Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix  K.3

                         Model Fitting Information for
                             Acetaldehyde (Bag 2)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag-2 acetaldehyde.  Model-fitting techniques and approaches are summarized in Section 8.7.   Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below.
Media contamination:	YES
No. measurements:	63
No. censored values:	1
Modeling approach:	MIXED MODEL
Estimated Dependent Variable model:	YES

                       Models fit for Bag-2 Acetaldehyde
Model term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                     Full
FM1[1]
FM2
FM3
Null model[2]
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      x

                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

[1] Indicates "Full minus 1," etc.
[2] Indicates model with no terms except an intercept.

Fitting history for Bag-2 Acetaldehyde  -  with "FM3" selected as best fit model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                     Full

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                        Dev.[1]
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Full
5
71.62
82.89

FM1
4
71.87
81.53

                                                                           1.66
                                                                              2
                                                                           0.43

                                                                           0.25
                                                                              1
                                                                           0.62
FM2
3
73.92
81.96

                                                                           3.71
                                                                              3
                                                                           0.29

                                                                           2.04
                                                                              1
                                                                           0.15
FM3
2
76.44
82.87

                                                                           6.23
                                                                              4
                                                                           0.18

                                                                           2.52
                                                                              1
                                                                           0.11
Null model
1
88.03
92.86

                                                                          17.82
                                                                              5
                                                                         0.0032

                                                                          11.59
                                                                              1
                                                                        0.00066
[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.

[1] The deviation is the difference in
the -2lnL statistics for the
nested and reference models,
respectively, per Equation 14.

Acetaldehyde (Bag 2): Coefficients and Type-III Tests of Effect for Full and Best-Fit Models.
Effect

                                  Full Model

                             Best-Fit Model (MM3)

Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr>t

Estimate
Std.Err.
d.f.
t-value
Pr>t
Intercept

                                                                        -9.4189
                                                                         0.1177
                                                                              5
                                                                          -80.1
                                                                       0.000000

                                                                        -9.4192
                                                                         0.1162
                                                                          5.007
                                                                          -81.1
                                                                       0.000000
Ze

                                                                         0.1520
                                                                        0.06080
                                                                             58
                                                                           2.50
                                                                         0.0152

                                                                         0.1910
                                                                        0.05306
                                                                          58.13
                                                                           3.60
                                                                        0.00066
Za

                                                                        0.07991
                                                                        0.05279
                                                                             58
                                                                           1.51
                                                                          0.136

Z5

                                                                       -0.02997
                                                                        0.05957
                                                                             58
                                                                         -0.503
                                                                          0.617

Z9

                                                                       -0.07836
                                                                        0.05153
                                                                             58
                                                                          -1.52
                                                                          0.134

                                                                        0.05654

                                                                        0.05372

                                                                         0.3814

                                                                         0.4153


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39070-39078]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17341]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0415; FRL-9966-45-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of the October 26, 2015, and May 19, 2017, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from Alabama replacing the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plan (FIP).
Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in Alabama are
subject to FIP provisions requiring the units to participate in a
federal allowance trading program for ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX). This action would approve into
Alabama's SIP the State's regulations requiring Alabama's affected
units to participate in a new state allowance trading program for ozone
season NOX emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal
trading programs, replacing the corresponding CSAPR FIP requirements
for Alabama. This state trading program is substantively identical to
the federal trading program except with regard to the provisions
allocating emission allowances among Alabama units. Under the CSAPR
regulations, final approval of these portions of the SIP revisions
would automatically eliminate Alabama units' FIP requirements to
participate in CSAPR's federal allowance trading program for ozone
season NOX emissions. Approval would also fully satisfy
Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state; and
would partially satisfy Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the
CAA to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0415 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: Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9164 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the October 26, 2015,
and May 19, 2017, SIP revisions from Alabama concerning CSAPR \1\
allowance trading programs for ozone season emissions of
NOX. Large EGUs in Alabama are currently subject to CSAPR
FIPs that require the units to participate in the federal CSAPR
NOX Group 2 Ozone Season Trading Program. The CSAPR
regulations provide a process for the submission and approval of SIP
revisions to replace the requirements of CSAPR FIPs with SIP
requirements under which a state's units participate in CSAPR state
trading programs that are integrated with and, with certain permissible
exceptions, substantively

identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (codified as
amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39 and subparts AAAAA through EEEEE
of 40 CFR part 97); see also Federal Implementation Plans;
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and
Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA
previously approved a SIP revision that replaced the CSAPR FIPs for
the annual trading programs in Alabama. See 81 FR 59869 (Aug. 31,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The portions of the SIP revisions proposed for approval would
incorporate into Alabama's SIP state allowance trading program
regulations for ozone season NOX emissions that would
replace EPA's federal trading program regulations for those emissions
from Alabama units. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the
SIP revisions, as clarified in a letter provided on August 4, 2017,
because they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for
approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading
program with a state trading program that is integrated with and
substantively identical to the federal trading program except for
permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation
provisions. Under the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of
the SIP revisions would automatically eliminate the obligations of EGUs
in Alabama (but not any units in Indian country within Alabama's
borders) to participate in CSAPR's federal trading programs for ozone
season NOX emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs. EPA
proposes to find that approval of these portions of the SIP revisions
would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA also proposes to find that
approval of these portions of the SIP revisions would partially satisfy
Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any
other state.
    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the
CSAPR federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of
opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace
the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading
programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air
pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval
of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Alabama's
SIP submittal. Section V addresses incorporation by reference. Section
VI sets forth EPA's proposed action on the submittal. Section VII
addresses statutory and Executive Order reviews.

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 and the CSAPR Update \2\ in 2016 to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning
interstate transport of air pollution for specific NAAQS. As amended
(including by the 2016 CSAPR Update), CSAPR requires 27 eastern states
to limit their statewide emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution
unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four
NAAQS: the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone season
NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state
budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing
stringency: The Phase 1 budgets apply to emissions in 2015 and 2016;
and the Phase 2 and CSAPR Update budgets apply to emissions in 2017 and
later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions
limitations, CSAPR establishes five federal emissions trading programs:
a program for annual NOX emissions; two geographically
separate programs for annual SO2 emissions; and two
geographically separate programs for ozone season NOX
emissions. CSAPR also establishes FIP requirements applicable to the
large EGUs in each covered state.\3\ Currently, the CSAPR FIP
provisions require each state's units to participate in up to three of
the five CSAPR trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update was
promulgated to address interstate pollution with respect to the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS and to address a judicial remand of certain
original CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets promulgated with
respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. Id. at 74505. The CSAPR
Update established new emission reduction requirements addressing
the more recent ozone NAAQS and coordinated them with the remaining
emission reduction requirements addressing the older NAAQS, so that
starting in 2017, CSAPR includes two geographically separate trading
programs for ozone season NOX emissions covering EGUs in
a total of 23 states. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1)-(2).
    \3\ States are required to submit good neighbor SIPs three years
after a NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2). Where
EPA finds that a state fails to submit a required SIP or disapproves
a SIP, EPA is obligated to promulgate a FIP addressing the
deficiency. CAA section 110(c). EPA found that Alabama failed to
make timely submissions required to address the good neighbor
provision with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 and 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 21147, Apr. 25, 2005), and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (80 FR 39961, June 13, 2015). In addition, EPA
disapproved Alabama's SIP revision submitted to address the good
neighbor provision with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 76 FR 43128 (July 20, 2011). Accordingly, as a part of
CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, EPA promulgated FIPs applicable to
sources in Alabama addressing the good neighbor provision with
respect to these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA
will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-
related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading
programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the
federal programs, provided that the SIP revisions meet all relevant
criteria.\4\ Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace EPA's
default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the state's
units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or auction
the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on overall
allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's federal trading programs
for ozone season NOX emissions (or an integrated state
trading program), a state may also expand trading program applicability
to include certain smaller EGUs.\5\ If a state wants to replace the
CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's
units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with
and identical to the federal trading program even as to the allocation
and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for
that purpose as well. However, no emissions budget increases or other
substantive changes to the trading program provisions are allowed. A
state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR federal trading
programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or replace either some or
all of those FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
    \5\ States covered by both the CSAPR Update and the
NOX SIP Call have the additional option to expand
applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program to include non-EGUs that would have participated in
the NOX Budget Trading Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions
effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.\6\
Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in section III below.
Under

the first alternative--an ``abbreviated'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default allowance
allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal trading
program for the state.\7\ Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision
leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of the
relevant federal trading program in place for the state's units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of
SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 (or
2018 for CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 units) and is not
relevant here. See Sec.  52.38(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(7); Sec.
52.39(d), (g).
    \7\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(8); 52.39(e), (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative--a ``full'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal
trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated
with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program
is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not
substantively differ from the federal trading program except as
discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\8\ For purposes of a full SIP revision, a
state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program
language, incorporate the federal trading program language into its
state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or
employ a combination of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and
limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First,
upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency
in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular set of CSAPR FIP
requirements, the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR
federal trading program is automatically eliminated for units subject
to the state's jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA
withdrawal action, so long as EPA's approval of the SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of the CSAPR regulations is full and
unconditional.\9\ Second, approval of a full SIP revision does not
terminate the obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR
federal trading program for any units located in any Indian country
within the borders of the state, and if and when a unit is located in
Indian country within a state's borders, EPA may modify the SIP
approval to exclude from the SIP, and include in the surviving CSAPR
FIP instead, certain trading program provisions that apply jointly to
units in the state and to units in Indian country within the state's
borders.\10\ Finally, if at the time a full SIP revision is approved
EPA has already started recording allocations of allowances for a given
control period to a state's units, the federal trading program
provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of allocating and
recording allowances for that control period to those units will
continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision provides
otherwise.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(j).
    \10\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv)-(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)-(vi),
(b)(9)(vi)-(vii), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(f)(4)-(5), (i)(4)-(5), (j).
    \11\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7), (b)(11); 52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the
following general submittal conditions:
     Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state
wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability
provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program, the complete SIP
revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the
deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts
to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to
replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.\12\
This SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP
revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and federal trading
program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program
integrated with the federal trading program. The SIP submittal
completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51
also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii),
(b)(5)(vii), (b)(8)(iv), (b)(9)(viii); 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2),
(i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of
emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:
     Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring
allocation. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP
revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction
methodology must replace both the federal program's default allocations
to existing units \13\ at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a),
97.711(a), or 97.811(a), as applicable, and the federal trading
program's provisions for allocating allowances from the new unit set-
aside (NUSA) for the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a),
97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), 97.711(b)(1)
and 97.712(a), or 97.811(b)(1) and 97.812(a), as applicable.\14\ In the
case of a state with Indian country within its borders, while the SIP
revision may neither alter nor assume the federal program's provisions
for administering the Indian country NUSA for the state, the SIP
revision must include procedures addressing the disposition of any
otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country NUSA that may
be made available for allocation by the state after EPA has carried out
the Indian country NUSA allocation procedures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related
SIP revisions, an ``existing unit'' is a unit for which EPA has
determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations
of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending
CSAPR. A document describing EPA's default allocations to existing
units is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/csapr_allowance_allocations_final_rule_tsd.pdf.
    \14\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii),
(b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iii); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).
    \15\ See 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii),
97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii), 97.812(b)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state
budget. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision,
the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control
period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any
unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state)
generally may not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control
period less the sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the
state for the control period and any allowances already allocated to
the state's units for the control period and recorded by EPA.\16\ Under
its SIP revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or
all potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to
entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or
auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and
retire the remainder. Under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 Trading Program only, additional allowances may be allocated if the
state elects to expand applicability to non-EGUs that would have been
subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program established for
compliance with the NOX SIP Call.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A),
(b)(5)(ii)(A), (b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A); 52.39(e)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i).
    \17\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA.
The SIP revision must require the state to submit

to EPA the amounts of any allowances allocated or auctioned to each
unit for each control period (other than allowances initially set aside
in the state's allocation or auction process and later allocated or
auctioned to such units from the set-aside amount) by the following
deadlines.\18\ Note that the submission deadlines differ for amounts
allocated or auctioned to units considered existing units for CSAPR
purposes and amounts allocated or auctioned to other units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)-(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)-(C),
(b)(4)(ii)(B)-(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)-(C), (b)(8)(iii)(B)-(C),
(b)(9)(iii)(B)-(C); 52.39(e)(1)(ii)-(iii), (f)(1)(ii)-(iii),
(h)(1)(ii)-(iii), (i)(1)(ii)-(iii).

CSAPR NOX Annual, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1, CSAPR SO2 Group 1, and
                   CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Deadline for
                                   Year of the      submission to EPA of
             Units                control period       allocations or
                                                      auction results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing......................  2017 and 2018....  June 1, 2016.
                                2019 and 2020....  June 1, 2017.
                                2021 and 2022....  June 1, 2018.
                                2023 and later     June 1 of the fourth
                                 years.             year before the year
                                                    of the control
                                                    period.
Other.........................  All years........  July 1 of the year of
                                                    the control period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Deadline for
                                   Year of the      submission to EPA of
             Units                control period       allocations or
                                                      auction results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing......................  2019 and 2020....  June 1, 2018.
                                2021 and 2022....  June 1, 2019.
                                2023 and 2024....  June 1, 2020.
                                2025 and later     June 1 of the fourth
                                 years.             year before the year
                                                    of the control
                                                    period.
Other.........................  All years........  July 1 of the year of
                                                    the control period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or
recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the
amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those
amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation
determined and recorded by EPA under the federal trading program
regulations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D),
(b)(5)(ii)(D), (b)(8)(iii)(D), (b)(9)(iii)(D); 52.39(e)(1)(iv),
(f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also expands program applicability as described below.\20\ Any new
definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the federal
trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP
revision's allocation or auction provisions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9);
52.39(e), (f), (h), (i).
    \21\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii),
(b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iv); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 or CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Programs (or an integrated state trading
program) must meet the following further conditions:
     Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity
of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to
additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving
generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the
generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a
particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator
is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold
adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.\22\ In
addition or alternatively, applicability under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program may be expanded to non-EGUs that
would have been subject to the NOX Budget Trading Program
established for compliance with the NOX SIP Call.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i), (b)(8)(i), (b)(9)(i).
    \23\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(ii), (b)(9)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as
described above.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other
applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP
revision must meet the following further conditions:
     Complete, substantively identical trading program
provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program
regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading
program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through
97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, 97.702 through 97.735, or 97.802 through
97.835, as applicable, except as described above in the case of a SIP
revision that seeks to replace the default allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Only non-substantive substitutions for the term ``State.''
The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term
``State'' as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only
to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not
substantively change the trading program regulations.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(9)(v);
52.39(f)(3), (i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian
country. The SIP revision may not impose requirements on any unit in
any Indian country within the state's borders and must not include the
federal trading program provisions governing allocation of allowances
from any Indian country NUSA for the state.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v), (b)(9)(vi); 52.39(f)(4),
(i)(4).

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

IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis

A. Alabama's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, among other findings, EPA determined that
air pollution transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other
states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.\28\
In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability
to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and established an
ozone season NOX budget for Alabama's EGUs representing a
partial remedy for the State's interstate transport obligations with
respect to that NAAQS; \29\ determined that Alabama's previous ozone
season NOX budget established in the CSAPR rulemaking as a
partial remedy for the State's interstate transport obligations with
respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS now represented a full remedy
with respect to that NAAQS; \30\ and coordinated compliance
requirements by allowing compliance with the new CSAPR Update budget to
serve the purpose of addressing the State's obligations with respect to
both NAAQS.\31\ Alabama units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria
are consequently subject to CSAPR FIP requirements for participation in
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program in order
to address the State's interstate transport obligations with respect to
both the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (full remedy) and the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS (partial remedy).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 76 FR 48208, 48210, 48213 (August 8, 2011). EPA also
determined in the CSAPR rulemaking that air pollution transported
from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability to attain
or maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Alabama previously submitted, and EPA
previously approved, a SIP revision that replaces the CSAPR FIPs for
the annual trading programs in Alabama. See 81 FR 59869 (August 31,
2016).
    \29\ CSAPR Update, 81 FR at 74507-08.
    \30\ Id. at 74525.
    \31\ Id. at 74563 n.169.
    \32\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(2), (b)(2)(iii); 52.54(a), (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision
including provisions that, if approved, would incorporate into
Alabama's SIP state trading program regulations that would replace the
CSAPR federal trading program regulations with regard to Alabama units'
ozone season NOX emissions.\33\ On May 19, 2017, Alabama
submitted to EPA a SIP revision that supersedes portions of the October
26, 2015, submittal to reflect changes from the CSAPR Update.\34\ On
August 4, 2017, Alabama sent a letter clarifying the State's
interpretation concerning the allowances for the Indian country NUSA
for Alabama. The Alabama ozone season submittals include duly adopted
state rules at rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, which establish
Alabama's ``TR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.''
\35\ In general, each individual rule in Alabama's CSAPR state trading
program rules is designed to replace one individual section (or in a
few cases two or three sections) of the corresponding federal trading
program regulations, and the set of rules is designed to collectively
replace all sections of the corresponding federal trading program
regulations at subpart EEEEE of 40 CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 97.801
through 97.835).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As discussed above, the October 26, 2015 submittal also
contained provisions related to the annual NOX and
SO2 trading programs, which EPA approved in a separate
rulemaking. See 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).
    \34\ For the purposes of this rulemaking, the October 26, 2015,
and May 19, 2017, submittals together may also be referred to as the
``Alabama ozone season submittals.''
    \35\ Alabama's rules use the terms ``Transport Rule'' and ``TR''
instead of the updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and
``CSAPR.'' For simplicity, EPA uses the updated terms here except
where otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to form, some of the individual rules for each Alabama
CSAPR state trading program are set forth as full regulatory text--
notably the rules addressing program applicability, emissions budgets
and variability limits, and allowance allocations--but most of the
rules incorporate the corresponding federal trading program section or
sections by reference. Several of the Alabama rules adopt cross-
references to other Alabama rules in place of cross-references to
specific federal trading program sections that would be replaced by
those other Alabama rules.
    With regard to substance, the rules for the Alabama CSAPR state
ozone season trading program differ from the corresponding CSAPR
federal trading program regulations in three main ways. First, the
applicability provisions in the Alabama rules require participation in
Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs only for units in Alabama, not
for units in any other state or in Indian country within the borders of
Alabama or any other state. Second, the Alabama rules set forth a
methodology for allocating emission allowances among Alabama units that
differs from the default allowance allocation provisions in the federal
trading program regulations.\36\ Finally, the Alabama rules omit a
number of federal trading program provisions not applicable to
Alabama's state trading programs, including: provisions setting forth
the amounts of emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and
variability limits for other states; provisions addressing EPA's
procedures for allocating allowances from Indian country NUSAs; and
provisions addressing EPA's recordation of certain allowance
allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA notes that in the CSAPR Update, the allocations of
Alabama's allowance budget to the state's units under the federal
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program were
determined using a methodology similar to the methodology in
Alabama's October 26, 2015 SIP submittal, 81 FR at 74564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the
Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The
letters and enclosures describe steps taken by Alabama to provide
public notice prior to adoption of the state rules.
    EPA has previously approved portions of Alabama's October 26, 2015,
submittal replacing the FIPs for the CSAPR NOX Annual
Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program
for Alabama.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittals

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking
action on the portions of Alabama's ozone season submittals designed to
replace the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program. The analysis discussed in this section addresses only the
portions of Alabama's ozone season submittals on which EPA is taking
action at this time. For simplicity, throughout this section EPA refers
to the portions of the submittals on which EPA is proposing to take
action as ``the Alabama ozone season submittals'' or ``the SIP
revisions'' without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA
is analyzing and proposing to act on only portions of the SIP
submittal.
1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    Together, the Alabama ozone season submittals seek in part to
replace the default allowance allocation provisions in the CSAPR
federal trading program regulations for ozone season NOX
emissions as applied to Alabama units with state regulations
establishing a different state-determined methodology, starting with
the control periods in 2019. Under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B), the
deadline for submission of state-determined allowance allocations for
the 2019 and 2020 control periods is June 1, 2018, which under Sec.
52.38(b)(9)(viii) makes December 1, 2017, the deadline for submission
to

EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-determined
allocations for those control periods. Alabama submitted its SIP
revisions on October 26, 2015 and May 19, 2017, and EPA has determined
that the submittals comply with the applicable minimum completeness
criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because
Alabama's SIP revisions were timely submitted and meet the applicable
completeness criteria, they meet the conditions under 40 CFR
52.38(b)(9)(viii) for timely submission of a complete SIP revision.
2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation
    Paragraph 335-3-8-.46(1) of the Alabama rules sets forth total
amounts of 13,211 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances
that would be allocated to Alabama units for each control period in
2019 and later years according to the allocation procedures set forth
under the remaining paragraphs of Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46 (Paragraph
335-3-8-.45(1) sets forth the same amounts as the respective state
emissions budgets, in conjunction with the corresponding variability
limits). These totals match the amounts of the Phase 2 emissions
budgets for Alabama established under the federal trading program
regulations for ozone NOX emissions, thereby addressing the
full quantities of allowances that could be allocated to Alabama units
under the default allocation provisions for the federal trading
programs.\38\ In addition, Alabama's rule--through provisions that
create an iterative process for allocating allowances--addresses the
disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country
NUSA. The allocation provisions in the Alabama rules therefore enable
Alabama's SIP revision to meet the condition under 40 CFR
52.38(b)(9)(iii) that the state's allocation or auction methodology
must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation by the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 40 CFR 97.810(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget
    As discussed in section IV.B.2 above, paragraph 335-3-8-.46(1) of
the Alabama rules sets forth the total amount of CSAPR Ozone Season
Group 2 NOX allowances to be allocated to Alabama units for
each control period under the state trading program and this amount
equals the amount of the ozone season NOX emissions budget
established for Alabama units under the CSAPR federal trading program
regulations. Although under the State's rules, Alabama will provide EPA
with allocations for allowances equal to the total amount of the state
budget, the State has clarified in its August 4, 2017, letter that,
under the State's interpretation of its rules, the allocations of a
portion of the total state budget equal to the Indian country NUSA are
to be implemented by EPA only if and when the total quantity of
allowances in the State's Indian country NUSA is released for state
allocation pursuant to 40 CFR 97.812(b)(10)(ii), and if that total
quantity of allowances is not released for state allocation, then the
State's allocations of that portion of the budget are void.\39\ To
clarify the separate, contingent nature of the State's allocations of
the Indian country NUSA allowances, the State will submit its
allocations of those allowances to the EPA as a separate set of
allocations from the allocations of the remaining allowances in the
state budget.\40\ EPA has not yet allocated or recorded CSAPR
allowances for the control periods in 2019 or later years. As
interpreted by the State, the allocation methodology in Alabama's SIP
revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(A)
that the total amount of allowances allocated under the SIP revision
(before the addition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an
Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's budget for the control
period less the amount of the Indian country NUSA for the state and any
allowances already allocated and recorded by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ August 4, 2017, Letter from R. Gore (ADEM) to B. Banister
(EPA, Region 4), available in the docket for this action.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.46(2)(a) through (d) of the Alabama rules
provide for all allowance allocations to Alabama units established
under the Alabama rules to be submitted to EPA by the following
deadlines: Allocations for the control periods in 2019 and 2020, by
June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, by
June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control periods, by June 1 of
the fourth or fifth year before the year of the control period. These
submission deadlines match or precede the submission deadlines
discussed in section III above (specifically, the deadlines under 40
CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B) for allocations to units considered existing
units for CSAPR purposes and the submission deadlines under Sec.
52.38(b)(9)(iii)(C) for allocations to other units). Alabama's SIP
revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR
52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B) and (C) requiring that the SIP revision provide for
submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA by the
deadlines specified in those provisions.
5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded
    The Alabama rules include no provisions allowing alteration of
allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and
no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded
by EPA under the federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting
the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(D).
6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions
    With the exception of the provisions addressing the allowance
allocation methodology discussed above, the Alabama state trading
program rules generally incorporate sections of the corresponding
federal trading program regulations by reference or set forth full text
that is very similar to the text in the corresponding federal trading
program regulations.\41\ Some of the differences between the Alabama
rules and the corresponding federal trading program regulations are
clearly non-substantive. For example, in instances where an Alabama
rule contains full text substituting for the text of a section of the
federal trading program regulations, the remaining Alabama rules adopt
cross-references to the full-text Alabama rule in place of cross-
references to the section of the federal trading program regulations
that would be replaced by the full-text Alabama rule. The Alabama rules
also contain definitions for certain terms used in the State trading
program's allocation provisions that are not used in the federal
trading program regulations, as expressly permitted under the CSAPR
regulations.\42\ Most of the remaining differences between the Alabama
rules and the corresponding sections of the federal trading program
regulations consist of non-substantive renumbering of the
provisions.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The CSAPR federal regulations explicitly provide that terms
in the federal CSAPR regulations that include ``CSAPR'' are
considered synonymous with otherwise identical terms in approved SIP
revisions that include ``TR'' instead of ``CSAPR''. 40 CFR 97.802
(introductory text).
    \42\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iv).
    \43\ Instances where Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules
omit provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations are
discussed in sections IV.B.7 and 9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the clearly non-substantive or expressly authorized

differences summarized above, a few of Alabama's rules contain other
differences from the federal trading program regulations. In each case,
EPA has determined that the changes do not represent substantive
changes to the federal trading program regulations. First, paragraphs
335-3-8-.40(1)(c), 335-3-8-.41(1)(a), and 335-3-8-.66(2)(a), of the
Alabama rules require Alabama units to submit certain petitions,
statements, and notices not only to EPA but also to the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management. In addition, paragraph 335-3-
8-.42(e) of the Alabama rules allow the Department to extend on-site
storage of records beyond five years. Because the additional
notification requirements do not alter the respective authorities or
responsibilities of EPA and the Department, EPA considers the
requirements to be non-substantive changes.
    Second, paragraphs 335-3-8-.52(2)(a), and 335-3-8-.55(2)(a) of the
Alabama rules provide that, like EPA, the Department will not
adjudicate certain private legal disputes. Because the Department is
not required to adjudicate such disputes under the federal trading
program regulations in any event, these additions to the text of the
state trading program rules merely clarify that the Department is not
undertaking a new adjudication responsibility under the state trading
programs. EPA therefore considers these additions to be non-substantive
changes.
    Third, paragraph 335-3-8-.61 of the Alabama rule substitutes
references to Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46(3)(i) (the Alabama rule
addressing units incorrectly allocated allowances). Because the Alabama
rule substitution seeks to replace 40 CFR 97.811(c) with 333-3-
8.46(3)(i), which in turn incorporates by reference 40 CFR 97.811(c),
EPA proposes to find that the provisions are substantively identical.
    Fourth, paragraph 335-3-8-.65 of the Alabama rules substitutes
references for Alabama rule 335-3-8-.41 (the Alabama rule covering
retired unit exemptions). This substitution is appropriate as it
substitutes Alabama's retired unit exemption for the CSAPR retired unit
exemptions at 40 CFR 97.805. With the exception of the notification
required above and changes related to identification of the state
trading program instead of the federal trading program, Alabama has
incorporated the text of 40 CFR 97.805 into Alabama Rule 335-3-8-.41.
Because the referenced provisions are substantively identical, EPA
proposes to determine that these substitutions have no substantive
effect.
    Finally, paragraphs 335-3-8-.42(2)(a) and (b) of the Alabama rules
substitute references to Alabama rule 335.3.16-.13(3) (the Alabama rule
addressing minor permit modification procedures) for references to 40
CFR 70.7(e)(2) (the minor permit modification procedures section of the
federal regulations governing state operating permit programs under CAA
title V) in the federal trading program regulations regarding title V
permit requirements. As applied to Alabama units only, the substituted
Alabama rule provisions are substantively identical to the provisions
in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) that would be replaced. Because in the context of
Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs these particular provisions need
to address only Alabama units and not units from other states
participating in the CSAPR trading programs, EPA proposes to determine
that these substitutions have no substantive effect.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily determined
that none of the textual additions or substitutions made to the CSAPR
federal trading program regulations in Alabama's corresponding CSAPR
state trading program rules are substantive, and that Alabama's SIP
revision therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9) of
making no substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading
program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance
allocations.
7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions
    With the following exceptions, the Alabama rules comprising
Alabama's CSAPR state trading program for ozone season NOx emissions
either incorporate by reference or adopt full-text replacements for all
of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.802 through 97.835. The first exception
is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46, which generally addresses the amount
of emissions budget and related quantities, omits the provisions of 40
CFR 97.810 setting forth the amounts of all emissions budgets, NUSAs,
Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states. Omission
of the budget, NUSA, Indian country NUSA, and variability limit
provisions for other states from state trading programs in which only
Alabama units participate does not undermine the completeness of the
state trading programs.
    The second exception is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46, generally
addressing allowance allocations, omits 40 CFR 97.811(b)(2) and
97.812(b), concerning EPA's administration of Indian country NUSAs.
Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading program rules
is required, as discussed in section IV.B.9 below.
    The third exception is that Alabama rule 335-3-8-.56, which
generally incorporates by reference the federal trading programs'
recordation schedule provisions, excludes from incorporation by
reference 40 CFR 97.821(a), (b), (h), (i) and (j) concerning EPA's
schedule for recording certain allowance allocations. The federal
trading program provisions at Sec.  97.821(a) and (b), which address
recordation of allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR
purposes of allowances for the compliance periods in 2017 and 2018, do
not need to be included in Alabama's state trading program rules
because those allocations have already been recorded. The federal
trading program provision at Sec.  97.821(h), which address recordation
of allocations from Indian country NUSAs, are appropriately excluded
from state trading programs because a state may not administer an
Indian country NUSA. The federal trading program provision at Sec.
97.821(i) and (j), which address recordation of second-round NUSA
allocations, are not needed in Alabama's state trading program rules
because Alabama would provide EPA the amounts of its NUSA allocations
on the earlier schedule applicable to allocations to units considered
existing units for CSAPR purposes.\44\ Omission of these provisions
from Alabama's state trading programs therefore does not undermine the
completeness of the state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For the same reason, Alabama's state rules could
permissibly omit 40 CFR 97.821(g), which address recordation of
first-round NUSA allocations. Note that notwithstanding the lack of
provisions addressing recordation of NUSA allocations in Alabama's
state trading program rules, EPA would retain authority to complete
the recordation of 2017 NUSA allocations to Alabama units because
EPA has already started recording allocations to Alabama units of
allowances for the compliance periods in 2017. See 40 CFR
52.38(b)(11)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because none of the omissions undermines the completeness of
Alabama's state trading programs and because, as discussed in section
IV.B.6 above, EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's SIP
revision makes no other substantive changes to the provisions of the
federal trading program regulations beyond the provisions addressing
allowance allocations, Alabama's SIP revision meets the condition under
40 CFR 52.38(b)(9) that the SIP revision must adopt complete state
trading program regulations substantively identical to the complete
federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.802 through

97.835, except for permissible differences in allowance allocation and/
or applicability provisions.
8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term ``State''
    Paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(a)1 of the Alabama rules substitute the
term ``the State of Alabama,'' and paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(b) of the
Alabama rules similarly substitute the term ``the State'' (meaning
Alabama), for the phrase ``a State (or Indian country within the
borders of such State)'' in the corresponding federal trading program
regulations at 40 CFR 97.810(a)(1) and (b). These provisions of the
Alabama rules define the units that are required to participate in
Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. The substitutions appropriately
exclude units located in other states and units located in Indian
country within the borders of Alabama or any other state, thereby
limiting the applicability of Alabama's state trading programs to units
that are subject to Alabama's jurisdiction. These substitutions do not
substantively change the provisions of CSAPR's federal trading program
regulations. The remaining Alabama rules do not substitute for the term
``State'' as used in the federal trading program regulations. EPA
proposes to find that Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the
condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(v) that the SIP revision may
substitute the name of the state for the term ``State'' as used in the
federal trading program regulations, but only to the extent that EPA
determines that the substitutions do not substantively change the
provisions of the federal trading program regulations.
9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country
    The Alabama rules do not set forth any full text provisions
directly addressing units in Indian country within the state's borders.
As discussed in section IV.B.8 above, paragraph 335-3-8-.40(1)(a)1 of
the Alabama rule define the units required to participate in Alabama's
state trading programs in a manner that appropriately excludes units
located in Indian country within Alabama's borders from coverage under
Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs. Although various other
provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations
incorporated by reference into the Alabama rules without modification
refer to units in Indian country, the clear exclusion of any such units
from coverage under the state trading program applicability
provisions--in other words, the fact that such units are not ``TR NOx
Ozone Season Group 2 units'' for purposes of the state trading
program--renders the remaining provisions of Alabama's state trading
program rules inoperative as to the units. EPA therefore interprets the
Alabama rules as not imposing any requirements on units located in
Indian country within the State's borders.
    As discussed in section IV.B.7 above, Alabama rule 335-3-8-.46,
which addresses allowance allocations under the state trading programs,
contains no provisions replacing 40 CFR 97.811(b)(2) or 97.812(b), the
portions of the federal trading program regulations governing
allocations of allowances from Indian country NUSAs. Thus, the Alabama
rules do not include any express state rule provisions concerning
administration of Indian country NUSAs. Further, Alabama rules 335-3-
8-.56, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading
programs' recordation schedule provisions, excludes 40 CFR 97.821(h),
addressing recordation of Indian country NUSA allocations. Similarly,
paragraph 335-3-8-.46(3)(i) of the Alabama rules, which incorporates by
reference the federal trading program regulations generally addressing
corrections of incorrect allocations, excludes 40 CFR
97.811(c)(5)(iii), addressing corrections of certain incorrect Indian
country NUSA allocations. EPA therefore interprets the Alabama state
rules as sufficiently excluding provisions addressing administration of
the Indian country NUSA provisions under the federal trading programs.
    In summary, EPA has preliminarily determined that Alabama's SIP
revision adequately meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(vi)
that a SIP submittal must not impose any requirement on any unit in
Indian country within the borders of the State and must exclude certain
provisions related to administration of Indian country NUSAs.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-
8-.70, state effective on June 9, 2017, comprising Alabama's TR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VI. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions the Alabama ozone season
submittals concerning the establishment for Alabama units of CSAPR
state trading programs for ozone season NOX emissions for
compliance periods in 2019 and later years. The proposed revision would
adopt into the SIP the state trading program rules codified in ADEM
Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70 (establishing
Alabama's ``TR NOX Ozone Group 2 Trading Program''), as
interpreted by the State in the August 5, 2017, clarification
letter.\45\ This Alabama CSAPR state trading program would be
integrated with the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program and would be substantively identical to the federal
trading program except with regard to the allowance allocation
provisions. If EPA approves these portions of the SIP revisions,
Alabama units would generally be required to meet requirements under
Alabama's CSAPR state trading program equivalent to the requirements
the units otherwise would have been required to meet under the
corresponding CSAPR federal trading program, but allocations to Alabama
units of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances for
compliance periods in 2019 and later years would be determined
according to the SIP's allocation provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-
8-.46 instead of EPA's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR
97.811(a), 97.811(b)(1), and 97.812(a). EPA is proposing to approve
these portions of the SIP revisions because, as clarified by the
State's August 4, 2017, letter, they meet the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision
replacing a federal trading program with a state trading program that
is integrated with and substantively identical to the federal trading
program except for permissible differences with respect to emission
allowance allocation provisions, as discussed in section IV above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The Alabama rules use the terms ``Transport Rule'' and
``TR'' instead of the updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule'' and ``CSAPR,'' which is permissible under the CSAPR Update.
81 FR at 74579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA promulgated the FIP provisions requiring Alabama units to
participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program in order to address Alabama's obligations under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

with respect to the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS in the absence of SIP provisions addressing those requirements.
Under the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA's full and unconditional approval
of a SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis
for a particular CSAPR FIP, the obligation to participate in the
corresponding CSAPR federal trading program is automatically eliminated
for units subject to the state's jurisdiction (but not for any units
located in any Indian country within the state's borders).\46\ Approval
of the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal adopting CSAPR state trading
program rules for ozone season NOX substantively identical
to the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations (or
differing only with respect to the allowance allocation methodology)
would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. This proposed approval would
also partially satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
8-hour Ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, the proposed approval
would correct the same deficiency in the SIP that otherwise would be
corrected by those CSAPR FIPs. The proposed approval of the portions of
Alabama's SIP submittal establishing CSAPR state trading program rules
for ozone season NOX emissions therefore would result in
automatic termination of the obligations of Alabama units to
participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 40 CFR 52.38(b)(10); see also 40 CFR 52.54(b)(1) & (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. 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. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17341 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                            Responsiveness Summary

Introduction 	 	A Notice of Intent to Partially Delete the surface and subsurface soils of the Queen City Farms Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2020 (85 FR 42343).  The publication of this notice was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to partially delete the surface and subsurface soils at the Site from the National Priorities List and provide a 30-day public comment period on the proposed partial deletion.  The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 13, 2020.  Three written comments were received. These comments are available in the docket. EPA also attended a virtual meeting with one local citizen group to provide them with additional information regarding the proposed action.  In addition, all public comments were considered in EPA's final decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

	The Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete (85 FR 42343) the surface and subsurface soils of the Queen City Farms Superfund Site.  The original comments are summarized below and available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - SFUND - 2005 -  0011, with the support materials under document type "Public Submissions".

 One commenter supported EPA's proposed partial deletion of soils from the NPL.

2a. One comment noted that the chlorinated solvents burned in the ponds may have produced dioxins and furans that were likely deposited on nearby soils. These compounds were not sampled for in the Remedial Investigation and may be present in undisturbed areas. The commenter requested that the deletion document note that the presence of dioxins and furans in undisturbed soils near the Final Containment Cell is unknown and, if residential use were allowed in this area, the area should be evaluated for dioxins in near surface soils prior to such approval .

Response:   The ROD limits the Final Containment Cell to industrial use.  In addition, the IC's in place restrict use Site-wide to industrial use.

b. The commenter noted that the cleanup level for Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils was established in the ROD at 1 μg/kg (microgram per kilogram), the practical quantification limit as of 1994. Since the 2018 Five Year Review, the state of Washington's soil cleanup levels for PAHs have been revised. The commenter requested that EPA evaluate whether the ROD cleanup level for PAHs is still protective. If it's not, they requested that the confirmation sampling results from the Buried Drum area outside the Final Containment Cell be re-evaluated to see if that area still meets risk-based cleanup levels.

Response:  In January 2017, , EPA lowered the cancer potency factor for carcinogenic PAHs based on changes to the toxicity values for benzo[a]pyrene in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. The information was used to inform the modification  to the state cleanup level. If the new cancer potency factor were applied, the level of risk associated with the ROD cleanup level of 1 mg/kg would be lower than that provided for in the ROD. As such, the ROD value continues to be protective.

 One commenter urged that the soils at QCF "not be de-listed".  He cited the unknowns identified in comment 2a above and potential future use of the land, both on-site and in the surrounding area.

   Response: See response 2a above. .  The ROD limits the Final Containment Cell to industrial use.  In addition, the IC's in place restrict use Site-wide to industrial use.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29145-29146]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0394]

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Flexible
Sleeper Berth Pilot Program

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA is seeking approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, FMCSA is requesting
comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of
information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of
public comment. FMCSA proposes a pilot program to allow temporary
regulatory relief from the Agency's sleeper berth regulation for a
limited number of commercial drivers who have a valid commercial
driver's license (CDL), and who regularly use a sleeper berth to
accumulate their required 10 hours of non-duty work status. During the
pilot program, participating drivers would have the option to split
their sleeper berth time within parameters specified by FMCSA. Driver
metrics would be collected for the duration of the study, and
participants' safety performance and fatigue levels would be analyzed.
This pilot program seeks to produce statistically reliable evidence on
the question as to whether split sleeper berth time affects driver
safety performance and fatigue levels.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2016-0394 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Michel, Research Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: Large, medium, and small motor carriers; independent
owner-operators; commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10 motor carrier responses; 1,000
CMV driver responses (this estimate includes responses to the online
application; not all of these drivers will be eligible or selected for
study participation).
    Estimated Time per Response: Motor carriers: 1 hour (one-time
response). Drivers: online application--15 minutes (one-time response);
background questionnaire and tax form--30 minutes (one-time response);
daily field study data collection--30 minutes (daily, for a maximum of
90 days); weekly phone briefings--10 minutes (once weekly, for a
maximum of 13 weeks); debriefing questionnaire--15 minutes (one-time
response).
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new information collection request
(ICR).
    Frequency of Response: Motor carriers: One-time response. Drivers:
Varies; will not exceed daily responses for 90 days (see ``Estimated
Time for Response'' for more details).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,423 hours (7 hours for carrier
tasks and 4,416 hours for driver tasks). The total annual number of
carrier responses is seven. Reviewing the study materials and granting
permission for drivers to participate is estimated to take 1 hour per
carrier. Participating driver burden is associated with completing the
online application, background questionnaire, daily data collection
during the field study period, weekly phone briefings, and debriefing
questionnaire. The online application is estimated to take 15 minutes,
the background questionnaire and tax form (completed together) is
estimated to take 30 minutes, and the debriefing questionnaire is
estimated to take 15 minutes. Daily data collection during the field
study is estimated to take 30 minutes per day, for up to 90 days.
Weekly phone briefings are estimated to take 10 minutes per week. It is
estimated that 40 drivers will participate for 14 days, 75 drivers will
participate for 30 days, 75 drivers will participate for 60 days, and
50 drivers will participate for the maximum 90 days.

I. Background

    As described in 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1), a driver who operates a
property-carrying CMV equipped with a sleeper berth \1\ and who uses
the sleeper berth provision must take at least 8 consecutive hours in
the sleeper berth, plus a separate 2 consecutive hours either in the
sleeper berth, off duty, or any combination of the two, before
returning to on-duty status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``sleeper berth'' is a sleeping compartment installed on a
CMV that complies with the specifications in 49 CFR 393.76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During listening sessions for the hours-of-service (HOS)
rulemaking, the

Agency heard from many drivers that they would like some regulatory
flexibility to be able to sleep when they get tired or as a
countermeasure to traffic congestion (i.e., an exemption from the
requirement for consolidated sleeper berth time). FMCSA has reviewed
the literature and conducted its own laboratory studies on the subject.
The majority of sleep studies to date demonstrate that well-timed split
sleep has either a positive or no effect on subsequent neurobehavioral
performance. To determine whether split sleeper berth time affects
driver safety performance and fatigue levels, FMCSA is introducing a
pilot program to allow temporary regulatory relief from 49 CFR
395.1(g)(1) (the sleeper berth provision) for a limited number of
commercial drivers who have valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs)
and who regularly use sleeper berths.

II. Abstract of Pilot Program

    The Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot Program requires that
participating drivers be provided relief from Part 395 concerning
consolidated sleeper berth time requirements. Participating drivers
will be asked if they have completed the Driver Education Module of the
North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP) prior to study
enrollment. If drivers have not completed the program, they will be
given information on the program and encouraged, but not required, to
complete these modules prior to participation in the study. During the
pilot program, participating drivers will have the option to split
their sleeper berth time, within parameters specified by FMCSA (i.e.,
participants will have exemption from the requirement for consolidated
sleeper berth time). Driver metrics will be collected for the duration
of the study, as discussed in Section III of this notice. Upon
completion of the program, participants' safety performance and fatigue
levels will be analyzed, according to provision use, using a ``within-
subject and between-subject'' study design. In this analysis, drivers
will be compared among themselves and against other participating
drivers. This pilot program seeks to produce statistically reliable
evidence of the relationship between the degree of HOS flexibility and
safety outcomes.

III. Data Collection Plan

    Details of the data collection plan for this pilot program are
subject to change based on comments to the docket and further review by
analysts. Participating drivers will drive an instrumented vehicle for
up to 3 consecutive months. At a minimum, FMCSA will gather the
following data during the study:
     Electronic logging device (ELD) data, to evaluate duty
hours and timing, driving hours and timing, rest breaks, off-duty time,
and restart breaks.
     Onboard monitoring system (OBMS) data, to evaluate driving
behaviors, safety-critical events (or SCEs, which include crashes,
near-crashes, and other safety-related events), reaction time, fatigue,
lane deviations, and traffic density, road curvature, and speed
variability.
     Roadside violation data (from carriers and drivers),
including vehicle, duty status, hazardous materials, and cargo-related
violations (contingent upon inspections).
     Wrist actigraphy data,\2\ to evaluate total sleep time,
time of day sleep was taken, sleep latency, and intermittent
wakefulness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Participants will wear wrist actigraphy devices (similar to
commercially available smart fitness watches) throughout their time
in the study. Actigraphy is a minimally obtrusive, validated
approach to assessing sleep/wake patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) \3\ data, to evaluate
drivers' behavioral alertness based on reaction times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For this study, drivers will be required to complete daily
iterations of a brief PVT, a 3-minute behavioral alertness test
which measures drivers' alertness levels by timing their reactions
to visual stimuli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subjective sleepiness ratings, using the Karolinska
Sleepiness Scale (KSS),\4\ to measure drivers' perceptions of their
fatigue levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The KSS is a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from
``extremely alert'' to ``extremely sleepy'' and has been widely used
in the literature as a subjective assessment of alertness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sleep logs, in which drivers will document when they are
going to sleep, when they wake up, and whether they are using the
sleeper berth. For split-sleep days, drivers will record how and why
they chose to split their sleep.
    Other information that may be needed, such as vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), will also be collected through the participating
carrier. Every effort will be made to reduce the burden on the carrier
in collecting and reporting this data.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC)
activities until they analyze the need for the collection of
information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must
also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden
imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time
burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time
required to complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC
analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal ICR; the Agency cannot
conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.

V. Request for Public Comments

    FMCSA asks for comment on the IC requirements of this study.
Comments can be submitted to the docket as outlined under ADDRESSES at
the beginning of this notice. You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including:
    1. Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance
of FMCSA's functions.
    2. The accuracy of the estimated burden.
    3. Ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity
of the collected information.
    4. Ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information.
    5. Whether the data collection efforts proposed for carriers and
drivers are burdensome enough to discourage their participation.
    6. How data collection efforts should differ for team drivers.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 20, 2017.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2017-13453 Filed 6-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57708-57709]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4666-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Minnesota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4666-DR), dated August 9,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 9, 2022.

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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 9, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Minnesota resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds,
tornadoes, and flooding during the period of May 29-30, 2022, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Minnesota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.

Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brian F. Schiller, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Aitkin, Big Stone, Cass, Chippewa, Crow Wing, Douglas, Grant,
Itasca, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Lyon, Nobles, Pine, Pope,
Renville, Rock, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wadena, and Yellow
Medicine Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Minnesota are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-20365 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P