Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 763 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

revisions and new rules as identified in 

this action and as submitted by the State 

of Montana on October 16, 2006 and 

November 1, 2006. EPA is proposing 

disapproval based upon a number of 

factors, including: (1) The lack of any 

objective, replicable methodology in 

order to determine compliance, (2) the 

lack of sufficient MRR requirements, 

and (3) the lack of enforceability. 

Additionally, EPA lacks sufficient 

information to determine that the 

requested revision to add the new oil 

and gas registration program to the 

Montana Minor NSR SIP will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) as 

required by CAA Section 110(l), or any 

other requirement of the Act. Finally, 

EPA also lacks sufficient information to 

make a finding that the submitted 

Program will ensure protection of the 

NAAQS, PSD increments, and 

noninterference with the Montana SIP 

control strategies. 

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 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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds, New Source 

Review, Minor New Source Review, 

Permitting, Incorporation by reference. 

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

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–0839; FRL–9248–7] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Kansas 

Section 110 State Implementation Plan 

for Interstate Transport for the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

proposing to find that the Kansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) is 

substantially inadequate to satisfy the 

CAA requirement to address Kansas’ 

significant contribution to downwind 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another State with 

respect to the 1997 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. The specific State 

Implementation Plan deficiencies that 

EPA has identified are described in this 

proposal and in the proposed Federal 

Implementation Plan To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone. If EPA finalizes this 

proposed finding of substantial 

inadequacy, Kansas will be required to 

revise its SIP to correct these 

deficiencies no later than 12 months 

following the date of signature of the 

final finding of substantial inadequacy. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2010–0839, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Ms. Elizabeth 

Kramer, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010– 

0839. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ August 15, 2006. 

2 72 FR 10608, March 9, 2007. 

3See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), ‘‘Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone’’. 4See Transport Rule proposal at 75 FR 45267– 

45268. 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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 should be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://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 will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101. The Regional Office is 

open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 

5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7186; fax 

number (913) 551–7844; e-mail address: 

kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

I. What is the basis for the proposed SIP Call? 

II. How can Kansas correct the inadequacy 

and when must the correction be 

submitted? 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the basis for the proposed SIP 

Call? 

EPA previously issued findings that 

certain States had failed to submit SIPs 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 

ozone and fine particle (PM2.5) 

standards (70 FR 21147, April 25, 2005). 

These findings started a 2-year clock for 

the promulgation of a FIP by EPA 

unless, prior to that time, each State 

made a submission to meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA 

approved the submission. This 2-year 

period expired in May 2007. EPA 

promulgated the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) on May 12, 2005, (see 70 FR 

25162). CAIR required States to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

oxides that significantly contribute to, 

and interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any 

downwind State. CAIR was intended to 

provide States covered by the rule with 

a mechanism to satisfy their CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to 

address significant contribution to 

downwind nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance in 

another State with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many States 

adopted the CAIR provisions and 

submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate 

compliance with the CAIR requirements 

in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) 

obligations. 

For States that were in the CAIR 

region, EPA determined that the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP requirements were 

addressed by CAIR and the CAIR FIPs. 

However, the CAIR region did not 

include the State of Kansas. Therefore, 

Kansas was required to submit a SIP 

revision independent of CAIR to address 

interstate transport under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued 

guidance for SIP submissions 

addressing the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS.1 To satisfy the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement, on 

January 9, 2007, the State of Kansas 

submitted to EPA a declaration that the 

State does not contribute significantly to 

projected downwind ozone 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance in the year 2010, and 

provided a technical demonstration to 

support their negative declaration. On 

March 9, 2007, EPA approved the 

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment’s (KDHE) submittal to 

address CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).2

EPA was sued by a number of parties 

on various aspects of CAIR, and on July 

11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit issued 

its decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in 

their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008). 

However, in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing, the Court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The Court 

thereby left CAIR in place in order to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR’’ until EPA 

replaces it with a rule consistent with 

the Court’s opinion. Id. at 1178. The 

Court directed EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s 

flaws’’ consistent with its July 11, 2008, 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing that 

action. Id. 

EPA approved KDHE’s SIP prior to 

the remand of the CAIR by the DC 

Circuit. The remand of CAIR had no 

impact on EPA’s approval of the KDHE’s 

SIP submission to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On July 6, 2010, the Administrator 

signed a proposed Federal 

Implementation Plan to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) to 

replace CAIR in response to the court’s 

ruling.3 The updated modeling in 

support of the proposed Transport Rule 

responding to the remand of CAIR 

demonstrates that emissions from 

Kansas do interfere with maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

downwind areas.4 The previously 

approved Kansas SIP did not adequately 

address emissions. Therefore, based on 

the modeling used to support the 

proposed Transport Rule, which was 

not available at the time Kansas 

prepared and EPA approved the SIP 

submission, EPA proposes to find that 

the SIP revision approved on March 7, 

2007, is substantially inadequate 

pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

II. How can Kansas correct the 

inadequacy and when must the 

correction be submitted? 

To correct the deficiency, KDHE must 

submit a revised SIP that contains 

adequate provisions to prohibit air 

pollutant emissions from within the 

State that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in other downwind States. The 

SIP revision must contain measures that 

ensure that sources in Kansas reduce 

their NOX emissions sufficiently to 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 765 

5See 63 FR 57356, (October 27, 1998). ‘‘Finding 

of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment 

Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional 

Transport of Ozone; Rule.’’ 

eliminate the NOX emissions that 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment, or that interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

standard, downwind. By eliminating 

those NOX emissions, the control 

measures will assure that the remaining 

NOX emissions will meet the level 

identified in the proposed Transport 

Rule as the State’s ozone season NOX

emission budget. 

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides 

that after EPA makes a finding that a 

plan is substantially inadequate, it may 

establish a reasonable deadline for 

correcting the deficiencies, but the date 

cannot be later than 18 months after the 

State is notified of the finding. 

EPA intends to finalize the SIP Call in 

early summer of 2011. We propose to 

allow the State 12 months from the date 

of the notice, which will be the date on 

which we sign the final action, to 

submit the SIP revision, unless, during 

the comment period, the State expressly 

advises that it would not object to a 

shorter period—as short as 3 weeks from 

the date of signature of the final in 

which case we would establish the 

shorter period as the deadline. If the 

Administrator signs the notice on or 

about May 1, 2011, the earliest possible 

deadline would be three weeks from the 

date of signature. The purpose of 

establishing the shorter period as the 

deadline—assuming that the State 

advises us that it does not object to that 

shorter period—is to allow Kansas to 

use the FIP under the proposed 

Transport Rule to satisfy this SIP 

deficiency in an expedited manner. This 

would allow Kansas sources the ability 

to use the same remedy available to 

sources affected by the Transport Rule, 

within the same time period which EPA 

recommends. If the State does not 

advise us that it does not object to a 

shorter deadline, then the 12-month 

deadline would apply. 

EPA proposes that this 3-week-to-12- 

month time period, although expedited, 

meets the CAA 110(k)(5) requirement as 

a ‘‘reasonable deadline’’ and we 

welcome comment on this 

interpretation. The term ‘‘reasonable 

deadline,’’ as it appears in that 

provision, is not defined. We interpret 

it to mean a time period that is sensible 

or logical, based on all the facts and 

circumstances. Those facts and 

circumstances include (i) the State SIP 

development and submission process, 

(ii) the ability for sources in Kansas to 

address emission reductions using the 

same remedy and timing as other 

sources in the proposed Transport Rule; 

and (iii) the preferences of the State. 

The following elaborates on those three 

facts and circumstances. 

First, although the 12-month period is 

consistent with the time period required 

for SIP revisions in at least one previous 

SIP call that EPA issued, the NOX SIP 

Call,5 we recognize that a period shorter 

than 12 months is expedited in light of 

the time involved in most State SIP 

development and submission processes. 

In particular, we recognize that Kansas 

would need to undertake rulemaking 

actions, which would be timeconsuming. Although this is a matter of 

State process, we are prepared to 

continue to work with Kansas to 

develop expedited methods for 

developing, processing, and submitting 

a SIP revision. 

Second, providing the opportunity for 

sources in Kansas to address emission 

reductions using the same remedy and 

timing as other sources in the proposed 

Transport Rule is a significant 

consideration. Prescribing a shorter 

period for Kansas to address the SIP 

deficiency would mean that sources in 

Kansas could take advantage of the same 

remedy provided to other sources 

affected by the Transport Rule. 

Finally, the preference of Kansas is 

important because the deadline for 

submittal of the corrective SIP revision 

in response to a SIP Call acts as a 

burden on the State. If Kansas does not 

object to an earlier deadline under 

which it must operate—which, in a 

sense, is contrary to the State’s selfinterest because an earlier deadline 

typically increases burdens—then that 

is an indication of the reasonableness of 

the deadline. 

In the case where the State fails to 

make a timely and responsive SIP 

submittal, a finding that the State failed 

to submit the required SIP revision 

would trigger the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

FIP no later than 2 years from the date 

of the finding, if the deficiency has not 

been corrected, and EPA has not 

approved a plan revision. The proposed 

Transport Rule, when finalized, is the 

FIP that EPA intends to implement for 

Kansas to fulfill the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) FIP obligation in the 

event the State fails to submit an 

adequate SIP revision. EPA intends for 

the Transport Rule FIP to be 

implemented sooner than 2 years from 

any such final finding. 

In addition, if EPA finalizes this SIP 

Call by determining that the existing SIP 

is substantially inadequate, and if the 

State subsequently fails to provide a 

timely response to the SIP Call, the CAA 

provides for EPA to issue a finding of 

State failure under section 179(a). Such 

a finding normally starts an 18-month 

mandatory sanctions clock. However, as 

is made clear in the order of sanctions 

rule, (40 CFR 52.31), the section 179 

mandatory sanctions apply only in 

nonattainment areas. See, 59 FR 39832 

(August 4, 1994). Kansas has no areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA 

believes that the section 179 mandatory 

sanctions would not apply in Kansas as 

a result of any planning failure 

associated with the SIP Call proposed in 

this action. 

It should also be noted that EPA does 

not intend to finalize this SIP Call if the 

Final Transport Rule modeling does not 

show that emissions from Kansas are 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in downwind areas. 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA proposes the following actions 

relating to the Kansas interstate 

transport SIP: (1) Find the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to address the 

interstate transport of NOX and the 

ozone that it forms in the atmosphere 

that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in downwind States; (2) require that 

Kansas revise the SIP to address the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); (3) require the State to 

submit revisions to the SIP within 

12 months of the final finding or an 

alternative deadline; (4) determine that 

the section 179 mandatory sanctions 

would not be implicated by this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of 

substantial inadequacy and subsequent 

obligation for a State to revise its SIP 

arise out of section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). 

The finding and State obligation do not 

directly impose any new regulatory 

requirements. In addition, the State 

obligation is not legally enforceable by 

a court of law. EPA would review its 

intended action on any SIP submittal in 

response to the finding in light of 

applicable statutory and Executive 

Order requirements, in subsequent 

rulemaking acting on such SIP 

submittal. For those reasons, 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); 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1A Board order served on February 23, 1996 

(Appointment of Agent to Require Emergency 

Routing of Amtrak Passenger Trains) (no docket 

number), named an agent of the Board, who was 

vested with authority to issue orders requiring 

railroads to make their facilities immediately 

available to Amtrak during emergencies. This 

continued a past practice of vesting, in named 

individuals, authority to issue such emergency 

orders. The agent named in the 1996 decision has 

since retired. As a result, the Board is revising its 

procedures for Amtrak emergency routing order 

requests. The Board has rarely had to issue Amtrak 

emergency routing orders. It last issued one in 1997. 

STB Passenger Train Operation No. 123, STB 

served Aug. 12, 1997 (no docket number). 

• 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 finding 

of SIP inadequacy would not 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. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 

and 7601). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution, Ozone, Kansas, State 

Implementation Plan. 

Dated: December 27, 2010. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Parts 1011, 1034, 1102, 1104, 

and 1115 

[Docket No. EP 697] 

Amtrak Emergency Routing Orders 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (Board or STB) proposes to 

establish regulations governing the 

issuance of emergency routing orders 

upon application of the National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

24308(b), the Board has statutory 

authority to require rail carriers to 

provide facilities immediately when 

necessary for the movement of Amtrak 

trains when Amtrak cannot operate its 

trains via normal routings due to rail 

line closures or other emergencies. 

DATES: Comments are due by February 

7, 2011. Reply comments are due by 

February 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Information or questions 

regarding this proposed rule should 

reference Docket No. EP 697 and be in 

writing addressed to: Chief, Section of 

Administration, Office of Proceedings, 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. 

Copies of written comments will be 

available for viewing and self-copying at 

the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room 

131, and will be posted to the Board’s 

Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabriel S. Meyer at 202–245–0389. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

proposes to establish regulations 

governing the issuance of emergency 

routing orders upon application of the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak). The rules will be codified at 

49 CFR parts 1011, 1034, 1102, 1104, 

and 1115. 

Amtrak is a government-owned 

corporation that operates intercity 

passenger trains on an approximately 

21,000-mile rail network, serving 46 

States and 3 Canadian provinces. During 

its 2010 fiscal year, Amtrak carried more 

than 28 million passengers. With the 

exception of certain rail lines located 

primarily in the northeastern United 

States, Amtrak does not own the lines 

over which its trains operate. Most of 

the lines Amtrak uses are owned and 

operated by freight railroads, which are 

subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. 

Periodically, an established Amtrak 

route becomes blocked or closed as the 

result of a derailment, unscheduled 

maintenance, severe weather, or other 

emergency. In these circumstances, if an 

alternate rail routing exists, Amtrak may 

seek to detour its trains around the 

blockage using the alternate route. If no 

alternate route is available, Amtrak may 

be forced to suspend train operations. 

In most emergency rerouting 

situations, Amtrak reaches a voluntary 

agreement governing the terms of its use 

with the rail carrier that owns the 

alternate route. Occasionally, however, 

Amtrak is unable to reach an agreement. 

In this event, Amtrak may seek relief 

from the Board as provided by the 

statute: 

* * * * * 

Operating During Emergencies.—To 

facilitate operation by Amtrak during an 

emergency, the Board, on application by 

Amtrak, shall require a rail carrier to provide 

facilities immediately during the emergency. 

The Board then shall promptly prescribe 

reasonable terms, including indemnification 

of the carrier by Amtrak against personal 

injury risk to which the carrier may be 

exposed. The rail carrier shall provide the 

facilities for the duration of the emergency. 

* * * * * 

49 U.S.C. 24308(b). 

Currently, there are no Board rules 

establishing procedures for Amtrak to 

obtain the relief authorized by the 

statute.1 The Board therefore proposes 

revising its rules to remove uncertainty 

regarding Amtrak emergency routing 

order applications. The proposed rules 

are set forth in this decision and are 

discussed below. 

Delegations of Authority 

Section 1011.4(a)(10): Under the 

proposed rules, authority to issue 

Amtrak emergency routing orders is 

delegated to the Chairman of the Surface 

Transportation Board (Chairman). The 

Board proposes adding this delegation 

of authority to others already contained 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1