5158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5. Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.237, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.237 Christina River. 

* * * * * 

(c) The draws of the Third Street 

Bridge at mile 2.3, the Walnut Street 

Bridge at mile 2.8, and the Market Street 

Bridge at mile 3.0, located in 

Wilmington, DE shall all open on signal 

if at least eight hours notice is given. 

From 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 

5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday 

except holidays, the draws of these 

three bridges need not be opened for the 

passage of vessels. Any vessel which 

has passed through one or more of these 

bridges immediately prior to a closed 

period and which requires passage 

through the other bridge or bridges in 

order to continue to its destination shall 

be passed through the draw or draws of 

the bridge or bridges without delay. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

Steven H. Ratti, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01355 Filed 1–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0919; A–1–FRL– 

9773–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 26, 2012, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed to approve a revision to the 

Connecticut State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that addresses regional haze for the 

first planning period from 2008 through 

2018. The SIP was submitted by the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (now known 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5159 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Although States and Tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager’’ (FLM). (42 U.S.C. 7602(i)). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

as Connecticut Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection or ‘‘CT 

DEEP’’) on November 18, 2009, with 

additional submittals on February 24, 

2012 and March 12, 2012. In the March 

26, 2012 rulemaking, pursuant to CT 

DEEP’s request under parallel 

processing, EPA proposed approval of 

Connecticut’s proposed regulation 

establishing an intra-state nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) trading program. This rule 

was designed to serve as a Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) replacement rule 

and was one component of the State’s 

alternative to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) plan. Connecticut 

is, however, along with the other eastern 

States, continuing to implement CAIR. 

On November 23, 2012, CT DEEP 

submitted a letter withdrawing the 

State’s February 24, 2012 parallel 

processing request of its CAIR 

replacement rule. In today’s action, EPA 

is supplementing our March 26, 2012 

proposal to include the proposed 

approval of Connecticut’s alternative to 

BART plan based in part on 

Connecticut’s CAIR rule, as originally 

submitted by the State on November 18, 

2009. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2009–0919 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0919,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109—3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0919. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Management, Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection, State 

Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, 

CT 06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The Relationship of CAIR and the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to the 

Connecticut Regional Haze SIP 

III. EPA’s Assessment 

IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

This section of the CAA establishes as 

a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ Congress added section 

169B to the CAA in 1990 to address 

regional haze. The EPA promulgated a 

rule to address regional haze on July 1, 

1999 (64 FR 35714) (‘‘the Regional Haze 

Rule’’). The requirements of the 

Regional Haze rule are summarized in 

our March 26, 2012 proposed approval 

of the Connecticut Regional Haze SIP. 

See 77 FR 12367. 

On November 18, 2009, the Bureau of 

Air Management of the CT DEEP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

5160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2See 77 FR 17367 for a full discussion of the 

Connecticut’s Alternative to BART Program. 

3The court’s judgment is not yet final as the 

mandate has not issued and on October 5, 2012, 

EPA filed a petition asking for rehearing en banc. 

submitted revisions to the Connecticut 

SIP to address regional haze, with 

supplemental submittals on February 

24, 2012, and March 12, 2012. One 

component of the November 18, 2009 

regional haze submittal was a 

demonstration that the implementation 

of Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a–174–22, 

‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxides 

Emissions,’’ including subdivision 22a– 

174–22(e)(3), and RCSA Section 22a– 

174–22c, ‘‘The Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone 

Season Trading Program,’’ provided 

greater reduction in NOX emissions than 

would be achieved by the installation of 

source-by-source BART NOX controls. 

In the February 24, 2012 

supplemental submittal, CT DEEP 

requested the parallel processing of 

proposed RCSA Section 22a–174–22d, 

‘‘Post-2011 Connecticut Ozone Season 

NOX Budget Program’’ as a replacement 

to RCSA Section 22a–174–22c. The 

proposed RCSA Section 22a–174–22d 

limited Connecticut’s intra-state ozone 

season NOX trading budget to 2,691 

tons, the same budget as included in the 

CAIR Ozone Season Trading Program.2

As part of the March 26, 2012 

rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve 

proposed RCSA Section 22a–174–22d 

and proposed to approve Connecticut’s 

alternative to BART program for NOX, of 

which this rule was one component. 

When parallel processing, EPA 

proposes to approve a rule before the 

State’s final adoption of the regulation. 

In its February 24, 2012 supplemental 

submittal, Connecticut indicated that 

they planned to have a final adopted 

regulation prior to our final action on its 

Regional Haze SIP. Under the parallel 

processing procedure, after a State 

submits its final adopted regulation, 

EPA will review the regulation to 

determine whether it differs from the 

proposed regulation. If the final 

regulation does differ from the proposed 

regulation, EPA will determine whether 

these differences are significant. 

(Ordinarily, changes that are limited to 

issues such as allocation methodology 

would not be deemed significant for SIP 

approval purposes, assuming the 

methodology does not lead to 

allocations in excess of the total state 

budget.) Based on EPA’s determination 

regarding the significance of any 

changes in the final regulation, EPA 

would then decide whether it is 

appropriate to prepare a final rule and 

describe the changes in the final 

rulemaking action, re-propose action 

based on the State’s final adopted 

regulation, or other such action as may 

be appropriate. 

Today’s supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking only deals with 

issues associated with Connecticut’s 

request to parallel process the proposed 

RSCA Section 22a–174–22d as a 

replacement of RSCA Section 22a–174– 

22c. Other aspects of EPA’s March 26, 

2012 proposal remain unchanged. 

II. The Relationship of the CAIR and 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to the Connecticut Regional 

Haze SIP 

CAIR required certain states to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX that significantly contribute to 

downwind nonattainment of the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for fine particulate (PM2.5) and 

ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

CAIR established emissions budgets for 

SO2 and NOX. On October 13, 2006, 

EPA’s ‘‘Regional Haze Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative to 

Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; 

Final Rule’’ (hereinafter known as the 

‘‘Alternative to BART Rule’’) was 

published in the Federal Register. See 

71 FR 60612. This rule established that 

states participating in the CAIR program 

or other control programs need not 

require BART for SO2 and NOX at 

BART-eligible electric generating units 

(EGUs). As a result, many States relied 

on CAIR as an alternative to BART for 

SO2 and NOX for their subject EGUs. 

The regional haze SIP submitted by 

Connecticut on November 18, 2009 

relied on the procedure set forth in the 

Alternative to BART Rule to 

demonstrate that the CAIR ozone season 

NOX budget for Connecticut, in 

conjunction with Connecticut’s 

previously adopted non-ozone season 

NOX limits, provided greater visibility 

improvement than would the 

installation of source-specific BART 

NOX controls. 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until replaced by EPA 

with a rule consistent with its opinion. 

See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to replace 

CAIR in 2011. See 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). EPA subsequently determined 

that the trading programs in CSAPR 

could also serve as an alternative to 

source-by-source BART. See 77 FR 

33642 (June 7, 2012). Connecticut, 

which was subject to ozone season NOX

controls under the CAIR program, but 

not subject to any of the requirements of 

CSAPR, did not have the option of 

relying on CSAPR as an alternative to 

BART. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit Court issued an order addressing 

the status of CSAPR and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the D.C. 

Circuit stayed CSAPR pending the 

court’s resolutions of the petitions for 

review of that rule in EME Homer 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). The court also 

indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until the court rules on the 

petitions for review of CSAPR. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir., 

August 21, 2012).3

In light of the vacatur and remand of 

CSAPR and the continuation of CAIR, 

CT DEEP has not finalized its adoption 

of the Connecticut CAIR replacement 

rule, RCSA Section 22a–174–22d. In a 

letter dated November 23, 2012, CT 

DEEP withdrew its February 24, 2012 

request for parallel processing of this 

regulation. 

III. EPA’s Assessment 

Due to the unique circumstances 

surrounding Connecticut’s development 

of its regional haze SIP and for the 

reasons explained below, EPA is 

proposing to approve Connecticut’s 

Alternative to BART program based on, 

in part, the use of CAIR ozone season 

NOX reductions. As a result of the 

decision of the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

substituted by a ‘‘valid’’ replacement 

rule. To the extent that Connecticut is 

relying on ozone season CAIR as one 

element of the Alternative to BART 

program, the recent directive from the 

D.C. Circuit in EME Homer ensures that 

the reductions associated with CAIR 

will be permanent and enforceable for 

the foreseeable future. EPA has been 

ordered by the Court to develop a new 

rule and the opinion makes clear that, 

after promulgating that new rule, EPA 

must provide states an opportunity to 

draft and submit SIPs to implement that 

rule. CAIR thus cannot be replaced until 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5161 

EPA has promulgated a final rule 

through a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, States have had an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, 

EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine 

if they can be approved, and EPA has 

taken action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) if appropriate. These steps 

alone will take many years, even with 

EPA and the states acting expeditiously. 

For these reasons, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to allow Connecticut to rely 

on CAIR at this time, and the existing 

emissions reductions achieved by CAIR, 

as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

visibility improvement for the first 

Regional Haze planning period and 

BART. Following promulgation of the 

replacement rule, EPA will take action 

to require states to revise their regional 

haze SIPs to address the BART 

requirements. At that time, EPA will 

also determine whether, and to what 

extent, the replacement rule provides 

for greater reasonable progress than case 

by case BART. 

IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposed 

Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s use of the existing 

federally enforceable RCSA Section 

22a–174–22c, ‘‘The Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 

Ozone Season Trading Program,’’ as 

originally submitted by the State on 

November 18, 2009, as one component 

of its alternative to BART program. We 

are also withdrawing our previous 

proposed approval of RCSA Section 

22a–174–22d as one element of 

Connecticut’s alternative to BART plan. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice. EPA 

is only taking comment on the use of 

ozone season CAIR as part of 

Connecticut’s Alternative to BART 

program. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to the 

EPA New England Regional Office listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01417 Filed 1–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 234 

[Docket No. FRA–2011–0007, Notice No. 3] 

RIN 2130–AC26 

National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory Reporting Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearing and extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: By notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) published on 

October 18, 2012, FRA proposed a rule 

that would require railroads to submit 

information to the U.S. DOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 

(Crossing Inventory) about highway-rail 

and pathway crossings over which they 

operate. This document announces a 

public hearing to provide interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the NPRM. This document also extends 

the NPRM comment period to allow 

interested parties to submit comments 

in response to issues raised at the public 

hearing. 

DATES: A public hearing will be held on 

February 19, 2013 in Washington, DC, 

and will commence at 10 a.m. The 

comment period in this proceeding is 

extended to March 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: (1) Public Hearing: The 

public hearing will be held at the 

Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas 

Circle NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

(2) Attendance: Any person wishing 

to participate in the public hearing 

should notify Michelle Silva in FRA’s 

Office of Chief Counsel by telephone or 

in writing, by mail or email, at least five 

business days before the date of the 

hearing. Ms. Silva’s contact information 

is as follows: FRA, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

telephone: 202–493–6030; email: 

michelle.silva@dot.gov. 

For information on facilities or 

services for persons with disabilities or 

to request special assistance at the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with