[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 69848]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-19-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on November 7, 2013, Questar Pipeline Company
(Questar), 333 South State Street, P. 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah,
filed in Docket No. CP14-19-000, an application pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.208(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, requesting authorization to replace a
section of its existing Main Line (ML) 3 in Davis and Morgan Counties,
Utah. The authorizations are requested under Questar's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-491-000,\1\ all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Mountain Fuel Resources, Inc., 20 FERC ] 62,580 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questar proposes in its Weber Canyon Replacement Project (Project)
to replace approximately 3.26 miles of its existing 16-inch ML 3
pipeline on the south side of Interstate 84 in Weber Canyon southeast
of Ogden Utah. Questar proposes to isolate the line, remove the
existing pipe, and install new pipe in the same trench within the
existing right-of-way. The estimated cost of the project is
approximately $29,392,000.
    The Project will have no impact on the certificated parameters of
the Questar pipeline. In addition, there will be no abandonment or
decrease in service to Questar customers as a result of the proposed
Project. As described in the application, ground-disturbing activities
necessary to construct the project will result in minimal environmental
impacts. Questar also requests waiver of the requirements of
Commissions regulations section 157(203)(d)(2) regarding a weekly
Environmental Inspector's report.
    The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to L.
Bradley Burton, General Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs, and FERC
Compliance Officer, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O.
Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 14, 2014.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27954 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74449-74452]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29800]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9759-1]
RIN 2040-AF41

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and
Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule; Stay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed stay.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
temporarily stay our regulation the ``Water Quality Standards for the
State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule'' (inland
waters rule) to November 15, 2013. EPA's inland waters rule currently
includes an effective date of January 6, 2013, for the entire
regulation except for the site-specific alternative criteria provision,
which took effect on February 4, 2011. This proposed stay of its
regulations is until November 15, 2013, does not affect or change the
February 4, 2011, effective date for the site-specific alternative
criteria provision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0596, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
    4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyright material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket Facility.
The Office of Water (OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket
Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the Docket address is OW
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20004. 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
rulemaking, contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Mailcode
4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Florida may be interested
in this rulemaking. Entities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus to
lakes and flowing waters of Florida could be indirectly affected by
this rulemaking because water quality standards (WQS) are used in
determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit limits. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Industries discharging
                                          pollutants to lakes and
                                          flowing waters in the State of
                                          Florida.
Municipalities.........................  Publicly-owned treatment works
                                          discharging pollutants to
                                          lakes and flowing waters in
                                          the State of Florida.
Stormwater Management Districts........  Entities responsible for
                                          managing stormwater runoff in
                                          Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for entities that may be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table, such as nonpoint source contributors
to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in Florida's waters may be
indirectly affected through implementation of Florida's water quality
standards program (i.e., through Basin Management Action Plans
(BMAPs)). Any parties or entities conducting activities within
watersheds of the Florida waters covered by this rule, or who rely on,
depend upon, influence, or contribute to the water quality of the lakes
and flowing waters of Florida, may be indirectly affected by this rule.
To determine whether your facility or activities may be affected by
this action, you should carefully examine the language in 40 CFR
131.43, which is the final rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    On December 6, 2010, EPA's final inland waters rule, entitled
``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing
Waters; Final Rule,'' was published in the Federal Register at 75 FR
75761, and codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final inland waters rule
established numeric nutrient criteria in the form of total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, nitrate+nitrite, and chlorophyll a for the different
types of Florida's inland waters to assure attainment of the State's
applicable water quality designated uses. More specifically, the
numeric nutrient criteria translated Florida's narrative nutrient
provision at Subsection 62-302.530(47)(b), Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), into numeric values that apply to lakes and springs
throughout Florida and flowing waters outside of the South Florida
Region. (EPA has distinguished the South Florida Region as those areas
south of Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River watershed to the
west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie watershed to the east of Lake
Okeechobee.) The final inland waters rule seeks to improve water
quality, protect public health and aquatic life, and achieve the long-
term recreational uses of Florida's waters, which are a critical part
of the State's economy.
    Two portions of EPA's original inland waters rule--numeric nutrient
criteria for Florida's streams and default downstream protection values
(DPVs) for unimpaired lakes--were remanded to EPA on February 18, 2012
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (FWF v.
Jackson, 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS). Per the terms of a Consent Decree, EPA
is required to sign proposed criteria for these remanded portions by
November 30, 2012 and to

sign a notice of final rulemaking for such portions by August 31, 2013.

III. Stay of 40 CFR 11.43 (a)-(d)

A. Rationale for Staying 40 CFR 131.43 (a)-(d) until November 15, 2013

    As stated in the rule itself (75 FR 75761, December 6, 2010), the
inland waters rule was originally scheduled to take effect on March 6,
2012, except for the site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC)
provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), which took effect on February 4, 2011.
However, after securing approval from the district court judge
presiding over the Consent Decree, EPA published an extension of the
March 6, 2012 effective date of the rule for four months to July 6,
2012 (77 FR 13497) to provide time for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) to adopt and submit its final nutrient
rules to EPA for review and approval or disapproval under CWA section
303(c). FDEP officially submitted its final nutrient rules to EPA on
June 13, 2012. On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39949), after securing approval
from the district court judge presiding over the Consent Decree, EPA
published a six-month extension of the July 6, 2012 effective date of
the rule to January 6, 2013 in order to avoid the confusion and
inefficiency that could occur should Federal criteria become effective
while EPA reviewed the recently adopted and submitted State nutrient
rules for approval or disapproval under CWA section 303(c).
    FDEP's rules include numeric criteria for all freshwater lakes, all
springs, some inland flowing waters, and certain estuaries, as well as
narrative provisions addressing protection of downstream waters. EPA
reviewed FDEP's nutrient rules, in conjunction with the supporting
documentation provided, and approved FDEP's rules pursuant to section
303(c) of the CWA. EPA's approval letter is available at: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_index.cfm.
    FDEP's numeric nutrient criteria apply to a subset of flowing
waters covered by EPA's January 14, 2009 determination and the Consent
Decree; therefore, EPA must propose federal criteria for those flowing
waters not covered by FDEP's rule. In a separate action, EPA is re-
proposing federal criteria that were remanded to EPA on February 18,
2012, that would apply only to those flowing waters not covered by
Florida's newly approved water quality standards.
    However, at this time, implementation of Florida's EPA-approved
rules is unclear. A provision included in Florida's Rule, specifically
subsection 62-302.531(9), F.A.C., casts some doubt as to whether the
newly approved state water quality standards will go into effect if EPA
proposes and promulgates numeric nutrient criteria for streams not
covered by the State water quality standards. Therefore, it is unclear
whether an EPA proposal to ``gap fill,'' or establish numeric criteria
for nutrients for Florida flowing waters that FDEP does not cover in
its Rule, would trigger 62-302.531(9), F.A.C. and result in much of
Florida's newly approved state water quality standards not taking
effect. See 62-302.531(9), F.A.C. In addition, due to a recent
administrative challenge filed in the State of Florida Department of
Administrative Hearings, there is uncertainty as to whether FDEP will
be able to implement its newly approved state water quality standards
consistent with FDEP's ``Implementation of Florida's Numeric Nutrient
Standards'' (September 2012), a document describing how FDEP will
implement its standards that EPA relied on in its approval.
    This stay would provide EPA time to clarify implementation of
Florida's rules approved by EPA under CWA section 303(c) and take
corresponding final action on EPA's proposal for the remanded portions
of the inland waters rule (streams and default downstream protection
values (DPVs) for unimpaired lakes), for which a notice of final
rulemaking action must be signed by August 31, 2013, and which EPA
expects would take effect on or around November 15, 2013. In addition,
the stay would provide EPA time to initiate rulemaking to withdraw the
corresponding Federal criteria for freshwater lakes and springs if
Florida's criteria for freshwater lakes and springs will be implemented
by the State, e.g., if 62-302.531(9), F.A.C. is not triggered.
    If, following consideration of public comment, EPA takes final
action to stay these provisions, these provisions will be stayed until
November 15, 2013. For more information on these actions, go to http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/wqs/index.html.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), since it
merely stays certain sections of an already promulgated rule, and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not impose any
information collection burden, reporting or record keeping requirements
on anyone.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    This proposed rule does not establish any requirements that are
applicable to small entities, but rather merely stays certain sections
of already promulgated requirements. Thus, I certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. This proposed rule merely stays certain sections of an already
promulgated regulation.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not establish any requirements that are applicable to small
entities, but rather merely stays

certain sections of already promulgated requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely stays certain
sections of an already promulgated regulation.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
This proposed rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    In the State of Florida, there are two Indian Tribes, the Seminole
Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, with
lakes and flowing waters. Both Tribes have been approved for treatment
in the same manner as a State (TAS) status for CWA sections 303 and 401
and have federally approved WQS in their respective jurisdictions.
These Tribes are not subject to this proposed rule. This rule will not
impact the Tribes because it merely stays certain sections of already
promulgated requirements.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866
and because the Agency does not believe this action includes
environmental health risks or safety risks that would present a risk to
children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994)
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. This action is not subject to E.O.
12898 because this action merely stays certain sections of already
promulgated requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Florida, Nitrogen/phosphorus pollution,
Nutrients, Water quality standards.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 131 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 131--WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D--Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards

    2. Effective [DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER OF FINAL
RULE], 40 CFR 131.43(a)--(d) are stayed until November 15, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2012-29800 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30031-30032]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1144; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-30]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity
of Richmond, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register of May 29, 2018, that amends five VHF omnidirectional range
(VOR) Federal airways (V-12, V-214, V340, V-467, and V517) and one low
altitude area navigation (RNAV) route (T-213). This action removes V-
467 as the FAA inadvertently listed the route as being amended when, in
fact, it already has been removed in a previous rulemaking.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC September 13, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR
24403; May 29, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1144 amending VOR Federal
airways V-12, V-214, V-340, V-467, and V-517, and low altitude RNAV
route T-213. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that one VOR
Federal airway, V-467, already has been removed in a previous
rulemaking (83 FR 13404; March 29, 2018). This action removes reference
to V-467 in the preamble and the regulatory text.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me,
Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of
Richmond, IN, published in the Federal Register of May 29, 2018 (83 FR
24403), FR Doc. 2018-11327, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
On page 24403, column 1, line 15; column 2, line 32; and column 3, line
11, remove the text ``V-467.'' On page 24403, column 3, lines 49 thru
56, remove the text that reads ``V-467: V-467 extends between the
Richmond, IN, VORTAC and the Detroit, MI, VOR/DME. This rule removes
the airway segment between the Richmond, IN, VORTAC and the Waterville,
OH, VOR/DME. The unaffected portion of the existing airway remains as
charted.''

0
On page 22404, column 3, lines 39 and 40, under Paragraph 6010(a)
Domestic VOR Federal Airways, remove the text that reads:

``V-467 [Amended]
    From Waterville, OH; to Detroit, MI.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2018.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-13739 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57731-57732]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the

following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of
the Northern Tier Transmission Group, whose members include
NorthWestern Corporation, Deseret Generation & Transmission
Cooperative, Inc., Portland General Electric Company, Idaho Power
Company, PacifiCorp, and MATL LLP:

Northern Tier Transmission Group Quarter 8 Stakeholder Meeting
December 7, 2017 10:00 a.m.--1:45 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time)
    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: UAMPS Offices, 155 N
400 West, Suite 480, Salt Lake City, UT 84103.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at this link.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceeding:

Docket Nos. ER18-61-000, Portland General Electric Company
ER18-62-000, MATL LLP
ER18-63-000, Idaho Power Company
ER18-66-000, PacifiCorp
ER18-67-000, Portland General Electric Company
ER18-69-000, NorthWestern Corporation
ER18-72-000, Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc.
    For more information, contact Navin Shekar ([email protected],
202-502-6297), or Patricia Dalton ([email protected], 202-502-
8044) at the Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.

    Dated: December 1, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26395 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63781-63782]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25381]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0754; FRL-9740-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source
categories for the SMAQMD. We are proposing to approve these negative
declarations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATE: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0754, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following
negative declarations listed in Table I:

                Table 1--Submitted Negative Declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Local agency             Title           Adopted        Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD................  Fiberglass Boat         03/22/12        07/12/12
                         Manufacturing
                         Materials (EPA-
                         453/R-08-004,
                         September 2008).
SMAQMD................  Automobile and          03/22/12        07/12/12
                         Light-Duty
                         Truck Assembly
                         Coatings (EPA-
                         453/R-08-006,
                         September 2008).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we
are approving these negative declarations in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we believe these negative declarations
are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the
comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note
that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-25381 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 1 of 3 Proposed Priority: Mineral Processing Universe and Types of Facilities Evidence gathered in recent inspections indicates that mineral processing facilities are failing to obtain the necessary permits and adequately manage their wastes. EPA has found that the mishandling of mineral processing wastes has caused significant environmental damages and resulted in costly cleanups. These highly acidic wastes have caused fish kills and the arsenic and cadmium that these wastes often contain have been found in elevated levels in residential wells. Mining is defined simply as the taking of minerals, either fuel minerals or non fuel minerals, from the earth. Non fuel minerals are further divided into metallic and nonmetallic minerals. SIC code 14 includes establishments that conduct mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels; and those engaged primarily in mining or quarrying, developing mines, or exploring for nonfuel nonmetallic minerals. The metal mining industry ( SIC code 10) includes facilities engaged primarily in exploring for metallic minerals, developing mines, and ore mining. Hardrock mining involves uncovering and extracting non fuel metal and mineral deposits of solid ores or eroded deposits in streambeds.

Large companies tend to dominate mining of such metals as copper, silver, and gold, while more diverse mine operators may be involved in mining lead, zinc, and iron metals. According to USDA, abandoned mine sites, which are on private, state, and public lands, pose significant physical and/ or environmental hazards. Of the approximately 65,000 abandoned sites under BLM's jurisdiction, the agency estimates that 5% may have CERCLA or water quality problems and about 25% have physical safety hazards.

Geographic Range Most mining for base and precious metals occurs in the western US while mining for industrial rocks and minerals is more common in the eastern US.

Key Pollutants and Risk Factors Mining produces significant amounts of waste and byproducts, ranging from 10% to over 99.99% of the total material mined. Wastes include overburden and waste rock, which are primarily disposed of in piles near the mine site. Waste rock dumps are generally constructed on unlined terrain, with underlying soils stripped, graded, or compacted depending on engineering considerations. Tailings, also a common mining waste, contain a mixture of impurities, trace metals, and residue of chemicals used in the beneficiation process. Tailings usually leave the mill as a slurry consisting of 40 70% liquid mill effluent and 30 60% solids; liquids are commonly reused in milling processes. While most mine tailings are disposed in on site impoundments, some tailings are dewatered and disposed of in piles; thus minimizing seepage volumes and the amount The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 2 of 3 of land required for an impoundment. Specific types of environmental impacts include:

$ Acid mine drainage ( AMD), resulting from sulfide oxidation in rocks exposed to air and water, can pose significant threats to surface and groundwater quality and resources not only during active mining, but also for decades after operations cease. Abandoned mines and refuse piles can produce AMD for over 50 years. AMD lowers water pH making it unable to support many forms of aquatic life; carries toxic, metal bearing sediment into streams, killing waterborne plant and animal species; and increases disease risks for humans consuming drinking water and fish tissue with a heavy metal content.

$ Acid leaching operations use high concentrations of acids to extract metals from ore, producing large volumes of metal bearing acid solutions. Contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water is caused by leakage, spillage, or seepage of the leaching solution at various stages of the process. Significant risks are posed to human health due to metal contamination. Specifically, children living near abandoned lead and zinc mines are especially at risk due to high level of lead found in their blood.

$ Fugitive Dust Emissions: Many mining operations ( ore crushing, conveyance of crushed ore, loading bins, blasting, mine and motor vehicle traffic, waste rock piles, windblown tailings) emit particles as fugitive dust. This dust can contain arsenic, lead, and other toxic heavy metals, and can be deposited in surface water, causing sedimentation and turbidity.

$ Erosion and Sedimentation: Erosion and sedimentation affect surface water and wetlands more than any other media. Erosion can also adversely affect soil organisms, vegetation, and revegetation efforts because it results in the movement of soil, including topsoil and nutrients, from one location to another.

$ Cyanide and Other Chemical Releases: Cyanide, which is used during the mining of gold and silver, can adversely impact water, soil, aquatic organisms, wildlife, waterfowl, and humans. Other chemicals ( oil, petroleum products, solvents, acids, and reagents) used during the beneficiation process or in vehicles and equipment can impact human health and the environment if released.

$ Habitat Modification: Mining, which can cause large disturbances to the land, affect the withdrawal and discharge of water, manipulate the topography, and release particulates and chemicals, can have indirect impacts on various habitats. The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 3 of 3 $ Disruption of Surface Water and Groundwater: The massive quantities of water necessary for mining can disrupt surface water and groundwater flows, and result in drawdown. Drawdown reduces the water available for recharging wetlands and surface waters, thereby affecting any organisms that depend on those waters. Water that percolates through waste piles and tailings can become contaminated with heavy metals, thus contaminating both groundwater and surface water.

$ Subsidence: Mining subsidence is the surface impact of collapsing overlying strata into mined out voids, creating sinkholes or troughs. Sinkholes interrupt surface water drainage patterns, affecting ponds, streams, and wetlands.

$ Aesthetics: Most mining operations cause aesthetic impacts, including large land disturbances such as unnatural anomalies and holes; lack of vegetation; and impacted wildlife habitats.