized  3%   Annualized 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings..........................          $5,045           $4,139             $591             $589
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this proposed rulemaking provides railroads the flexibility
to utilize an updated National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) standard for electronic display systems at their discretion, and
codifies an existing waiver, FRA estimates that there will be no costs
associated with this proposed rulemaking.

II. Background and Overview of the Proposals

Exclusive Track Occupancy Track Authority Electronic Display Systems

    When a roadway worker or work group establishes exclusive track
occupancy working limits, and an electronic display device is used to
view track authority information for that worker or work group, Sec.
214.322(h) requires the device to meet the security standards of NIST
Special Publication 800-63-2, Electronic Authentication Guideline,
``Computer Security,'' August 2013 (2013 Standard).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Authentication'' is the process through which the identity
of an individual user, or ``subject,'' is validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Sec.  214.322(h), new electronic display systems must provide
Level 3 assurance as defined by the 2013 Standard, i.e., they must
provide multi-factor remote network authentication (for example, a
password or a biometric factor, such as a fingerprint, used in
combination with a software or hardware token). FRA incorporated this
2013 Standard into part 214 based on the agency's determination that
the standard ``provides technical guidelines for widely used methods of
electronic authentication, and is reasonably available to all
interested parties online . . . or by contacting NIST,'' and that Level
3 assurance, specifically, ``requires . . . stringent identity proofing
and multi-factor authentication.'' 81 FR 37840, 37869 (June 10, 2016).
    Since adoption of Sec.  214.322(h), NIST has updated its computer
security standards several times in separate documents addressing the
various components of identity assurance. See, e.g., SP 800-63-3
(Digital Identity Guidelines) (last updated March 2, 2020); SP 800-63A
(Enrollment & Identity Proofing) (last updated March 2, 2020); SP 800-
63B (Authentication & Lifecycle Management) (last updated March 2,
2020); SP 800-63C (Federation & Assertions) (last updated March 2,
2020). Recognizing that computer security standards change, and that
other standards may also provide multi-factor authentication, FRA is
providing additional flexibility for meeting the electronic
authentication requirements of Sec.  214.322(h). As discussed in more
detail below, FRA is proposing a new paragraph (i), which provides that
paragraph (h)'s requirements may be satisfied so long as an electronic
display system uses multi-factor authentication.

Drone Waiver Incorporation

    FRA may waive compliance with its regulations. See 49 U.S.C.
20103(d) (``The Secretary [of Transportation] may waive compliance with
any part of a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter
if the waiver is in the public interest and consistent with railroad
safety.''); see also 49 CFR 1.89(a). FRA implemented regulations to
exercise this authority under subpart C to 49 CFR part 211, which
provides a process and requirements for receiving and responding to
waiver petitions. Each properly filed petition for a permanent or
temporary waiver of a safety rule, regulation, or standard is referred
to the FRA Railroad Safety Board (Board) for decision. See Sec.
211.41(a). The Board's decision is typically rendered after a notice is
published in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment
is provided. See Sec.  211.41(b). If the Board grants a waiver
petition, the Board may impose conditions on the grant of relief to
ensure the decision is in the public interest and consistent with
railroad safety. See Sec.  211.41(c).
    Activity under a waiver of regulatory compliance may generate
sufficient data and experience to support an expansion of its scope,
applicability, and duration. For instance, in many cases, FRA has
expanded the scope of certain waivers or issued the same or similar
waivers to additional applicants. FRA has also extended various
waivers' expiration dates. A waiver's success and its continued
expansion may warrant consideration of regulatory codification.
Codifying a waiver, and thereby making its exemptions and requirements
universally applicable, can result in industry cost-savings larger than
from the waiver alone.
    In this NPRM, FRA proposes to incorporate a longstanding waiver for
certain roadway maintenance machines (RMM) from the environmental
control and protection system requirements currently found in subpart D
of part 214. Part 214 defines an RMM as ``a device powered by any means
of energy other than hand power which is being used on or near railroad
track for maintenance, repair, construction or inspection of track,
bridges, roadway, signal, communications, or electric traction
systems.'' Common types of RMMs include ballast regulators, tampers,
mechanical brooms, rotary scarifiers, and undercutters. Each of these
machines is typically operated by an individual occupying a cab mounted
on the machine.
    Existing Sec.  214.505(a) requires certain types of new RMMs to be
equipped with enclosed cabs with heating, air conditioning, and
positive pressurized ventilation systems. In 2008, Harsco Track
Technologies, a railroad equipment manufacturer, requested a waiver of
Sec.  214.505(a) for a newly developed RMM designed to function without
a dedicated operator located on the machine (i.e., a drone machine).
See Docket No. FRA-2008-0070 (available at www.regulations.gov).
Harsco's tamper machine (i.e., a machine used to pack or ``tamp''
ballast under railway tracks) was designed to be operated by a person
in the cab of a separate, ``leading'' machine, such that the drone
machine itself would not even be equipped with a cab. In support of its
request for relief, Harsco explained that the leading machine in which
the operator of the drone machine would sit would have a cab fully
compliant with Sec.  214.505(a).

    By notice in the Federal Register, FRA invited public comment on
Harsco's waiver request. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Division (BMWED) expressed the view that the drone machine must be
``devoid of any operator controls or other capabilities that would
allow it to be operated from a position on, beside, or in proximity
to,'' the machine. FRA granted Harsco the requested relief from
214.505(a) for the operation of its drone tamper machine for an initial
five-year period and conditioned the grant of relief on the following
conditions:
     The drone machine could only be operated by someone
located in the cab of a lead machine with a Sec.  214.505-compliant cab
and this restriction was required to be clearly identified by
stenciling, marking, or other written notice in a conspicuous location
on each drone machine.
     If, for maintenance and/or testing of the drone machine,
the machine was operated outside of the main cab of the lead machine in
a manner that would expose an employee to air contaminants, as outlined
in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations
defining exposure limits for various substances (29 CFR 1910.1000), the
employee operating the machine was required to be protected in
compliance with OSHA's personal respiratory protection regulations (29
CFR 1910.134).
     Employees were prohibited from being on the machine during
operation.
     The machine was not physically equipped with controls that
would allow the equipment to be operated.
     Harsco maintained a list of the equipment subject to the
waiver.
    Since granting the initial waiver in 2008, at Harsco's request, FRA
has renewed the relief twice--in 2013 and 2018. Harsco supported each
request for relief by noting that no injuries or safety issues had been
reported and that ``customers are pleased with the safety and
performance of the drone tamper.'' FRA has not independently received
any reports of injuries related to the use of Harsco's drone RMMs.
    In 2018, FRA added the condition that Harsco provide each purchaser
of the drone tamper with a copy of the approved waiver. FRA estimates
that approximately 30 drone RMMs have been used under the waiver.
    Given this safety record, FRA is proposing to amend subpart D of
part 214 to allow the use of drone RMMs similar to Harsco's drone
tamping machine without the requirement for a waiver from FRA's
regulations.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.

Section 214.322 Exclusive Track Occupancy, Electronic Display

    Section 214.321(b) requires exclusive track occupancy authority to
be transmitted to the roadway worker in charge by the train dispatcher
or control operator in charge of the track, which may be done by data
transmission. Many railroads use electronic devices to view these
authorities, which must meet the requirements of Sec.  214.322.
Recognizing the importance of the integrity and secure transmission of
this data, paragraph (h) of existing Sec.  214.322 generally requires
new electronic display systems used to view track authorities to meet
NIST's 2013 authentication standard discussed above. Specifically,
existing paragraph (h) requires new electronic display systems to
provide Level 3 assurance as defined by the 2013 Standard (i.e.,
provide multi-factor remote network authentication), while electronic
display systems implemented prior to July 1, 2017, must provide Level 2
assurance as defined by the 2013 Standard (i.e., single factor remote
network authentication). Since FRA adopted this requirement, the 2013
Standard has been updated several times. To allow for the use of
standards other than the 2013 Standard's Level 3 assurance that also
provide multi-factor authentication, FRA proposes to add a new
paragraph (i), which would provide that electronic display systems
comply with paragraph (h) so long as they provide multi-factor
authentication for digital authentication of the subject. Examples of
multi-factor authentication include, but are not limited to, a password
or biometric factor (e.g., fingerprint or voice pattern) used in
combination with a one-time PIN sent to the subject's mobile phone. FRA
does not intend this proposed revision to change the substance of
paragraph (h)'s current requirement, or require that the authentication
standards already in use for existing electronic display systems be
changed. Instead, FRA intends this revision to allow industry to adopt
new and improved authentication technologies that also provide multi-
factor authentication.
    A railroad using an electronic display system with multi-factor
authentication that employs a standard other than the 2013 Standard
would not have to notify FRA of its choice or file any supporting
documentation with FRA. However, in exercising its enforcement
authority, FRA may request documentation or other evidence from a
railroad using an alternative standard demonstrating that the standard
provides multi-factor authentication to determine compliance with the
requirement.

Section 214.505 Required Environmental Control and Protection Systems
for New On-track Roadway Maintenance Machines With Enclosed Cabs

    As discussed above, technological developments since the
promulgation of Sec.  214.505 have led to the use of drone RMMs that do
not possess operator controls, or a position on the machine for an
operator to be located. The purpose of the cab on an RMM is to protect
the operator from the harmful airborne contaminants produced by the
work operations (e.g., silica ballast dust) and excessive noise
produced by the machine itself. Such environmentally controlled cabs
are expensive to install and maintain, but without an operator on the
machine to protect, serve no purpose. Accordingly, as discussed in the
Background section above, FRA proposes to incorporate into part 214 the
longstanding waiver from the requirements of Sec.  214.505 that allows
for the use of drone RMMs. FRA is not aware of any safety issues or
injuries resulting from the use of these drone machines operated under
the conditions of the waiver.
    Specifically, FRA proposes to add new paragraph (i) to existing
Sec.  214.505 to allow for the use of drone RMMs. The proposed
requirements of new paragraph (i) are consistent with the conditions of
the waiver discussed in the Background section above, which currently
allows for the use of certain drone RMMs on a limited basis. Paragraph
(i) would specify that existing paragraph (a) of Sec.  214.505
(requiring certain RMMs to be equipped with operational heating, air
conditioning, and ventilation systems) does not apply to RMMs that are
not capable of performing work functions other than by remote operation
and are equipped with no operating controls. Instead, proposed new
paragraph (i) would require that if a drone RMM is operated from the
cab of a separate machine, that cab must be compliant with paragraph
(a) of Sec.  214.505, and if a drone RMM is operated outside of the cab
of a separate machine in a way that will expose the operator to air
contaminants, the operator must be protected in accordance with OSHA's
regulations.
    Further, proposed new paragraph (i) prohibits a person from being
on a drone RMM while it is operating and requires drone RMMs to be
clearly marked to indicate the potential hazards

of the machine being operated from a distance or that the machine may
move automatically. FRA is not prescribing a specific marking
requirement, instead Sec.  214.505(i) requires any marking to provide
notice that roadway workers should stay clear of the equipment because
it may move automatically, and that no person may be on the equipment
while it is operating.
    FRA requests comment on the proposed revisions to Sec.  214.505
allowing for the use of drone RMMs.

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13771, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within
the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' and DOT's Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and
Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 5. This proposed rule is expected
to result in a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.''
    FRA proposes to revise its regulations governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad workplace safety. The proposed changes amend
part 214 to permit the use of alternative security standards for
electronic display systems used to view track authority information in
Sec.  214.322, and, consistent with an existing waiver, exempt certain
drone roadway maintenance machines from environmental control
requirements in Sec.  214.505(a), which include heating, air
conditioning, and ventilation systems.

Costs

Electronic Display Systems

    Section 214.322(h) requires that electronic display systems used to
view track authority information meet the security standards defined by
NIST Special Publication 800-63-2, Electronic Authentication Guideline,
``Computer Security.'' August 2013. FRA proposes to allow electronic
display systems subject to Sec.  214.322 to use alternative standards
for electronic authentication, provided those systems require stringent
identity proofing through multi-factor authentication. FRA expects no
additional costs for this proposed requirement as it is simply adding
flexibility.

Drone Waiver Incorporation

    As discussed above, FRA approved Harsco's 2008 waiver petition for
a five-year period with conditions, and has since renewed waivers in
2013 and 2018. FRA expects no additional costs for this proposed
requirement because FRA is codifying a long-standing waiver.

Cost Savings

    The proposed rule would be beneficial for regulated entities
seeking to use electronic display systems that meet alternative
standards for electronic authentication and provide a comparable or
better level of identity proofing and digital authentication as that
required by the 2013 NIST Special Publication. The proposed rule would
also reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities by providing
relief from submitting waivers to FRA for the use of certain roadway
maintenance machines.
    FRA has estimated that cost savings of this proposed rule will
result due to waiver codification, as the proposed rule would reduce
the need for industry to submit waivers. These estimates assume that,
without the proposed regulation, Harsco Track Technologies would
continue submitting petitions for extending the waiver, which would
occur every five years. The last renewal was approved in 2018. To date,
Harsco has been the sole entity requesting this waiver from FRA, and
FRA does not expect any other entities to apply for similar waivers
over the period of analysis.
    FRA assumes that the cost for Harsco to prepare and submit each
waiver would be approximately the same as it is for FRA to process it.
FRA seeks comments on this assumption. To estimate the cost savings
associated with this waiver, FRA estimated the labor hours required for
FRA to review and approve each waiver. Table IV-1 below displays the
breakdown of the waiver review and submission cost for each waiver.

                                       Table IV-1--Waiver Submission Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Burdened wage
              Title                  Pay grade       Wage rate     rate (wages x       Hours        Total wages
                                                                       1.75)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA Field Inspector.............           GS-12          $47.82          $83.69               8         $669.48
Administrative Assistant (Field            GS-12           47.82           83.69               4          334.74
 Office)........................
Administrative Assistant (DC)...            GS-9           30.54           53.45               4          213.78
Motive Power and Equipment                 GS-14           62.23          108.90              16        1,742.44
 Specialist (DC)................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FRA Labor Cost per      ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............        2,960.44
     Renewal Waiver.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of estimating waiver costs for this analysis, FRA
estimates the associated renewals that would occur over the next 10
years. Table IV-2 shows the total cost savings for regulated entities
to review and submit waivers to FRA.

                                    Table IV-2--Industry Waiver Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost savings    Cost savings
                  Analysis year                      Number of     Cost savings     (discounted     (discounted
                                                      waivers     (undiscounted)        3%)             7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
3...............................................               1          $2,960          $2,709          $2,416
4...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
5...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
6...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
7...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............

8...............................................               1           2,960           2,337           1,723
9...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
10..............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............           5,920           5,045           4,139
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives

    FRA is proposing this rulemaking to provide relief to regulated
entities by allowing the use of alternative standards for electronic
display systems to comply with Sec.  214.322(h) and by not having to
submit waivers to FRA. An alternative to this rulemaking would be to
maintain the status quo.
    If FRA does not modify Sec.  214.322, entities would continue to
use the NIST 2013 Special Publication as the standard for securing and
transmitting data for electronic display systems. Although this
standard is safe, FRA recognizes that updated NIST standards after the
2013 Special Publication could allow the industry to adopt newly
developed technologies and methods of data transmission that are still
compliant with Sec.  214.322(h) while providing comparable, or better,
levels of security.
    In addition, absent this proposal, entities would be required to
continue submitting waivers for the use of approved roadway maintenance
machines and, therefore, would not receive the cost savings associated
with not having to submit waivers. This would continue to be an
unnecessary burden. FRA views the drone tamper machines as an example
of using emerging modern technology to make railroad roadway
maintenance safer and more efficient. FRA has verified that waivers
allowing drone RMMs do not negatively impact safety because FRA has not
seen an adverse impact to safety while railroads have been operating
under this waiver. This waiver has given industry some relief from
unnecessary requirements and eased their burden. Therefore, issuing
this proposed regulation provides cost savings from avoiding
petitioning for and processing waivers.

Results

    FRA has estimated the cost savings of this proposed rule. The cost
savings of this proposed rule are displayed in the table below.

                                     Table IV-3--Total 10-Year Cost Savings
                                                 [2018 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Present value    Present value
                                                     3%               7%         Annualized 3%    Annualized 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings..........................          $5,045           $4,139             $591             $589
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the table above, FRA estimates the total cost savings
for this proposed rule to be approximately $5,000 (PV, 3-percent) and
$4,100 (PV, 7-percent). The annualized cost savings is estimated to be
approximately $590 (PV, 3-percent) and $590 (PV, 7-percent).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires the agency to ``prepare and make available for
public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis'' which will
``describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5
U.S.C. 603(a). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a
rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule directly affects all railroads, of which there
are approximately 746 on the general system, and FRA estimates that
approximately 93 percent of these railroads are small entities.
Therefore, FRA has determined that this proposed rule will have an
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    However, FRA has determined that the impact on entities affected by
the proposed rule will not be significant. The effect of the proposed
rule will be to allow railroads the flexibility to choose the optimal
electronic display equipment currently in the market, with the required
level of security without having to notify or seek approval from FRA.
Further, equipment manufacturers will no longer need to seek FRA
approval to remove operator control stations to a remote piece of
equipment, consistent with the established safety of a longstanding
waiver. FRA expects the impact of the proposed rule will be a reduction
in the paperwork burden for railroads and manufacturers, as well as
future benefits from allowing continually advancing security standards
to be incorporated without a regulatory change. FRA asserts that the
economic impact of the reduction in paperwork, if any, will be minimal
and entirely beneficial to small railroads.
    Accordingly, the FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FRA invites comment from members
of the public who believe there will be a significant impact on small
railroads.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The
sections that contain the proposed and current information collection
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
     CFR Section/subject          Respondent      Total annual     Average time    Total annual     dollar cost
                                   universe        responses       per response    burden hours   equivalent \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form FRA F 6180.119--Part 214  350 Safety       129 forms......  4 hours........             516         $29,412
 Railroad Workplace Safety      Inspectors.
 Violation Report.
214.307--Railroad on-track     741 railroads..  276 programs +   2 hours + 2                 563          42,788
 safety programs--RR programs                    325 copies.      minutes.
 that comply with this part +
 copies at system/division
 headquarters.
    --RR notification to FRA   741 railroads..  276 notices....  20 minutes.....              92           6,992
     not less than one month
     before on-track safety
     program takes effect.
    --RR amended on-track      741 railroads..  1 program......  4 hours........               4             304
     safety programs after
     FRA disapproval.
    --RR written response in   741 railroads..  1 written        20 hours.......              20           1,520
     support of disapproved                      response.
     program.
214.309--RR publication of     60 railroads...  100 bulletins/   60 minutes.....             100           7,600
 bulletins/notices reflecting                    notices.
 changes in on-track safety
 manual.
214.311--RR written procedure  19 railroads...  5 developed      2 hours........              10             760
 to achieve prompt and                           procedures.
 equitable resolution of good
 faith employee challenges.
214.317--On-track safety       19 railroads...  5 operating      2 hours........              10             760
 procedures, generally, for                      procedures.
 snow removal, weed spray
 equipment, tunnel niche or
 clearing by.
214.318--Procedures            741 railroads..  19 rules/        2 hours........              38           2,888
 established by railroads for                    procedures.
 workers to perform duties
 incidental to those of
 inspecting, testing,
 servicing, or repairing
 rolling equipment.
214.320--Roadway maintenance   741 railroads..  5 requests.....  4 hours........              20           1,520
 machines movement over
 signalized non-controlled
 track--RR request to FRA for
 equivalent level of
 protection to that provided
 by limiting all train and
 locomotive movements to
 restricted speed.
214.322--Exclusive track       3 Class I        1,000 written    10 minutes.....             167           9,519
 occupancy, electronic          Railroads.       authorities.
 display--Written authorities/
 printed authority copy if
 electronic display fails or
 malfunctions.
214.329--Train approach        741 railroads..  26,250           30 seconds.....             219          16,644
 warning--Written designation                    designations.
 of watchmen/lookouts.
214.336--Procedures for        100 railroads..  10,000 notices.  5 seconds......              14             798
 adjacent track movements
 over 25 mph: Notifications/
 watchmen/lookout warnings.
    --Procedures for adjacent  100 railroads..  3,000 notices..  5 seconds......               4             228
     track movements 25 mph
     or less: Notifications/
     watchmen/lookout
     warnings.
214.339--Audible warning from  19 railroads...  19 written       4 hours........              76           5,776
 trains: Written procedures                      procedures.
 that prescribe effective
 requirements for audible
 warning by horn and/or bells
 for trains.
214.343/345/347/349/351/353/   50,000 roadway   50,000 records.  2 minutes......           1,667         126,692
 355--Annual training for all   workers.
 roadway workers (RWs)--
 Records of training.
214.503--Notifications for     50,000 roadway   125 notices....  10 minutes.....              21           1,197
 non-compliant roadway          workers.
 maintenance machines or
 unsafe condition.
    --Resolution procedures..  19 railroads/    5 procedures...  2 hours........              10             760
                                contractors.
214.505 Required               741/200          500 lists......  1 hour.........             500          38,000
 environmental control and      railroads/
 protection systems for new     contractors.
 on-track roadway maintenance
 machines with enclosed cabs.
    --Designations/additions   692/200          150 additions/   5 minutes......              13             988
     to list.                   railroads/       designations.
                                contractors.
    --Stenciling or marking    30 drones......  10 stencils/     5 minutes......               1              57
     of drone roadway                            displays.
     maintenance machine
     (Revised requirement).
214.507--A-Built Light Weight  692/200          1,000 stickers/  5 minutes......              83           4,731
 on new roadway maintenance     railroads/       stencils.
 machines.                      contractors.
214.511--Required audible      692/200          3,700            5 minutes......             308          17,556
 warning devices for new on-    railroads/       identified
 track roadway maintenance      contractors.     mechanisms.
 machines.
214.515--Overhead covers for   692/200          500 + 500        10 + 20 minutes             250          17,423
 existing on-track roadway      railroads/       requests +
 maintenance machines.          contractors.     responses.
214.517--Retrofitting of       692/200          500 stencils/    5 minutes......              42           2,394
 existing on-track roadway      railroads/       displays.
 maintenance machines           contractors.
 manufactured on or after
 Jan. 1, 1991.
214.523--Hi-rail vehicles....  692/200          5,000 records..  5 minutes......             417          23,769
                                railroads/
                                contractors.
    --Non-complying            692/200          500 tags + 500   10 minutes + 15             208          11,856
     conditions.                railroads/       reports.         minutes.
                                contractors.

214.527--Inspection for        692/200          550 tags + 550   5 minutes + 15              183          10,431
 compliance--Repair schedules.  railroads/       reports.         minutes.
                                contractors.
214.533--Schedule of repairs-- 692/200          250 records....  15 minutes.....              63           4,788
 Subject to availability of     railroads/
 parts.                         contractors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals...............  741 railroads..  105,751          N/A............           5,619         388,151
                                                 responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Throughout the tables in this document, the dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
  Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group hourly wage rate
  that includes 75 percent overhead charges.

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed
data, and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, 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
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells,
Information Clearance Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan
Wells, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 3rd
Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted via email
to Ms. Wells at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, agencies
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    This proposed rule has been analyzed consistent with the principles
and criteria in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would not
have a substantial effect on the States or their political
subdivisions; it would not impose any substantial direct compliance
costs; and it would not affect the relationships between the Federal
government and the States or their political subdivisions, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    However, this proposed rule could have preemptive effect under
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes,
specifically the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (former
FRSA), repealed and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20106, and the former
Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22-34, repealed and
re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701-03. The former FRSA provides that States
may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order
related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter
of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies
under the ``local safety or security hazard'' exception to section
20106. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the former LIA
preempts the field concerning locomotive safety. See Napier v. Atl.
Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) and Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods.
Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012). Therefore, if this proposed rule is
finalized, it is possible States would be preempted from addressing the
subjects covered by the proposed rule (security standards for
electronic display systems used to display track authority information
and environmental controls in drone machines).

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council
of Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part
771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from
environmental review and does not require the preparation of an
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).
Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and, therefore, do not require either an EA or EIS.
See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has determined that this proposed
rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ``[p]romulgation of

rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of
existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do
not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water
pollutants or noise.''
    This proposed rule does not directly or indirectly impact any
environmental resources and will not result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. In analyzing the
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed
environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this proposed
regulation and the proposal meets the requirements for categorical
exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to effect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670,
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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 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 1 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. The proposed rule would
not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or
more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, FRA
encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for
alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 214

    Railroad Workplace Safety.

The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
part 214 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 214--RAILROAD WORKPLACE SAFETY

0
1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 21301-21302, 21304, 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
2. In Sec.  214.322, add paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  214.322  Exclusive track occupancy, electronic display.

* * * * *
    (i) For purposes of complying with paragraph (h) of this section,
electronic display systems may use multi-factor authentication for
digital authentication of the subject.
0
3. Amend Sec.  214.505 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a) and by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  214.505  Required environmental control and protection systems
for new on-track roadway maintenance machines with enclosed cabs.

    (a) With the exception of machines subject to paragraph (i) of this
section, the following new on-track roadway maintenance machines shall
be equipped with operative heating systems, operative air conditioning
systems, and operative positive pressurized ventilation systems:
* * * * *
    (i) Paragraph (a) of this section is not applicable to machines
that are incapable of performing work functions other than by remote
operation and are equipped with no operating controls (i.e., drone
roadway maintenance machines) if the following conditions are met.
    (1) If a drone roadway maintenance machine is operated from the cab
of a separate machine, that separate machine must comply with paragraph
(a) of this section.
    (2) If a drone roadway maintenance machine is operated outside of
the main cab of the separate machine in a manner that will expose the
operator to air contaminants, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Air
contaminants, the employee shall be protected in compliance with 29 CFR
1910.134, Personal respiratory protection.
    (3) No person is permitted on the drone roadway maintenance machine
while the equipment is operating.
    (4) Each drone roadway maintenance machine must be clearly
identified by stenciling, marking, or other written notice in a
conspicuous location on the machine indicating the potential hazards of
the machine being operated from a distance or that the machine may move
automatically.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27096 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13019-13021]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2004-NJ-0001, FRL-8040-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen for a Specific
Source in the State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a revision to
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone submitted by the State of
New Jersey. This SIP revision consists of a source-specific reasonably
available control technology (RACT) determination for controlling
oxides of nitrogen from the cogeneration facility operated by Schering
Corporation. This action approves of the source-specific RACT
determination that was made by New Jersey in accordance with provisions
of its regulation to help meet the national ambient air quality
standard for ozone. The intended effect of this action is to approve
source-specific emission limitations required by the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective April 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2004-NJ-0001.
All documents in the docket are listed in the Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, once in the

system, select ``quick search,'' then key in the appropriate RME Docket
identification number. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in Regional Material in EDocket or in
hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC; and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Pollution
Control, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Ruvo, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER> (ruvo.richard@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection's (New Jersey's) ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted on March 31, 2005. This SIP revision relates to
New Jersey's source-specific reasonably available

control technology (RACT) determination for controlling oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) from the Schering Corporation's (Schering)
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with duct burner for the
cogeneration facility located in Union, New Jersey. The reader is
referred to the proposed rulemaking on this action (July 1, 2005, 70 FR
38068) for additional details.

II. What Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?

    EPA's July 1, 2005 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period. During this period, EPA received two comment letters on the
proposal to approve New Jersey's NOX RACT determination.
EPA's response immediately follows a summary of each public comment.
    Comments: Schering submitted a comment letter which provided a
chronology of events regarding the operation and regulatory status of
the HRSG. Schering's letter requested approval to operate the HRSG in
the same manner that EPA and New Jersey approved Schering to operate a
similar HRSG at the same cogeneration facility in 1998.
    Response: By submitting the source-specific RACT determination to
New Jersey and EPA for review and approval, Schering in essence has
already formally made the request to operate the HRSG in a way similar
to another unit at the facility. Therefore, EPA is satisfying
Schering's request by proceeding with this action on the source-
specific SIP revision.
    Comments: A concerned citizen commented EPA is doing nothing to
make New Jersey's air cleaner. The comments were not directed at
Schering as a specific source or at any specific NOX
emission limitation at Schering. In addition, the comments did not
include any supporting information or justification on how EPA can make
the air cleaner.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the citizen's support for clean air.
However, no specific information or supporting justification relevant
to the NOX RACT determination for Schering was provided for
EPA to reconsider the proposed approval. For the reasons in this
section, and in the July 1, 2005 proposal, EPA is approving the
NOX emission limitation for Schering, consistent with the
RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act. With respect to the citizen's
comment that EPA is doing nothing to clean the air in New Jersey, EPA
is championing a host of programs including the Clean Air Interstate
Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and diesel retrofit programs for
trucks and buses. These and other programs, in cooperation with the
State of New Jersey, will help to clean the air and to meet the
national ambient air quality standards in New Jersey and across the
country.

III. What Are EPA's Conclusions?

    EPA has determined New Jersey's SIP revision for New Jersey's
NOX RACT determination for Schering's HRSG with duct burner
is consistent with New Jersey's NOX RACT regulation and
EPA's guidance. EPA has determined that the NOX emission
limits identified in New Jersey's Conditions of Approval document
represents RACT for Schering's HRSG with duct burner. More
specifically, EPA approves the current Conditions of Approval document
which includes an alternative emission limit for the HRSG/duct burner
when operating in the fresh air fired mode and when firing natural gas.
The limit will be the lower of 0.17 lbs/MMBtu, or 115% of the average
of three one-hour stack tests, each performed over a consecutive 60-
minute period. Accordingly, EPA is approving the New Jersey SIP
revision for an alternative RACT emission limit determination for
Schering's HRSG with duct burner.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also
not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 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 rule 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). 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 May 15, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 22, 2006.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(80) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (80) Revision to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
ozone concerning the control of nitrogen oxides from the Schering
Corporation's CoGEN II cogeneration facility located in Union County
submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP), dated March 31, 2005.
    (i) Incorporation by reference:
    (A) Conditions of Approval, Alternative Maximum Emission Rate For
NOX, Schering Corporation, Union, Union County, New Jersey
facility identification number 40084 approved March 9, 2005.

[FR Doc. 06-2428 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30326-30327]
[DOCID:fr25my11-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-478-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 10, 2011, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
an application in Docket No. CP11-478-000 pursuant to section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations
requesting authorization to abandon by sale or inter-corporate transfer
to its affiliate, Boardwalk Field Services, LLC, certain gathering and
transmission pipelines, including appurtenant and auxiliary facilities,
and two compressor stations, located in south Texas, all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J.
Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and

the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90
days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: June 8, 2011.

    Dated: May 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12867 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29540-29543]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12003]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177(b); FRL-9673-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of
York County, SC Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ozone 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve the ozone 2002
base year emissions inventory portion of the state implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on April 29, 2010. The emissions
inventory is included in the ozone attainment demonstration that was
submitted for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for the portion of York County, South Carolina that
is within the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-
South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred
to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'') is comprised of Cabarrus,
Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell
(Davidson and Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in North Carolina; and a
portion of York County in South Carolina. This action is being taken
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA will
take action on the North Carolina submission for the ozone 2002 base
year emissions inventory for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
in a separate action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective July 17, 2012 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 18, 2012.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0177, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2008-0177. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9061. Ms. Waterson can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Analysis of State's Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004).
Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a
data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data
completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single
year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in 40 CFR
part 50, appendix I.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30,
2004 (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data
(69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the bi-state
Charlotte Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone
Implementation Rule, EPA established ozone nonattainment area
attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This
established an attainment date six years after the June 15, 2004,
effective date for areas classified as moderate areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181 of the CAA explains
that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after
designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's
original attainment date was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004.
    On April 29, 2010,\1\ South Carolina submitted an attainment
demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures
(RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures,
emissions statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory and other
planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area (hereafter referred to as the
``South Carolina's nonattainment submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ South Carolina withdrew an August 31, 2007, attainment
demonstration SIP for its portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area on December 22, 2008. On April 29, 2010,
South Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration SIP for the
South Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-
hour ozone area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of
the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for
extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the
original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section
181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment
date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that
South Carolina met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension
of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. See 76 FR 31245. As a result, EPA extended the bi-state
Charlotte Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011,
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently,
on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that the bi-state
Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. The determination of attaining data was based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for
the 2008-2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the
standard were suspended as a result of the determination of attainment,
so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 40 CFR 52.2125(a).
    On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the South Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment demonstration
(except RFP, emissions statement, and the emissions inventory) as
allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 for its portion of this Area; however, the
emissions inventory requirement found in CAA section 182(a)(1), which
requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and
current inventory of actual emissions, is not suspended by a
determination of attainment. Accordingly, South Carolina has not
withdrawn its emission inventory for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
EPA is now taking direct final action to approve this portion of the
SIP revision submitted by the State of South Carolina on April 29,
2010, as required by section 182(a)(1).

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
such area. South Carolina selected 2002 as base year for the emissions
inventory pursuant to 40 CFR 51.915. Emissions contained in South
Carolina's portion of the bi-state Charlotte attainment plan cover the
general source categories of stationary point and area sources, non-
road and on-road mobile sources. A detailed discussion of the emissions
inventory development and point source emissions can be found in
Appendix E of the South Carolina submittal; which can be found in the
docket for today's action using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177.
The 2002 nitrogen oxides (NOX) baseline emissions inventory,
for the partial county emissions for York can be found in Appendix P of
the submittal. The 2002 volatile organic compounds (VOC) baseline
emissions inventory for the partial county emissions for York can be
found in Appendix O of the submittal. The table below provides a
summary of the annual 2002 emissions of NOX and VOCs.

                       Table 1--2002 Point and Area Sources Annual Emissions for the South Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area
                                                                  [Tons per summer day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Point                       Area                      Non-road                     Mobile
                 County                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC           NOX           VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
York (partial) *........................         11.1          7.29           2.2          7.48           4.9          3.19          13.8          6.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only part of York County is in the nonattainment area.

    The 182(a)(1) emissions inventory is developed by the incorporation
of data from multiple sources. States were required to develop and
submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to the
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule for all source categories (i.e.,
point, area, non-road mobile and on-road mobile). This inventory often
forms the basis of data that are updated with more recent information
and data that also is used in their attainment demonstration modeling
inventory. Such was the case in the development of the 2002 emissions
inventory that was submitted in the State's attainment demonstration
SIP for this Area. The 2002 emissions inventory was based on data
developed with the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association
of the Southeast (VISTAS) contractors and submitted by the States to
the 2002 National Emissions Inventory. Several iterations of the 2002
inventories were developed for the different emissions source
categories resulting from revisions and updates to the data. Data from
many databases, studies and models (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, fuel
programs, the NONROAD 2002 model data for commercial marine vessels,
locomotives and Clean Air Market Division, etc.) resulted in the
inventory submitted in this SIP. The data were developed according to
current EPA emissions inventory guidance ``Emissions Inventory Guidance
for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (August 2005)
and a quality assurance project plan that was developed through VISTAS
and approved by EPA. EPA agrees that the process used to develop this
inventory was adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(1) and the implementing regulations.
    EPA has reviewed South Carolina's emissions inventory for its
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and finds that it is adequate for the purposes of meeting section
182(a)(1) emissions inventory requirement. The emissions inventory is
approvable because the emissions were developed consistent with the
CAA, implementing regulations and EPA guidance for emission
inventories.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of
South Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP
revision for the bi-state Charlotte Area submitted by the State of
South Carolina on April 29, 2010. This action is being taken pursuant
to section 110 of the CAA. On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current action, however, is being
taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Requirements for the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area under
the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the future. EPA is publishing
this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective July 17, 2012 without further notice
unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 18, 2012.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on July 17, 2012 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does
not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes today's action will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 17, 2012. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 8, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``South
Carolina portion of bi-state Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002 Base
Year Emissions Inventory'' to the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               State
                Provision                    effective         EPA approval date              Explanation
                                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
South Carolina portion of bi-state            04/29/2010  05/18/2012 [Insert          Applicable to the 1997 8-
 Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002 Base                    citation of publication].   hour Ozone boundary in
 Year Emissions Inventory.                                                             York County only (Rock
                                                                                Hill-Fort Mill Area
                                                                                Transportation Study
                                                                                Metropolitan Planning
                                                                                Organization Area).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-12003 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P