[Federal Register: September 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 57508-57509]
[DOCID:fr29se06-79]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0018; FRL-8225-9]

Air Quality Criteria for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a document titled, ``Air
Quality Criteria for Lead'' (EPA/600/R-05/144aC-bC) (AQCD for Lead).
The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development.

ADDRESSES: The ``Air Quality Criteria for Lead'' will be available
primarily via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental
Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and Publications
menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-ROM or paper

copies will be available. Contact Ms. Diane Ray by phone (919-541-
3637), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>), or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request
either of these, and please provide your name, your mailing address,
and the document title, ``Air Quality Criteria for Lead'' (EPA/600/R-
05/144aC-bC) to facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact
Lori White, PhD, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 919-541-
1818; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs
the Administrator to identify certain air pollutants, which ``may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare'' and
to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are
to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air * *. *.'' Under section 109 of the Act,
EPA is then to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of
the Act requires subsequent periodic review and, if appropriate,
revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in
scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health
and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on
the revised criteria.
    Lead is one of six ``criteria'' pollutants for which EPA has
established air quality criteria and NAAQS. On November 9, 2004 (69 FR
64926), EPA formally initiated its current review of the criteria and
NAAQS for lead, requesting the submission of recent scientific
information on specified topics. A draft of EPA's ``Project Work Plan
for Revised Air Quality Criteria for Lead'' (NCEA-R-1465) was released
on January 7, 2005, for public comment (70 FR 1439) and was discussed
by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) via a publicly
accessible teleconference consultation on March 28, 2005 (70 FR 11629).
On July 15, 2005 (70 FR 41007), several workshops were announced to
discuss, with invited recognized scientific experts, initial draft
materials that dealt with various lead-related issues being addressed
in the draft AQCD for lead.

These workshops were held August 4-5, 16-18, and 17-19, 2005.
Availability of the first external review draft of the Air Quality
Criteria for Lead (EPA/600/R-05/144aA-bA), was announced in the Federal
Register on December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72300). The CASAC Lead Review Panel
reviewed the first external review draft at a public meeting on
February 28 and March 1, 2006.
    EPA considered comments of the CASAC review panel and the public in
revising the draft AQCD for lead. Availability of the second external
review draft of the Air Quality Criteria for Lead (EPA/600/R-05/144aB-
bB), was announced in the Federal Register on May 19, 2006 (71 FR
29152). The CASAC Lead Review Panel reviewed the second external review
draft at a public meeting on June 28, 2006. EPA provided revised
Integrative Synthesis and Executive Summary chapters of the draft AQCD
for Lead to the public and CASAC for review in July 2006. The CASAC
Lead Review Panel met via a publicly accessible teleconference on
August 15, 2006, to review these revised chapters (71 FR 40516). EPA
has considered the comments of the CASAC Lead Review Panel and of the
public in preparing the final Air Quality Criteria for Lead.

    Dated: September 25, 2006.
George W. Alapas,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E6-16060 Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39842-39843]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3211-010]

Power Authority of the State of New York; Notice of Waiver Period
for Water Quality Certification Application

    On June 1, 2023, the Power Authority of the State of New York
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a
copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water
quality certification filed with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the
above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 5.23(b)
of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify the New York DEC
of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: May 26, 2023.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (May 26, 2024).
    If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request

on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is
deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: June 13, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13078 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 57 (Friday, March 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 16203]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-625-000.
    Applicants: Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC.
    Description: Petition For Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20210317-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-626-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Interruptible Revenue
Crediting Report 2021.
    Filed Date: 3/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210318-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-627-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 3.18.21 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC R-4090-22 to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210318-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-629-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Annual Revenue Crediting Filing of Enable Gas
Transmission.
    Filed Date: 3/18/21.
    Accession Number: 20210318-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 19, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06260 Filed 3-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0340 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1692.05 9. Keywords Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control 10. Abstract This rule applies to petroleum refineries that are major sources of HAPs. Respondents are required to submit one time reports of start of construction, anticipated and actual start up dates, and physical or operational changes to existing facilities. In addition, respondents must submit three types of reports: ( 1) Notification of Compliance Status, ( 2) Periodic Reports, and ( 3) Other event triggered reports. In addition, respondents are required to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the following rules: either 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for equipment leaks ( which include an initial report and semiannual summaries of leak detection and repair); 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF for wastewater operations; portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R for gasoline loading racks; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y for marine tank vessel loading operations. All records are to be maintained at the facility for at least 5 years. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 134 b. Total annual responses 489 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 410,054 d. Current OMB inventory 469,430 e. Difference ( 59,376) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment ( 59,376) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 542 e. Difference ( 542) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment ( 542)

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. X Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dan Chadwick Phone: 202 564 7054 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45202-45203]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0138]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 27 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on June 17, 2019. The exemptions
expire on June 17, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0138 in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. 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.

II. Background

    On May 14, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 27 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (84 FR
21395). The public comment period ended on June 13, 2019, and one
comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971
to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a
hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3,
1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Michael Millard,
President/CSO AWM Associates, LLC, noted the FMCSA has taken award of
the hearing exemption too far by awarding it to deaf persons who have
never operated a CMV. He feels the Agency's decision to issue hearing
exemptions to non-CDL holders is imposing requirements on motor
carriers and training academies beyond their control that affect the
applicant's safety, and feels FMCSA should carefully examine the nature
of trucking and the applicant's safety before exposing both applicant
and public to increased safety risk. The Agency previously addressed
this same concern in response to comments provided by the Commercial
Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) on December 29, 2017, (82 FR
61809). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records
from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The records for each
applicant who has been granted a hearing exemption demonstrate that the
driver has a safe driving history. Therefore, the Agency believes that
these drivers do not pose a risk to public safety and that granting the
exemption achieves a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. Although
we acknowledge these concerns, the lack of any technology or
accommodations that would enable institutions to train hard of hearing
and deaf drivers is not evidence that FMCSA should no longer grant
hearing exemptions. In fact, the Agency is aware of several States that
currently conduct CDL skills testing on hard of hearing and deaf
drivers, each utilizing different methods. In an effort to make this
information available to others, FMCSA is working with the AAMVA to
develop a resource guide for administering the CDL skills test to hard
of hearing and deaf drivers.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11)
if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of
safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption
allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and

Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), for commercial driver's
license (CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency
reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency
(SDLA). Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history.
Based on an individual assessment of each applicant that focused on
whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by
permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as
opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce,
the Agency believes the drivers granted this exemption have
demonstrated that they do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA;
and (3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus
with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition,
the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the
applicable CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 27 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Selwyn Abrahamson, (MN)
Oluwatobim Akinsanya, (NJ)
Dennis J. Ayers, (MD)
Cesare Belardi, (PA)
Robert M. Benner, (OH)
Jubal Carnley, (FL)
Jason M. Clark, (MO)
Erik De Leon, (TX)
Kareem M. Douglas, (OH)
Jacob Gadreault, (MA)
Boris D. Garth, (AL)
Lane Grover, (IN)
Michael S. Haywood, (TX)
David J. Jabubowski, (CA)
Scott W. Lufkin, (NC)
Billie Jo Martinez, (TX)
Steve Martinez, (CO)
Sergio Miramontes, (CA)
Jonathan A. Muhm, (CA)
Karl Ortiz, (MO)
Andreas Shije, (NM)
Mildred A. Smith, (AR)
Joseph Strassburg, (SD)
James Thomason, (MO)
Gerald Wager, Jr. (NC)
Jeremy A. Williamson Sr. (CA)
Matthew Whitehouse, (WA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

     Issued on: August 16, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-18569 Filed 8-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51330-51331]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20501]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0093; FRL-9916-00-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 29,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0093, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket Information Center, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Childers, Office of Air and
Radiation, Immediate Office, (6101A), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
202-564-1082; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 27, 2014, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5
CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on
this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0093, which is available for public viewing on-line
at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Please note
that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business
Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Clean Air Act Tribal Authority.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1676.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0306.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 08/31/2014. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) seeks
authorization for tribes to demonstrate their eligibility to be treated
in the same manner as states under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to
submit applications to implement a CAA program. This ICR extends the
collection period of information for determining eligibility, which
expires August 31, 2014. The ICR maintains the estimates of burden
costs for tribes in completing a CAA application.
    The program regulation provides for Indian tribes, if they so
choose, to assume responsibility for the development and implementation
of CAA programs. The regulation, Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning
and Management (Tribal Authority Rule [TAR] 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50
and 81) sets forth how tribes may seek authority to implement their own
air quality planning and management programs. The rule establishes: 1)
Which CAA provisions Indian tribes may seek authority to implement, 2)
what requirements the tribes must meet when seeking such authorization,
and 3) what Federal financial assistance may be available to help
tribes establish and manage their air quality programs. The TAR
provides tribes the authority to administer air quality programs over
all air resources, including non-Indian owned fee lands, within the
exterior boundaries of a reservation and other areas over which the
tribe can demonstrate jurisdiction. An Indian tribe that takes
responsibility for a CAA program would essentially be treated in the
same way as a state would be treated for that program.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Responses to the collection of information are required to obtain a
benefit (40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50 and 81). Any information submitted
to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40,
Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality of

Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976;
amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20,
1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). There is no sensitive information
required.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40
hours per response. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Respondents/
Affected Entities: States, locals, Indian tribes.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.
    Frequency of Response: One-time application.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 320.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $18,896.00, includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: August 22, 2014.
John Moses,
Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-20501 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 22477]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4697-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4697-DR), dated March 26, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 30, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 26, 2023.

    Carroll, Humphreys, Monroe, and Sharkey Counties for permanent
work [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance
and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program).
    Montgomery and Panola Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Montgomery and Panola Counties for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-07789 Filed 4-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74356-74361]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26331]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0201; FRL-10437-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), through a letter dated June 1, 2021. The SIP
submittal proposes to revise SIP requirements regarding the
installation, maintenance, and termination of ambient air sulfur
dioxide (SO2) monitors near large industrial SO2
emitting sources in the State. EPA is proposing to approve these
changes to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR)
related to the control of SO2 emissions into the SIP because
they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0201 at 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 www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josue Ortiz, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8085. Mr. Ortiz can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Chapter 1200-3-14 of TAPCR regulates SO2 emissions
within the State. Under the General Provisions of this chapter, TAPCR
1200-03-14-.01(6) requires every owner or operator of certain large
fuel burning installations and process emission sources to: (1)
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Secretary that their
SO2 emissions will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of any air quality standard, and (2) install and maintain
air quality sensors to monitor attainment and maintenance of ambient
air quality standards in the areas influenced by their SO2
emissions. This rule also allows owners or operators to petition the
Technical Secretary to terminate ambient monitoring previously
commenced provided certain conditions are met.
    As explained in more detail below, TDEC's June 1, 2021, SIP
submittal proposes changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6), which is
related to the control of SO2 emissions in the State of

Tennessee. Specifically, the submission proposes changes to Tennessee's
ambient SO2 monitoring requirements for affected emission
sources, including adding a provision to require the use of permitted
allowable SO2 emissions for the demonstration that subject
sources are required to make to show that their SO2
emissions will not cause interference with attainment and maintenance
of any air quality standard, the removal of a less than 20,000 tons per
year (tpy) threshold to qualify for the termination of monitors, the
addition of a data completeness requirement for the two years of
ambient data collected prior to termination of monitoring, and the
addition of an exemption for any fuel burning installation or process
emission source located in an area in which the Technical Secretary
operates one or more ambient SO2 air quality monitors in the
area under the influence of the source's emissions. Tennessee's SIP
submittal also provides a CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration to show that the proposed changes to paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6) will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of any NAAQS and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any
other applicable CAA requirement. Lastly, the SIP includes clarifying
administrative changes to the regulatory language at paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6).

II. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision
\1\ adopting changes to the General Provisions (Section 1200-03-14-.01)
of TAPCR Chapter 1200-03-14, Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, which
were adopted on June 3, 2009, and May 31, 2021. The SIP submission
proposes to revise Tennessee's general provisions for characterizing
SO2 emissions through ambient air monitoring near fuel
burning installations \2\ with a specific rated capacity or process
emission sources that emit a specific emission level of SO2.
EPA proposes to approve this SIP revision because the Agency
preliminarily finds that the changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) are
consistent with the CAA and will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment of the SO2 NAAQS and RFP
or any other applicable CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the June 1, 2021, SIP revision was received
by the Regional Office on June 15, 2021. However, for clarity, EPA
will reference the submission by its cover letter date of June 1,
2021.
    \2\ TAPCR 1200-3-2-.01, General Definitions, defines ``fuel
burning installation'' as one or more units of fuel-burning
equipment where the products of combustion are discharged through a
single stack or where the products of combustion are discharged
through more than one stack the plumes from which tend to merge into
a single plume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Tennessee's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

A. Summary of Existing Paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)

    The current SIP-approved version of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)
applies to owners or operators of large fuel burning installations with
a total rated capacity greater than 1,000 million British thermal units
per hour (MMBtu/hr) or process emission sources that emit greater than
1,000 tpy of SO2, starting in 1972 and thereafter. The
following three subparagraphs of the rule describe the requirements
these facilities must meet.
    As described in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6),
these sources are required to demonstrate that they will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, either
alone or in combination with other SO2 sources in the area.
    Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires subject
sources to install and maintain ambient air SO2 monitors in
areas influenced by their emissions. This subparagraph also allows
sources to petition the Tennessee Technical Secretary \3\ to shut down
these industrial SO2 monitors based on two years of air
quality data within the area of influence of the source's emissions
under certain conditions. As described in subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b), such petitions may be granted only if the following three
conditions are met: (1) the actual SO2 emissions from a fuel
burning installation do not exceed 20,000 tpy; (2) the source is not
located in a nonattainment area, and does not significantly impact a
nonattainment area; and (3) the monitored SO2 concentrations
in the vicinity of the source do not exceed 75 percent of the Tennessee
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ TAPCR 1200-03-02-.01. General Definitions, defines
``Technical Secretary'' as the Technical Secretary of the Air
Pollution Control Board of the State of Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires
that any calculations performed to demonstrate that sources, either
alone or in contribution to other sources, will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of any primary or secondary air quality
standard must be based on the assumption that the source is operating
at maximum rated capacity.
    Sources in Tennessee that meet applicability requirements of
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) include large fuel burning installations
(identified by Tennessee as electric generating units (EGUs)) and
process or manufacturing emission sources (non-EGUs). The existing
subject sources consist of seven EGUs operated by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) and three non-EGU sources. Tennessee includes in its
submission a list of the EGUs and non-EGUs in the State that meet the
applicability criteria of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6).\4\ The list
includes the SO2 attainment status for each area where these
sources are located and each facility's ambient monitoring status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The list of affected sources can be found in Table 1,
Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule Changes, under the CAA
section 110(l) demonstration included with the State's submission.
The June 1, 2021, submission, including the 110(l) demonstration,
can be found in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Tennessee's June 1, 2021, Proposed Changes to Paragraph
1200-03-14-.01(6)

    Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP submission proposes to amend Chapter
1200-03-14, Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, by modifying paragraph
(6) of Section 1200-03-14-.01, General Provisions. The submission also
includes a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration, discussed
in more detail in Section III.C of this preamble, to show that the
proposed changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) in the Tennessee SIP
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS and RFP or any other applicable
CAA requirement. The following paragraphs discuss these revisions more
specifically.
    Paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) is revised to replace ``calendar year
1972 or any other calendar year thereafter'' with ``any calendar
year.'' This change simply removes the obsolete year 1972 for which an
affected source would have to reach the required rated capacity or the
1,000 tpy emission threshold in order to be covered under this rule.
Additionally, minor administrative changes were applied to this
paragraph and a reference is added to point to the new applicability
exception under subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) described below.
    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (a) of
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires affected sources subject to this
rule to demonstrate that SO2 emissions from these sources
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS, either alone or in combination with other SO2
sources. The June 1, 2021, SIP submission adds a sentence to

subparagraph (a) stating that ``Any such demonstration must be based on
the allowable emission rate specified in the source's construction or
operating permit(s) and the source's maximum rated capacity.'' The
requirement that the demonstration will be based on maximum rated
capacity is moved from SIP-approved subparagraph (c) which is now
deleted and reserved. Subparagraph (a) adds language that provides that
any such demonstrations will be based on a source's allowable
emissions, which is limited by the source's maximum rated capacity and
any enforceable emission limits. The latter is determined by either
requirements for new or modified sources under construction permit
programs or by applicable requirements incorporated into title V
operating permits for the sources covered under Rule 1200-03-
14-.01(6).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These applicable requirements include requirements under
Tennessee's SIP, including limitations on SO2 emissions
for fuel burning and process installations that are specified in
TAPCR 1200-3-14-.02 and 1200-3-14-.03, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (b) of
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) establishes the requirement for owners and
operators of affected sources to install and maintain SO2
air quality monitors, provides the criteria for reporting monitored
SO2 data to the state air agency, and states that owners and
operators may petition the Technical Secretary to terminate operation
of a SO2 monitor based on two calendar years of air quality
data and compliance with other specific criteria. See TAPCR 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b). The proposed amendments at subparagraph (b) clarify that
owners or operators must provide two complete calendar years of data
from the cited monitor in the area of influence of the SO2
source. The revision also defines the term ``complete'' for the purpose
of this subparagraph to mean that all data was collected in accordance
with the collection, completeness, and quality assurance requirements
specified in the affected source's title V operating permit.
    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (b) of
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) also allows source owners or operators to
petition to terminate operation of an SO2 monitor in the
source's area of influence. The Technical Secretary may grant the
petition if three criteria are met: (1) Actual SO2 emissions
from a fuel burning installation do not exceed 20,000 tpy; (2) the
source is located in an attainment area and does not significantly
impact a sulfur dioxide nonattainment area; and (3) measurements of air
quality in the vicinity of the source demonstrate that ambient
SO2 levels do not exceed 75 percent of the Tennessee Ambient
Air Quality Standards. The June 1, 2021, proposed amendment removes the
first criterion, that actual SO2 emissions for fuel burning
installations do not exceed 20,000 tpy, as a mandatory prerequisite to
granting a petition to terminate operation of a monitor.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The criterion under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) was removed from
the Tennessee state regulations on June 13, 2009. A copy of the 2008
public notice for the amendment to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) is
included in Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision which proposes to
remove the provision from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the rule also add a new provision at
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) that exempts owners or operators from
the requirement to install and maintain an SO2 ambient air
monitor in the area under the influence of the applicable source, as
required by 1200-03-14-.01(b), if the Technical Secretary operates one
or more ambient SO2 air quality monitors in the area under
the influence of the source's emissions.
    Tennessee explains in its section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration that SO2 emission levels in the State have
decreased significantly over the last ten years due to several air
quality improvements such that the SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. See section III.C, below, for
EPA's review and analysis of Tennessee's SIP submission, including its
non-interference demonstration.

C. CAA Section 110(l) Non-Interference Demonstration

    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits approval of a SIP revision if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision includes a CAA section 110(l)
non-interference demonstration for the removal of item (1) of
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b), which eliminates one of three
criteria required for terminating operation of an industrial
SO2 monitor, and for adding a new subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(d), which would exempt subject sources from the requirement
to install an SO2 monitor if the state air agency operates
one or more SO2 monitors in the area under the influence of
the source. Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration is intended to
show that the changes to Rule 1200-03-14-.01(6) will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance, RFP, or any other applicable CAA
requirement. Because Rule 1200-03-14-.01(6) is part of the Tennessee
SIP, the requirements of CAA section 110(l) must be satisfied before
EPA can approve changes to the existing ambient monitoring
requirements. EPA has reviewed Tennessee's SIP revision and
preliminarily finds the submission consistent with CAA section 110(l).
EPA's review and assessment of Tennessee's CAA 110(l) demonstration is
provided in Sections III.C.1 and 2.
1. CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration for Proposed Changes to
Subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)
    Tennessee's June 1, 2021, submission includes a demonstration to
show that removing the 20,000 tpy emission threshold criterion at item
(1) of subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b), which is one of three
required conditions that must be met for the Technical Secretary to
grant approval of a petition to terminate operation of the
SO2 monitor, is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration indicates that SO2
levels in the State have dropped markedly over the last decade due to
enforceable control measures and retirement of coal-burning
installations, which have resulted in a significant reduction in
SO2 emissions such that the removal of the 20,000 tpy
threshold in item (1) of subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 standard
in the State.
    Table 1 of the section 110(l) demonstration identifies seven EGUs
and three non-EGU SO2 emitting sources in Tennessee as
sources affected by the proposed changes to the requirements of
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6). Some of these facilities petitioned the
Technical Secretary to terminate the operation of their respective
SO2 industrial monitors, and those petitions were granted.
Table 1 indicates that a petition to terminate the operation of
SO2 monitors was granted to six facilities in 2008 and to
one facility in 2019. Table 1 identifies two facilities, Eastman
Chemical Company (Eastman) and Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc. (Nyrstar), as
operating monitors, and the 110(l) demonstration also states that these
are the only sources currently required to perform ambient monitoring
pursuant to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TDEC confirmed that Eastman no longer operates a monitor, so
Nyrstar is the only facility currently subject to Rule 1200-03-
14-.01(6) with an industrial SO2 monitor. See emails
dated June 10, 2022, included in the docket for this proposed
action.

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

    The seven EGUs listed in Table 1 are TVA fossil plants Allen, Bull
Run, Cumberland, Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and Kingston.
Actual SO2 emissions from each of these facilities were less
than 20,000 tpy during most of the years between 2013 and 2019, as
shown in Table 3 of Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration. The two
facilities that exceeded 20,000 tpy during certain years, TVA
Johnsonville and Gallatin, subsequently either retired their coal-
burning units or added SO2 emission controls.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ TVA Johnsonville's actual emissions where above 20,000 tpy
in 2015, but all coal-fired units were retired by December 31, 2017.
SO2 emissions for 2018 and 2019 were 2 and 3 tpy,
respectively. Additionally, TVA Gallatin's actual emissions where
above 20,000 tpy in 2013, but SO2 controls were installed
at Gallatin Fossil Plant in 2016. Gallatin is subject to an
SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu (40 CFR part 63
Subpart UUUUU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the seven EGUs, TVA John Sevier, Johnsonville and Allen,
have retired their coal-fired units or replaced them with natural gas
combined cycle plants in 2012, 2017, and 2018, respectively. As shown
in Table 3 of Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration, SO2
emissions from these facilities have been extremely low following these
changes.
    The other four EGUs, TVA Bull Run, Kingston, Cumberland, and
Gallatin, still operate coal-fired units, but actual SO2
emissions from all four of these sources show a declining trend and
that emissions were well below the 20,000 tpy threshold from 2016
through 2019.\9\ These facilities are all subject to an SO2
emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu pursuant to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for coal and oil-fired
EGUs at 40 CFR part 63 Subpart UUUUU. TDEC notes that compliance with
40 CFR part 63 Subpart UUUUU limits emissions from Bull Run, Kingston,
and Gallatin to less than 20,000 tpy based on the sources' allowable
SO2 emissions at nominal heat input (i.e., heat input
capacity by design).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Table 3 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
    \10\ See Table 4 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting that TVA Cumberland has allowable SO2 emissions
greater than 20,000 tpy despite the limitations of 40 CFR part 63
Subpart UUUUU, Tennessee reviewed long-term emission trends of this
facility to assess the likelihood that its emissions would ever exceed
the threshold. The long-term SO2 emission trends for TVA
Cumberland from 1995 through 2019 show that the source's SO2
emissions have not exceeded 20,000 tpy since 1998 and that emissions
have been below 10,000 tpy most years since 2011, and only slightly
above 10,000 tpy in two years during this time period.\11\ Cumberland's
2020 and 2021 actual SO2 emissions continue to be below
10,000 tpy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Figure 1 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
    \12\ See https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Eastman and Resolute FP, Inc. (Resolute) facilities are fuel-
burning installations and are the only existing non-EGU emission
sources that would potentially have to comply with paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b)(1) to be eligible to request termination of their
requirement to operate an SO2 monitor.\13\ The permitted
allowable emissions of both facilities are limited to less than 20,000
tpy, as described below. Eastman, however, would not meet the criteria
for termination under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) at this time because it is
located in an SO2 nonattainment area (see Section II.C.2.
for further discussion of Eastman).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Nyrstar facility, a zinc refinery in Clarksville,
Tennessee, is not a fuel-burning installation and is not affected by
subparagraph (b)(1) because it only applies to fuel burning
installations.
    \14\ TDEC's 110(l) demonstration also includes information
showing that Eastman's emissions are currently well below 20,000
tpy. TDEC points to a combined emissions limit and replacing coal-
fired boilers with natural gas boilers at the B-253 boiler house
resulting in an SO2 emission decrease from 21,246 tpy in
2012 to 4,510 tpy in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Resolute facility is a paper mill in Calhoun (McMinn County),
Tennessee. Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision indicates that
SO2 emissions from Resolute's power boilers F1, F2, and F3
are limited to 4,562 tons (total for all three boilers) during any
period of 12 consecutive calendar months and that the multi-fuel boiler
is limited to 489.7 tpy. Resolute's permitted allowable emission limits
are also below the 20,000 tpy threshold proposed for removal at
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1), and the facility ceased burning
coal in 2013, which further indicates that the facility's potential to
exceed the 20,000 tpy threshold is unlikely in the future. For the two
non-EGU fuel burning installations, Eastman and Resolute, allowable
emissions are limited to less than 20,000 tpy, and recent add-on
controls and additional planning considerations indicate the sources
are not expected to exceed the emission threshold in the future.
    TDEC's review of sources subject to 1200-03-14-.01(6) indicates
that enforceable SO2 emission reduction measures have
resulted in a consistent downward trend of actual and/or allowable
SO2 emissions that are well below the 20,000 tpy threshold
at of 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1). The emission reduction measures include
federal emission standards and emission limits based on repowering to
natural gas. EPA's review of 2020 and 2021 actual SO2
emissions data for the seven TVA sources also confirms a continuous
declining trend in recent years.
    In the future, any new or modified fuel burning installations
constructed in Tennessee that would meet the applicability criteria of
1200-03-14-.01(6) would be subject to pre-construction permitting
requirements and, potentially, New Source Performance Standards that
would limit SO2 emissions. It is expected that many of these
larger new or modified sources would be subject to major new source
review (major NSR) and, in this process, would be required to show that
their emissions will not interfere with the NAAQS, or if subject to
nonattainment new source review, obtain offsetting emission reductions.
In addition, the demonstration required under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(a) that
SO2 emissions from these sources will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, either alone or
in combination with other SO2 sources, is still required for
all subject sources.
    In summary, of the ten facilities Tennessee has identified as
either affected by the proposed revisions to paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6): three (TVA John Sevier, Johnsonville and Allen) have retired
their coal-fired units or replaced them with natural gas combined cycle
plants and have extremely low SO2 emissions; three (TVA Bull
Run, Kingston, and Gallatin) have allowable SO2 emissions
less than 20,000 tpy based on compliance with 40 CFR part 63 Subpart
UUUUU; one (TVA Cumberland) is also subject to 40 CFR part 63 Subpart
UUUUU and has demonstrated actual SO2 emissions below or
near 10,000 tpy since 2011; two (Eastman and Resolute) have permitted
allowable emissions less than 20,000 tpy; and one (Nyrstar) is not
subject to the 20,000 tpy threshold criterion. In addition, nine of
these facilities have already removed their monitors. For these reasons
and based on the supporting information stated earlier in this
preamble, EPA preliminarily concurs that the proposed removal of the
20,000 tpy emission threshold criteria at subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b)(1) will not result in an increase in actual SO2
emissions or deteriorate the current air quality in the vicinity of the
applicable sources. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's
section 110(l) non-interference demonstration adequately shows that the
proposed changes at

1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) will not interfere with any requirement
concerning attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, RFP,
or any other CAA requirement in the State.
2. CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration for Proposed Addition of
Subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d)
    Tennessee's June 21, 2021, SIP revision, at new subparagraph 1200-
03-14-.01(6)(d), proposes to update the State's SO2
monitoring requirements by exempting any fuel burning installation or
process emission source from the requirement to install an
SO2 monitor if the source is located ``in an area in which
the Technical Secretary operates one or more ambient sulfur dioxide air
quality monitors in the area under the influence of the source's
emissions.'' EPA understands that any SO2 air quality
monitor operated by the Technical Secretary in lieu of an industrial
monitor otherwise required by subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) must
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance, and would be a state and local air monitoring station
(SLAMS) as defined at 40 CFR 58.1.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See emails dated November 4, 2022, included in the docket
for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, owners and operators of
certain fuel-burning or process emission sources are directly affected
by paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6). Table 1 in Tennessee's June 1, 2021,
SIP revision lists all the EGUs and process emission sources subject to
1200-03-14-.01(6). This list includes Eastman, and Eastman is the only
source on the list that is located in a nonattainment area and
therefore would not meet the eligibility criteria for termination of a
monitor pursuant to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(2).
    To characterize SO2 concentrations in the Sullivan
County nonattainment area around Eastman, Tennessee began operating
four SLAMS SO2 monitors \16\ in the vicinity of Eastman,
within the 3-km SO2 nonattainment area boundary, from 2016
through 2019 in accordance with an EPA-approved quality assurance
project plan and EPA's regulatory requirements at Appendix D to 40 CFR
part 58. Specifically, 40 CFR part 58 establishes the monitoring
requirements for state or local air pollution control agencies and
owners or operators of proposed sources, including minimum network
requirements (e.g., number and placement of monitors), operating
schedules and methodology, and quality assurance procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The four SLAMS monitors include Ross N. Robinson (AQS ID:
47-163-6001), on September 1, 2016; Skyland Drive (AQS ID: 47-163-
6002) on September 1, 2016; Happy Hill (AQS ID: 47-163- 6004) in
October 2018 and Andrew Johnson Elementary School (AQS ID: 47-163-
6003) in January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the June 1, 2021, submittal, TDEC has determined
that because these requirements are more stringent than the
requirements established in Eastman's title V operating permit, the
proposed exemption at 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS and RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Additionally, Tennessee concludes that it does
not expect any increase in SO2 emissions because of the
proposed change.
    Nyrstar is a zinc refinery in Clarksville, Tennessee, and is the
only existing SO2 emitting source in the State that
currently monitors SO2 emissions pursuant to 1200-03-
14-.01(6). TDEC does not operate a monitor in the vicinity of Nyrstar.
    EPA believes Tennessee's existing SLAMS SO2 network in
Sullivan County is properly sited and operated under an approved
quality assurance project plan and in accordance with 40 CFR part 58,
which provides prescriptive and technically credible methods for
characterizing SO2 ambient air concentrations around the
Eastman facility. Therefore, EPA has preliminarily determined that the
current SO2 monitoring network near Eastman provides an
acceptable alternative to the monitoring otherwise required under 1200-
03-14-.01(6)(b) and thus preliminarily concurs with Tennessee's non-
interference demonstration that the proposed addition of subparagraph
1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
in the Sullivan County area.
    More generally, any SO2 air quality monitor operated by
the Technical Secretary in lieu of an industrial monitor otherwise
required by subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, and
would be a state and local air monitoring station (SLAMS) as defined at
40 CFR 58.1.\17\ EPA believes that SLAMS monitors provide an acceptable
alternative to the monitoring otherwise required under 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b), and notes that EPA approves state monitoring plans
annually, which includes the placement of SLAMS monitors.\18\ Thus, EPA
is proposing to approve the addition of subparagraph (d) to 1200-03-
14-.01(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See emails dated November 4, 2022, included in the docket
for this proposed action.
    \18\ EPA's monitoring requirements are specified in 40 CFR part
58 and are applicable to the state, and where delegated, to local
air monitoring agencies that operate criteria pollutant monitors.
Part 58 establishes specific requirements for operating air quality
surveillance networks to measure ambient concentrations of
SO2, including requirements for measurement methods,
network design, quality assurance procedures, and the minimum number
of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS. Appendix D to part 58
addresses SO2 monitoring and calls for the overall SLAMS
network to be designed to meet a minimum of six basic ambient air
monitoring site types including, among other things, determining the
highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the
network, determining representative concentrations in areas of high
population density, and determining the impact on ambient pollution
levels of significant sources or source categories on air quality.
SLAMS produce data that are eligible for comparison with the NAAQS,
and therefore, the monitor must be an approved federal reference
method, federal equivalent method, or approved regional method
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, 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, and as described in Section I through
III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference
TAPCR 1200-03-14-.01, General Provisions, state effective on May 31,
2021, into the Tennessee SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons provided in this preamble, EPA is proposing to
approve Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP submission revising paragraph
1200-03-14-.01(6). The SIP revision changes Tennessee's SO2
regulations that require applicable sources to demonstrate that the
source's SO2 emissions will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance and to install and maintain or terminate SO2
ambient air monitors near these large SO2 emitting sources.
The SIP submittal also includes a CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration that the proposed rule changes will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission

that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal
regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 29, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-26331 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P