[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31206-31212]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11630]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0164; FRL-9946-358-Region 9]

Determination of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard in the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area in
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has attained
the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. This proposed
determination is based on the most recent three-year period (2012-2014)
of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data. Preliminary data
for 2015 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard in
the San Joaquin Valley.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0164 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
EPA's full public comment

policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Analysis
    A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data
    B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley
    C. Analysis of Monitoring Network Adequacy
III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires the EPA to establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for
certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute
to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.\1\ In 1979, we promulgated an ozone NAAQS of 0.12
parts per million (ppm), one-hour average (``1-hour ozone
standard'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See sections 108 and 109 of the Act.
    \2\ See 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard if
there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance
with the regulation codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring
data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring
data show greater than one (1.0) ``expected number'' of exceedances per
year at any site in the area, when averaged over three consecutive
calendar years. An ``expected number'' of exceedances is a statistical
term that refers to an arithmetic average. An ``expected number'' of
exceedances may be equivalent to the number of observed exceedances
plus an increment that accounts for incomplete sampling.\3\ An
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during
any day exceeds 0.124 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix H. Because, in this context,
the term ``exceedances'' refers to days (during which the daily
maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeded 0.124 ppm), the maximum
possible number of exceedances in a given year is 365 (or 366 in a
leap year).
    \4\ For more information, please see ``National 1-hour primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' (40 CFR
50.9) and ``Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50,
appendix H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act, as amended in 1990, required the EPA to designate as
nonattainment any ozone areas that were still designated nonattainment
under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other areas violating the 1-hour
ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the
1987 through 1989 period.\5\ The 1990 CAA Amendments further classified
these areas, based on the severity of their nonattainment problem, as
Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's
classification. Marginal areas were subject to the fewest mandated
control requirements and had the earliest attainment date, November 15,
1993, while Severe and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent
planning requirements and were provided more time to attain the
standard.
    The San Joaquin Valley (SJV or ``Valley'') covers approximately
23,000 square miles and includes all of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced,
San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, as well as the western
half of Kern County.\6\ The Valley is home to approximately four
million residents. On November 6, 1991, the EPA classified the San
Joaquin Valley as ``Serious'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard with an applicable attainment date of November 15, 1999.\7\
The Valley was later reclassified by operation of law as ``Severe''
based on our determination that the Valley had failed to attain the
standard by the 1999 deadline.\8\ Later, the EPA approved a request by
the State of California to reclassify the Valley as ``Extreme'' for the
1-hour ozone standard, with an applicable attainment date of November
15, 2010.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 81.305.
    \7\ See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991.
    \8\ See 66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001.
    \9\ See 69 FR 20550, April 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm
(``1997 8-hour ozone standard''), to replace the 1-hour ozone
standard.\10\ Although the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005,
we continue to determine whether areas attain, or fail to attain, the
1-hour ozone standard. This is because, under the EPA's regulations
governing the transition from implementation of the revoked ozone
standard to implementation of the replacement ozone standard, ``anti-
backsliding'' provisions require the continued applicability of certain
1-hour ozone control requirements in areas, such as the San Joaquin
Valley, that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and the connection between some of those requirements and
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.\11\ In 2008, we tightened the
8-hour ozone standard (``2008 8-hour ozone standard''),\12\ and in
2015, we revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but the principles of
anti-backsliding continue to apply to both revoked ozone standards.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.
    \11\ See, generally, 40 CFR 51.905.
    \12\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \13\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). See, generally, 40 CFR
51.1105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are proposing to determine that the San Joaquin
Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. Under 40 CFR 50.1118, if
this action is finalized as proposed and to the extent not already
fulfilled, the requirement for this area to submit an attainment
demonstration and associated planning requirements related to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, including reasonably available
control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency
measures for failure to attain, or make reasonable progress, shall be
suspended until such time as the area is redesignated as attainment for
the current ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute for the 1-hour
ozone standard is approved, at which time the requirements no longer
apply.\14\ If, however, prior to such redesignation or approval of such
redesignation substitute, the EPA determines that the area has violated
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to submit such
attainment-related plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 40 CFR 50.1118 and 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the decades since the 1990 CAA Amendments, despite high rates
of growth in population and regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 1-
hour ozone concentrations in San Joaquin Valley have decreased,
primarily due to emissions reductions from mobile source and consumer
product control measures adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and from stationary source control measures adopted by the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or
``District''). For instance, despite regional growth, 1-hour ozone
exceedance-days within the Valley (i.e.,

number of days in a year during which the 0.12 ppm standard was
violated at a (i.e., at least one) monitoring site) decreased from 45
in 1990 to 7 in 2010.\15\ Nonetheless, upon review of the ambient data
for the three years preceding the November 15, 2010 attainment date
(i.e., 2008-2010), we determined that the San Joaquin Valley failed to
attain the 1-hour ozone standard by that date.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See table A-1 in appendix A to the San Joaquin Valley 2013
Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, adopted by the District
on September 19, 2013.
    \16\ See 76 FR 82133, December 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since then, the trend towards fewer 1-hour ozone exceedance-days
has continued, and on February 11, 2016, CARB requested that the EPA
determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone
standard (also referred to as a ``clean data determination'').\17\ As
part of its request for a clean data determination for the 1-hour ozone
standard for the San Joaquin Valley, CARB submitted its own staff
report and appendices, a letter dated July 13, 2015 from the District
to the EPA and CARB requesting a clean data determination, the
District's staff report to support its clean data determination
request, and an ozone study final report prepared for the District.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
February 11, 2016.
    \18\ See ``San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data
Determination'' dated February 8, 2016, prepared by CARB; ``San
Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination--Appendices''
dated February 8, 2016 prepared by CARB; letter from Seyed Sadredin,
Executive Officer/Air Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA
Region IX, and Richard Corey, CARB, dated July 13, 2015;
``Attainment Determination Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone
Standard'' dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District; and ``Sonoma Technology, Inc.,
``Ozone Concentrations In and Around the City of Arvin,'' final
report prepared for the District, May 2014 (``Arvin Ozone Saturation
Study'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the request for a clean data determination, the
District provided documentation in its staff report intended to support
a finding that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In our final
implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standard (80 FR 12264, March 6,
2015), we established a mechanism, referred to as a ``redesignation
substitute,'' through which an area may shift to contingency status
those requirements, such as penalty fee program requirements under CAA
section 185, to which an area had remained subject under the EPA's
anti-backsliding regulations governing the transition from revoked
ozone standards (such as the 1-hour ozone standard) to current ozone
standards. To invoke this mechanism, a state must submit a
demonstration that the area has attained the revoked ozone NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that the area will
maintain the revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the EPA's
approval of this showing.\19\ In this action, we are not taking action
on the District's demonstration that attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard in the San Joaquin Valley is due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions because it is not relevant for the purposes of a
clean data determination, but we will consider the District's
demonstration in a separate rulemaking if and when it is supplemented
with the 10-year maintenance demonstration element also needed to
invoke the redesignation substitute mechanism in 40 CFR 51.1105(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 51.1105(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Analysis

    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS is generally based upon three years of complete, quality-
assured and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at
established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database.\20\ A determination of whether an area meets the 1-hour ozone
standard relies upon a review of the daily maximum ozone levels. Under
40 CFR part 50, appendix H, a daily maximum ozone level is defined to
be the highest hourly ozone value recorded for the day. This daily
maximum value is considered valid if 75 percent of the hours from 9:01
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. were measured or if the highest hour is greater than
the level of the standard. A missing daily maximum ozone value may be
assumed to be less than the level of the standard if the valid daily
maxima on both the preceding day and the following day do not exceed 75
percent of the NAAQS. Data from air monitors operated by state or local
agencies in compliance with the EPA monitoring requirements must be
submitted to the AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify
that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge.
Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database when
determining the attainment status of an area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining
attainment of the ozone standard is one that includes three years of
data with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data
greater than 90 percent with no single year less than 75 percent.
See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.
    \21\ See 40 CFR 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, appendix H; 40 CFR part
53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed
to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Analysis of Ambient Air Quality Data

    When the EPA determined that the San Joaquin Valley had failed to
attain the November 15, 2010 attainment date, the Agency made its
determination based on 2008 to 2010 data from a network of 22 ozone
monitoring sites.\22\ By 2015, the number of ozone monitoring sites in
San Joaquin Valley had increased to 27, 24 of which are designated as
regulatory and from which data may be compared to the NAAQS.\23\ All of
these sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using
ultraviolet absorption monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 76 FR 56694, at 56698 (September 14, 2011).
    \23\ Relevant changes in the ozone monitoring network include
the relocation of the Fresno-North First Street site (AQS ID: 06-
019-0008) approximately 0.25 miles north to the Fresno-Garland site
(AQS ID: 06-019-0011), the relocation of the Arvin-Bear Mountain
site (AQS ID: 06-029-5001) approximately 2 miles north to the Arvin-
Di Giorgio site (AQS ID: 06-029-5002), and the establishment of new
ozone monitors at Tranquility (AQS ID: 06-019-2009) in Fresno
County, at Bakersfield Municipal Airport (AQS ID: 06-029-2012) in
Kern County, in the City of Madera (AQS ID: 06-039-2010) in Madera
County, and in Porterville (AQS ID: 06-107-2010) in Tulare County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB or SJVAPCD operates 23 of the monitoring sites: Seven within
Kern County, six within Fresno County, two within Madera, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and one within Kings and Merced
counties.\24\ CARB annually certifies that the data the agency submits
to AQS are quality-assured, including data collected by CARB at
monitoring sites in San Joaquin Valley.\25\ SJVAPCD does the same for
monitors operated by the District.\26\ In addition, the National Park
Service (NPS) operates two ozone monitoring sites in Sequoia National
Park in Tulare County; the Tachi-Yokut Tribe operates a monitoring site
at the Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County; and the Chukchansi Indians
of California

operate a monitoring site at the Picayune Rancheria in Madera County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See figure 1 in SJVAPCD's 2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan
(August 28, 2015) for a map of the ambient air monitors in the San
Joaquin Valley.
    \25\ See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer
Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality Planning and
Science Division, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2014 ambient air
quality data and quality assurance data, dated May 8, 2015.
    \26\ See, e.g., letter from Sheraz Gill, Director of Strategies
and Incentives, letter to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division,
U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying calendar year 2014 ambient air
quality data and quality assurance data, dated July 8, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sequoia National Park--Ash Mountain (AQS ID 06-107-0009) NPS
monitoring site is designated as regulatory and comparable to the
NAAQS. NPS annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are
quality-assured.\27\ One NPS site within Tulare County, Sequoia
National Park--Lower Kaweah (AQS ID 06-107-0006), is designated as non-
regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS. The EPA notes that the two
monitoring sites located in Indian country, Santa Rosa Rancheria (AQS
ID 06-031-0500) and Picayune Rancheria (AQS ID 06-019-0500), are
designated as non-regulatory and not comparable to the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., letter from Barkley Sive, Program Manager, NPS,
to Lew Weinstock, U.S. EPA, certifying 2014 ozone data, incorrectly
dated April 29, 2014, received by EPA via electronic mail on April
30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the expected 1-hour ozone exceedances, per year
and as an average over the 2012-2014 period, at the regulatory
monitoring sites in the San Joaquin Valley. Generally, the highest
ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley have occurred in the
central and southern portions of the nonattainment area, but in recent
years, the highest ozone concentrations have occurred in the central
portion of the valley (i.e., within Fresno County). As shown in Table
1, the highest three-year average of expected exceedances at any site
in the San Joaquin Valley for 2012-2014 is 0.7 at Fresno--Sierra
Skypark in Fresno County. The calculated exceedance rate of 0.7
represents attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (a three-year average
of expected exceedances less than or equal to 1). Thus, taking into
account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring
network, and the data collected and summarized in Table 1, we propose
to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix H). Preliminary 2015 data
have not been certified but are consistent with the continued
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.

          Table 1--One-Hour Ozone Data for the San Joaquin Valley One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Expected exceedances by year              Expected
                                                 ------------------------------------------------ exceedances  3-
                  Site (AQS ID)                                                                     yr average
                                                       2012            2013            2014      ---------------
                                                                                2012-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRESNO COUNTY:
    Clovis--Villa (06-019-5001).................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Fresno--Drummond Street (06-019-0007).......             1.0             0.0             0.0             0.3
    Fresno--Garland (06-019-0011)...............             1.0             0.0             0.0             0.3
    Fresno--Sierra Skypark (06-019-0242)........             1.0             0.0             1.1             0.7
    Parlier (06-019-4001).......................             1.0             0.0             0.0             0.3
    Tranquility (06-019-2009)...................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
KERN COUNTY:
    Arvin--Di Giorgio (06-029-5002).............             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Bakersfield--Muni (06-029-2012).............             0.0             0.0             0.0         \2\ 0.0
    Bakersfield--California (06-029-0014).......             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Edison (06-029-0007)........................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Maricopa (06-029-0008)......................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Oildale (06-029-0232).......................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Shafter (06-029-6001).......................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
KINGS COUNTY:
    Hanford--Irwin (06-031-1004)................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
MADERA COUNTY:
    Madera--Pump Yard (06-039-0004).............             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Madera--City (06-039-2010)..................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
MERCED COUNTY:
    Merced--Coffee (06-047-0003)................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:
    Stockton--Hazelton (06-077-1002)............             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Tracy--Airport (06-077-3005)................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
STANISLAUS COUNTY:
    Modesto--14th Street (06-099-0005)..........             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Turlock (06-099-0006).......................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
TULARE COUNTY:
    Porterville (06-107-2010)...................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Sequoia National Park--Ash Mountain (06-107-             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
     0009)......................................
    Visalia--Church Street (06-107-2002)........             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Quicklook Report, ``20160311_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.pdf,'' March 11, 2016; and
  ``20160411_QLRpt_SJV_1hrO3_2012-2015.xlsx,'' April 11, 2016 (in the docket for this proposed action).
\2\ Based on CARB's missing data analysis for this site, at most one exceedance could have been recorded during
  the first half of 2012 if the site had been operational during that period. Assuming such an exceedance had
  occurred, the 3-year average of expected exceedances for the 2012-2014 period at the Bakersfield-Municipal
  Airport site would have been 0.3, which is less than the corresponding value at Fresno-Sierra Skypark (0.7)
  and less than the NAAQS.

    As noted above, a ``complete'' data set for determining attainment
of the ozone standard is generally one that includes three years of
data with an average percent of days with valid monitoring data greater
than 90 percent with no single year less than 75 percent. Based on
these criteria, the data summarized in Table 1 from all of the sites
meet the

criteria over the 2012 to 2014 period except for the Bakersfield--
Municipal Airport site (AQS ID: 06-029-2012). The Bakersfield--
Municipal Airport site began operation on July 1, 2012 and although
completeness was greater than 90 percent for the period of the year it
was operating, total completeness for the entire year, including the
period prior to establishment of the monitor, was 48 percent.
Completeness was greater than 90 percent at the Bakersfield--Municipal
Airport site in 2013 and 2014.
    To address the data gap at the Bakersfield--Municipal Airport, CARB
prepared a missing data analysis to identify an upper bound on the
ozone concentrations and exceedance days that might have been recorded
at this site during the first half of 2012 if it had been operational
during that time.\28\ To identify an upper bound, CARB calculated the
maximum differences between daily maximum 1-hour ozone measurements
occurring on the same days from the three surrounding sites (Oildale,
Bakersfield--California Avenue, and Edison) and the Bakersfield--
Municipal Airport site during the first six months of 2013 and 2014 and
applied the maximum differences to the highest daily maximum hourly
concentrations measured at the three nearby ozone sites during the
first half of 2012. The results showed that at most one exceedance
could have been measured at the Bakersfield--Municipal Airport during
the first six months of 2012 if it had been operational during that
time. Based on our review, we find CARB's methods for estimating an
upper bound on ozone concentrations and exceedances at the
Bakersfield--Municipal Airport site to be acceptable and agree with
CARB's conclusions drawn from the analysis. Thus, we find that
incompleteness of the 2012 data set from the Bakersfield--Municipal
Airport site does not preclude an attainment determination for the San
Joaquin Valley that relies, in part, on 2012 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See CARB's missing data analysis in appendix A to ``San
Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination'' dated
February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of 1-Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley

    In support of its request to EPA for a Clean Data Determination,
CARB submitted analyses of the 1-hour ozone design value and
concentration trends, along with analyses of topography, meteorology,
and ozone precursor emissions in the Valley. Based on its analyses,
CARB concluded that the ozone site within the Valley with the maximum
1-hour ozone concentration is currently located in the Fresno
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Between 1990 and 2007, the maximum
1-hour ozone concentrations in the Valley alternated between the
Bakersfield MSA in the southern portion of the Valley and the Fresno
MSA in the central portion of the Valley.\29\ In 2008 the location of
the maximum 1-hour ozone concentration site shifted from the
Bakersfield MSA (at the Edison monitoring site for 2006-2007) to the
Fresno MSA (at the Clovis--N. Villa Avenue monitoring site in 2008-
2010), where it has remained through 2015 (at the Fresno--Sierra
Skypark monitoring site in 2012-2014).\30\ CARB provided detailed
evidence that the maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations in the
Bakersfield MSA have decreased and the location of the maximum 1-hour
ozone concentration has occurred in the Fresno MSA over last seven
years (2008-2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See pp. 21-22, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Clean
Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
    \30\ See Table 9, p.22, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone
Clean Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's analyses suggest that the Valley's topography, weather, and
transport patterns strongly influence the geographic distribution of
ozone, resulting in lower levels in the north, with higher levels in
the central and southern portions of the Valley. In addition, CARB's
analysis of emission inventories show decreasing trends in
anthropogenic emissions of nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases
throughout the Valley from 2000 to 2014, with the fastest rates of
decrease expected in the Bakersfield MSA, providing further support
that the Valley's design value is likely to continue to occur in the
Fresno MSA.
    The Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site in the Bakersfield MSA was
closed in 2010. Prior to its ceasing operation, a monitor intended to
replace it began operating nearby at the Arvin--Di Giorgio site. The
request to replace the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site with the
Arvin--Di Giorgio monitoring site and the EPA's analysis of the request
are discussed in section II.C., below. At the time of its closure, the
Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site had not recorded the maximum ozone
concentration in the Valley in more than five years. However, in order
to ensure that all sites that had been violating the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
would be attaining the standard, CARB conducted a detailed analysis of
the daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations expected at the Arvin--
Bear Mountain monitoring site following its closure in 2010 because it
had been one of the Valley sites that, in some prior years, recorded
the highest ozone concentration in the Valley. CARB conducted rank-by-
rank regression analyses and comparisons using 2010 data from the
Arvin--Bear Mountain, Arvin--Di Giorgio, and Edison monitoring sites to
estimate daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations and estimated
expected exceedances at the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site for
2011-2015 had the monitor remained operational until this time. CARB's
analyses indicated that the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site would
have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2012-2014 period and would
have continued to attain the standard for 2013-2015 based on the most
recent preliminary data for 2015.\31\ CARB's analyses also concluded
that the three-year average of estimated expected exceedances of 0.3 at
the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site for both the 2012-2014 and
2013-2015 periods would have been less than the corresponding values at
the Fresno--Sierra Skypark monitoring site (0.7 for 2012-2014 and 0.4
for 2013-2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See pp. 18-19 and Appendix B, CARB ``San Joaquin Valley 1-
Hour Ozone Clean Data Determination'' dated February 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to CARB's analyses, the District conducted predictive
regression calculations of daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations
for 2012 through 2014 at the Arvin--Bear Mountain and Arvin--Di Giorgio
monitoring sites.\32\ Although the District used different methods,
their results are consistent with the results from CARB's analyses,
indicating that ozone concentrations at the Arvin--Bear Mountain
monitoring site would have attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during 2012-
2014. The District's analyses also indicate the location of the maximum
1-hour concentration ozone site within the Fresno MSA and provide
support for the shift, in 2008, of the Valley's maximum site from the
Bakersfield region to the Fresno region. This is further supported by
monitoring data at the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site that show
that in the last five years of Arvin--Bear Mountain's monitor operation
prior to its 2010 closure, the Valley's maximum 1-hour ozone
concentration did not occur at the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See ``Attainment Determination Request for the Revoked 1-
Hour Ozone Standard'' dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

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

    Based on our review of the submitted documentation, we find that
CARB's and the District's methods and analyses regarding 1-hour ozone
trends in the San Joaquin Valley and estimates of post-2010 ozone
concentrations and expected exceedances at the Arvin--Bear Mountain
site to be reasonable and agree with the conclusions drawn therefrom.

C. Analysis of Monitoring Network Adequacy

    Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB and the District are jointly
responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring
requirements. The SLAMS network of ozone monitors in the Valley
includes monitors operated by the District and monitors operated by
CARB. The District submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA.
The District's network plans describe the various monitoring sites
operated by the District as well as those operated by CARB. These plans
discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40
CFR 58.10.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See SJVAPCD's ``2015 Air Monitoring Network Plan'', dated
August 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviews the District's annual network plans and conducts
technical systems audits and has generally found the combined ambient
air monitoring network meets or exceeds the requirements for the
minimum number of SLAMS monitoring sites for ozone and is in compliance
with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58 for ozone
except for the requirement to identify a maximum concentration ozone
site within the Bakersfield MSA.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air
Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer,
California Air Resources Board, dated October 22, 2012, transmitting
the findings from the EPA's 2011 Technical Systems Audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, 40 CFR part 58 requires, among other things, that at
least one ozone site for each MSA must be designated to record the
maximum concentration for that particular area. The closure of the
Arvin--Bear Mountain site without subsequent approval of a replacement
site prevented the designation of a maximum concentration ozone site
for the Bakersfield MSA. On April 29, 2016, CARB submitted a request
letter to the EPA for the relocation of the San Joaquin Valley Arvin--
Bear Mountain ozone air monitoring site to the Arvin--Di Giorgio air
monitoring site, which is 2.2 miles away and began operation prior to
closure of the Arvin--Bear Mountain site.\35\ On May 2, 2016, EPA
approved the relocation request based on a thorough review of all
nearby available site options.\36\ Approval of the replacement site for
the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site resolves the ozone ambient air
monitoring network issue for the Bakersfield MSA. The EPA is
determining that the ozone monitoring network in the Valley is adequate
based on the following: The foregoing analyses provided by CARB and the
District indicating that the Valley's maximum 1-hour ozone
concentration site has shifted away from the Bakersfield MSA to sites
located in the Fresno MSA and that 1-hour ozone design values that
would have occurred at the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site post-
2010 are consistent with attainment; the EPA's approval of the Arvin--
Bear Mountain monitoring site relocation request; and the fact that the
replacement for the Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site (i.e., Arvin--
Di Giorgio) has been in operation since prior to the closure of the
Arvin--Bear Mountain monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Planning
and Science Division, California Air Resources Board, to Meredith
Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, dated
April 29, 2016.
    \36\ See letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources
Board, dated May 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to determine that the San Joaquin Valley has
attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on sufficient, quality-assured
and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2012-2014
monitoring period. Preliminary data for 2015 are consistent with the
continued attainment of the standard in San Joaquin Valley.
    If we finalize this determination as proposed, to the extent not
already fulfilled, the requirements for the state to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures for failure to
attain or make reasonable progress and other plans related to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard for San Joaquin Valley shall be
suspended until such time as the area is redesignated as attainment for
the current ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute for the 1-hour
ozone standard is approved, at which time the requirements no longer
apply.\37\ If, however, prior to such redesignation or approval of such
redesignation substitute, the EPA determines that San Joaquin Valley
has violated the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to
submit such attainment-related plans.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 40 CFR 51.1118.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed
by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed clean data determination does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), and will not impose substantial

direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-11630 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 169)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45336-45343]
[DOCID:fr02se09-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 234

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0032; Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC05

State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This direct final rule complies with a statutory mandate that
the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) issue a rule to require the
ten States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on
average, over the past three years, to develop State highway-rail grade
crossing action plans. This rule is not intended for general
application; instead, it only applies to the ten identified States with
the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions. This rule addresses
the contents of the highway-rail grade crossing action plans and
certain time periods for plan implementation and coverage. Interested
parties may submit written comments or may request an oral hearing on
this rulemaking during the thirty (30) day period following publication
of this rule.

DATES: Effective Date: Unless FRA receives a written adverse comment or
a request for an oral hearing on this direct final rule within the
specified comment period, the effective date will be November 2, 2009.
    Written Comments: Comments or a request for an oral hearing must be
received by October 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket Number FRA-2009-0032,
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading later in this
document for more Privacy Act information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to
room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., RRS-23, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Zeb Schorr, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This direct final rule is intended to reduce collisions at highway-
rail grade crossings in the ten identified States, and to comply with
section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Public
Law 110-432, Division A, which was signed into law on October 16, 2008.
Section 202 requires the Secretary (delegated to the Federal Railroad
Administrator by 49 CFR 1.49) to identify the ten States that have had
the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the
past three years, and to require those States to develop State highway-
rail grade crossing action plans, within a reasonable period of time,
as determined by the Secretary. Section 202 further provides that these
plans must identify specific solutions for improving safety at
crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade
separations, and must focus on crossings that have experienced multiple
accidents or are at high risk for such accidents. FRA recommends that
the action plans include a proposed implementation schedule, although
FRA recognizes that any such schedule would be subject to many factors,
including the availability of funds and personnel. In addition, any
implementation schedule would only be for the purpose of providing
quality planning for the timelines identified.
    Section 202 also provides the following: the Secretary will provide
assistance to the States in developing and carrying out such plans, as
appropriate; the plans may be coordinated with other State or Federal
planning requirements; the plans will cover a period of time determined
to be appropriate by the Secretary; and the Secretary may condition the
awarding of any grants under 49 U.S.C. 20158, 20167, or 22501, to a
State identified under this section, on the development of such State's
plan.
    Lastly, section 202 provides a review and approval process under
which, not later than 60 days after the Secretary receives such a State
action plan, the Secretary must review and either approve or disapprove
it. In the event that the proposed plan is disapproved, section 202
indicates that the Secretary shall notify the affected State as to the
specific areas in which the proposed plan is deficient, and the State
shall correct all deficiencies within 30 days following receipt of
written notice from the Secretary.

State Identification

    As discussed, Congress expressly directed the Secretary to identify
the ten States that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing
collisions, on average, over the past three years. FRA maintains a
database of highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents occurring
at public and private grade crossings, as such events must be reported
to FRA pursuant to 49 CFR 225.19. From this database, FRA will identify
the ten States with the most reported highway-rail grade crossing
accidents/incidents at public and private grade crossings during 2006,
2007, and 2008. FRA will notify the identified States prior to the
effective date of this rule. A copy of the notification will be placed
in the public docket of this proceeding.

Time Period To Develop State Action Plan and Duration of Plan

    Section 202 instructs the Secretary to determine the reasonable
period of time within which the ten identified States must develop a
State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and the period of time to
be covered by such a plan. Based on previous experience working with
States on highway-rail grade crossing action plans, FRA has determined
that States can reasonably develop such plans within one year from the
date this regulation goes into effect, and that such plans should cover
a period of five years. A five-year period is appropriate because many
of the remedial actions that may be included in these plans (e.g.,
closures and grade separations) may take up to five years to implement.
In addition, any identified State that has already developed an action
plan in conjunction with a recommendation from DOT's Office of
Inspector General must ensure compliance with this direct final rule
and resubmit the plan as required by this rule.

Assistance and Coordination

    FRA will be available, including FRA regional grade crossing
managers and FRA experts from the grade crossing and trespasser
prevention division, to provide assistance to States in developing and
carrying out, as appropriate, the State highway-rail grade crossing
action plans. FRA's Safetydata Web site (http://
www.safetydata.fra.dot.gov) also contains detailed data that may be of
use in the development of the plans. In addition, the State highway-
rail grade crossing action plans may be coordinated with other State or
Federal planning requirements. For example, States may want to
coordinate such plans with their Strategic Highway Safety Plans that
are required by SAFETEA-LU, as appropriate.

Conditioning the Awarding of Grants

    Section 202 also empowers the Secretary to condition the awarding
of any grants under 49 U.S.C. 20158, 20167, or 22501, to an identified
State under this section on the development of such State's plan.
Although FRA does not anticipate employing this authority, FRA reserves
its right to pursue such a course of action in the event that an
identified State fails to comply with this direct final rule.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 234.1. This paragraph discusses the scope of this part. An
amendment is made to this paragraph to include reference to Sec.
234.11, State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans, as being within
this part's scope.
    Section 234.3. This paragraph discusses what entities are subject
to this part. An amendment is made to this paragraph excepting Sec.
234.11, State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans, from discussion
in this section.
    Section 234.4. This paragraph discusses the preemptive effect of
this part. An amendment is made to this paragraph permitting State tort
actions, arising from events or activities occurring on or after
January 18, 2002, that: Allege a violation of the Federal standard of
care established by this part; allege a failure to comply with a
party's own plan, rule, or standard created pursuant to this part; or
allege a violation of a State law, regulation, or order that is
necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or
security hazard, is not incompatible

with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government, and
does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
    Section 234.6(a) and (b). These paragraphs discuss the civil and
criminal penalties a person may be subject to when violating
requirements of this part. An amendment is made to these paragraphs
providing that a violation of Sec.  234.11, State Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Action Plans, will not give rise to either a civil or criminal
penalty.
    Section 234.11(a). This paragraph discusses that the purpose of
this direct final rule is to reduce collisions at highway-rail grade
crossings in the ten identified States that have had the most highway-
rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years.
This paragraph makes clear that the regulation does not restrict any
other State, or other entity, from adopting a highway-rail grade
crossing action plan, nor does it restrict any of the identified States
from adopting a plan with additional or more stringent requirements not
inconsistent with this regulation.
    Section 234.11(b). This paragraph indicates that this section
applies to the ten States that have had the most highway-rail grade
crossing collisions, on average, during the calendar years 2006, 2007,
and 2008, and that FRA will notify these ten States prior to the
effective date of this direct final rule.
    Section 234.11(c). This paragraph requires the ten identified
States to develop a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and
to submit such plans to FRA for review and approval not later than one
year after the date this regulation goes into effect. This paragraph
also details the requirements of the State highway-rail grade crossing
action plans, including that the plans: Identify specific solutions for
improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing
closures or grade separations; focus on crossings that have experienced
multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents; and cover a
five-year period.
    Section 234.11(d). This paragraph identifies the FRA contact
information to which the identified States must direct the highway-rail
grade crossing action plans for review and approval. This paragraph
also provides that FRA will review and approve or disapprove a State
highway-rail grade crossing action plan within 60 days of receiving the
plan. This paragraph further states that, if the proposed State
highway-rail grade crossing action plan is disapproved, FRA will notify
the affected State as to the specific areas in which the proposed plan
is deficient, and the State must correct all deficiencies within 30
days following receipt of written notice from FRA. Lastly, this
paragraph provides that FRA may condition the awarding of any grants
under 49 U.S.C. 20158, 20167, or 22501 to an identified State on the
development of that State's highway-rail grade crossing action plan.

Notice-and-Comment Procedures

    FRA has determined that this regulation is non-controversial as it
complies with a statutory mandate that the Secretary issue a rule to
require the ten States with the most highway-rail grade crossing
collisions, on average, over the past three years, to develop State
highway-rail grade crossing action plans. While FRA does not anticipate
any adverse comment, interested parties may submit written comments or
request an oral hearing during the thirty (30) day period immediately
following publication of this direct final rule.

Regulatory Impact

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This discussion represents the regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
There is not a separate RIA for inclusion in the public docket. This
direct final rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order
12866 and DOT policies and procedures. The ten States identified will
incur the full burden associated with implementation of this direct
final rule. The estimated quantified compliance cost for these ten
States is approximately $271,000 over the next year. The benefits
resulting from the prevention of collisions at highway-rail grade
crossings are expected to exceed the burden and thus fully justify
issuance of this rule. This analysis includes a quantitative burden
measurement and a qualitative benefit discussion for this direct final
rule.
    The primary burden imposed will be for State labor resources spent
to comply with development of the mandated action plans. FRA estimates
that, on the average, each State will assign the plan development
responsibilities to a team composed of a program manager, a project
engineer, a budget analyst, a business specialist, and a legal expert.
Listed in Table A are the aggregate salary estimates and man-year
allocations for the entire mandated population.

                                       Table A--Aggregated Plan Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Position                          Salary        Hourly rate     Labor hours      Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Manager, Transportation.................      $88,000.00          $42.31              40       $2,961.54
Project Engineer................................       72,000.00           34.62              80        4,846.15
Budget Analyst..................................       55,000.00           26.44              40        1,850.96
Business Specialist, Transportation.............       45,000.00           21.63             400       15,144.23
Legal Expert....................................       69,000.00           33.17              40        2,322.12
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  ..............  ..............  ..............       27,125.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated cost is found as the product of the hourly rate, the
labor hours, and an estimated overhead rate. Overhead is considered at
75% of the hourly rate. Example Calculation: [($42.31 per hour) * (40
hours) * (1 + .75 (overhead rate))] = $2,961.54.
    The submission process calls for FRA to review and approve each
submitted plan according to the Federal mandate. FRA anticipates that
the review time for each of the initial submissions to be 6 hours per
plan. Listed in Table B is the aggregated Federal burden for the
initial and resubmitted plans.

                                       Table B--Federal Compliance Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Tasking                              States    Labor hours      Rate        Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Submission Review...................................           10            6       $52.50       $5,512.50
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ...........  ...........  ...........        5,512.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize quantitatively, the State burden imposed from this
rule was derived from the estimated sum of the original burden
submission from the ten identified States and the burden resubmission
from the quantum that did not comply during the initial resubmission.
FRA considers $271,000 to represent the aggregated State burden for the
one year period of this requirement. Listed in Table C is the
aggregated burden summary.

                                       Table C--Aggregated Burden Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                     Estimate        Quantity        estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Submission Burden.........................................      $27,125.00              10     $271,250.00
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                  ..............  ..............      271,250.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development of State highway-rail grade crossing action plans
should result in a reduction in highway-rail grade crossing safety
collisions. Development of such plans will enhance these States'
ability to view their population of grade crossings, interpret
historical accident information, evaluate the overall state of highway-
rail grade crossing safety, and identify particular areas in need of
attention. Any patterns of collisions or causal factors will become
more readily apparent as a result of the detailed study, assessment,
and status reporting involved in the development of the State action
plan. In these plans, each State will identify specific solutions for
improving safety at individual crossings, including crossing closures
or grade separations, with special focus on those crossings that are
found to have experienced multiple accidents or that show a heightened
risk for accidents. Special emphasis corridors of high risk corridors
may also be identified as a result of the analysis component of the
State action plan. As each State's highway-rail grade crossing action
plan may be coordinated with other State or Federal planning
requirements, additional benefits may be obtained through closer
integration of grade crossing safety issues into the overall State
transportation safety planning efforts.
    During the three-year time period, 2006 through 2008, the ten
States with the most grade crossing collisions, as currently reported,
accounted for 51%, or almost 4,200 accidents, of all grade crossing
collisions nationwide. Highway vehicle damage accounted for more than
$28.5 million over this three-year time period, and a combined total of
546 lives were lost. Economic research indicates that $6.0 million per
statistical life saved is a reasonable estimate of people's willingness
to pay for transportation safety improvements. FRA therefore estimates
an accumulated $3.28 billion to represent the statistical value of the
lives lost as a result of grade crossing collisions in these ten
States. Finally, there were 1,666 injuries over the three-year time
period in these ten States. Assuming very conservatively, for purposes
of this analysis, that these were all minor in nature (e.g., injuries
that may not require professional medical treatment and where recovery
is usually rapid and complete) and thus assigning a cost of $12,000 per
injury (i.e., 0.2% of the value of a statistical life), injury costs
for this period totaled close to $20 million. Thus, the cost to society
of the average incident in the three-year time period was $792,000.
Prevention of one such incident alone would more than exceed the cost
of implementing this rule. FRA believes that it is reasonable to expect
that such an incident may be prevented by implementing this rule. In
addition to the safety benefits, other potential benefits would
include: Increased train and highway traffic mobility by not having
collisions, fewer demands on emergency services by not having to
respond to crossing collisions, and some improvement in air quality by
reducing emissions from vehicles that are unable to move due to
crossing collisions.
    The findings of this analysis are sensitive to its assumptions. The
burden estimates are largely driven by the composition of the team and
the level of effort expended by each individual. Such factors may vary
from team to team. FRA realizes that the level of expertise per state,
per team, per member, will vary and, therefore, has applied a 20
percent sensitivity factor above and below the baseline as follows:

                                Table D--Aggregated Sensitivity Analysis Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimate           Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregated Submission Burden....................................     $271,250.00     $217,000.00     $325,500.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, when defining the projected cost burden to the individual
States within the framework of team complexion and with regard to the
estimated sensitivity of the individual expertise of the employee
selected, FRA finds that it is reasonable to estimate that the burden
could range from $22,000 to $33,000 per State. FRA finds that the total
cost burden ranges from $217,000 to $326,000.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires a review

of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities,
unless the Secretary certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), FRA has issued a final policy
that formally establishes ``small entities'' as including railroads
that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III
railroad. 49 CFR part 209, app. C. For other entities, the same dollar
limit in revenues governs whether a railroad, contractor, or other
respondent is a small entity. Id. Additionally, section 601(5) defines
as ``small entities'' governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with
populations less than 50,000. Such governments would not be directly
impacted by this direct final rule.
    FRA certifies that this direct final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
as this rule only affects ten identified States. To the extent that
this rule has any impact on small entities, the impact will not be
significant.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this direct final rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The section that contains the new information collection requirements
is noted below, and the estimated burden times to fulfill each
requirement are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total annual      Average time per      Total annual
          CFR section            Respondent universe       responses           response          burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.11--State Highway-Rail       10 States..........  10 plans..........  600 hours.........  6,000 hours.
 Grade Crossing Action Plans--
 Development and Submission of
 Plans.
--Disapproval of State Highway-  10 States..........  5 revised plans...  80 hours..........  400 hours.
 Rail Grade Crossing Action
 Plan and Submission of Revised
 Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be
sent via e-mail to the Office of Management and Budget at the following
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this direct final 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.
    FRA cannot 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 this direct final
rule. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by
separate notice in the Federal Register.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this direct final rule in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures)
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes,
Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has
determined that this document is not a major FRA action (requiring the
preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures.
64 FR 28545, 28547, May 26, 1999. In accordance with section 4(c) and
(e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no
extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this direct final
rule that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental
review. As a result, FRA finds that this direct final rule is not a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 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, the agency
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or the agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications and preempts State law, the
agency seeks to consult with State and local officials in the process
of developing the regulation.
    This direct final rule amends FRA's regulations regarding grade
crossing safety. Subject to a limited exception for essentially local
safety or security hazards, the requirements of FRA's regulations
regarding grade crossing safety are intended to establish a uniform
Federal safety standard that must be met, and State requirements
covering the same subject would be displaced, whether those standards
are in the form of State statutes, regulations, local ordinances, or
other forms of State law, including common law. Section 20106 of Title
49 of the United States Code provides that all regulations prescribed
by the Secretary related to railroad safety preempt any State law,
regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, except a
provision necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety
or security hazard that is not incompatible with a Federal law,
regulation, or order, and that does not unreasonably burden interstate
commerce. This is consistent with past practice at FRA, and within the
Department of Transportation.

    FRA has analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This direct
final rule complies with a statutory mandate. FRA has not consulted
with State and local officials in regards to this rule. However, prior
to enactment of the RSIA, FRA did consult with State officials in
conjunction with a recommendation from DOT's Office of Inspector
General that certain States develop highway-rail grade crossing action
plans, similar to the plans required by the RSIA and this rule. Thus,
FRA believes it is in compliance with Executive Order 13132.
    This direct final rule will not have a substantial effect on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. In addition, this direct final rule will
not have any federalism implications that impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments.
    FRA's regulations regarding grade crossing safety do not preempt
actions under State law seeking damages for personal injury, death, or
property damage alleging that a party has failed to comply with the
Federal standard of care established by this part. Provisions of a
railroad maintenance, inspection and testing program which exceed the
requirements of this part are not included in the Federal standard of
care. It is strongly in the interest of railroad safety for railroads
to exceed the requirements of Federal law and FRA encourages railroads
to do so. A railroad would be discouraged from setting a higher
standard for itself if it would be held liable in tort for exceeding
the requirements of Federal law, but failing to attain the higher
standard set for itself. Section 20106 of Title 49 of the United States
Code supports this distinction.
    It is a settled principle of statutory construction that, if the
statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied according to its
terms. Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S.--(2009). Read by itself, Section
20106(a) of Title 49 of the United States Code preempts state standards
of care, but does not expressly state whether anything replaces the
preempted standards of care for purposes of tort suits. The focus of
that provision is clearly on who regulates railroad safety: the Federal
government or the states. It is about improving railroad safety, for
which Congress deems nationally uniform standards to be necessary in
the great majority of cases. That purpose has collateral consequences
for tort law which new Section 20106 subsections (b) and (c) address.
New subsection (b)(1) creates three exceptions to the possible
consequences flowing from subsection (a). One of those exceptions
((b)(1)(B)) precisely addresses an issue presented in Lundeen v.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (D.Minn., 2007) that
Congress wished to rectify: it allows plaintiffs to sue a railroad in
tort for violation of its own plan, rule, or standard that it created
pursuant to a regulation or order issued by either of the Secretaries.
None of those exceptions covers a plan, rule, or standard that a
regulated entity creates for itself in order to produce a higher level
of safety than Federal law requires, and such plans, rules, or
standards were not at issue in Lundeen. The key concept of section
20106(b) is permitting actions under State law seeking damages for
personal injury, death, or property damage to proceed using a Federal
standard of care. A plan, rule, or standard that a regulated entity
creates pursuant to a Federal regulation logically fits the paradigm of
a Federal standard of care--Federal law requires it and determines its
adequacy. A plan, rule, or standard, or portions of one, that a
regulated entity creates on its own in order to exceed the requirements
of Federal law does not fit the paradigm of a Federal standard of
care--Federal law does not require it and, past the point at which the
requirements of Federal law are satisfied, says nothing about its
adequacy. That is why FRA believes section 20106(b)(1)(B) covers the
former, but not the latter. The basic purpose of the statute--improving
railroad safety--is best served by encouraging regulated entities to do
more than the law requires and would be disserved by increasing the
potential tort liability of regulated entities that choose to exceed
federal standards, which would discourage them from ever exceeding
federal standards again.
    In this manner, Congress adroitly preserved its policy of national
uniformity of railroad safety regulation expressed in Section
20106(a)(1) and assured plaintiffs in tort cases involving railroads,
such as Lundeen, of their ability to pursue their cases by clarifying
that federal railroad safety regulations preempt the standard of care,
not the underlying causes of action in tort. Under this interpretation,
all parts of the statute are given meanings that work together
effectively and serve the safety purposes of the statute.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141,300,000 or more in any one
year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice
of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a
written statement'' detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This direct final rule will not
result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $141,300,000 or more in
any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

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

Privacy Act Information

    Interested parties should be aware that anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments received into any agency docket by
the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 234

    Highway safety; Penalties; Railroad safety; and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends part 234 of chapter II,
subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 234--GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SYSTEM SAFETY AND STATE ACTION
PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; Public
Law No. 110-432, Div. A, section 202; and 49 CFR 1.49.

0
2. The heading for part 234 is revised to read as set forth above.

0
3. Section 234.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.1  Scope.

    This part imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing
standards for highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This part
also prescribes standards for the reporting of failures of such systems
and prescribes minimum actions railroads must take when such warning
systems malfunction. This part also requires particular identified
States to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. This
part does not restrict a railroad or a State from adopting and
enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent
with this part.

0
4. Section 234.3 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.3  Application.

    With the exception of Sec.  234.11, this part applies to all
railroads except:
    (a) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains only on
track which is not part of the general railroad system of
transportation;
    (b) Rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not
connected to the general railroad system of transportation; and
    (c) A railroad that operates passenger trains only on track inside
an installation that is insular; i.e., its operations are limited to a
separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation
that the safety of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of
the railroad or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be
affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered insular
if one or more of the following exists on its line:

(1) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;
(2) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;
(3) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial
navigation; or
(4) A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are within
30 feet of those of any railroad.

0
5. Section 234.4 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.4  Preemptive effect.

    (a) Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of these regulations preempts
any State law, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter,
except an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order that
is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard;
is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United
States Government; and that does not impose an unreasonable burden on
interstate commerce.
    (b) This part establishes a Federal standard of care for the
maintenance, inspection and testing of grade crossing warning systems.
This part does not preempt an action under State law seeking damages
for personal injury, death, or property damage alleging that a party
has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care established by
this part. Provisions of a railroad maintenance, inspection and testing
program which exceed the requirements of this part are not included in
the Federal standard of care.

0
6. Section 234.6 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.6  Penalties.

    (a) Civil Penalty. Any person (an entity of any type covered under
1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a
manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a
railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad
equipment, track, or facilities; any independent contractor providing
goods or services to a railroad; and any employee of such owner,
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates
any requirement of this part, except for any violation of Sec.  234.11,
or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil
penalty of at least $650, but not more than $25,000 per violation,
except that: penalties may be assessed against individuals only for
willful violations, and where a grossly negligent violation or a
pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death
or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to
exceed $100,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense. Appendix A to this part
contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts used in connection with
this rule. The railroad is not responsible for compliance with respect
to any condition inconsistent with the technical standards set forth in
this part where such variance arises as a result of actions beyond the
control of the railroad and the railroad could not have prevented the
variance through the exercise of due diligence. The foregoing sentence
does not excuse any instance of noncompliance resulting from the
actions of the railroad's employees, agents, or contractors.
    (b) Criminal Penalty. Whoever knowingly and willfully makes, causes
to be made, or participates in the making of a false entry in reports
required to be filed by this part, or files a false report or other
document required to be filed by this part, except for any document
filed pursuant to Sec.  234.11, is subject to a $5,000 fine and 2 years
imprisonment as prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 522(a) and section 209(e) of
the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 438(e)).

0
7. The heading for Subpart B is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--Reports and Plans

0
8. Subpart B of part 234 is amended by adding Sec.  234.11 to read as
follows:

Sec.  234.11  State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce collisions at
highway-rail grade crossings in the ten States that have had the most
highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during the calendar
years 2006, 2007, and 2008. This section does not restrict any other
State, or other entity, from adopting a highway-rail grade crossing
action plan. This section also does not restrict any of the States
required to develop action plans under this section from adopting a
highway-rail grade crossing action plan with additional or more
stringent requirements not inconsistent with this section.

    (b) Application. This section applies to the ten States that have
had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during
the calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008. FRA will notify these ten
States prior to November 2, 2009.
    (c) Action Plans. (1) The ten identified States shall each develop
a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and submit such a plan
to FRA for review and approval not later than November 2, 2010.
    (2) A State highway-rail grade crossing action plan shall:
    (i) Identify specific solutions for improving safety at crossings,
including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations;
    (ii) Focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or
are at high risk for such accidents; and
    (iii) Cover a five-year time period.
    (d) Review and Approval. (1) State highway-rail grade crossing
action plans required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be
submitted for FRA review and approval using at least one of the
following methods: mail to the Associate Administrator for Railroad
Safety/Chief Safety Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590; or e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) FRA will review and approve or disapprove a State highway-rail
grade crossing action plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section within 60 days of receipt.
    (3) If the proposed State highway-rail grade crossing action plan
is disapproved, FRA will notify the affected State as to the specific
areas in which the proposed plan is deficient. A State shall correct
all deficiencies within 30 days following receipt of written notice
from FRA.
    (4) FRA may condition the awarding of any grants under 49 U.S.C.
20158, 20167, or 22501 to an identified State on the development of
such State's highway-rail grade crossing action plan.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2009.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21089 Filed 9-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51252]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86 and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 537, and 538

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472; FRL-8966-9; NHTSA-2009-0059]
RIN 2060-AP58; 2127-AK90

Public Hearing Locations for the Proposed Rulemaking To Establish
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA are announcing the location addresses for the
joint public hearings to be held for the ``Proposed Rulemaking to
Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,'' published in the Federal
Register on September 28, 2009. This joint proposed rulemaking is
consistent with the National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced by
President Obama on May 19, 2009, responding to the country's critical
need to address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. As
described in the joint proposed rule, EPA is proposing greenhouse gas
emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is proposing
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended. These standards apply to passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model
years 2012 through 2016, and represent a harmonized and consistent
National Program. The joint proposed rule provides the dates, times,
cities, instructions and other information for the public hearings and
these details have not changed.

DATES: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the
following dates: October 21, 2009, in Detroit, Michigan, October 23,
2009 in New York, New York, and October 27, 2009 in Los Angeles,
California. The hearings will start at 9 a.m. local time and continue
until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you would like to present
testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you notify the EPA and
NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at
least ten days before the hearing.

ADDRESSES: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings at the
following locations: Detroit Metro Airport Marriott, 30559 Flynn Drive,
Romulus, Michigan 48174 on October 21, 2009; New York LaGuardia Airport
Marriott, 102-05 Ditmars Boulevard, East Elmhurst, New York 11369 on
October 23, 2009; and Renaissance Los Angeles Airport Hotel, 9620
Airport Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90045 on October 27, 2009.
Please see the proposed rule for addresses and detailed instructions
for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Tad Wysor, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and Standards Division
Hotline; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which NHTSA and EPA are
jointly holding the public hearings was published in the Federal
Register on September 28, 2009.\1\ The proposed rule provides the
dates, times, cities, instructions for how to participate and other
information on the public hearings and these details have not changed.
If you would like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask
that you notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation'' in
the proposed rule for more information about the public hearings.\2\
Also, please refer to the proposed rule for addresses and detailed
instructions for submitting comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 74 FR 49454, September 28, 2009.
    \2\ 74 FR 49455, September 28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of public hearings further provides the location
addresses for the hearings, shown below:

October 21, 2009: Detroit Metro Airport Marriott, 30559 Flynn Drive,
Romulus, Michigan 48174,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
October 23, 2009: New York LaGuardia Airport Marriott, 102-05 Ditmars
Boulevard, East Elmhurst, New York 11369,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
October 27, 2009: Renaissance Los Angeles Airport Hotel, 9620 Airport
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90045,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 1, 2009.
Paul N. Argyropoulos,
Acting Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Dated: October 1, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-24159 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29839]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13681]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 1-K, SEC File No. 270-662, OMB Control No. 3235-0720

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 1-K (17 CFR 239.91) is used to file annual reports by Tier 2
issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Tier 2 issuers under
Regulation A conducting offerings of up to $50 million within a 12-
month period are required to file Form 1-K. Form 1-K provides audited
year-end financial statements and information about the issuer's
business operation, ownership, management, liquidity, capital resources
and operations on an annual basis. In addition, Part I of the Form 1-K
collects information on any offerings under Regulation A that have been
terminated or completed unless it has been previous reported on Form 1-
Z. The purpose of the Form 1-K is to better inform the public about
companies that have conducted Tier 2 offerings under Regulation A. We
estimate that approximately 36 issuers file Form 1-K annually. We
estimate that Form 1-K takes approximately 600 hours to prepare. We
estimate that 75% of the 600 hours per response (450 hours) is prepared
by the company for a total annual burden of 16,200 hours (450.0 hours
per response x 36 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: June 18, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13681 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P