[Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 66391-66394]
[DOCID:fr15de09-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Office of the Secretary; Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice to modify a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: DOT proposes to modify a system of records under the Privacy
Act of 1974. The system is FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS), which is updated to include new processes and
extractions of sensitive data to implement a change that alters the
purpose for which the information is used and an addition of a routine
use. This system would not duplicate any other DOT system of records.

DATES: Effective Date: This notice will be effective, without further
notice, on January 25, 2010, unless modified by a subsequent notice to
incorporate comments received by the public. Comments must be received
by January 14, 2010 to be assured consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Habib Azarsina, Departmental Privacy
Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington DC 20590 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Habib Azarsina, Departmental Privacy
Officer, S-80, United States Department of Transportation, Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOT system of records notice subject to
the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, as proposed to be
modified, is available from the above mentioned address and appears
below:
DOT/FMCSA 001

SYSTEM NAME:
    Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Unclassified, Sensitive.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM OF RECORDS:
    1. Individuals who are the sole proprietor/driver (owner/operator)
of a motor carrier or hazardous material shipper subject to Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
    2. Drivers of commercial motor vehicles who:
     Were involved in a recordable crash;
     Were the subject of a roadside driver/vehicle inspection;
or
     Are the subjects of an investigatory action.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN MCMIS:
    MCMIS stores the following types of information:
     Census Files--These files contain the USDOT number,
carrier identification, carrier address, type and size of operation,
commodities carried, and other characteristics of the operation for
interstate (and some intrastate) motor carriers, intermodal equipment
providers, cargo tank facilities, and shippers. They include motor
carrier PII consisting of social security numbers (SSN) and employee
identification numbers (EIN).
     Investigatory Files--These files contain results of safety
audits, compliance review investigations, and enforcement actions
conducted by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. They
include driver and co-driver PII consisting of SSN and EIN.
     Driver/Vehicle Safety Violations and Inspection Data--This
data is collected during roadside inspections of drivers and vehicles
and includes driver and co-driver PII consisting of names, dates of
birth, vehicle license plate numbers, and State driver's license
numbers.
     Crash Data--This data is collected from State and local
police crash reports and includes driver and co-driver PII consisting
of names, dates of birth, vehicle license plate numbers, and State
driver's license numbers.

MCMIS SHARES PII WITH THE FOLLOWING FMCSA SYSTEMS OR SYSTEM COMPONENTS:
     Driver Information Resource (DIR)--The DIR creates a
driver profile using MCMIS crash data from the past five years and
inspection data from the past three years. This profile shows PII data
for the driver regardless of the employing carrier. The DIR also
includes driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection data per the
PSP description below. Access is restricted to FMCSA staff, FMCSA
contractors and Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) State
lead agencies.
     Pre-Employment Screening System (PSP)--The specific
objectives of the PSP are aligned with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
31150. The PSP will provide driver crash and inspection records from
the DIR to requesting motor carriers that have a driver's consent. The
PSP also allows a sole proprietor (owner/operator) to review his/her
own driver-related data in the DIR.
     Driver Safety Measurement System (DSMS)--FMCSA utilizes
MCMIS data in the DSMS to support the Comprehensive Safety Analysis
2010 (CSA 2010) initiative and its operational model test. The DSMS
uses driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection data and crash
data to evaluate the safety performance of Commercial Motor Vehicle
(CMV) drivers in seven categories. Access is restricted to FMCSA
enforcement personnel, FMCSA Headquarters (HQ) staff and MCSAP State
lead agencies.
     Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS)--FMCSA utilizes
MCMIS data in the CSMS to support the CSA 2010 initiative and its
operational model test. The CSMS uses driver/vehicle safety violations
and inspection data and crash data to evaluate the safety of motor
carriers. Access is restricted to FMCSA enforcement, Federal and local
law enforcement personnel, FMCSA HQ staff, MCSAP State lead agencies
and law enforcement agencies that are FMCSA grantees. The objective of
CSMS is to provide an assessment of a carrier's regulatory compliance
and safety performance.
     Safety Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER)--The SAFER Web
site receives MCMIS driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection
data and census data on a daily basis for report generation. Although
SAFER receives driver-related PII from MCMIS, SAFER reports for the
public users and enforcement officers contain no PII. The driver-
related PII from MCMIS is included on the Company Safety Profile
reports that are requested by commercial motor carriers for their
company.
     Enforcement Management Information System (EMIS)--The EMIS
is a Web-based application https://emis.fmcsa.dot.gov/ used to monitor,
track, and store information related to FMCSA enforcement actions. It
manages and tracks all enforcement actions associated with notifying
the carrier, monitoring the carrier's response, determining whether
further compliance action is required, and generating reports for
various FMCSA Headquarters, FMCSA Service Center, and FMCSA Division
staff. It is the authoritative source for FMCSA enforcement data. EMIS
imports census files, investigatory files, driver/vehicle safety
violations and inspection data, and crash data from MCMIS for the
purpose of automatically initiating UNFIT/UNSATISFACTORY cases within
EMIS resulting from Safety Rating letters generated by MCMIS.
     Analysis & information (A&I) Online--The A&I is a Web-
based tool designed to provide quick and efficient access to
descriptive statistics and analyses regarding commercial vehicle,
driver, and carrier safety information. It is used by Federal, State
and local law enforcement personnel, the motor carrier industry,
insurance companies, and the general public. A&I imports census files,
investigatory files, driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection
data, and crash data from MCMIS for the purpose of processing a monthly
data snapshot of the MCMIS database.
     ProVu--ProVu is a viewer that allows Federal and State
enforcement personnel and the motor carrier industry to electronically
view standard motor carrier safety profile reports available from the
FMCSA. ProVu imports driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection
data and crash data in a standard report exported from MCMIS

for the purpose of generating Company Safety Profile reports.
     Compliance Analysis and Performance Review Information
(CAPRI)--CAPRI is used by Federal and State enforcement personnel when
conducting compliance reviews and safety audits, specialized cargo tank
facility reviews, and hazardous material (HM) shipper reviews. CAPRI
includes worksheets for collecting census files, investigatory files,
driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection data, and crash data
from MCMIS to track (1) hours of service, (2) driver qualifications,
and (3) drug and alcohol compliance. It also creates the preliminary
carrier safety fitness rating and various reports for motor carriers.
     McQuery--The MCMIS database is copied into McQuery,
creating an exact image of the MCMIS database. The data in McQuery is
used for responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and
other requests for public information, generating special data requests
for FMCSA, and supporting the operations of FMCSA.
     GOTHAM--GOTHAM is an internal FMCSA analysis system that
utilizes selected extracts of MCMIS data and is only accessible through
the DOT/FMCSA Intranet. GOTHAM imports census files, investigatory
files, driver/vehicle safety violations and inspection data, and crash
data from MCMIS for the purpose of delivering standard reports via the
Intranet.

MCMIS SHARES NON-PII WITH THE FOLLOWING FMCSA SYSTEMS OR SYSTEM
COMPONENTS:
     Query Central (QC)--QC is a secure Web application that
provides Federal and State safety enforcement personnel with a single
location where they can enter one query and obtain targeted safety data
on commercial motor vehicle (CMV) carriers, vehicles, and drivers from
multiple sources in FMCSA and Customs and Border Patrol. QC does not
maintain a database of its own, but instead pulls data from the
authoritative sources in real-time. QC utilizes MCMIS to verify carrier
information. However, QC does not import or use privacy-related
information on drivers from MCMIS.
     Licensing and Insurance System (L&I)--The L&I system is
used to enter and display licensing and insurance information regarding
authorized for-hire motor carriers, freight forwarders, and property
brokers. It is the authoritative source for FMCSA licensing and
insurance data. L&I is part of the registration process. L&I imports
information from MCMIS as follows:

    --Data about carriers that received unsatisfactory ratings;
    --Data about Out-of-Service carriers; and
    --USDOT numbers for synchronization with docket numbers.

     Hazmat Registration (HMReg)--HMReg exports data from MCMIS
to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
database server in response to HAZMAT registration data requests.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    49 U.S.C. 502, 504, 506, 508, Chapter 139, 49 CFR 1.73, and
Executive Order 9397.

PURPOSE(S):
    To provide a central collection point for records on some
intrastate motor carriers, interstate motor carriers, and hazardous
material shippers in order to facilitate the analysis of the safety-
related data required to administer and manage the agency's programs.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF USE:
     Information may be shared with Federal, State, local, and
foreign government agencies for the purposes of enforcing motor carrier
and Hazardous Materials shipper safety.
     Information may be accessed by Federal contractors
involved in the system support and maintenance of MCMIS.
     Information may be shared with State lead agencies and
other law enforcement grantees under the FMCSA Motor Carrier Safety
Grant Program and Border Enforcement Grant program, which is a Federal
grant program that provides financial assistance to States for the
reduction in the frequency and severity of CMV crashes and hazardous
materials incidents.
     Information may be shared with Federal, State, and local
law enforcement programs to safeguard against and respond to the breach
of personally identifiable information.
     In addition to those disclosures permitted under 5 U.S.C.
552a(b) of the Privacy Act, additional disclosures may be made in
accordance with the DOT Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses
published at 65 FR 19476 (April 11, 2000).

DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:
    None.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING,
AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS:
     Storage--MCMIS records are stored in an automated system
operated and maintained at the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (Volpe Center) in Cambridge, MA.
     Retrievability--Electronic records are retrieved through
automated searches on key words or identifying information (e.g., name,
Social Security Number, Employer Identification Number, company name,
trade name, and geographical location).
     Accessibility (Including Safeguards)--MCMIS access is
managed by the Volpe Center. This facility has its own approved System
Security Plan that requires the system to be maintained in a secure
computer room with access restricted to authorized personnel. Access to
the building is limited and requires users to provide a valid account
name and password. MCMIS contains a usage tracking system for other
authorized users. MCMIS requires users to change access control
identifiers at periodic intervals.
     FMCSA operates MCMIS in accordance with the E-Government
Act (Pub. L. 107-347), the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA) of 2002, and other required policies, procedures, practices,
and security controls for implementing the Automated Information System
Security Program. Only authorized Federal and State government
personnel and contractors conducting system support or maintenance may
access MCMIS records. Access to records is password protected, and the
scope of access for each password is limited to the official need of
each individual who is authorized access. The motor carriers have
access to their registration information in MCMIS. Additional
protection is afforded by the use of password security, data
encryption, and a secure network.
     Retention and Disposal--The master files are logged and
backed up. The master tape is retained in a secure offsite storage
facility and then destroyed in accordance with applicable NARA
retention schedule NI-557-05-07 item 5.

SYSTEM MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION:
    Heshmat Ansari, Ph.D.; Division Chief, IT Development Division;
Office of Information Technology; Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration; U.S. Department of Transportation; 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE.; W68-330; Washington, DC 20590.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
    Individuals wishing to know if their records appear in this system
may make a request in writing to the System Manager. The request must
include the requester's name, mailing address, telephone number and/or
e-mail

address, a description and the location of the records requested, and
verification of identity (such as, a statement under penalty of perjury
that the requester is the individual who he or she claims to be).

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Individuals seeking to access their information in this system
should apply to the System Manager by following the same procedure as
indicated under ``Notification Procedure.''

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
    Individuals seeking to contest their information in this system
should apply to the System Manager by following the same procedure as
indicated under ``Notification Procedure.''

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Driver information is obtained from roadside driver/vehicle
inspections and crash reports submitted by State and local law
enforcement agencies and from investigations performed by State and
Federal investigators. State officials and FMCSA field offices forward
safety information to MCMIS soon after it has been compiled and
processed locally.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    Pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a),
portions of this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections
(c)(3), (d), (e)(4)(G)-(I) and (f) of the Act, for the reasons stated
in DOT's Privacy Act regulation (49 CFR Part 10, Appendix, Part II, at
A.8.

    Dated: December 8, 2009.
Habib Azarsina,
Departmental Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-29770 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64797-64803]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27357]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0544; FRL-9988-02-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) with a letter dated June 26, 2018. Alabama's SIP
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards reasonable

progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination
of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP addressing regional haze
(regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet
these RPGs for the first implementation period covering through 2018
and requires no substantive revision at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0544 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, the full EPA 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: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40
CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
reports, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan and must be submitted as a
SIP revision. Alabama submitted its regional haze plan on July 15,
2008, as later amended in a SIP revision submitted on October 26, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), Alabama relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet
certain requirements of EPA's Regional Haze Rule, including best
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the State.\2\ This
reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that Alabama
developed its regional haze plan. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and issued Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject
states.\3\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1,
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However,
numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of
2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution
of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR.
Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAIR required certain states, including Alabama, to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \3\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the Eastern
United States that significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38515), EPA finalized a limited approval of
Alabama's regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional
haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and
in 40 CFR 51.300-308. Separately, in a June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642),
action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze
plan because of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on CAIR
to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. Also on June 7, 2012,
EPA promulgated FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of
several states, including Alabama's regional haze plan. Following
additional litigation and the lifting of the stay, EPA began
implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets were remanded to EPA for
reconsideration.\4\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remained in
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remained in effect
while EPA addressed the remands. The remanded budgets included the
CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget applicable to Alabama
units under the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.
On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to EPA which
sought to adopt CSAPR at the state level and to change reliance from
CAIR to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements. This submittal
also adopted the remanded SO2 Phase 2 budget for the State.
EPA approved portions of the October 26, 2015, submittal on August 31,
2016 (81 FR 59869), including the adoption of CSAPR unit requirements
for SO2 and NOX annual trading programs, thereby
replacing the FIP obligations in the State for these two programs.\5\
The August 31, 2016, final rule also approved Alabama's adoption of the
remanded federal SO2 Phase 2 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \5\ Large EGUs in Alabama were subject to additional CSAPR FIP
provisions requiring them to participate in the federal CSAPR
NOX ozone season trading program. While Alabama's October
26, 2015, SIP submittal also sought to replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements addressing Alabama units' ozone-season NOX
emissions, EPA did not act on that portion of the SIP submittal
until October 6, 2017, when it acted on Alabama's May 19, 2017 SIP
revision. See 82 FR 46674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, on May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to
address additional requirements for the NOX ozone season
requirements for CSAPR. On October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46674), EPA approved
Alabama's adoption of a state allowance trading program to replace
federal NOX ozone season requirements under CSAPR, thereby
replacing the remainder of the CSAPR FIP. On October 12, 2017, EPA

approved the regional haze portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015 (82 FR
47393), SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for
certain regional haze requirements and converted EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval.
    On June 27, 2018,\6\ Alabama submitted its Progress Report which,
among other things, details the progress made in the first period
toward implementation of the long term strategy outlined in the State's
regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the Sipsey
Wilderness Area (the only Class I area within Alabama); and a
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
plan. EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's June 26, 2018, Progress
Report for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that the cover letter was dated June 26, 2018. The
submittal date is the date of receipt, which was June 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of Alabama's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes EPA's analysis of Alabama's Progress Report
and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
    In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by the State in its
regional haze plan and included in the final iteration of the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the
State in developing its regional haze plan. The measures include, among
other things, applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules,
Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), federal consent
agreements, and federal control strategies for EGUs. Alabama also
reviewed the status of BART requirements for the two BART-subject
sources for NOX and SO2 in the State--Solutia,
Inc., Decatur facility and International Paper Company, Courtland
facility--and described several court decisions addressing CAIR and
CSAPR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Progress Report, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section I of this notice, a number of states,
including Alabama, submitted regional haze plans that relied on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan due to this reliance
and promulgated a FIP to replace the State's reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR. Although a number of parties challenged the legality
of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to
EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir.
2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's
decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit
to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On
remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is
now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118
(D.C. Cir. 2015). Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions
reductions of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout
the affected region, EPA expects Alabama to maintain and continue its
progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and additional,
SO2 and NOX reductions. See generally 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    In the State's 2008 regional haze plan and Progress Report, Alabama
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of
VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87 percent of
the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and roughly 75
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Alabama determined in its
2008 regional haze plan that no additional controls for sources in the
State were needed to make reasonable progress for SO2 during
the first implementation period.\8\ In its regional haze plan, Alabama
identified 19 Alabama EGUs at six facilities located in the area of
influence of Alabama's Class I area using the State's methodology for
determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress control
determination. Because these 19 EGUs were subject to CAIR and the
Sipsey Wilderness Area was projected to exceed the uniform rate of
progress during the first implementation period, ADEM opted not to
require any additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress for
the first implementation period.\9\ Alabama's Progress Report indicates
that SO2 emissions from all in-state EGUs have decreased by
approximately 71 percent from 2002 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 77 FR 11937, 11946 (February 28, 2012).
    \9\ See 77 FR 11949 and Section 7.6 of Alabama's 2008 regional
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because many states had not yet defined their criteria for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress at the time
Alabama was developing the State's 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama
initially applied the State's criteria for identifying emissions units
eligible for a reasonable progress control analysis as a screening tool
to identify Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by
Alabama sources. Alabama identified the following Class I areas as
potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St.
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in
Louisiana.\10\ Additionally, North Carolina identified an Alabama
source (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)--Widows Creek) as meeting
North Carolina's threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation
at one of its Class I areas (Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area).
Alabama determined that there were no additional controls that would be
reasonable to require of this source for the first implementation
period. Alabama also consulted with Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana and
concluded that no Alabama sources were identified by these states as
meeting their criteria for a reasonable progress control
evaluation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 77 FR 11956.
    \11\ See 77 FR 11956 and Appendix J of Alabama's 2008 regional
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State described
the implementation of measures within Alabama, including BART at BART-
subject sources for NOX and SO2.
2. Emissions Reductions
    As discussed in Section II.A.1. of this notice, Alabama focused its
assessment in its regional haze plan and Progress Report on
SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS' findings that
ammonium sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing
pollution in the VISTAS states. In its Progress Report, Alabama
provides 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2012 SO2 emissions data
from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for EGUs in the State.
Actual SO2 emissions reductions from 2002-2012 for these
Alabama EGUs (319,428 tons) have already exceeded the projected
SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in
Alabama's regional haze plan for these EGUs (312,397 tons).\12\ Alabama
also includes cumulative

volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10),
ammonia (NH3), SO2, and NOX emissions
data from 2002, 2007, and 2011 for point sources. For the five-year
period covered by the Progress Report, the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) was the latest available inventory.\13\ This data shows
a decline in these emissions over this time period and shows that the
SO2 reductions are greater than those estimated for these
units between 2002-2018 in the State's regional haze plan. The
emissions reductions identified by Alabama are due, in part, to the
implementation of measures included in the State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Progress Report, Figure 4, p. 14.
    \13\ See the EPA's website for additional data and documentation
for the 2011 version of the NEI (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions because the State identifies SO2 emissions
reductions from EGUs in Alabama, the largest sources of SO2
emissions in the State.
3. Visibility Conditions
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require that states with
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values.
    Alabama's Progress Report provides visibility monitoring data for
the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Alabama reported current visibility
conditions as the 2009-2013 five-year time period and used the 2000-
2004 baseline period for the State's Class I area.\14\ Alabama also
provided 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day visibility data
for each year from 2004-2013 in terms of five-year averages. Table 1
shows the visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time
period, the difference between the current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions, and the RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness
Area in the State's 2008 regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).

              Table 1--Baseline Visibility, RPGs, and Current Visibility in Alabama's Class I Area
                                                   [Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Baseline (2000-                 Current (2009-
                          Class I area                                 2004)        RPGs (2018)        2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              20 Percent Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area..........................................            15.6           14.22           12.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              20 Percent Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area..........................................            29.0           23.53           22.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, the Sipsey Wilderness Area saw an improvement
in visibility between baseline and the 2009-2013 time period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Progress Report, Table 3, p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding visibility
conditions because the State provided baseline visibility conditions,
visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 five-year time period, the
difference between these sets of visibility conditions, and five-year
visibility averages at the Sipsey Wilderness Area from 2004-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
    In its Progress Report, Alabama presents data from a statewide
actual emissions inventory for 2007, developed through the Southeastern
Modeling, Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) partnership and compares this
data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual emissions).
The pollutants inventoried include: VOC, NH3,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2.
The emissions inventories include the following source classifications:
Point, area, biogenic (e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions from
fires), non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. As discussed in
Section II.A.2, above, Alabama also presented 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011,
and 2012 SO2 data for EGUs in Alabama and 2011 emissions for
point sources in Alabama.
    SEMAP estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2007
inventory using EPA's MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher
emissions for NOX and particulate matter than its previous
counterpart, EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, used by the State to estimate on-
road mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Due in part to
the change in methodology, there are increases in NOX,
PM2.5 and PM10, in the 2007 actual on-road
emissions, while VOC, NH3 and SO2 mobile
emissions show decreases from the actual 2002 emissions, as can be seen
when comparing Tables 2 and 3. Apart from this, decreases in total
pollutant emissions can be seen for each pollutant potentially
impacting visibility.
    Additionally, ADEM included the 2011 point source actual emissions
inventory from the 2011 NEI, Version 2, included in Table 4, below. The
actual point source emissions in 2011 showed significant reductions for
all pollutants when compared to both the 2002 and 2007 inventories.
These point source emissions have already exceeded the reductions
expected in the 2018 projected year inventory, which can be seen in
Table 5, below.

                                              Table 2--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          49,323         238,007          23,353          33,084           2,121         520,217
Area....................................................         209,200          34,900         101,442         444,259          60,275          54,812

On-Road Mobile..........................................         137,086         170,047           3,006           4,188           5,968           7,386
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          60,487          65,366           4,526           4,949              33           7,584
Biogenic................................................       1,751,809          14,873               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       2,207,904         523,191         132,328         486,481          68,397         590,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Table 3--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          38,877         197,963          24,930          34,776           2,191         526,620
Area....................................................          79,030           3,940          41,587         349,981          62,426             431
On-Road Mobile..........................................          77,078         172,668           5,887           7,861           2,823           1,509
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          52,230          63,588           4,121           4,424              46           3,469
Biogenic................................................       1,745,263           9,785               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       1,992,478         447,944          76,525         397,042          67,486         532,029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Table 4--2011 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
                                                                       [tpy] \16\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          26,077         121,962          11,124          17,093           1,874         245,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table 5--2018 Projected Actual Emissions Inventory Summary of Point Sources for Alabama
                                                                       [tpy] 17 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          57,243         142,676          27,366          37,746           3,536         249,075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that Alabama adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data for the
five-year period covered by the Progress Report with the baseline
emissions used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Alabama evaluated EPA Air Markets Program Data \19\ SO2
emissions data from 2002-2012 for EGUs in the State because ammonium
sulfate is the primary component of visibility-impairing pollution in
the VISTAS states, and EGUs are the largest source of SO2 in
the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ADEM included the entire 2011 emissions inventory summary
in Appendix A of its Progress Report. This inventory shows decreases
in total emissions for all pollutants since 2002 and 2007.
    \17\ See Section 7 of Alabama's 2008 regional haze plan and page
18 of the Progress Report for the complete inventory.
    \18\ The Progress Report lists SO2 projected 2018
point source emissions as 418,486 tpy. This is an error in carrying
over information from the 2008 Alabama regional haze plan. The
correct value is provided in Table 5. See Table 7.2.3-2 of the 2008
regional haze plan, p. 52 and 77 FR 11945.
    \19\ EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    In its Progress Report, Alabama documented that sulfates, which are
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single
contributor to regional haze for the Sipsey Wilderness Area, and
therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from
point sources.\20\ In its 2008 regional haze plan, Alabama notes that
sulfates account for 75 percent of the visibility impairment on the 20
percent worst days and 50 percent of visibility impairment on the 20
percent best days over the 2000-2004 period. In addressing the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Alabama shows in the Progress
Report that the overall contribution of sulfates toward visibility
impairment has been reduced to 64 percent over the 2008-2012 period for
the 20 percent worst days and remained approximately the same for the
20 percent best days. Alabama also examines other potential pollutants
of concern affecting visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness Area.
Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that visibility averages for the
five-year period 2009-2013 are better than the 2018 RPGs for the Sipsey
Wilderness Area and that SO2 emissions reductions from 2002-
2012 for EGUs in Alabama have exceeded the projected reductions from
2002-2018 in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Figures 9 and 10 in the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions for the reasons discussed above.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    Alabama believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for the
Sipsey Wilderness Area, and that the State's sources will not impede
Class I areas outside of Alabama from meeting their RPGs based on the
trends in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report.
Alabama notes that the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE)

visibility readings for 2009-2013 generally show greater improvements
in visibility than projected by the State in establishing the 2018 RPGs
for the Sipsey Wilderness Area and that SO2 emissions from
coal-fired EGUs in the State have decreased from 2002-2012 by more than
the predicted decline in SO2 emissions from these sources
for the first implementation period in Alabama's 2008 regional haze
plan. Alabama expects that these emissions will continue to decrease
through the first regional haze implementation period.
    As discussed above, Alabama identified the following Class I areas
as potentially impacted by Alabama sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in
Georgia; Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina; St.
Marks Wilderness Area in Florida; and Breton Wilderness Area in
Louisiana. In its Progress Report, Alabama notes that it has evaluated
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2009-2013 for these Class I areas and that
the trend for each of these areas is at or below the glidepath.\21\ The
State concludes that given expected continued emission reductions, the
trends for those areas should continue, and no additional controls are
needed at this time to meet RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The ``glidepath'' is the rate of progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by 2064 (also referred to as the
``uniform rate of progress''). See 77 FR 11940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alabama notes that it consulted with other states during the
development of its 2008 regional haze plan, including Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and North Carolina. Of these states, North Carolina
identified one unit in Alabama--TVA Widows Creek--as meeting North
Carolina's criteria for a reasonable progress control evaluation and
asked Alabama to share its reasonable progress control evaluation for
this unit. Alabama determined that because this unit was subject to
CAIR and had a scrubber installed, no additional controls were
reasonable for this period. See 77 FR 11956. The State reiterates that
after consultation with each of these states, Alabama was not requested
to further evaluate any source relative to a regional Class I area.
Additionally, the State did not request any out-of-state source to
evaluate impacts on the Sipsey Wilderness Area because no source met
the State's criteria for a reasonable progress analysis.
    The State notes that, considering the trends in visibility in the
IMPROVE network, and given SO2 reductions achieved, it is
reasonable to assume that these conclusions still stand for the
purposes of the Progress Report.
    As discussed above, CAIR was implemented during the time period
evaluated by ADEM for its Progress Report, CAIR has been replaced by
CSAPR, and the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in Alabama
through the State's implementation plan. Alabama's fully approved
regional haze plan, which now relies on CSAPR rather than CAIR,
accordingly contains sufficient provisions to ensure that the RPGs of
Class I areas in nearby states will be achieved.
    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its Progress Report, Alabama describes the improving visibility trends
using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions trends
in key pollutants, with a focus on SO2 emissions from EGUs
in the State. ADEM determined that its regional haze plan is sufficient
to meet the RPGs for its own Class I area and the Class I areas outside
the State potentially impacted by the emissions from Alabama. EPA
preliminarily finds that Alabama's conclusion regarding the sufficiency
of its regional haze plan is appropriate because CAIR was in effect in
Alabama through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in
Alabama's regional haze plan through that date. CSAPR is now being
implemented, and by 2018, the end of the first regional haze
implementation period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX from EGUs in Alabama by the same amount assumed by
EPA when the Agency originally issued the FIP for the State in June
2012, replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Because CSAPR,
now adopted and implemented at the state level, will ensure the control
of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions relied upon
by Alabama and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January
2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation period
in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's finding that the plan
elements and strategies in its implementation plan are sufficient to
achieve the RPGs for the Class I area in the State and for Class I
areas in nearby states potentially impacted by sources in the State.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    In its Progress Report, Alabama summarizes the existing monitoring
network in the State to monitor visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility
monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for
regional haze, both nationwide and in Alabama, is the IMPROVE network.
There is currently one IMPROVE site located in the Sipsey Wilderness
Area.
    The State explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network
for tracking visibility trends at the Class I area in Alabama. ADEM
states that data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be
used for preparing the regional haze progress reports and SIP
revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs
to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. The Visibility
Information Exchange Web System website has been maintained by VISTAS
and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access
to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
    In addition, ADEM operates a PM2.5 network of filter-
based federal reference method monitors and filter-based speciation
monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help ADEM characterize
air pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in
the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Sipsey
Wilderness Area.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Figure 11 in the Progress Report, p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report, ADEM submitted a negative declaration to
EPA that the existing regional haze plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by the State's sources. The State's negative declaration is
based on the findings from the Progress Report, including the findings
that: Visibility has already improved at the Sipsey Wilderness Area in
Alabama such that the visibility averages for the five-year period
2009-2013 are better than the RPGs for 2018; actual SO2
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs in Alabama exceed the
predicted reductions in ADEM's 2008 regional haze plan; additional EGU
control measures not relied upon in the State's 2008 regional haze plan
have occurred or will occur during the first implementation period that
will further reduce SO2 emissions; and emissions of
SO2 from EGUs in Alabama are expected to continue to trend
downward.

    EPA proposes to conclude that Alabama has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by
sources within Alabama and the emissions trends of the largest emitters
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the
relevant RPGs will be met.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's June 26, 2018, Regional Haze
Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-27357 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4198-4199]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-11-000]

Stateline Crude, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on January 22, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Stateline Crude,
LLC (Stateline), filed a petition for a declaratory order (petition)
seeking approval of the overall rate structure and terms of service for
a new crude oil pipeline system in the Delaware Basin region of Texas
and New Mexico. The proposed facilities will gather and transport crude
oil produced in the Delaware Basin to interconnections with Plains
Pipeline, L.P. and Rangeland RIO Pipeline in Reeves and Loving
Counties, Texas, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 16, 2018.

    Dated: January 23, 2018.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01785 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28028]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4525-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Utah; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Utah (FEMA-4525-DR), dated April 4, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Utah is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 4, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Utah (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B] not authorized under other Federal
statutes, including direct Federal assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10194 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70346-70348]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0697]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay,
Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the
operation of the US 50 Bridge over Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile
0.5, at Ocean City, MD. This rule will add dates that the bridge is
allowed to remain in the closed position to accommodate heavy volumes
of vehicular traffic due to the annual July 4th fireworks show.

DATES: This rule is effective December 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0697 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0697 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lindsey Middleton, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Regulatory Information

    On August 17, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight
(Sinepuxent) Bay, Ocean City, MD in the Federal Register (76 FR 50950).
We have not received any comments on the proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    The Maryland Department of Transportation has requested a change in
the operation regulation of the US 50 Bridge across Isle of Wight
(Sinepuxent) Bay, mile 0.5, at Ocean City, MD. The Ocean City July 4th
fireworks show is an annual event and heavy volumes of vehicular
traffic transit across the bridge to attend it. The Coast Guard will
allow the above mentioned bridge to remain in the closed position from
9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4th or on July 5th should inclement
weather prevent the fireworks show event from taking place as planned.
The exact date of the closure will be published locally in the Local
Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    The vertical clearance of the bascule bridge is 13 feet above mean
high tide in the closed position and unlimited in

the open position. The current operating schedule for the bridge is set
out in 33 CFR 117.559 which states that during this time of year from
9:25 a.m. to 9:55 p.m., the draw shall open at 25 and 55 minutes after
the hour for a maximum of five minutes, except that on Saturdays, from
1 p.m. to 5 p.m., the draw shall open on the hour for all waiting
vessels and shall remain in the open position until all waiting vessels
pass.
    There are no tender logs to report because the bridge has remained
in the closed position for the 4th of July fireworks show for the past
10 years. The majority of vessels that transit under this bridge this
time of year are recreational boats. Vessels that are able to transit
under the bridge without an opening may do so at any time. The Atlantic
Ocean is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass under the bridge
in the closed position. The bridge will be able to open for
emergencies.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received on the proposed rule and no changes were
made to the proposed rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The changes are expected to have minimal impact on maritime traffic
transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with
the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Mariners are familiar
with this bridge closure because for the past 10 years the Coast Guard
has allowed the bridge to remain in the closed position for the
fireworks event.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit through the bridge from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4th or
July 5th of every year. This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
rule adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation and
mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled
bridge closure can minimize delay. This closure has occurred every year
for the past 10 years; therefore, mariners should be familiar with
planning their transits accordingly. Vessels that can safely transit
under the bridge may do so at any time.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this 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.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order 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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of

Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded
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 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  117.559, add new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.559  Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay

* * * * *
    (c) On July 4, the draw need not open from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30
p.m. to accommodate the annual July 4th fireworks show. Should
inclement weather prevent the fireworks event from taking place as
planned, the draw need not open from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July
5th to accommodate the annual July 4th fireworks show.

    Dated: November 1, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-29237 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P