federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules6403proprietary information should be sentdirectly to the contact person listedabove, and not to the public docket, toinsure that proprietary information isnot inadvertently placed in the docket.If a commenter wants EPA to base thefinal rule in part on a submissionlabeled as confidential businessinformation, then a nonconfidentialversion of the document whichsummarizes the key data or informationshould be sent to the docket.Information covered by a claim ofconfidentiality will be disclosed by EPAonly to the extent allowed and by theprocedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.If no claim of confidentialityaccompanies the submission when it isreceived by EPA, it may be madeavailable to the public without furthernotice to the commenter.B. Public HearingAny person desiring to presenttestimony regarding this proposal at thepublic hearing (see DATES) should, ifpossible, notify the contact person listedabove of such intent at least seven daysprior to the day of the hearing to allowfor orderly scheduling of the testimony.The contact person should also beprovided an estimate of the timerequired for the presentation of thetestimony and notification of any needfor audio/visual equipment.It is suggested that sufficient copies ofthe statement or material to bepresented be brought to the hearing fordistribution to the audience. Inaddition, it will be helpful for EPA toreceive an advance copy of anystatement or material to be presented atthe hearing prior to the scheduledhearing date, in order for EPA staff togive such material full consideration.Such advance copies should besubmitted to the contact person listedabove.The official record of the hearing willbe kept open for 30 days following thehearing to allow submission of rebuttaland supplementary testimony. All suchsubmittals should be directed to theEPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A–94–31 (see ADDRESSES)XI. Administrative Designation andRegulatory Assessment RequirementsA. Executive Order 12866Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993) the Agencymust determine whether the regulatoryaction is ‘‘significant’’ and thereforesubject to OMB review and therequirements of the Executive Order.The Order defines ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ as one that is likelyto result in a rule that may: (1) Have anannual effect on the economy of $100million or more or adversely affect in amaterial way the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition,jobs, the environment, public health orsafety, or State, local, or tribalgovernment or communities; (2) create aserious inconsistency or otherwiseinterfere with action taken or plannedby another agency; (3) materially alterthe budgetary impact of entitlements,grants, user fees, or loan programs or therights and obligations of recipientsthereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policyissues arising out of legal mandates, thePresident’s priorities, or the principlesset forth in the Executive Order.Pursuant to the terms of ExecutiveOrder 12866, EPA has determined thatthis is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’within the meaning of the ExecutiveOrder. EPA has submitted this action toOMB for review. Changes made inresponse to OMB suggestions orrecommendations will be documentedin the public record.B. Regulatory FlexibilityThe Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA) 38 generally requires an agency toconduct a regulatory flexibility analysisof any rule subject to notice andcomment rulemaking requirementsunless the agency certifies that the rulewill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-for-profitenterprises, and small governmentaljurisdictions. This proposal would nothave a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The Agency has identified two types ofsmall entities which could potentiallybe impacted by this proposal: Smallbusinesses involved in locomotiveremanufacturing and small short linerailroads. EPA believes that, whiletoday’s proposal could potentially affectboth of these groups, the impacts wouldbe minimal or nonexistent for thefollowing reasons.In the case of small remanufacturingbusinesses, the proposed rulesgoverning remanufacturing oflocomotives or locomotive enginesrequire that any remanufacture of post-1972 locomotives or engines (exceptthose exempted from the remanufacturerequirements, as discussed in the nextparagraph) be done such that theresultant locomotive or locomotiveengine is in a configuration certified asmeeting applicable emissions standards.The certification of a remanufacturedlocomotive or engine configuration hastwo cost components associated with it.38 5 U.S.C. 605(b).The first is the cost of developing andmanufacturing the requisite emissioncontrol technology. The second is thecost of emission testing associated withcompliance. Small remanufacturingbusinesses often do not do their ownresearch and development for thetechnology they use, but insteadpurchase the hardware from largerfirms. It is expected that today’sproposed requirements will not changethis practice, and that these small firmswill enter into contractual agreementswith larger firms. Under such anarrangement the larger firms willcontinue to do the development workand will be the certificate holder for aparticular engine family and, as thecertificate holder, would be responsiblefor providing an emissions warranty andconducting the PLT and in-use testingprograms, as required by the proposedregulations. This type of arrangement isexpected to resolve the issue oftechnology development andmanufacturing costs for smallremanufacturing businesses. TheAgency requests comments regardingwhether additional provisions should beestablished to minimize market shiftsthat could adversely affect smallbusinesses that either manufacture orremanufacture parts for locomotiveremanufacturing.In the case of the small railroads, theAgency believes that the amount ofleadtime provided in today’s proposalshould allow for sufficient advanceplanning to minimize the impacts. First,these small railroads do not tend topurchase freshly manufacturedlocomotives, but instead purchase usedlocomotives from the Class I railroads.For this reason the costs associated withthe compliance of freshly manufacturedlocomotives would not be borne by thesmall railroads. Additionally, thesesmall railroads will likely have severalyears following the effective date oftoday’s proposed standards before anyused locomotives they purchase will beremanufactured, and thus required tocomply with these standards.Furthermore, the Agency proposes toallow an exemption for railroads with500 employees or less from the Tier 0standards, as discussed earlier in thisnotice. Finally, the Agency is proposingthat the railroad in-use test programonly apply to Class I railroads, thusexempting all small railroads from thistesting requirement. In developing thisproposed regulation, EPA has tailoredthe requirements so as to minimize oreliminate the effects on small entities.Therefore, I certify that this action willnot have a significant economic impact