[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66265]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2013-0901]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Reynolds Channel, Lawrence, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Atlantic Beach Bridge, mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel, at Lawrence,
New York. This temporary deviation authorizes the Atlantic Beach Bridge
to operate under an alternate schedule for 29 days, to complete bridge
rehabilitation.

DATES: This deviation is effective from December 2, 2013 through
December 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2013-0901 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2013-0901 in the ``Keyword'' and
then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic Beach Bridge, across Reynolds
Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York, has a vertical clearance in
the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean
low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at
33 CFR 117.799(e).
    A temporary deviation for the drawbridge operations (78 FR 56610)
is currently in effect. During ongoing rehabilitation of the bridge the
contractor discovered more severe damage than originally anticipated,
resulting from Super Storm Sandy in 2012. The owner of the bridge,
Nassau County Bridge Authority, is requesting additional bridge
closures in order to complete the bridge rehabilitation.
    The waterway has commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of
various sizes.
    Under this temporary deviation the draw of the Atlantic Beach
Bridge at mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel shall operate as follows:
    From December 2, 2013 through December 31, 2013, the bridge shall
operate a single span on signal at 6 a.m., 12 p.m., 4 p.m., and 8 p.m.
and at any time between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. The draw shall open both
spans at all times for commercial vessel traffic after at least a 48
hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the
bridge. The draw may remain in the closed position between 12 a.m. and
5 a.m. on December 3, and December 4, 2013.
    The Coast Guard contacted all known commercial waterway users
regarding this deviation and no objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-26517 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22091-22093]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09921]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0731 FRL-9993-52-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2)
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine
Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on October 23, 2018. The proposed SIP
revision pertains to the shutdown and replacement of certain equipment
at the refinery as well as amendments to certain emission limits,
resulting in an overall decrease of SO2 emissions from FHR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0731 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision?
    a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their
Associated Decoking Units
    b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit
    c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox Off-Gas Unit
III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    FHR operates an oil refinery located in the Pine Bend Area of
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. On October 23, 2018, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to EPA to approve
the conditions cited as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2
SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52,
subp. Y'' in FHR's revised joint Title I/Title V document, Permit No.
03700011-102 \1\ (joint document 102) into the Minnesota SIP. Joint
document 102 contains measures for FHR to implement changes to
technology at the plant as well as to revise SO2 emissions
limits for existing equipment. MPCA posted joint document 102 for
public comment on August 21, 2018, and the comment period ended on
September 19, 2018. MPCA received no comments on the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1995, EPA approved consolidated permitting regulations
into the Minnesota SIP. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated
permitting regulations included the term ``Title I condition'' which
was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control
measures remain permanent and enforceable. A ``Title I condition''
is defined, in part, as ``any condition based on source specific
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of
achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air
quality standard and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA
or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the
act. . .'' MINN. R. 7007.0100 (2013). The regulations also state
that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply
with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.'' MINN. R.
7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/
Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP
requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA
are cited as ``Title I conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP
requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the
state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to
implement site specific SIP requirements and found it to be
acceptable under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (July
3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision?

    Joint document 102, issued by MPCA on October 5, 2018, contains
amended SIP conditions for FHR that will replace SIP conditions in
joint document 101, which EPA approved on July 10, 2018 (83 FR 33846).
The amended SIP conditions in joint document 102 address the shutdown
and replacement of two coker heaters in FHR's delayed coking units with
smaller and more efficient heaters, as well as lowering allowable
annual SO2 emissions limits for the #5 sulfur recovery unit
and 31H2 Merox off-gas unit. See Table 1 in Section III for a list of
detailed changes to SO2 allowable emissions limits
associated with this proposed action. The amended SIP conditions in
joint document 102 include:

a. Replacement of 21H1 and 21H2 Coker Heaters and Their Associated
Decoking Units

    The 21H1 (EQUI491) and 21H2 (EQUI492) coker heaters are older, less
efficient coker heaters that will be

removed, along with their associated steam-air decoking units (EQUI493
and EQUI494). These heaters and decoking units are being replaced with
two new coker heaters (EQUI1491 and EQUI1492). The new coker heaters
are natural draft heaters equipped with ultra-low oxides of nitrogen
burners and heat recovery. These two features make them more energy
efficient than the coker heaters they are replacing. Also, unlike the
older coker heaters, the new coker heaters will be able to mechanically
decoke without the need for separate steam-air decoking equipment. This
mechanical decoking can be performed while the heater is online, which
increases the utilization of the units but eliminates emissions
associated with current steam-air decoking procedures. Overall, the new
coker heaters will increase allowable annual average SO2
emissions by 37.74 tons per year (tpy) over the old coker heaters,
however this increase in allowable emissions will be more than offset
by the facility setting lower limits on other equipment, as shown in
Table 1 below. Once EPA approval of joint document 102 is effective and
the final construction activity to remove and replace the older units
has completed, the SO2 emissions limits for EQUI491,
EQUI492, EQUI493, and EQUI494 will expire.

b. Emissions Limits at the #5 Sulfur Recovery Unit

    FHR is investing in SO2 reduction activities that will
allow the #5 sulfur recovery unit (STRU83) to meet a more stringent
allowable SO2 emission limit of 343 tpy in joint document
102, down from 409.8 tpy in joint document 101. One of the
SO2 reduction activities FHR is likely to undertake will
involve rerouting downstream sulfur-laden air to the front end of the
#5 sulfur recovery unit to recapture and reprocess the sulfur. The
proposed reduction in allowable SO2 emissions in joint
document 102 is 66.8 tpy, as shown in Table 1 below.

c. Emissions Limits at the 31H2 Merox Off-Gas Unit

    In order to help offset the increase in allowable SO2
emissions from the installation of new coker heaters EQUI1491 and
EQUI1492, the 31H2 mercaptan oxidation (Merox) off-gas stream unit
(EQUI546) will have its allowable SO2 emissions reduced to
200 tpy in joint document 102. This is a 90.8 tpy reduction in
allowable SO2 emissions from the limit in joint document
101. The allowable emissions limit revision is further shown in Table 1
below.

III. SO2 SIP and Eissions Impacts

    As shown in Table 1, the impact of the amended SIP conditions in
joint document 102 results in a decrease of allowable SO2
emissions of 7.9 pounds of SO2 per hour (lb/hr) for the 3-
hour and 24-hour SO2 standards, and for the annual
SO2 standard, allowable emissions are decreased by 119.8
tpy. Joint document 102 becomes effective upon the effective date of
EPA's approval of MPCA's October 23, 2018 request.

                  Table 1--Summary of Changes to Allowable SO2 Emissions in Joint Document 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Change to
                                                                                allowable in      Change to
                     Unit                        Sections in joint document 102     lb/hr (3-hr    allowable in
                                                      (where applicable *)           and 24-hr      tpy (annual
                                                                                standards)       standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUI1491/21H4 #1 coker heater.................  5.165.8, 5.165.9, 5.168.10......            9.65            33.8
EQUI1492/21H5 #2 coker heater.................  5.166.8, 5.166.9, 5.166.10......            9.65            33.8
EQUI491/21H1 #1 coker heater..................  ................................           -5.58            13.2
EQUI492/21H2 #2 coker heater..................  ................................           -5.58           -13.2
EQUI493/21H1 steam-air decoking...............  ................................            -8.0           -1.73
EQUI494/21H2 steam-air decoking...............  ................................            -8.0           -1.73
EQUI546/31H2 Merox off-gas....................  5.147.4.........................             n/a           -90.8
STRU83/#5 sulfur recovery unit................  5.173.3.........................             n/a           -66.8
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Change..............................  ................................            -7.9          -119.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 emissions limits for units that were decommissioned and removed do not exist in joint document 102.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Minnesota's
SO2 SIP for FHR, as submitted by MPCA on October 23, 2018,
and reflected in conditions labeled ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR
50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I
Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'' in joint document 102.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference all the conditions in Minnesota Permit No. 03700011-102 cited
as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(S02 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR
51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'', effective January 13,
2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 30, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-09921 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


John - here is that last piece we talked about (this is Jeb typing).  Please include these as interagency review items in the docket (emails and attachments). ----- Forwarded by Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 02:07 PM -----

From:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US To:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:	Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	11/22/2011 12:08 PM Subject:	Requested Information

Christine:

Here's the original consent decree that I mentioned yesterday. ENV_DEFENSE-#460960-v1-Wildearth_Entered_CD.pdf

Here's the motion filed to extend the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deadline for OK.  Please see paragraph #5 that has the relevant December 16th deadline. Wildearth Motion as filed.pdf

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,

Sam

---- Forwarded by Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 02:07 PM -----

From:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US To:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:	12/07/2011 09:08 AM Subject:	Re: Supplemental Transport Rule

Great. Thanks.

From:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	12/07/2011 09:00 AM Subject:	Re: Supplemental Transport Rule

Thanks, Sam. I'm out of the office this am but will give you a call in the pm. Have a great day, Christine   From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 09:13 PM To: Kymn, Christine J.  Subject: Supplemental Transport Rule    Christine:   Please find attached an updated version of the Supplemental Transport Rule (in redline strikeout) for your consideration. We have made some changes to Oklahoma's state emissions budget and added an explanation of this, as well as added a small amount of state program regulatory language (for Oklahoma) for clarification purposes.   Please call me to go over this in the morning.   Best regards,    Sam

---- Forwarded by Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 02:07 PM -----

From:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US To:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:	Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	12/07/2011 07:04 PM Subject:	Re: Supplemental Transport Rule

Christine:

Per our conversation, please find attached an updated redline strikeout version of subject preamble and rule and the TSD regarding the state emissions budgets.  I will have Jeb send you early tomorrow the original spreadsheets that led us to the budget tables in the TSD that you also requested.

Thank you very much for moving forward on the review of this regulatory package for us.

Best regards,

Sam

EO 12866_SupplementalTransportRule_RIN 2060-AR01_FRM_2011-12-7_redline to OMB.docx

SNPR final budget TSD_12-7-11 FINAl_to OMB.docx   ----- Forwarded by Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 02:07 PM ----- From:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US To:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:	Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	12/09/2011 01:28 PM Subject:	RE: Supplemental Transport Rule

Christine:

Please find attached some further slight adjustments to the subject rule package that includes changes since December 6 that are clarifications of legal points regarding the Allegan receptor and the separate issue of the Kansas SIP Call.

I am including two versions in this email for OMB's convenience (they are identical but show different 'scopes' of edits based on what OMB may want to review).

    The file showing redline for all changes from the document as originally transmitted to OMB for review.  EO 12866_SupplementalTransportRule_RIN 2060-AR01_FRM_2011-12-9_redline to OMB_all changes since original OMB transmittal.docx       The same file, but showing only those changes made since the Dec 6 version that were previously transmitted to you.EO 12866_SupplementalTransportRule_RIN 2060-AR01_FRM_2011-12-9_redline to OMB_changes since Dec 6.docx

Please call me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Sam

----- Forwarded by Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 02:07 PM -----

From:	Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US To:	"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:	Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	12/13/2011 06:47 PM Subject:	EPA final supplemental

Christine:

Heard your voice mail and we will take add the language that you suggested.

Sam


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68008-68010]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-493-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Central Virginia Connector
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Central Virginia Connector
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia
Gas Transmission, L.L.C. (Columbia) in Louisa and Goochland Counties,
Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before October 27, 2016.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on August 12, 2016, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP16-493-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP16-493-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Columbia proposes to replace three Solar Saturn units with one
Solar Centaur 50 unit at the existing Louisa Compressor Station,
convert the replaced units to standby, increase the certificated
horsepower (HP) at the Louisa Compressor Station from 4,050 HP to 6,130
HP, install pipe and valve modifications to make the existing point of
delivery between Columbia's Mainline VM-108 and VM-109 at Boswell's
Tavern Compressor Station bi-directional, install a new point of
delivery meter station adjacent to Columbia's Goochland Compressor
Station, and install other appurtenant facilities.
    The Central Virginia Connector Project is in Louisa and Goochland
Counties, Virginia and would provide 45,000 cubic feet per day of
natural gas on its system and modernize compression at the Louisa
Compressor Station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice would not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would temporarily disturb
about 13.3 acres of land. Following construction, Columbia Gas would
maintain about 0.9 acre for permanent operation of the project's
facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to
former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the ``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on
the Commission's Web site.

Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-
493). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits would be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: September 27, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23818 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20963-20964]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08392]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Implementation
to the Equal Access to Justice Act

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information is needed to determine an applicant's
eligibility for an award of attorney's fees and other expenses under
the Equal Access to Justice Act.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 13, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0539.
    Title: Implementation to the Equal Access to Justice Act.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Equal Access to Justice Act provides for the award
of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and
entities who are prevailing parties in administrative proceedings
before government agencies. Certain information must be obtained from
the applicant in order to determine such applicant's eligibility for
the EAJA award.
    Respondents: Approximately 17 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 680 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-08392 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Reply To:	ORC-158			November 30, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Applicability of Oregon’s Title V Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)

FROM:	Julie Vergeront

		Assistant Regional Counsel

TO:		File

	On November 23, 2010, I spoke with Paul Logan, Assistant Attorney
General for the State of Oregon.  Mr. Logan has been working with the
air program in Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
regarding efforts to ensure Oregon’s regulations are consistent with
Clean Air Act requirements for the regulation of sources of GHG
emissions.

	Mr. Logan confirmed that, although ODEQ’s letters to EPA dated July
29, 2010 and October 1, 2010 primarily address Oregon’s PSD permitting
authority for GHG emissions, Oregon’s Title V program also will not
require sources of GHG emissions to apply for Title V permits based on
their emissions of GHGs until Oregon promulgates final rules that
require sources of GHG emissions to apply for Title V permits.  He
stated that Oregon’s rules do not currently regulate GHG emissions
from stationary sources and that Oregon’s courts have interpreted the
Oregon constitution to prohibit the incorporation by reference of future
rules of non-Oregon entities, such as EPA.

	Mr. Logan stated that Oregon recently proposed changes that would
update ODEQ’s PSD and Title V rules to be consistent with the
Tailoring Rule for PSD and Title V.  Those rule revisions are not
expected to be final until February 2011.

  PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46306-46307]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0421; FRL-9355-6]

Fluxapyroxad; Pesticide Tolerances Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of May 14,
2012, concerning the establishment of pesticide tolerances for the new
fungicide active ingredient fluxapyroxad. Inadvertently, the
terminology for the oilseed crop group and for dried plums was
incorrect. This technical amendment is being issued to correct the
terminology.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0421; FRL-9355-6, is
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What does this technical correction do?

    In the Federal Register of May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28270) (FRL-9346-7),
EPA issued a final rule establishing tolerances for the new fungicide
active ingredient fluxapyroxad (40 CFR 180.666) in or on various
commodities. Inadvertently, the commodity terminology for the oilseed
crop group and for dried plums was incorrectly expressed. This document
is being issued to correct the terminology for these commodities.

III. Why is this correction issued as a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical amendment
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because this
technical amendment only revises the terminology of two (2)
commodities, with no other related changes to tolerance levels or any
requirements of the final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Do any of the statutory and Executive Order reviews apply to this
action?

    This technical amendment only revises the terminology of two
commodities and does not otherwise change the original requirements of
the final rule. As a technical amendment, this action is not subject to
the statutory and Executive Order review requirements. For information
about the statutory and Executive Order review requirements as they
relate to the final rule, see Unit VI. in the Federal Register of May
14, 2012 (77 FR 28270) (FRL-9346-7).

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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 this final rule in the

Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and
pest.

    Dated: July 23, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  [emsp14]180.666, by removing the entries for ``Oilseeds,
group 20'' and ``Plum, prune'' and adding in their place entries for
``Oilseeds, group 20 (except cottonseed)'' and ``Plum, prune, dried''
in the table to paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.666  Fluxapyroxad; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Oilseeds, group 20 (except cottonseed)......................         0.9

                                * * * * *
Plum, prune, dried..........................................         3.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-18507 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77742]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0822; FRL-9505-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
and Operating Permits Program revisions submitted by the state of
Missouri which align the state's rule entitled ``Submission of Emission
Data, Emission Fees and Process Information'' with the Federal Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements Rule (AERR).

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
January 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2011-0822, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 28, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-31908 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P