Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66057 

facility. This spreadsheet does not 

include the other changes listed above 

that affect point sources. Documentation 

is provided in the spreadsheet on the 

location of the data used for computing 

the condensable PM2.5 emissions in the 

2005 point inventory. 

Additionally, EPA seeks comment on 

whether or not to revise projected nonEGU emissions inventories for 2014 to 

reflect sulfur dioxide (SO2) and PM2.5

reductions from the proposed National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (75 FR 32006), 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Major 

Source Boiler Rule.’’ The information 

included in the docket reflects 

reductions that would be expected if the 

rule were finalized as proposed. If the 

projected reductions associated with the 

final Major Source Boiler Rule were to 

differ from the projected reductions 

associated with the proposal, EPA 

would use the projections for the final 

rule if they become available in time for 

use in EPA’s modeling for the final 

Transport Rule. 

In addition, EPA requests comment 

on the following modified approaches to 

calculating emissions inventories that 

we intend to use in the modeling for the 

final Transport Rule. 

• EPA proposes to use the latest 

public release of the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) (http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/ 

index.htm) to estimate on-road mobile 

emissions data in 2005, 2012, and 2014 

for all modeled pollutants and 

emissions processes in all States, except 

California. Future-year vehicle miles 

traveled will be revised from proposal to 

reflect the latest available data. This 

approach differs from the proposal in 

the following significant ways: (1) EPA 

will use a newer version of MOVES 

which has different emissions values 

from the version of MOVES used for the 

proposal; (2) EPA will use MOVES 

instead of the Mobile Source Emission 

Factor Model version 6.2 (MOBILE6) for 

diesel vehicles and motorcycles; (3) EPA 

will use MOVES instead of MOBILE6 

for additional pollutants, including SO2,

ammonia (NH3), and PM2.5 from brake 

and tire wear; (4) the revised MOVES 

reflects NH3 decreases in future years 

that were not reflected by MOBILE6; 

and, (5) EPA will use actual MOVES 

runs for 2012 and 2014 rather than 

scaling 2005 MOVES emissions. With 

the exception of these changes, EPA 

intends to continue to apply MOVES 

using the same approaches described in 

the Emission Inventory Technical 

Support Document released with the 

Transport Rule proposal (http:// 

www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/pdfs/ 

TR_Proposal_Emissions_TSD.pdf; 

Section 3.3.1). The revised approach 

will be similar to the approach 

described in the Technical Support 

Document for the proposed rule in the 

following key ways: (1) EPA will 

allocate State-total MOVES results to 

counties by pollutant and process using 

results from MOBILE6 and the National 

Mobile Inventory Model; and (2) EPA 

will use MOVES defaults rather than 

State-specific or county-specific MOVES 

inputs. 

• EPA proposes to use the final 

projections from 2002 to 2005, 2012, 

and 2014 emissions for the category 3 

commercial marine sector to reflect the 

final category 3 commercial marine 

Emissions Control Area proposal to the 

International Maritime Organization 

(EPA–420–F–10–041, August 2010). 

• EPA proposes to reduce the 

boundaries used to allocate category 3 

commercial marine emissions to States 

from 200 nautical miles to reflect State 

waters (3–10 nautical miles) based on 

Mineral Management Service Statefederal boundary data consistent with 

approaches used for the 2005 and 2008 

National Emissions Inventories. 

• EPA proposes to include the data 

revisions identified above in the final 

Transport Rule, modified to address any 

comments that EPA receives as part of 

the transport rulemaking effort. Changes 

in the emissions data could impact the 

final rulemaking in a number of ways 

including, but not limited to: 

1. Changing base year emissions and 

emissions projections could impact 

which downwind areas have projected 

air quality concerns absent this 

rulemaking (i.e., non-attainment or 

maintenance). 

2. Changing emissions projections 

could impact EPA assessment of which 

States contribute to those problems. 

Between now and the time that EPA 

finalizes the Transport Rule, additional 

information used to support the final 

transport rulemaking may be placed in 

the docket. As noted above, EPA is 

requesting comment only on the data 

and revisions explicitly identified in 

this document. EPA requested comment 

on all aspects of its emissions 

inventories in the proposed Transport 

Rule. The comment period for that 

proposal closed on October 1, 2010. 

EPA has not yet reviewed all comments 

received on the proposed Transport 

Rule and notes that emission inventory 

data may be further revised based on 

comments received on the proposed 

Transport Rule or on additional 

information that becomes available 

before the rule is finalized. 

Dated: October 20, 2010. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27171 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1244 

[Docket No. EP 646 (Sub-No. 3)] 

Waybill Data Released in ThreeBenchmark Rail Rate Proceedings 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Board is republishing its 

April 2, 2010 proposal to amend its 

rules with respect to the ThreeBenchmark methodology used to 

adjudicate simplified rate case 

complaints, to include an expanded 

discussion of its rationale and 

regulatory objectives. This proposal 

provides for release to the parties to a 

Three-Benchmark proceeding of the 

unmasked Waybill Sample data of the 

defendant carrier for the 4 years that 

correspond with the most recently 

published Revenue Shortfall Allocation 

Method (RSAM) figures. The parties 

would then use the released Waybill 

Sample data to form their traffic 

comparison groups. The Board seeks 

comments concerning the amount of 

data that would be available under the 

proposed rule, and the proposal that the 

parties would be permitted to draw from 

all 4 years of waybill data to form their 

comparison groups. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal are 

due by November 26, 2010; replies are 

due by December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either via the Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

comply with the instructions at the 

E-FILING link on the Board’s Web site, 

at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 646 (SubNo. 3), 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Canadian Pacific Railway Co., Soo Line Railroad 

Company, Delaware & Hudson Railway Company, 

CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Quinn at (202) 245–0382. 

(Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

Simplified Standards for Rail Rate 

Cases (Simplified Standards), EP 646 

(Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), 

aff’d sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB 

(CSX Transp. I), 568 F.3d 236 (DC Cir. 

2009), and vacated in part on reh’g, CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. STB (CSX Transp. II), 

584 F.3d 1076 (DC Cir. 2009), the Board 

modified its simplified rail rate 

guidelines, creating a simplified standalone cost approach for medium-size 

rail rate disputes and revising its ThreeBenchmark approach for smaller rail 

rate disputes. 

The Three-Benchmark method 

compares a challenged rate of the ‘‘issue 

traffic’’ to the rates of a comparison 

group of traffic drawn from the Waybill 

Sample data of the defendant carrier. 

The Waybill Sample is a statistical 

sampling of railroad waybills of the 

carrier’s shipments that is collected and 

maintained for use by the Board. See 49 

CFR 1244.1(c). The proposed rule in 

Simplified Standards would have 

required parties to draw their traffic 

comparison groups from the most recent 

year of Waybill Sample data of the 

carrier’s other shipments. Simplified 

Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 

(Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 32–33 (STB 

served July 28, 2006). The final rule, 

however, allowed parties to form 

comparison groups using Waybill 

Sample data from the 4 most recent 

years. Simplified Standards, slip op. at 

80. 

Several railroads 1 and the 

Association of American Railroads 

challenged the final rule in court on the 

basis that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3), the 

Board had not provided adequate notice 

and opportunity to comment on the 

change from 1 to 4 years of data from 

which the parties could draw to form 

their proposed comparison groups. CSX 

Transp. I, 568 F.3d at 246. Initially, the 

court determined that it would not 

address the merits of petitioners’ 

argument, because the issue had not 

been presented to the Board prior to 

seeking judicial review and, therefore, 

had been waived. Id. at 246–47. 

On rehearing, however, the court 

reversed its waiver determination and 

considered the merits of petitioners’ 

argument. The court concluded that the 

Board had failed to provide adequate 

notice of the final rule regarding the 

available range of Waybill Sample data. 

Accordingly, the court vacated that 

portion of Simplified Standards. CSX 

Transp. II, 584 F.3d at 1078. As a result, 

there is currently a gap in the Board’s 

rules; i.e., there is no defined period for 

which unmasked Waybill Sample data 

is to be released in a Three-Benchmark 

proceeding. 

On April 2, 2010, the Board, through 

a notice of proposed rulemaking, 

proposed to provide for release to the 

parties in Three-Benchmark proceedings 

of the unmasked Waybill Sample data of 

the defendant carrier for the 4 years that 

correspond with the most recently 

published RSAM figures. The parties 

would then draw their comparison 

groups in any combination they choose 

from the released Waybill Sample data. 

The Board solicited comments on this 

proposal. 

The Board received comments from 

shippers, railroads, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, and other interested 

organizations. Some commenters 

expressed concern that the Board did 

not provide the rationales and 

regulatory objectives behind the 

proposed rules. In response, this 

decision will provide the Board’s 

rationales and regulatory objectives. 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

proposes rules that are identical to those 

proposed on April 2, 2010. 

The use of multiple years of data for 

the Waybill Sample would be consistent 

with the Board’s current practice in 

other contexts in Three-Benchmark 

cases. The Board already uses a 4-year 

averaging period to determine the other 

two benchmark components used in a 

Three-Benchmark case: The RSAM and 

R/VC>180 benchmarks. See Rate 

Guidelines—Non-Coal Proceedings, 

(Rate Guidelines) 1 S.T.B. 1004, 1032– 

33 (1996). The reason for using this 

4-year averaging period is to ‘‘smooth 

out annual variations and minimize the 

impact of any year that may have been 

aberrational for that carrier.’’ Rate 

Guidelines, 1032–33. 

A similar rationale applies to the rule 

proposed here. The availability of 4 

years of Waybill Sample data would 

allow parties more flexibility to choose 

a comparison group that is a reasonable 

reflection of the traffic at issue and to 

avoid having to use data that may be 

aberrational. Giving the option to 

choose movements over a multi-year 

period would provide the parties with 

more data from which to choose, which 

should assist the parties in selecting a 

comparison group that more closely 

resembles the issue traffic. At the same 

time, limiting the pool of data to the 4 

years that correspond with the most 

recently published RSAM figures would 

prevent the use of data that are too old 

to be reliable. By contrast, a shorter 

period, such as the 1-year time span 

envisioned earlier, could cause the 

comparison groups to be too small. 

If the proposed rules are adopted, 

parties would not have incentive to 

specifically choose only the most 

favorable data from the 4-year data set 

because the Board will choose the 

comparison group that more closely 

resembles the traffic at issue. Thus, if a 

party selects a group that heavily favors 

its position at the expense of a 

reasonable comparison, then it is less 

likely that the Board would choose that 

comparison group. 

The Board will now provide an 

opportunity for additional input 

regarding the rules proposed here. 

While we will consider the comments 

and replies previously submitted in this 

proceeding, interested parties (whether 

or not they have already participated in 

this proceeding) may file additional 

comments and replies. 

The Board has authority to 

promulgate rules to meet statutory 

objectives. See 49 U.S.C. 721(a). The 

Board is issuing this notice of proposed 

rulemaking pursuant to the mandate to 

‘‘establish a simplified and expedited 

method for determining the 

reasonableness of challenged rail rates 

in those cases in which a full standalone cost presentation is too costly, 

given the value of the case.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

10701(d)(3). This proposed rule, if 

implemented, will be part of the 

framework for the simplified and 

expedited method of challenging rail 

rates. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a notice of 

proposed rulemaking must either 

include an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), or a 

certification that the proposed rule will 

not have a ‘‘significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The proposed 

rule fills in a gap in the ThreeBenchmark rate complaint framework 

by specifying the number of years of 

Waybill Sample data that will be made 

available to the parties in those cases. 

By providing clarity on that issue, the 

proposed rule would have a positive 

economic effect on small entities 

because it would allow ThreeBenchmark rate cases to proceed more 

efficiently. Moreover, while the 

proposed rule delineates the range of 

data that would be made available, it 

does not require the parties to use any 

particular quantum of data. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66059 

605(b), the Board certifies that the 

regulations proposed herein would not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. A copy of this decision 

will be served upon the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. 

Small Business Administration, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a); 49 U.S.C. 

10701(d)(3). 

Decided: October 21, 2010. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Nottingham. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27167 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS