[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27543-27544]
[DOCID:fr13my08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; Extension of a
currently approved collection; OMB Number 1660-0103, FEMA Form 81-112.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has submitted the following information collection to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance
with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
submission describes the nature of the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort
and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and includes
the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.
    Title: Property Acquisition and Relocation for Open Space.
    OMB Number: 1660-0103.
    Abstract: FEMA and State and local recipients of FEMA mitigation
grant programs will use the information collected to meet the Property
Acquisition requirements to implement acquisition activities under the
terms of grant agreements for acquisition and relocation activities.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Indian Tribal Government;
Individuals and Households.
    Number of Respondents: 56.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 9 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,424.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Nathan
Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/FEMA, and sent
via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to (202)
395-6974. Comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records

Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, Mail Drop
Room 301, 1800 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202, facsimile number
(202) 646-3347, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 28, 2008.
John A. Sharetts-Sullivan,
Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
 [FR Doc. E8-10578 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 50825]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14970-000]

Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XVII, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 1, 2019, Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XVII, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Tionesta
Dam Hydropower Project to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Tionesta Dam on Tionesta Creek in Forest County,
Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 30-
foot-wide, 30-foot-deep, 160-foot-tall modular frame structure to be
installed at the intake for the outlet pipe adjacent to the outlet
tower, containing two turbine-generator units with a rated capacity of
1,400 kilowatts each; (2) a new switchgear and control room located in
the modular structure; and (3) a new 13-kilovolt transmission line
connecting the modular structure with a nearby existing electrical
grid. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 12,260
megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Wayne Crouse, Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XVII,
LLC, P.O. Box 43796, Birmingham, AL 35243; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext.
709.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14970-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14970) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 20, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20911 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12944-12954]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03854]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0227; FRL-9906-93-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Oklahoma; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Affecting Visibility;
State Implementation Plan Revisions; Revised BART Determination for
American Electric Power/Public Service Company of Oklahoma Northeastern
Power Station Units 3 and 4

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) to EPA on June 20, 2013, which address revised Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Units 3
and 4 of the American Electric Power/Public Service Company of Oklahoma
(AEP/PSO) Northeastern Power Station in Rogers County, Oklahoma. The
revisions also address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
concerning non-interference with programs to protect visibility in
other states.

DATES: This final rule will be effective April 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0227. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be
charged for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor
at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Terry Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What final action is EPA taking?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    The background for today's final rule is discussed in detail in our
August 21, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 51686). The comment period was open
for 30 days, and 273 comments were received, including five comment
letters opposed to the proposed action.

II. What final action is EPA taking?

    We are approving Oklahoma's June 20, 2013 SIP revision submittal
(``Oklahoma RH SIP revision''), which provides a revised BART
determination for Units 3 and 4 of AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station
with accompanying enforceable documentation. This revised
SO2 BART determination includes the following emission
control requirements and

compliance schedules: (1) By January 31, 2014, the facility will comply
with an interim SO2 emission limit of 0.65 lb/MMBtu at each
unit individually on a 30-day rolling average basis, with an additional
SO2 limit of 3,104 lb/hr per unit on a 30-day rolling
average basis; (2) by December 31, 2014, the facility will comply with
a reduced interim SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu per
unit on a 12-month rolling average basis, with an additional 25,097 tpy
combined cap for Units 3 and 4 on a 12-month rolling basis; (3) the
facility will shut down one of the subject units (either Unit 3 or Unit
4) no later than April 16, 2016; (4) the facility will install and
operate a dry sorbent injection (DSI) system on the unit that remains
in operation past April 16, 2016; (5) the unit remaining in operation
will comply with an SO2 emission limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu on a
30-day rolling average basis from April 16, 2016 through December 31,
2026, with additional limits of 1,910 lb/hr on a 30-day rolling average
basis and 8,366 tpy on a 12-month rolling basis (this limit may be
lowered pursuant to the results of an optimization study to be
conducted by AEP/PSO); and (6) the facility will incrementally decrease
capacity utilization for the remaining unit between 2021 and 2026,
culminating with the complete shutdown of the remaining unit no later
than December 31, 2026. The state's revised enforceable SO2
BART requirements for Units 3 and 4 of the Northeastern Power Station
are contained in the submitted ``First Amended Regional Haze Agreement,
DEQ Case No. 10-025 (March 2013)'' that revises the previously
submitted ``PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10-025 (February
10, 2010). Consequently, we are approving the ``PSO Regional Haze
Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10-025 (February 10, 2010),'' as amended by the
``First Amended Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10-025 (March
2013).''
    We are also taking final action to approve the following
accelerated NOX BART compliance schedule included in the
submitted revised BART determination for Northeastern Power Station
Units 3 and 4: (1) By December 31, 2013, the facility will comply with
an emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis
with an additional limit of 1,098 lb/hr per unit on a 30-day rolling
average basis and a 9,620 tpy combined cap for both units; and (2) the
unit that remains in operation shall undergo further control system
tuning and by April 16, 2016, comply with an emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis with an additional limit of 716
lb/hr on a 30-day rolling average basis and a cap of 3,137 tpy on a 12-
month rolling basis. ODEQ also submitted an enforceable agreement
containing the accelerated compliance schedule. For the revised
NOX BART determination, therefore, we also are approving the
``PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10-025 (February 10,
2010),'' as amended by the ``First Amended Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ
Case No. 10-025 (March 2013),'' because it makes enforceable the
NOX BART emission limitations and schedules for AEP/PSO's
BART-subject units in Oklahoma.
    In addition to approving Oklahoma's revised enforceable
SO2 BART determination for AEP/PSO Northeastern Power
Station Units 3 and 4, we are also taking final action to approve that
portion of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision concerning Oklahoma's
interstate transport obligations. With the approval of this revised
BART determination for AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station Units 3 and
4, the enforceable RH Agreement, and an enforceable commitment, we find
that the Oklahoma RH SIP as a whole addresses the requirements of the
interstate transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as
applied to this source and its associated impacts on other states'
programs to protect visibility in Class I Areas. The ODEQ's enforceable
commitment is found in the SIP Narrative at page 10.
    Implementation of the enforceable commitment is only necessary if
the Northeastern Power Station is not able to achieve the equivalent of
0.3 lbs SO2/million Btu through a combination of unit
shutdowns and implementation of DSI, as this level of reduction was
assumed in the multistate modeling performed by the Central Regional
Air Planning Association (CENRAP) that provided the basis for
Oklahoma's and other Midwestern States' SIPs. The enforceable
commitment obligates ODEQ to ``obtain and/or identify additional
SO2 reductions within the State of Oklahoma to the extent
necessary to achieve the anticipated visibility benefits estimated'' by
the CENRAP. For example, any additional SO2 emissions
reductions that can be obtained or identified from the northeast
quadrant of the State will be presumed to count toward the emission
reductions necessary to achieve the anticipated visibility benefits
associated with a 0.30 lb/MMBtu emission limit at Northeastern Power
Station. Emissions reductions obtained outside the northeast quadrant
that are technically justified will also be counted. Finally, if
necessary, additional emissions reductions shall be obtained via
enforceable emission limits or control equipment requirements where
necessary and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than the end of the first full
Oklahoma legislative session occurring subsequent to AEP/PSO's
submission of the evaluation and report required by Paragraph 1(f) of
Attachment A of the AEP/PSO Settlement Agreement presented in Appendix
I of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision. Moreover, any additional reductions
that are obtained prior to the 2018 Regional Haze SIP revision required
by 40 CFR 51.308(f) but not accounted for in the above-referenced
modeling will be identified in the 2018 revision.
    We have made the determination that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision is
approvable because the revision was adopted and submitted as a SIP
revision in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding the
regional haze program and meets the CAA provisions concerning non-
interference with programs to protect visibility in other states. We
are taking this final action today under section 110 and part C of the
CAA.
    As explained in our August 21, 2013 proposal (see 78 FR 51686), as
a result of today's approval action we are taking action to amend the
regional haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Oklahoma at 40 CFR
52.1923. The action to amend the FIP is in a separate action contained
in today's Federal Register. Upon the effective date of the Federal
Register notice amending the FIP, Units 3 and 4 of AEP/PSO's
Northeastern Power Station will no longer be covered by the FIP.

III. Response to Comments

    We received a total of 273 comments, including five comments in
opposition to our proposed approval of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
that were submitted by U.S. Representative Jim Bridenstine, the
Oklahoma Attorney General, the Consumer Coalition of Oklahoma, the
Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers, and the Quality of Service
Coalition, and 268 comments in support from the Sierra Club and its
members in Oklahoma. Copies of the comments are available in the docket
for this rulemaking. A summary of the issues raised in the comment
letters, and our responses, follows:
    Comment: We received several comment letters containing claims that
ODEQ's revised BART determination for the AEP/PSO Northeastern Power

Station did not consider true energy impacts. These comment letters
generally assert that ODEQ did not make a reasonable BART determination
because it relied upon AEP/PSO's BART analysis, which they claim failed
to consider the true energy impacts of compliance and the costs of
compliance under the Settlement Agreement.\1\ The commenters claim that
overlooking these costs of compliance led to an incorrect determination
of cost-effectiveness of the SO2 emissions controls
attributable to the early retirements under the Settlement Agreement.
The commenters submit that early retirement of the two coal-fired units
at issue constitutes at least an indirect energy impact that is
``unusual or significant'' and quantifiable and therefore should have
been considered in ODEQ's BART analysis. The commenters further assert
that ODEQ has concluded that the revised BART determination is cost-
effective based on an analysis that does not include replacement
capacity and energy costs that AEP/PSO would be required to incur due
to the mandated early retirement of the two units. Finally, these
commenters also submit that ODEQ and EPA should have considered in
their energy impacts analyses the ``significant economic disruption or
unemployment'' that will result from the Oklahoma RH SIP revision and
cite the risk of rate shock resulting from natural gas price
fluctuations, risk of reduction of electric grid reliability, and
potential for increased unemployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The state of Oklahoma and AEP/PSO filed petitions for review
of EPA's FIP, and the parties have separately entered into a
settlement agreement that includes a timeline for preparing and
processing the Oklahoma RH SIP revision that is the subject of
today's action. A copy of the Settlement Agreement may be found in
Appendix I of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with these commenters. The BART Guidelines
only require states to consider the direct energy consumption of the
various control options under consideration, not indirect energy
impacts.\2\ While the BART guidelines do allow states to consider
indirect impacts if they would be ``unusual or significant,'' there is
no indication that Oklahoma ignored any such impacts here. The
commenters allege that retirement of the AEP/PSO units will lead to
``significant economic disruption or unemployment'' or rate shock, but
provide no evidence to support such assertions. Consequently, we
believe the State acted reasonably by focusing its BART analysis on the
direct energy impacts of the various control options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR Part 51, app. Y, at IV.D.4.h.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that AEP/PSO offered the BART determination in
question to ODEQ as an alternative to our FIP, which indicates that the
company found the alternative more economical, flexible, or consistent
with its business strategy. AEP/PSO's decision to retire these aging
units by dates certain is one that involves a variety of considerations
that lie outside the BART analysis, including increasing costs of
maintenance, economics of fuels, and costs of compliance with non-air
quality requirements. Given the broad range of factors that affect a
utility's decisions regarding the make-up of its power plant fleet, it
would not be reasonable for EPA to second-guess decisions regarding the
remaining useful life of facilities. Consequently, we believe that, in
addition to its evaluation of energy impacts, the State also
appropriately considered the remaining useful life of the AEP/PSO units
in determining BART.
    Regarding potential unemployment of AEP/PSO Northeastern Power
Station workers, however, we received one comment that notes that AEP/
PSO has extraordinary resources to redeploy its Northeastern Power
Station employees affected by the Settlement Agreement and proposed SIP
revision, and has committed to doing so.
    Comment: We received several comment letters suggesting that the
proposed SIP revision is a fuel switch masquerading as BART. These
commenters point out that BART, by its very nature, must be a
``retrofit technology.'' They note that the BART Guidelines set forth
the five basic steps of a case-by-case BART analysis, which are
centered on the evaluation and identification of ``available emission
retrofit control technologies.'' These commenters assert that inclusion
of a facility closure as part of a BART determination necessarily
results in a fuel switch, as the subject utility must acquire
replacement capacity. In their view, EPA will have directed a switch in
fuel forms--the direct opposite of the agency's stated intent in the
BART Guidelines.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that a BART analysis is
limited to the consideration of options that require the installation
of controls. We note that both AEP/PSO and Oklahoma Gas and Electric
(OG&E) have voluntarily adopted fuel switching in the past as a
strategy to address BART when they switched to low sulfur coal.
Although EPA disagreed that low sulfur coal constituted BART, it was
not because the option represented a fuel switch, but rather because we
found that the installation of more stringent controls constituted
BART. Although EPA's regulations do not require states to consider a
fuel switch or a shutdown of an existing unit as part of their BART
analyses, a state can certainly include such options in its analysis
where a company voluntarily offers such measures as a strategy for
reducing emissions.
    Comment: We received comments that our proposed action abandoned
the unit-by-unit approach to analyzing BART. These commenters reference
our Technical Support Document for the proposed approval of the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision, which states that BART should be a unit-by-
unit analysis, and assert that in proposing to approve ODEQ's BART
determination, EPA has abandoned the unit-by-unit analysis and instead
compared the ODEQ's BART determination involving the shutdown of a
generating unit against our FIP's proposed emissions control
technologies and related emissions limits. The commenters claim that in
so doing, EPA has inappropriately evaluated the closure of a unit as a
``technology'' and analyzed two units together. Another commenter takes
the opposite view, observing that ``EPA has not taken the approach of
comparing the SIP Revision to the FIP. Appropriately, EPA has simply
reviewed ODEQ's BART analysis for consistency with the Clean Air Act
and the BART Guidelines.''
    Response: As we noted in our proposal, while BART determinations
are typically made on a unit-by-unit basis, we believe that ODEQ's
decision to evaluate BART on a facility-wide basis is a reasonable way
to take into account the visibility and energy and non-air quality
environmental benefits associated with unit shutdowns. While we believe
ODEQ's facility-wide approach to BART is reasonable, we also analyzed
BART on a unit by unit basis.\3\ We then conducted our own unit-by-unit
analysis to confirm the State's conclusions, including the
consideration of a scenario not considered by ODEQ, in which the unit
that remains in operation after April 16, 2016 would install dry flue
gas desulfurization/spray dryer absorber (DFGD/SDA) rather than DSI. We
also made adjustments to ODEQ's cost and visibility calculations to
take into account more recent information regarding the facility's
baseline ``uncontrolled'' emissions and the remaining useful life of
the facility. The adjustments were necessary to properly

assess the cost and visibility factors on a unit-by-unit basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 51692
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: We received several comments concerning our costs of
compliance analysis. The commenters believe that we underestimated the
costs of compliance associated with ODEQ's revised BART determination
for AEP/PSO's units. One of the several commenters that believed we
underestimated the costs of compliance conducted an independent
analysis and believes that estimates prepared by AEP/PSO benefit from
``accounting gimmicks.'' This commenter states that its analysis
demonstrates that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision will cost $529 million
more in net present value and $3 billion more in nominal dollars than
the FIP currently in place. We also received a comment in support of
our costs of compliance analysis, which states that it would not be
legally sound for ODEQ to have considered the costs of replacement
power or any other costs beyond those of emission controls in its
revised BART analysis.
    Response: Unfortunately, we cannot respond to the commenters'
assertions, because the commenter failed to provide any details
concerning its cost analysis. We note, however, that regardless of the
cost of the State's BART determination, EPA cannot disapprove a SIP
measure simply because the measure will be more costly than controls
required in a FIP. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-
66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Comment: We received one comment in support of the proposed action,
which indicated that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision submittal satisfies
EPA's and ODEQ's obligations under the Clean Air Act. The commenter
notes that the CAA instructs states to contemplate the remaining useful
life of the source and the BART Guidelines acknowledge that a company
may agree to shut down a unit prior to the statutory deadline for BART
controls. The commenter asserts that ODEQ acted properly in taking into
account AEP/PSO's enforceable commitment to retire one unit by 2016
when comparing costs. Likewise, the Commenter believes that EPA's
conclusion that DSI is more cost-effective than DFGD/SDA is correct, as
demonstrated by the agency's unit-by-unit analysis and taking into
account the remaining useful life of the plant.
    Response: We thank the commenter for the support and agree with the
commenter's conclusions.
    Comment: We received two comments asserting that EPA and ODEQ have
usurped the authority of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and
ordered the closure of a facility without consideration of system
reliability impacts, rate impacts, or any other impacts on AEP/PSO
customers. These commenters assert that regulatory issues associated
with the retirements have never been considered by the OCC, which has
the specialized expertise and appropriate jurisdiction to consider such
issues.
    Response: We are not usurping the OCC's authority by approving a
SIP revision submitted from the State of Oklahoma that requires the
closure of any of AEP/PSO's facilities. On the contrary, we are
carrying out our statutory obligations to review the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision. We are required to approve a SIP revision that complies with
the applicable requirements of the CAA and our implementing
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). Here, ODEQ made a revised BART
determination for Units 3 and 4 at the Northeastern Power Station that
relied on retirement dates proposed and agreed to by the facility's
owner, AEP/PSO. We have reviewed ODEQ's revised BART determination and
concluded that it satisfies all applicable requirements of the CAA, the
Regional Haze Rule, and the BART Guidelines. Therefore, we are required
to approve the Oklahoma SIP revision.
    Comment: We received one comment that our proposed action triggers
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). This commenter
claims that the proposed action will have significant adverse economic
impact on small entities, including small commercial and industrial
customers of PSO, contrary to EPA's certification otherwise, and that
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are thus triggered.
    Response: Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory
flexibility analysis only when small entities will be subject to the
requirements of the agency's action. See, e.g., Michigan v. EPA, 213
F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d
327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The EPA's action here would not establish
requirements applicable to small entities. In our proposal, we
certified that our rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities in compliance with the RFA. We
reached this decision because our SIP approval under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act does not itself create any new requirements but simply
approves Oklahoma's existing State rule. Our action does not place
additional regulatory burdens on any entity including AEP ratepayers.
Therefore, we properly certified that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Comment: We received one comment concerning compliance with
Executive Order (EO) 12866 and OMB review of the proposed action. The
commenter states that the costs reviewed by ODEQ and EPA related only
to plant modifications and equipment to achieve the suggested regional
haze and interstate transport reductions. The commenter notes that
Executive Order 12866, section 1(11) states that ``each agency shall
tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, including
individuals, business of differing sizes, and other entities (including
small communities and governmental entities), consistent with obtaining
the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and
to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations.'' The
commenter asserts that the societal impacts of EPA's proposed approval
of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision should have been considered and that
the proposed action should have undergone OMB review.
    Response: Under EO 12866, an action is economically significant if
it is likely that it may ``[h]ave an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities.'' EO 12866 allows OMB to review actions
that fall within this category. This action was not reviewed by OMB
because our rule is not economically significant. It is merely an
approval under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. It does not create any
additional requirements but merely approves an existing state rule.
Thus, our rule would not result in costs over $100 million or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
    Comment: We received several comments concerning tribal
consultation issues and compliance with Executive Order 13175. These
commenters believe that the energy

impacts of the revised BART determination, in particular significant
rate increases, will have tribal implications and impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments. One commenter notes that
AEP/PSO's service territory covers portions of at least 13 federally
recognized Indian tribes and that the Choctaw Nation recently
participated in AEP/PSO's energy efficiency program. These commenters
question whether our proposed action complies with EO 13175 and request
that we prepare a tribal impact summary statement.
    Response: Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), directs agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' EO 13175 section
(5)(a). Consistent with EO 13175, the 1984 EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations, and
the May 4, 2011 EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribes, Region 6 provided information concerning this action at a
regular meeting of the Tribal Environmental Coalition in Oklahoma that
was held at the Sac and Fox Learning Center on July 16, 2013 and also
offered an opportunity to engage in government-to-government
consultation with Regional Tribal management. Additionally, Region 6
provides information and updates at quarterly Regional Tribal
Operations Committee (RTOC) meetings. To date, no Tribes have provided
comments to EPA or requested government-to-government consultation with
the Region on this action.
    EO 13175 section (5)(b) states that no agency may promulgate any
regulation that has tribal implications, imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and is not required by
statute unless the direct costs of compliance with the proposed rule
are paid by the Federal government or the agency consults with tribes,
provides the Director of OMB a tribal summary impact statement, and
makes available to the Director of OMB any written communication tribal
officials submitted to the agency. Our approval of the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision does not directly apply since the facility is not located in
Indian country. Moreover, the facilities that will incur the direct
costs of compliance are not tribally owned or operated. The possibility
that a tribe, as a consumer, may be affected by a rate change, does not
implicate EO 13175. Therefore, EPA was not required to prepare a tribal
impact summary statement.
    Comment: We received one comment that our proposed action does not
comply with our own policy on tribal consultation. The commenter
suggests that we should suspend this rulemaking until we have engaged
in consultation with affected tribes in Oklahoma. The commenter notes
that AEP/PSO serves a portion of the Osage Indian Reservation in
northeast Oklahoma, and that the following tribal nations have casinos
within AEP/PSO's service territory: the Choctaw Nation in Broken Arrow
and McAlester; the Osage Nation in Tulsa, Bartlesville, and Sand
Springs; and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Okmulgee.
    Response: Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, Region 6 provided information
concerning this action at a regular meeting of the Tribal Environmental
Coalition in Oklahoma that was held at the Sac and Fox Learning Center
on July 16, 2013 and offered an opportunity to engage in government-to-
government consultation with Regional Tribal management. Additionally,
Region 6 provided information and updates at quarterly Regional Tribal
Operations Committee (RTOC) meetings. No Tribes provided comments to
EPA or requested government-to-government consultation on this action.
    Comment: We received several comments regarding opportunities for
public participation associated with this proposed action, in
particular concerning the number and location of public hearings. These
commenters point out that the only public hearing on the Oklahoma RH
SIP revision was conducted by ODEQ in Oklahoma City in May 2013, and
that no public hearings have been conducted by EPA or conducted within
the affected AEP/PSO service territories, which cover the northeastern
and southwestern corners of the state. The commenters request that
additional public hearings be conducted by EPA within the AEP/PSO
service territories to allow potentially affected citizens a better
opportunity to provide meaningful comments on EPA's proposed approval
of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision. One commenter references EPA's
proposed FIP for BART at the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Arizona
for which EPA has committed to conduct several public hearings
throughout Arizona. Two of the commenters additionally note that no
hearing was conducted for the Settlement Agreement associated with
ODEQ's revised BART determination for Units 3 and 4 at Northeastern
Power Station.
    Response: The CAA requires a state to provide an opportunity to
request a public hearing on any proposed SIP revision before it is
adopted. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(l). Additionally, 40 CFR
51.102(a) spells out these public hearing requirements; however, the
regulation is silent concerning the location of any public hearing that
is held, and multiple public hearings are not required. For SIP
revisions, the hearing requirement is appropriately assigned to the
states because the state agencies, rather than the EPA, are adopting
the substantive requirements of the SIP and have the ability to amend
the proposed SIP revision in response to comments received. The ODEQ
fulfilled this requirement with the public hearing it conducted in
Oklahoma City on May 20, 2013.
    When promulgating a FIP, such as EPA's proposed FIP for BART at NGS
in Arizona referenced by the commenter, EPA is required to provide an
opportunity for public hearing. 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B) and (5).
Likewise, in the process of promulgating our FIP for BART in Oklahoma,
we conducted two hearings in 2011 in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. However,
today's action does not promulgate a FIP, but rather approves the
State's submittal to revise its RH SIP. Neither the CAA nor the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires EPA to provide a public
hearing for actions on SIPs.
    In taking action on this SIP submittal, EPA has complied with the
applicable statutory requirements for public participation under the
Administrative Procedure Act, which does not require an opportunity for
public hearing. 5 U.S.C. 553(c). While a public hearing is not
statutorily required for SIP actions, EPA recognizes that the EPA
retains discretion to offer public hearings. EPA elected not to conduct
a public hearing for this SIP action for several reasons. EPA may
conduct a discretionary public hearing when it is necessary to glean
additional information from the public; however, we did not feel that
it was necessary here. We believe the opportunities for public
participation during ODEQ's rulemaking process, including the State's
public hearing, along with the opportunity to provide written comments
to EPA on our proposed approval of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
provided significant opportunity for affected citizens in Oklahoma to
participate in this rulemaking. In response to the Federal Register
notice, we received 273 comments on our proposed approval of the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision, all of

which are given full consideration in this final action. In our view,
this demonstrates that the public had sufficient opportunity to
participate in this rulemaking.
    Finally, the CAA requires EPA to provide a 30-day public comment
period before EPA enters any proposed settlement agreement; however,
this requirement is limited to written comments. 42 U.S.C. 7413(g). EPA
met this requirement when it published a 30-day notice in the Federal
Register (77 FR 67814, November 14, 2012) and considered comments
received on the proposed Settlement Agreement. EPA was not required to
offer a public hearing for the Settlement Agreement associated with
ODEQ's BART determination.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision will result in significant visibility improvements. These
commenters conclude that overall, the Oklahoma RH SIP revision is the
less polluting option compared to the FIP currently in place and will
result in significant visibility improvements and tangible economic
benefits. One commenter believes that these visibility improvements are
likely understated in analyses conducted by EPA and ODEQ, even for the
first five years. For example, the commenter notes that the Oklahoma RH
SIP revision will result in earlier NOX reductions than
would have occurred under ODEQ's original SIP or EPA's FIP, and that
neither agency evaluated the likely reductions in visibility impairment
as the second unit ramps down capacity between 2016 and 2026.
    Response: We acknowledge these commenters' support and agree that
there are additional visibility benefits associated with the Oklahoma
RH SIP that were not fully analyzed.
    Comment: We received numerous comments that the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision will result in significant reductions in harmful air
pollutants. One commenter states that the Northeastern Power Station's
NOX emissions, and their contribution to ozone, are
particularly problematic for the region's efforts to maintain healthy
air quality levels. This commenter also explains that the plant's
SO2 emissions threaten to cause exceedances of federal air
quality standards. This commenter notes that both it and EPA Region 6
have conducted air dispersion modeling indicating that the plant's
emissions contribute to ambient SO2 levels that exceed the
1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The commenter further notes that in addition to reduced NOX,
SO2 and PM, the Oklahoma RH SIP revision will result in
reductions of approximately 210 pounds of mercury emissions per year.
The commenter observes that the environmental benefits of the Oklahoma
RH SIP revision are not limited to air quality but also include
reductions in toxic coal ash that threaten to contaminate local ground
water resources and reduced waste water discharges containing
pollutants.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's conclusions that the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision will have additional environmental benefits
beyond reducing regional haze.
    Comment: We received one comment in support of the proposed action
that, in addition to promoting clean air and reducing regional haze,
the Oklahoma RH SIP revision will conserve Oklahoma's water resources.
The commenter notes that EPA has correctly recognized that the Oklahoma
RH SIP revision submittal will reduce water usage at the Northeastern
Power Station and that this incidental benefit is important in light of
the extreme drought conditions facing Oklahoma. The commenter states
that in response to its data requests in proceedings before the OCC,
AEP/PSO has estimated that the increase in water consumption at the
Northeastern Power Station, if it were to add dry scrubbers to both
units, would be 65 times greater than with a retrofit of activated
carbon injection (ACI) and DSI at just one unit, pursuant to the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision. Furthermore, the commenter notes, water
currently consumed by the units will be released for other uses upon
the retirement of the units in 2016 and 2026.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that there are non-air
quality co-benefits associated with the Oklahoma RH SIP revision.
    Comment: We received one comment in support of the proposed action
concerning the cost-effectiveness of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision. The
commenter concludes that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision is more cost-
effective than the FIP currently in place and less costly overall. The
commenter cites AEP/PSO's $942/ton SO2 removed cost-
effectiveness estimate and notes that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision will
allow AEP/PSO to avoid potentially significant compliance costs
associated with other upcoming regulations, including: the Mercury Air
Toxics Standards (MATS), disposal of coal combustion residuals,
effluent limitations guidelines, a revised (lowered) ozone NAAQS, the
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CSAPR/CAIR), and carbon controls for
existing power plants under the President's climate change initiative.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's conclusions and note that
an AEP/PSO representative made similar comments in recent testimony
before the OCC.
    Comment: We received one comment in support of the proposed action
concerning the Oklahoma RH SIP revision's consistency with the State
Energy Plan. The commenter notes that, although not directly relevant
to ODEQ's statutory obligations or EPA's review, the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision is consistent with the State of Oklahoma's energy plan, which
prioritizes the increased use of Oklahoma's energy resources such as
wind and natural gas, and protection of public health and the
environment. The commenter notes that Oklahoma is currently an exporter
of both natural gas and wind power, but a major importer of coal.
    Response: We thank the commenter for the support.
    Comment: We received several comments concerning the potential of
the Oklahoma RH SIP revision submittal to hurt or help overall
reliability of the power grid. Several commenters claim that the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision submittal will result in lower reliability of
the grid by reducing the percentage of power generated by coal
combustion and increasing reliance on electricity generated by natural
gas combustion, which is subject to more price and availability
fluctuations. Another commenter suggests that the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision submittal will result in improved reliability of the grid.
This commenter notes that as the amount of wind power in Oklahoma and
the Southeast Power Pool rises, fossil generation will be required to
ramp production up and down more frequently, and to shut down for
various periods of time during high wind production. The commenter
asserts that switching to natural gas and implementing energy
efficiency and demand response programs will result in resources better
suited than coal-fired units to integrate with variable wind
generation.
    Response: We cannot comment on speculative impacts on the
reliability of electrical grid in Oklahoma that may or may not result
from this revised BART determination for Units 3 and 4 at Northeastern
Power Station. Issues regarding grid reliability are more properly
addressed by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and the electricity
providers such as AEP/PSO.

    In addition to the comments submitted directly to EPA, some
commenters also incorporated by reference the following comments from
Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers and Quality of Service Coalition
that were submitted to ODEQ during its public comment period on the
state-proposed SIP revision, which ended in May 2013. These comments
and our responses follow below:
    Comment: The commenters state that ODEQ did not rely on an updated
emissions inventory in its revised BART determination and assert that
an updated emissions inventory is essential to the overall
determination of BART-eligible sources in Oklahoma and to the
determination of sources required to install BART, and that ODEQ is
required to consider and address the anticipated net effect on
visibility resulting from changes projected in point, area, and mobile
source emissions by 2018. The commenters also reference an Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) regional haze submission, in
which EPA required ADEQ to provide the most recent emissions inventory
data available.
    Response: The determination of subject-to-BART sources was based on
modeling of maximum actual emissions during the baseline period of
2001-2003, and EPA has already approved ODEQ's determinations of BART-
eligible and subject-to-BART sources. An updated emission inventory
would have no impact on these determinations that have already been
acted upon. Furthermore, the visibility modeling performed to determine
sources subject-to-BART and to inform BART determinations consists of
single-source modeling utilizing CALPUFF and requires only the pre-
control and post-control emission rates of the source being evaluated.
This action and the Oklahoma RH SIP revision only address the
requirements for a BART determination for a subject-to-BART source. We
have already approved the modeling and emission inventories for the
first regional haze planning period, and these requirements do not have
to be revisited until the next planning period.
    With respect to the Arizona regional haze SIP revision referenced
by the commenters, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area. This inventory must include emissions for a baseline
year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available,
and estimates of future projected emissions. States must also include
in their regional haze SIPs a commitment to update this inventory
periodically. Arizona did not satisfy this requirement because it
failed to include the 2008 emission inventory when it submitted its
regional haze SIP in 2011. Oklahoma, however, did satisfy this
requirement because ODEQ included its most recent emission inventory as
Appendix 4-1 of its original regional haze SIP submittal. This
requirement is unrelated to the requirements for a BART determination
and is not relevant to this action.
    Comment: The commenters state that AEP/PSO Northeastern Power
Station Units 3 and 4 currently provide a significant percentage of all
energy supplied to AEP/PSO customers and cite low fuel cost associated
with operation of those facilities as the reason for the high energy
contribution from Units 3 and 4. The commenters express concern that
replacement energy may be supplied by more expensive natural gas-fueled
facilities. The commenters assert that the need for replacement energy
is quantifiable, the estimated cost of that replacement energy is
quantifiable, and that ODEQ should have factored these costs into its
determination of a reasonable progress goal.
    Response: As ODEQ noted in its response to comments, the Oklahoma
RH SIP revision does not include any changes to the Chapter IX of the
SIP, which concerns reasonable progress goals. The SIP revision
submittal does, however, identify further reasonable progress actions
that are expected to further these goals. This action does not address
the approvability of Oklahoma's reasonable progress plan which will be
addressed in a separate action. In addition, as we explained in an
earlier response, ODEQ appropriately considered the direct energy
impacts of the various control options. Consideration of the
speculative costs of replacement energy that may or may not be required
once Units 3 and 4 retire is not required by the BART Guidelines and
would not be required by the four-factor analysis required for
reasonable progress.
    Comment: The commenters imply that ODEQ mandated the early
retirements of Units 3 and 4 and further state that ODEQ did not
consider costs of replacement energy and capacity as existing units are
retired, including the cost of replacement capacity and energy arising
from the mandated retirement of one of the units in 2016, the cost of
replacement energy arising from the capacity restrictions which are
imposed on the second unit during the period 2021-2026, and the cost of
replacement capacity and energy arising from the mandated retirement of
the second unit no later than 2026.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. ODEQ did
not, in fact, mandate the early retirement or capacity restrictions on
either unit. Rather, AEP/PSO proposed these planned activities in its
air quality operating permit application submitted as a revision to
their previous submittal under ODEQ's BART requirements rule. See OAC
252:100-8-76 . Subsequently, ODEQ entered into an administrative order
with AEP/PSO to make these planned activities enforceable and therefore
eligible to be relied upon in the BART review. Regarding the
consideration of replacement energy costs, see our prior response.
    Comment: Citing the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines, the
commenters assert that the State cannot mandate the early retirement of
an electric generating unit as part of a BART determination.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. While it is true that the
Regional Haze Rule and BART Guidelines do not contemplate unit
retirements as a potential BART option, neither rule prohibits states
or EPA from considering a shutdown as part of a BART determination if
the strategy is proposed by the owner of a BART-eligible source.
Moreover, the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations require states to
consider the remaining useful life of a source when determining BART.
Here, ODEQ did not unilaterally mandate the retirement of Units 3 and
4. Rather, AEP/PSO made a business decision regarding the remaining
useful life of these units and proposed that ODEQ include the
corresponding shutdown dates as a feature of its revised BART
determination. To allow AEP/PSO to take credit for the emission
reductions associated with its chosen retirement dates, ODEQ
appropriately issued an administrative order that made the shutdown
dates enforceable and included these dates in the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision.
    Comment: The commenters argue that ODEQ did not demonstrate that
the Oklahoma RH SIP revision meets the requirement that alternatives to
BART must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART (i.e., DFGD/SDA). The
commenters note that on page 11 of the Revised BART Report (attachment
to the Oklahoma RH SIP revision), it is acknowledged that DFGD/SDA
``would provide improvements in visibility above that achieved with the
DSI system'' but that such improvements

would not be perceptible. The commenters assert that this conclusion
clearly indicates that the revised BART determination does not meet the
greater reasonable progress standard with regard to visibility
improvement.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. The
regulation cited by the commenters, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), addresses
alternative measures states may adopt in lieu of requiring sources
subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. The Oklahoma RH
SIP revision currently under review is not an alternative to BART.
Rather, it is a revision of the State's BART determination for the AEP/
PSO Northeastern Power Station. Therefore, the cited section of the
Regional Haze Rule is not applicable. As ODEQ indicated, it is not
necessary that the BART determination in the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
achieve greater visibility improvement than the EPA's BART
determination in the FIP. Rather, the CAA and Regional Haze Rule
require only that a source-specific BART determination be based on a
reasoned analysis of the five statutory BART factors analysis in
accordance with the procedures in the BART Guidelines.
    Comment: Citing further concerns over compliance with greater
reasonable progress requirements, the commenters state that a
significant portion of the emissions reductions attributed to the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision could also be achieved by switching to ultra-
low sulfur coal, as required by the original Oklahoma RH SIP, and by
installing DSI control technology to meet requirements of the MATS
rule. They conclude that by including emissions reductions arising from
DSI and by ignoring reductions which could be achieved through
switching to ultra-low sulfur coal, the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
overstates the emissions reductions that are attributable to the
revised BART determination, which are surplus to reductions that would
be achievable through other control measures or by implementing
measures to meet CAA requirements that existed as of the baseline date
of the state-proposed SIP revision.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. As ODEQ
noted in responses to similar comments, the Oklahoma RH SIP revision is
a revision of the State's BART determination for the AEP/PSO
Northeastern Power Station and is not a proposal for an alternative to
BART. Therefore, the greater reasonable progress requirements do not
apply. We also agree with ODEQ's conclusion that installation of the
DSI control technology to satisfy the BART requirements will provide
additional confidence that the facility will be able to comply with the
MATS rule.
    Comment: The commenters claim that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
fails to meet the requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) that all
necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first
long-term strategy for regional haze, which ends in 2018, because the
level of SO2 emissions under the state-proposed SIP revision
is expected to be significantly higher than emissions under the EPA's
FIP until well after 2018.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. The
Oklahoma RH SIP revision is a revision of the State's BART
determination for the AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station and is not a
proposal for an alternative to BART. Therefore, the timing requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) do not apply.
    Comment: The commenters question the statement on page 12 of the
Revised BART Report that cumulative SO2 and NOX
emissions from Units 3 and 4 are expected to be approximately 36% of
the emissions level that would result from EPA's FIP. The commenters
state that the underlying details of the analysis supporting the
expected SO2 and NOX reductions were not provided
with the Revised BART Report and that, absent back-up documentation,
these projected emissions reductions are unreliable and cannot be used
to justify the Oklahoma RH SIP revision.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. ODEQ's
calculation of projected emissions reductions was not a significant
factor in its revised BART determination for Units 3 and 4. However,
the projected reductions did provide ODEQ with a reasonable comparison
of the results of the FIP with those of the Oklahoma RH SIP revision.
As ODEQ explained in its response, the capital recovery factor used to
establish the annualized costs of the DFGD/SDA option assumed a
lifespan of 30 years. Because the FIP does not restrict capacity
utilization, no such restrictions were assumed in this calculation.
Consequently, the total emissions attributable to the FIP were
calculated by multiplying the SO2 and NOX
emission rates by full load heat input, assuming continuous operation
for 30 years. In contrast, the total emissions associated with the
Oklahoma RH SIP revision factored in the shorter lifespan of the units
and reduced capacity utilization.
    Comment: The commenters contend that the Oklahoma RH SIP revision
ignores the additional NOX emissions that would be produced
by gas-fired generation or purchased power sources that AEP/PSO would
have to acquire to replace Units 3 and 4 after they are retired in 2016
and 2026. Additionally, the commenters state that it was assumed that,
if retrofitted with DFGD/SFA, Units 3 and 4 would operate for another
30 years (i.e., until 2046), which is inconsistent with AEP/PSO
testimony to the OCC indicating that the units would likely be retired
by 2030, only13 years after the retrofits are implemented. The
commenters conclude that if the emissions reductions associated with
the Oklahoma RH SIP revision were recalculated to reflect a shorter
remaining useful life of Units 3 and 4, and to account for
NOX emissions produced from sources that replace Units 3 and
4, they would be significantly reduced.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. As
explained in previous responses, consideration of speculative
replacement energy sources is not required by the BART Guidelines. We
further agree with ODEQ's assessment that any replacement energy is
unlikely to be procured from a source with environmental impacts
comparable to or greater than those of Units 3 and 4, which are coal-
fired. This is due to the fact that BART addresses a very specific
group of large existing sources that were placed in operation before
many of the current national air quality programs were in place.
Replacement energy would in all likelihood come from a newer source
subject to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements of
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program.
    Furthermore, regarding the life-span of Units 3 and 4 under the FIP
scenario, EPA recognizes that the cost of scrubbers is significant and
that if a source makes such an investment, it will likely make other
necessary investments to extend operation to recoup the costs. Thus,
consistent with our standard practices for conducting BART
determinations and cost-effectiveness analyses we assumed a 30-year
useful life for the wet scrubber systems and responded to comments on
this issue when we took final action in promulgating our FIP. The BART
guidelines do allow for consideration of the remaining useful life of
facilities when considering the costs of potential BART controls. Any
claims regarding the remaining useful life of a facility or a source
have to be secured by an enforceable requirement. AEP/PSO did not claim
any such restrictions on the operation of Units 3 and 4 of Northeastern
Power Station when we

promulgated our FIP. Consequently, we assumed a remaining useful life
of 30 years in our BART analysis. We indicated in our responses to
comments that if AEP/PSO were to decide the units in question have a
shorter useful life such that installing scrubbers is no longer cost
effective, and would be willing to accept an enforceable requirement to
that effect, a revised BART analysis could be submitted by the plant(s)
in question and our FIP could be re-analyzed accordingly. Similarly, we
indicated that we could also review a revised SIP submitted by ODEQ.
Ultimately, AEP/PSO did seek an enforceable commitment to limit the
remaining useful life of Units 3 and 4 of Northeastern Power Station,
and ODEQ subsequently submitted its RH SIP revision that is the subject
of this action.
    Comment: The commenters assert that the BART analysis supporting
the state-proposed SIP revision is based on AEP/PSO long-term planning
studies that are no longer valid. The commenters note that AEP/PSO
informed the OCC that it will need to revise its Integrated Resource
Plan (IRP) to reflect previously unanticipated increases in near-term
peak demand due to recent significant growth in oil and gas production
activities on its system. The commenters assert that these changes will
increase replacement energy costs for Units 3 and 4 and also increase
future SO2 and NOX emissions, thus significantly
altering the results of the state's BART analysis. The commenters
conclude that the state-proposed SIP revision rulemaking activities
should be postponed until the revised AEP/PSO IRP is approved by the
OCC and then the ODEQ can revise its BART determination to take these
changes into account and go back to proposal.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. As
discussed in responses to previous comments, consideration of
replacement energy and associated emissions is not required by the BART
Guidelines.
    Comment: The commenters state that the ODEQ's proposed revised BART
determination for Units 3 and 4 and its proposed SIP revision do not
take into account potential impacts on AEP/PSO customers. Citing EPA's
Federal Register notice taking final action promulgating the FIP (76 FR
81749) and Oklahoma statute 27A O.S. 2-5-107(4), the commenters assert
that consideration of such economic impacts is required.
    Response: We concur with ODEQ's response to this comment. As ODEQ
correctly points out, the Federal Register reference citation provided
by the commenters addresses AEP/PSO's freedom to reduce emissions by
alternative methods so long as the BART emission limit is met:
``[E]mission limits may also be met with reconfiguration of the units
to burn natural gas, the companies themselves are free to determine
whether this option best responds to future customer needs and
preferences, including any potential impact on rates.'' This statement
remains true within the restrictions imposed by the Oklahoma RH SIP
revision. ODEQ also correctly notes that the Oklahoma statute
referenced in the comment, 27A O.S. Sec.  2-5-107(4), only applies to
the considerations required by the Air Quality Advisory Council in
deciding whether to recommend a rule or rule amendment to the
Environmental Quality Board. The revised BART determination for
Northeastern Power Station Units 3 and 4, and the associated Oklahoma
RH SIP revision, are not rules. Therefore 27A O.S. Sec.  2-5-107(4)
does not apply.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 6, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, and Visibility.

    Dated: February 7, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1920 by:
0
a. Amending in paragraph (d) the table titled ``EPA Approved Oklahoma
Source-Specific Requirements'' by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``Units 3 and 4 of the American Electric Power/Public Service
Company of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO) Northeastern plant''.
0
b. Amending in paragraph (e) the first table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma
SIP'' by revising the entry for Regional haze SIP and adding new
entries at the end of the table for ``Revision to the Regional haze SIP
concerning Units 3 and 4 of the American Electric Power/Public Service
Company of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO) Northeastern plant'' and ``Enforceable
commitment for visibility concerning Units 3 and 4 of the AEP/PSO
Northeastern plant.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA Approved Oklahoma Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          Name of source                  Permit No.       submittal date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Units 3 and 4 of the American       PSO Regional Haze           6/20/2013  3/7/2014 [Insert citation of            .....................................
 Electric Power/Public Service       Agreement, Case No.                    publication].
 Company of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO)       10-025 (February
 Northeastern plant.                 2010) and Amended
                                     Regional Haze
                                     Agreement, DEQ Case
                                     No. 10-025 (March
                                     2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable geographic       State
       Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area     submittal               EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Regional haze SIP:................  Statewide............       2/17/2010  3/7/2014 [Insert citation of            Core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
(a) Determination of baseline and                                           publication].                           Initial approval 12/28/2011, 76 FR
 natural visibility conditions.                                                                                81728.
(b) Coordinating regional haze and
 reasonably attributable
 visibility impairment.
(c) Monitoring strategy and other
 implementation requirements.
(d) Coordination with States and
 Federal Land Managers.
(e) BART determinations except for
 the following SO2 BART
 determinations: Units 4 and 5 of
 the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
 (OG&E) Muskogee plant; and Units
 1 and 2 of the OG&E Sooner plant.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Revision to the Regional haze SIP   Rogers County........       6/20/2013  3/7/2014 [Insert citation of            Revised BART determination.
 concerning Units 3 and 4 of the                                            publication].
 American Electric Power/Public
 Service Company of Oklahoma (AEP/
 PSO) Northeastern plant.

Enforceable commitment for          Rogers County........       6/20/2013  3/7/2014 [Insert citation of            If a SO2 emission limit of 0.3 lb/
 visibility concerning Units 3 and                                          publication].                           MMBtu is not met the State will
 4 of the AEP/PSO Northeastern                                                                                obtain and/or identify additional
 plant.                                                                                SO2 reductions within Oklahoma to
                                                                                the extent necessary to achieve the
                                                                                anticipated visibility benefits
                                                                                estimated by the Central Regional
                                                                                Air Planning Association (CENRAP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.1928 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1928  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) The SO2 BART requirements for Units 4 and 5 of the
Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) Muskogee plant, and Units 1 and 2 of
the OG&E Sooner plant; the deficiencies in the long-term strategy for
regional haze; and the requirement for a plan to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions from interfering with measures
required in another state to protect visibility are satisfied by Sec.
52.1923.
    (d) The revision to the Regional Haze plan submitted on June 20,
2013 concerning Units 3 and 4 of the American Electric Power/Public
Service Company of Oklahoma (AEP/PSO) Northeastern plant is approved.
For this source the plan addresses requirements for BART and adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions from interfering with measures
required in another state to protect visibility. As called for in the
plan if a SO2 emission limit of 0.3 lb/MMBtu is not met the
State will obtain and/or identify additional SO2 reductions
within Oklahoma to the extent necessary to achieve the anticipated
visibility benefits estimated by the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP).

[FR Doc. 2014-03854 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32196]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Compatibility Program Notice; Lafayette Regional Airport;
Lafayette, Louisiana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it
is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted
for Lafayette Regional Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
et. seq (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter
referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR part 150 by Lafayette Airport
Commission. This program was submitted subsequent to a determination by
FAA that associated noise exposure maps submitted under 14 CFR part 150
for Lafayette Regional Airport were in compliance with applicable
requirements, effective April 4, 2012, with Federal Register
announcement published April 13, 2102. The proposed noise compatibility
program will be approved or disapproved on or before November 24, 2015.

DATES:  The effective date of the start of FAA's review of the noise
compatibility program is May 28, 2015. The public comment period ends
July 27, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Tim Tandy,
Environmental Protection Specialist, ASW-640D, 2601 Meacham Boulevard,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for Lafayette Regional
Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before November 24,
2015. This notice also announces the availability of this program for
public review and comment.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act,
may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets
forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to reduce
existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Lafayette Regional Airport, effective on May 28, 2015. The airport
operator has requested that the FAA review this material and that the
noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program
under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted
material indicates that it conforms to FAR Part 150 requirements for
the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review
will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The
formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before November 24, 2015.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 150, section 150.33. The primary
considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed
measures may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether they are
reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-
compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-
compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to
these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use
authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility
program are available for examination at the following locations:
    Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, Texas.
     Steven L. Picou, Executive Director, Lafayette Airport Commission,
222 Tower Drive, Lafayette, LA 70508.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, May 28, 2015.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-13829 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45586-45587]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9035-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/ nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 09/18/2017 Through 09/22/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.
EIS No. 20170184, Final, FRA, GA, Atlanta-Chattanooga High Speed Ground
Transportation Project, Review Period Ends: 10/29/2017, Contact: John
Winkle<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170185, Final, DOC, AL, Nationwide Public Safety Broadband
Network for the Southern United States, Review Period Ends: 10/29/2017,
Contact: Amanda Pereira<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170186, Draft, FHWA, UT, I-15, Payson Main Street
Interchange, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2017, Contact: Justin
Schellenberg<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170187, Draft, USACE, CA, Aliso Creek Mainstem Ecosystem
Restoration Study, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2017, Contact: Deborah
Lamb<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170188, Draft, USFS, CO, Rio Grande Forest Plan Revision,
Comment Period Ends: 12/28/2017, Contact: Erin Minks<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170189, Final Supplement, BOP, KY, Proposed U.S. Penitentiary
and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, KY, Review Period Ends: 10/29/
2017, Contact: Issac Gaston<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20170135, Draft, NPS, WA, Olympic National Park Draft Mountain
Goat Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/26/2017, Contact:
Christina Miller<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/28/2017; Extending Comment
Period from 09/26/2017 to 10/10/2017.

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-20938 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13017-13018]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 02, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                Applicant           Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10915-M.....................  Luxfer Inc...............  172.203(a), 172.301(c),   To modify the special permit
                                                          173.302a(a)(1),           to authorize additional
                                                          173.304a(a)(1), 180.205.  Division 2.2 and 2.3 gases.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
14193-M.....................  Honeywell International    172.101(h)..............  To modify the special permit
                               Inc.                                                 to add additional portable
                                                                                tanks. (modes 1, 2, 3)
14232-M.....................  Luxfer Inc...............  173.302(a), 173.304(a),   To modify the special permit
                                                          180.205.                  to authorize additional 2.2
                                                                                and 2.3 gases. (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                3, 4, 5)
16427-M.....................  Washington State           172.101(k)..............  To modify the special permit
                               Department of                                        to add an additional 1.4S
                               Transportation.                                      hazmat to the permit.
                                                                                (passenger ferry vessel)
20425-M.....................  Composite Advanced         173.302(a)..............  To modify the special permit
                               Technologies, LLC.                                   to waive the annual batch
                                                                                test for composite
                                                                                cylinders. (mode 1)

20499-M.....................  Inmar Rx Solutions, Inc..  ........................  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize cargo only
                                                                                aircraft as a mode of
                                                                                transportation. (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                4)
20801-M.....................  New Avon Company.........  172.315(a)(2)...........  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize cargo vessel as
                                                                                a mode of transportation.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2)
21061-M.....................  KLA Corporation..........  173.212, 173.213........  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize a new hazmat to
                                                                                be included in the permit.
                                                                                (modes 1, 4)
21085-M.....................  Omron Robotics and Safety  172.101(j),               To modify the special permit
                               Technologies, Inc.         173.185(b)(3).            to authorize additional
                                                                                supplemental ICAO TI packing
                                                                                instructions. (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-04602 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58801-58802]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20990]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-2186]

Request for Nominations on the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee--Small Business Pool

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting
that any small business tobacco manufacturing industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection of a nonvoting industry
representative to serve on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory
Committee for the Center for Tobacco Products notify FDA in writing.
FDA is also requesting nominations for nonvoting industry
representatives to be included in a pool of individuals to represent
the interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry on
the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. A nominee may
either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a
nonvoting industry representative. This position may be filled on a
rotating, sequential basis by representatives of different small
business tobacco manufacturers based on areas of expertise relevant to
the topics being considered by the Advisory Committee. Nominations will
be accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any small business tobacco manufacturing industry organization
interested in participating in the selection of appropriate nonvoting
members to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that
interest to the FDA by October 28, 2022 (see sections I and II of this
document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for
prospective candidates should be sent to *FDA by October 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from small business tobacco
manufacturing industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection process of nonvoting industry representative nominations
should be sent to Serina Hunter-Thomas (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting industry representatives may be
submitted electronically by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee
Membership Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm. Information about becoming a member of
an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's
website: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serina Hunter-Thomas, Office of
Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Tobacco Products Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm.
G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,1-877-287-
1373 (choose Option 5), or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency intends to add nonvoting industry
representative(s) to the following advisory committee:

I. Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

    The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee)
advises the Commissioner of FDA (the Commissioner) or designee in
discharging responsibilities related to the regulation of tobacco
products. The Committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and
health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate
advice, information, and recommendations to the Commissioner.
    The Committee includes three nonvoting members who represent
industry interests. These members include one representative of the
interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry, one representative of
the interests of tobacco growers, and one representative of the
interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry, which
may be filled on a rotating, sequential basis by representatives of
different small business tobacco manufacturers based on areas of
expertise relevant to the topics being considered by the Advisory
Committee.
    With this notice, nominations are sought for the following
positions: a pool of individuals, with varying areas of expertise, to
represent the interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing
industry on a rotating, sequential basis.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a

letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a
complete list of all such organizations and a list of all nominees
along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is
the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one
another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of
the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry
interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound
by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no
individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the
nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and
the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA
Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within
30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward
all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who
nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not
participate in the selection process.)
    FDA seeks to include the views of women, and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: September 21, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-20990 Filed 9-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P