[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58538-58540]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18401]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0925; FRL-10943-01-R9]

Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control
District (GBUAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve
one rule governing the issuance of permits for new and modified major
sources in nonattainment areas under part D of title I of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``the Act'') in the District. We are also proposing to find
that PM10 precursors are not significant contributors to
PM10 levels in the Mono Basin, as the majority of direct PM
emissions come from dry lake beds. We are taking comments on this
proposal and a final action will follow.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 27,
2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0925 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the 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 the disclosure of which 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. The 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 and multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language
other than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nidia Trejo, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Is there another version of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What is the background for this proposal?
    B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal including the
date it was adopted by the District and the date on which it was
submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or
``the State'').

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Rule No.                                   Rule title                  Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 222......................................  NSR Requirements for New and Modified      01/06/22     07/05/22
                                                 Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 5, 2023, the submittal for District Rule 222 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Is there another version of this rule?

    There is no previous version of Rule 222 in the California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Rule 222 is intended to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory
requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit programs
for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and their
precursors.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What is the background for this proposal?

    Historically, the District had four designated PM10
nonattainment areas, including the Owens Valley and Coso Junction
Planning Areas in Inyo County, CA, and the Mono Basin and Mammoth Lake
Planning Areas in Mono County, CA. Currently, however, only the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley Planning Areas are designated nonattainment for
PM10. The designation of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley
Planning Areas as federal PM10 nonattainment areas triggered
the requirement for the District to develop and submit an NNSR program
to the EPA for approval into the California SIP. The District's NNSR
program must satisfy the NNSR requirements applicable to a Moderate
PM10 nonattainment area for the Mono Basin and a Serious
PM10 nonattainment area for the Owens Valley.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action contains
additional information regarding the history of the District's
PM10 nonattainment areas. The District is designated
attainment/unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The EPA reviewed Rule 222 for compliance with CAA requirements for:
(1) stationary source preconstruction permitting programs as set forth
in CAA part D, including CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173; (2) the review
and modification of major sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-
51.165 as applicable in Moderate and Serious PM10
nonattainment areas; (3) the review of new major stationary sources or
major modifications in a designated nonattainment area that may have an
impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA
sections 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); \1\ and
(5) SIP revisions as set forth in CAA section 110(l) \2\ and 193.\3\
Our review evaluated the submittals for compliance with the NNSR
requirements applicable to nonattainment areas designated Moderate and
Serious, and ensured that the submittals addressed the NNSR
requirements for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable, and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out their
proposed SIP revisions.
    \2\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    \3\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in
a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the July 5, 2022 submittal of Rule
222, we find that the District has provided sufficient evidence of
public notice, opportunity for comment, and a public hearing prior to
adoption and submittal of this rule to the EPA.
    With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections
172(c)(5), 173, 189 and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we have evaluated Rule
222 in accordance with the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements
that apply to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act
for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. We find that Rule 222 satisfies
these requirements as they apply to sources subject to NNSR permit
program requirements applicable to Moderate and Serious PM10
nonattainment areas. As part of our determination, we relied on a
previous finding from our 2016 final action approving the Owens Valley
1987 PM10 attainment plan that PM10 precursors
are not significant contributors to PM10 in the area,\4\ and
a comparative analysis of emission sources in the Mono Basin to
determine that PM10 precursors are also not significant
contributors to PM10 in the Mono Basin.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 82 FR 13390, (March 13, 2017). See also 81 FR 89407,
(December 12, 2016).
    \5\ See GBUAPCD 1995 PM10 State Implementation Plan
for Mono Basin Planning Area, Table 4.1--PM10 Emissions
Summary; see also 82 FR 13390 (Mar. 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also determined that this rule satisfies the related
visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In addition, we find that
Rule 222 satisfies the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that
regulations submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally
enforceable and that the submittal demonstrates in accordance with CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the Districts have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out the proposed SIP
revision.
    Regarding the additional substantive requirements of CAA sections
110(l) and 193, our action will result in a more stringent SIP, while
not relaxing any existing provision contained in the SIP. We have
concluded that our action would comply with section 110(l) because our
approval of Rule 222 will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA
applicable requirement. In addition, our approval of Rule 222 will not
relax any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore
changes to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or
equivalent emission reductions of PM10 and its precursors in
the District; accordingly, our action is consistent with the
requirements of CAA section 193.
    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule 222.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD also includes recommendations for an additional clarifying
revision to consider for adoption when the District next modifies Rule
222.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing approval of the submitted rule because it fulfills the
relevant CAA requirements and strengthens the SIP. We have concluded
that our approval of the submitted rule would comply with the relevant
provisions of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 189, and
193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.
    If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan--in part).
This action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP. In
conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program as meeting the
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, this action would also revise
the

regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) concerning the applicability
of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as
it pertains to California, to provide that this FIP does not apply to
sources subject to review under the District's SIP-approved NNSR
program.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
September 27, 2023.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the GBUAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble, which
regulates the issuance of permits for new and modified major sources in
nonattainment areas in the District. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, this document available electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. 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 Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The District did not evaluate environmental justice considerations
as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goals of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Cheree Peterson,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-18401 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 12, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-97-3077

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Servicios Aéreos Profesionales, S.A.				Date Filed:
January 23, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
charter foreign air transportation of persons and property between the
Dominican Republic and the United States.  The applicant would conduct
these services only by wet leasing aircraft from a duly authorized and
properly supervised U.S. or foreign air carrier.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  March 19, 2002, in this
docket

Applicant representative:  Luis A. Irizarry<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  February 12, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 12, 2004-February 12,
2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and the Dominican Republic, dated
July 22, 1986

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Servicios
Aéreos Profesionales, S.A. may not conduct U.S. operations with its own
aircraft and crews without further order of the Department.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

		Attachment

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

  We note that Servicios Aéreos Profesionales sought authority for a
two year period.  However, as is our usual practice in conferring
exemption authority in the circumstances presented, we are limiting the
term of authority to one year.  Servicios Aéreos Profesionales may, of
course, seek renewal of this authority in accordance with the
Department’s rules.

  The Dominican Republic is currently a Category 2 country under the
FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA).

08/2003


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I was a smoker for almost 16 years, starting at the ripe age of 14.  I continued to smoke cigarettes until May 14th, 2013.  That is the day that I got my first Electronic Cigarette starter kit and began trying to kick cigarettes.  On May 15th only one day later, I smoked my last cigarette.  I have now been cigarette free for 3 days shy of 1 year.  I had tried to quit smoking in the past with patches and gum and even just cold turkey (that one got me further than gum or patches).  To no avail, I never could seem to stay on track, always going back to the cigarettes in the end.  Only this time it has been drastically different, within the first week of Vaping, I noticed everything getting better, sense of smell, breathing, mood and energy.  Once I noticed that my life quality was improving I never looked back and now almost one year later, have lowered my nicotine intake from 24mg juices to 6mg juices and have never felt better.  I have not yet experienced any side effect of Vaping thus far, which in any case is a whole lot more than I can say about cigarettes.  Vaping has truly changed my life for the better and while I want to make sure it is as safe as possible for Vapor’s and the general public, I also know that these regulations will make it nearly impossible for people to have the chance that I did.  It is with that I ask of you to strongly consider the extension time period being granted, so we can attempt to provide the correct research necessary to come up with reasonable and respectable regulations so that we don’t bankrupt a hugely growing industry that if nothing else is providing a safer alternative to cigarettes and carcinogens.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

                                  Sincerely,                                 James Decker


[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19183-19186]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-94-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ozark Trails
Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

April 6, 2006.
    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 Ozark Trails Expansion Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) in (Labette and Montgomery
counties, Kansas and Christian, Greene, Jasper, and Newton counties,
Missouri).\1\ The project would include about 2 miles of various
diameter pipelines, uprating 13.5 mile of pipeline from a maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 720 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 877 psig, and modifications at two existing compressor
stations. No additional horsepower of compression is proposed. This EA
will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southern Star's application was filed with the Commission
under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part 157 of the
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the

proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a
mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by
the Commission, 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
in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Southern Star provided to landowners. 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 available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Southern Star proposes to construct and operate various facilities,
including pipeline installation, extensions, replacements, and
modifications at the Grabham and Saginaw Compressor Stations, in order
to provide 19,562 decatherm per day (Dthd) and 5,000 Dthd of
incremental firm transportation to Missouri Gas Energy (MGE), a
Division of Southern Union, and Southern Missouri Gas Company, L.P.,
respectively. The proposed facilities are located in Labette and
Montgomery Counties, Kansas and Christian, Greene, Jasper, and Newton
Counties, Missouri. The pipeline and ancillary facilities would
include:
     Springfield 20-Inch Loop Extension (Line HS). Extension of
Springfield 20-inch pipeline loop (Line HS) by constructing about 0.9
mile of new 20-inch outside diameter (O.D.) loop from milepost (MP)
52.0 to MP 52.9 in Christian County, Missouri.
     Springfield 16-Inch Extension (Line HQ). Extension of
Springfield 16-inch pipeline (Line HQ) by about 1.1 miles from at MP
41.35 to MP 42.43 located within the City of Springfield and Greene
County, Missouri. The proposed 16-inch extension will be constructed in
replacement of about a 1.0 mile segment of Line HQ-8.
    Construction of above-ground auxiliary facilities at the eastern
terminus of the proposed 16-inch extension line (MP 42.4), which would
include a pressure regulator, 16-inch pig receiver, slug catcher,
filter separator and a liquid collection tank. Relocate pig receiver
from existing regulator site (MP 41.4) to new site.
     MGE Delivery Meter Facility. New delivery meter facility
to be constructed at about MP 3.7 on Southern Star's Tartan 10-inch
(HQ-32) pipeline for delivery to MGE; side valve, 6-inch ultrasonic
meter, 6-inch flow control valve, and 350-feet of 10-inch
interconnecting pipeline lateral.
     Southern 20-inch Loop Facilities. Southern Trunk 20-inch
Loop Uprate:
    Uprate Southern Trunk 20-inch loop line (Line FR between Southern
Star's Grabham compressor station in Montgomery County, Kansas and the
Empire ``State Line'' Power Plant in Jasper County, Missouri) between
MP 0.0 to MP 13.5 to a MAOP from 720 psig to 877 psig.
    Uprate activity would involve replacing various valves and
crossovers on the FR Line, replacing pig launchers and receivers,
installing a high pressure discharge line, replacing one road crossing,
and making other modifications to the Grabham Compressor Station, as
detailed below.
    Southern Star's proposed modifications on the FR 20-inch pipeline
are as follows:
     Compton Corner Town Border Station. Replacement of
existing 4-inch flanged valve on 20-inch FR line with a new 4-inch
riser and 4-inch ANSI 600 valve at MP 1.1 of FR line, east of
CR 3700, Montgomery County, Kansas.
    Replacement of 80-feet segment of 20-inch FR line with 20-inch pipe
to meet design specifications for higher MAOP.
     Verdad Crossover. Replacement of existing 20-inch by 16-
inch reducing tee with bars with a new 20-inch by 16-inch reducing tees
with bars and a 16-inch weld end ANSI 600 ball valve to meet
specifications for increased MAOP, at crossover at MP 4.0 of Southern
Star's 20-inch FR line and 20-inch F line, Montgomery County,
Kansas.Liberty Town Border Station Replacement of 2-inch riser and
installation of a new 2-inch flanged ANSI 600 ball valve to
meet design specifications for the increased MAOP, at MP 8.07,
Montgomery County, Kansas.
     Brown Road Crossover. Replacement of existing 20-inch by
16-inch reducing tee with bars with a new 20-inch by 16-inch reducing
tee with bars and a 16-inch weld end ANSI 600 ball valve, at
MP 13.5 crossover between Southern Star's 20-inch FR line and 20-inch
FR line, Labette County, Kansas.
    Southern Trunk 20-inch Loop (FR Line) Receiver and Regulator
Station. Replacement of existing receiver on the Southern Star's FR 20-
inch loop line with a receiver designed to meet the increased MAOP, at
the end of the Southern Trunk 20-inch Loop line, Jasper County,
Missouri.
    Back Pressure Regulator Station at Empire Power Plant. Installation
of a new back pressure regulator station at MP 2.45 on Southern Star's
existing 16-inch FP-1 line, Jasper County, Missouri.
     Compressor Station Modifications
    Saginaw Compressor Station Modifications. Installation of auxiliary
facilities at Southern Star's Saginaw Compressor Station in Newton
County, Missouri includes the following:
     New gas cooler between the two existing gas coolers and
about 40 feet of 12-inch (O.D.) above-grade piping and a valve to
connect the cooler;
     Modifications to the existing gas compressor cylinders on
the GMVH-10 reciprocating unit;
     Modifications to existing discharge piping to separate the
two reciprocating units from a common gas aftercooler;
     Modifications to station yard piping required to increase
the discharge operating pressure from 900 psig to 960 psig on the
Springfield 20-inch line; and installation of about 40 feet of 12-inch
(O.D.) above-ground piping and replacement of 20 feet of below-ground
12-inch pipe with 16-inch pipe; and
     Installation of a new regulator on the Jane 20-inch line
within the Saginaw station yard.
     Removal of miscellaneous pipeline to be sold for scrap
steel and salvaged by the contractor.
    Grabham Compressor Station Modifications. Installation of auxiliary
facilities at Southern Star's Grabham Compressor Station in Montgomery
County, Kansas includes the following:
     Replacement of pulsation dampeners on compressor units 11
and 12;
     Installation of a new gas cooler and modifications of
associated yard piping;
     Installation of a new 20-inch discharge header and
modifications of associated yard piping to service Line FR 20-inch
(about 1,400 feet of 20-inch line and 150 feet of 16-inch line);
     Replacement of 20-inch pig launcher on Line FR 20-inch;
and
     Installation of a regulation and an orifice meter.
    Southern Star indicates that MGE plans to construct a 3-mile
pipeline to interconnect with Southern Star's proposed MGE measurement
facility.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (map), are available on the Commission's Web site at
the ``eLibrary'' link 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. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 26.9
acres of land. Following construction, about 6.5 acres would be
required for operation and maintenance.

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
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 of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils.
     Land use.
     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Air quality and noise.
     Hazardous waste.
     Public safety.
    We will not discuss impacts to the following resource areas since
they are not present in the project area, or would not be affected by
the proposed facilities.
     Public or special use lands within 0.25 mile.
    We will also evaluate possible 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.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have identified the potential issue regarding construction near
residences that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary
review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information
provided by Southern Star. The preliminary issue may be changed based
on your comments and our analysis.
    Also, we have made a preliminary decision to not address the
impacts of the nonjurisdictional facilities. We will briefly describe
their location and status in the EA.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA/EIS and considered by the
Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to avoid or
lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to
ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
    Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-94-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before May 8, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments you will need to create a free account which can be
created online.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://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. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, 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 now 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5440 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P