                                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                           OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                                                    WASHINGTON, DC

       Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 9, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

DOCKET OST-2005-23147

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

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).

Application of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA),  filed  11/23/05
for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, and Guadalajara, Mexico, and to combine this
exemption authority with ASA’s existing certificate and exemption
authority consistent with applicable international agreements.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Linda
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   February 9, 2006,  through
  February 9, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

	                    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

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

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

- See next page -												2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------Conditions:  The
U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to the dormancy
notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A of Order
88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard practice, the dormancy notice
period will begin March 12, 2006, ASA’s proposed startup date for the
subject services.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon ASA
rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to
serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless ASA notifies
the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until
the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures
to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such
rights; and (b) should there be a request by any such carrier to use the
limited-entry route rights that are included in ASA’s authority by
virtue of the route integration authority granted here, but that are not
then being used by ASA, the holding of such authority by route
integration will not be considered as providing any preference for ASA
in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which
carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected.

(b)	     The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither ASA nor Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) 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, 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

			APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI 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; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

   ASA states that it will operate this service under Delta Air Lines’
“DL*” code as a Delta connection carrier.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50356-50359]
[DOCID:fr31au07-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-10-000]

LNG Development Company, LLC and Oregon Pipeline Company; Notice
of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Meetings

August 24, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) and
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (Coast
Guard) are in the process of evaluating the Oregon LNG Terminal and
Pipeline Project involving the construction and operation of facilities
proposed by LNG Development Company, LLC and Oregon Pipeline Company
(collectively referred to as Oregon LNG). The facilities would be
located in northern Oregon and consist of a liquefied natural gas (LNG)
import terminal in Warrenton, Oregon, and an associated 117-mile-long
natural gas pipeline from the LNG import terminal southeastward across
Clatsop, Washington, Yamhill, Marion, and Clackamas Counties, Oregon,
to an interconnection with the existing Williams Northwest Pipeline
system near Molalla, Oregon.
    As a part of this evaluation, FERC staff will prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) that will address the
environmental impacts of the project and the Coast Guard will assess
the safety and security of the project. As described below, the FERC
and the Coast Guard will hold a joint public meeting to allow the
public to provide input to these assessments.
    The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to
determine whether or not to authorize the project. This Notice of
Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process we \1\ will use to gather
information on the project from the public and interested agencies and
summarizes the process that the Coast Guard will use. Your input will

help identify the issues that need to be evaluated in the EIS and in
the Coast Guard's safety and security assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Emergy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC will be the lead federal agency in the preparation of an
EIS that will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The Coast Guard will serve as a cooperating agency
during preparation of the EIS. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Oregon Department of Energy have
been requested to serve as cooperating agencies in preparation of the
EIS.
    Comments on the project may be submitted in written form or
verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this NOI. In lieu of
sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping
meetings scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 7:00 p.m.

Warrenton High School Gymnasium, 1700 SE Main Street, Warrenton, OR
97146, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (contact: Rod Heyen).

Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 7:00 p.m.

Forest Grove Armory, 2950 Taylor Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116-1541,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (contact: Steve Johnson).

Thursday, September 20, 2007, 7:00 p.m.

Woodburn City Council Chambers, 270 Montgomery St., Woodburn, OR 97071,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (contact: Jan Clay).

    The first public scoping meeting listed above (Warrenton) will be
combined with the Coast Guard's public meeting regarding the maritime
safety and security of the project. At the meeting, the Coast Guard
will discuss: (1) The waterway suitability assessment that the
applicant will conduct to determine whether or not the waterway can
safely accommodate the LNG carrier traffic and operation of the planned
LNG marine terminal; and (2) the facility security assessment that the
applicant will conduct in accordance with the regulations of the
Maritime Transportation Security Act to assist with the preparation of
a Facility Security Plan.
    The Coast Guard is responsible for matters related to navigation
safety, vessel engineering and safety standards, and all matters
pertaining to the safety of facilities or equipment located in or
adjacent to navigable waters up to the last valve immediately before
the receiving tanks. The Coast Guard also has authority for LNG
facility security plan review, approval, and compliance verification as
provided in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 105, and
recommendation for siting as it pertains to the management of vessel
traffic in and around the LNG facility.
    Upon receipt of a Letter of Intent from an owner or operator
intending to build a new LNG facility, the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port conducts an analysis based on:
     The physical location and layout of the facility and its
berthing and mooring arrangements;
     The LNG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of LNG
shipments to the facility;
     Commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive, and
residential areas in and adjacent to the waterway used by the LNG
vessels en route to the facility;
     Density and character of the marine traffic on the
waterway;
     Bridges or other man-made obstructions in the waterway;
     Depth of water;
     Tidal range;
     Natural hazards, including rocks and sandbars;
     Underwater pipelines and cables; and
     Distance of berthed LNG vessels from the channel, and the
width of the channel.

This analysis results in a Letter of Recommendation issued to the owner
or operator and to the state and local governments having jurisdiction,
addressing the suitability of the waterway to accommodate LNG vessels,
as prescribed by 33 CFR 127.009.
    In addition, the Coast Guard will review and approve the facility's
operations manual and emergency response plan (33 CFR 127.019), as well
as the facility's security plan (33 CFR 105.410). The Coast Guard will
also provide input to other federal, state, and local government
agencies reviewing the project.
    In order to complete a thorough analysis and fulfill the regulatory
mandates cited above, the applicant will be conducting a Waterway
Suitability Assessment (WSA), a formal risk assessment evaluating the
various safety and security aspects associated with the Oregon LNG
Terminal and Pipeline Project. This risk assessment will be
accomplished through a series of workshops focusing on the areas of
waterways safety, port security, and consequence management, with
involvement from a broad cross-section of government and port
stakeholders with expertise in each of the respective areas. The
workshops will be by invitation only. However, comments received during
the public comment period will be considered as input in the risk
assessment process. The results of the WSA will be submitted to the
Coast Guard to be used in determining whether the waterway is suitable
for LNG traffic.
    This NOI is being sent to federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American
organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Oregon LNG proposes to construct and operate an LNG import terminal
and storage facility, and associated natural gas sendout pipeline with
a capacity to deliver up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day. More
specifically, Oregon LNG proposes the following primary project
components:
     A marine facility, including LNG unloading equipment and
one ship berth capable of handling about 150 LNG carrier ships per year
(the capacity of the ships could range from 70,000 to 260,000 cubic
meters (m\3\) per ship);
     Interconnecting facilities including piping, electrical,
and control systems;
     An LNG spill containment and collection system;
     Three full containment LNG storage tanks, each with a
nominal usable storage capacity of 160,000 m\3\;
     Vapor handling, re-gasification, and sendout systems;
     Utilities, telecommunications, and other supporting
systems;
     Administrative, control room, warehouse, security, and
other buildings and enclosures;
     Interconnecting roadways and civil works; and
     A 117-mile-long, 30 to 36-inch-diameter natural gas
sendout pipeline extending from the LNG terminal to the interconnection
with the existing interstate natural gas pipeline system operated by
Williams Northwest Pipeline.

    A location map depicting Oregon LNG's proposed facilities is
attached to this NOI as Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the
Commission's Web site (excluding maps) at the ``e-Library'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For instructions on connecting to e-Library refer to the end of this
notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving
this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action when it considers whether or
not an LNG import terminal or an interstate natural gas pipeline should
be approved. The FERC will use the EIS to consider the environmental
impacts that could result if it issues project authorizations to Oregon
LNG under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act. In addition, the
Coast Guard will use the EIS to determine if a Letter of Recommendation
should be issued, with or without conditions, under 33 CFR Sec.
127.009. 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 EIS on the important environmental issues. With this
NOI, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on the scope of
the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received will be
considered during preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project
under these general headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Water resources.
     Aquatic resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Threatened and endangered species.
     Land use, recreation, and visual resources.
     Cultural resources.
     Socioeconomics.
     Marine transportation.
     Air quality and noise.
     Reliability and safety.
     Cumulative impacts.
    In the EIS, 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 affected resources.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft
EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners;
environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional
Native American organizations; commentors; other interested parties;
local libraries and newspapers; and the FERC's official service list
for this proceeding. A 45-day comment period will be allotted for
review of the draft EIS. We will consider all comments on the draft EIS
and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. We
will consider all comments on the final EIS before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure that your comments are
considered, please follow the instructions in the Public Participation
section of this NOI.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its pre-filing process. The
purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of
interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. In addition, the Coast Guard, which
would be responsible for reviewing the safety and security aspects of
the planned project and regulating safety and security if the project
is approved, has initiated its review of the project as well.
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues, in addition to those agencies that have already
agreed to serve as cooperating agencies (as noted above), to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Additional agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on our previous experience with similar projects in the region.
This preliminary list of issues, which is presented below, may be
revised based on your comments and our continuing analyses specific to
the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project.
     Impact of LNG vessel traffic on other users, including
commercial ships, fishing, and recreational boaters on the lower
Columbia River.
     Potential impacts of dredging the turning basin and LNG
ship dock on water quality and estuarine fishery resources.
     Potential impacts of the LNG terminal on residents in
Warrenton and the surrounding area, including safety issues at the
import and storage facility, noise, air quality, and visual resources.
     Potential for geological hazards, including seismic
activity, to have impacts on both the proposed LNG import terminal and
sendout pipeline.
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on waterbodies and
wetlands, including issues of erosion control.
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on vegetation, including
the clearing of forested areas.
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on threatened and
endangered species and wildlife habitat.
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on cultural resources.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline
Project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in
the EIS and considered by the Commission. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including
alternative facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E/Gas Branch 2, PJ-11.2.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-10-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC, on or before September 24, 2007.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments in response to this NOI. For information on electronically
filing comments, please see 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 as well as information in 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii).
Before you can file comments you will need to create a free

account, which can be accomplished on-line.
    The public scoping meetings (dates, times, and locations listed
above) are designed to provide another opportunity to offer comments on
the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged
to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental
issues that they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript
of the meetings will be generated so that your comments will be
accurately recorded.
    Once Oregon LNG formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to
the 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 a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you wish to remain on the environmental mailing list, please
return the attached Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix 2 of this
NOI). If you do not return this form, we will remove your name from our
mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372), or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF07-
10) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary
helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web
site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that 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. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
    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.
    Finally, Oregon LNG has established an Web site for this project at
http://www.oregonlng.com. The Web site includes a project overview,
status, potential impacts and mitigation, and answers to frequently
asked questions. You can also request additional information by calling
Oregon LNG directly at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by sending an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17259 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39435-39436]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-508-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Line Ka1 North Launcher/
Receiver 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 proposed Line KA1 North
Launcher/Receiver Project involving construction and operation of
facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Fayette and
Madison Counties, Kentucky. 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 about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover 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. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives
them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September
4, 2018.
    You can make a difference by submitting 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. Commission
staff will consider and address all filed comments during the
preparation of the EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on June 20, 2018, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP18-508-000 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 easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge 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 website (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 staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment 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, which is located on the Commission's website (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. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a Comment on a
Filing; 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
(CP18-508-000) 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

    The Line KA1 North Launcher/Receiver Project involves the
installation of two 16-inch x 12-inch bi-directional pig \1\ launcher/
receivers on Columbia's existing Line KA1 North pipeline and other
modifications at seven discrete points along the pipeline within
Fayette and Madison Counties, Kentucky. According to Columbia, these
modifications are necessary to enable the use of smart pigs and
cleaning pigs within the Line KA1 North pipeline, which would protect
the pipeline from corrosion and provide advanced monitoring
capabilities to maintain the pipeline's integrity between Columbia's
existing Bybee and Muth Measurement and Regulation Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pig is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and
pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting
internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will 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 disturb about 8.75
acres of land. Following construction, Columbia would maintain about
3.28 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities.
Approximately 0.02 acre of temporary access road, 3.42 acres of staging
area, and 2.03 acres of temporary workspace would be allowed to revert
to preconstruction conditions.

The EA Process

    The EA 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.
    Commission staff 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 Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in the public record through
eLibrary.\3\ Depending on the comments received during the scoping
process, the Commission may also publish and distribute the EA to the
public for an allotted comment period. Commission staff will consider
and address all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff has the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that information
related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission publishes and distributes 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 a CD version or would like to remove your name from the
mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form''
(appendix 2).

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 website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-
508). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
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 sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17029 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 25009]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications of Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. for Certificate
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-4-16); Dockets DOT-
OST-2014-0012 and DOT-OST-2014-0013.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Eastern
Air Lines Group, Inc. fit, willing, and able, and awarding it
certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to
engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons,
property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0012 and DOT-OST-2014-0013 and addressed to the
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine O'Toole, Air Carrier Fitness
Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 20, 2015.
Brandon M. Belford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-09683 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


                          Technical Support Document:
            Resource Adequacy and Reliability Analysis
August 2015

      This document describes resource adequacy and reliability impacts of the final rule emission guidelines issued under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, also known as the Clean Power Plan. As used here, the term resource adequacy is defined as the provision for adequate generating resources to meet projected load and generating reserve requirements in each power region, while reliability includes the ability to deliver the resources to the loads, such that the overall power grid remains stable.
      It is important to recognize that the final rule provides multiple flexibilities that preserve the ability of responsible authorities to maintain electric reliability, as well as a provision to ensure that electric reliability is adequately maintained in the case of extreme circumstances, amongst other changes to the final rule that will assist states and other authorities with ensuring adequate supplies of electricity and maintaining electric reliability.   For more detail on how the final CPP addresses reliability, see Section VIII of the final rule preamble. The results presented in this document show that power system impacts of the final rule on system operations, under conditions preserving resource adequacy, are modest and manageable.
      First, the final rule includes critical timing adjustments in response to comment about resource adequacy and reliability.  In particular, the start date for the first compliance period was moved from 2020 to 2022.  In addition, building block 2 and building block 3 are both gradually phased in starting in 2022 to give EGUs additional time to make adjustments, including any investments needed for the purpose of ensuring resource adequacy and reliability.
      Second, as with the proposal, the final rule offers considerable flexibility to both states and EGUs.  States are given broad latitude to design plans that fit their unique circumstances, including taking into account any resource adequacy or reliability constraints they may face.  One particularly important example of this latitude is that states are encouraged to implement mass-based or rate-based plans that allow EGUs to take advantage of trading both within each state and across states.  Moreover, states are given additional flexibility to manage any near-term resource adequacy constraints by taking advantage of averaging provisions during the interim multi-year compliance period from 2022-2029.
      Finally, the Reliability Safety Valve (RSV) provisions in the final rule provide additional flexibilities and provisions that assure states can adequately manage any specific reliability challenges that may arise.
      In sum, states can choose different ways of implementing the rule guidelines to meet their targets while meeting their specific needs and maintaining electric reliability.  For more detail on the RSV and other ways in which the how the final CPP addresses reliability, see Section VIII of the final rule preamble.
      The results presented in this document further demonstrate, for the specific cases illustrated in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), that the implementation of this rule can be achieved without undermining resource adequacy or reliability.  The focus of the analysis is on comparing two illustrative state plan scenarios from the RIA to a base case (absent the rule requirements) that is assumed to be adequate and reliable.  In this framework, the emphasis is on the incremental changes in the power system that are projected to occur under the presence of the rule.  The EPA uses the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project likely future electricity market conditions with and without the proposed rule.
      IPM is a multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. The EPA uses the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM.  The model documentation provides additional information on the assumptions discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and inputs.
      IPM's least-cost dispatch solution is designed to ensure generation resource adequacy, either by using existing resources or through the construction of new resources. IPM addresses reliable delivery of generation resources for the delivery of electricity between the 64 IPM regions, based on current and planned transmission capacity, by setting limits to the ability to transfer power between regions using the bulk power transmission system. Within each model region, IPM assumes that adequate transmission capacity exists to deliver any resources located in, or transferred to, the region. This document focusses on key regional results important to management of the power system.  For a more complete presentation of the broad power sector impacts of the proposed rule, see the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Overview
      In the final rule, the EPA is establishing emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to address greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. Specifically, the EPA is proposing category-specific performance rates for CO2 emissions from power plants, as well goals for states to use in developing plans to meet the guidelines.  See final rule preamble for more detail on the final CPP structure and rule requirements.   This TSD uses the same scenarios and years of analysis contained in the RIA. The scenarios include a base case (no CPP), a rate-based state plan scenario and a mass-based state plan scenario.  For purposes of this resource adequacy and reliability assessment, estimates and projections are taken from those same scenarios and years as shown in the RIA (2020, 2025, and 2030).

                           CPP Rate-Based Scenarios
Summary of Changes in Operational Capacity
      Total operational capacity is lower in the CPP scenario, primarily from the reduced need for existing and new capacity as a result of increases in energy efficiency. These increases in energy efficiency make possible increases in retirements compared to the base case.  Since most regions currently have capacity above their target reserve margins, most of these retirements are absorbed by a reduction in excess reserves in the early years. For illustrative purposes, the 2025 projection period, the first period to fall entirely within the compliance period, is discussed first, followed by discussion of 2020 and 2030.  Operational generating capacity changes from the base case in 2025 are summarized below:

                 Table 1. Operational Capacity Summary in 2025
Base case operational capacity (MW)

                                                                      1,037,223

    Minus Retirements  in CPP Rate Case:

       (-)  Coal

                                                                        -22,984
       (-)  Oil-Gas Steam

                                                                         -9,264
       (-)  Combustion Turbine

                                                                         -1,942
       (-)  Combined Cycle

                                                                         -1,643
       (-)  Nuclear

                                                                         -1,128
       (-)  Less New Capacity due to EE Reduction

                                                                        -12,626

Equals Policy Case Operational Capacity

                                                                        988,764

      Since the model must maintain adequate reserves in each region, a portion of the reduced operational capacity in the CPP rate based policy case is taken from reduced need for reserves compared to the base case. In order to maintain resource adequacy in each region where existing resources retire, the model relies on any excess reserve that are available from continuing to operate existing capacity, additions of new capacity, reduced total resource requirements from increases in energy efficiency, and the ability to shift transmission among regions as the generating capacity mix changes. As the table shows, the reduced resource needs permit lower capacity additions even though there are substantial increases in retirements. Each of these CPP rate based policy case changes is discussed further below.
Reduction in Reserve Requirements and Excess Reserves
      IPM uses a target reserve margin in each region as the basis for determining how much capacity to keep operational in order to preserve resource adequacy. IPM retires capacity if it is no longer needed to provide energy for load or to provide capacity to meet reserve margin during the planning horizon of the projections. Since current regional reserves are generally higher than the target reserve margin for the region, and increased energy efficiency will reduce the need for reserves, IPM may retire reserve capacity in 2025 if it is not economic to use it to maintain adequate reserve margins. Existing resources may also be more expensive, compared to alternatives such as building new capacity or transferring capacity from another region. As a result, many of the plants that are projected to retire in 2025 will not need to be replaced.  Because existing plants eventually retire in most regions, and IPM builds no more than what it needs to maintain a target reserve margin in each region, the actual reserve margins tend to approach the target reserve margins over time.
      Table 1 above shows that operational generating capacity is reduced by 48,587MW (4.8 percent) nationwide in 2025 under the policy.  The majority of this reduction is the result of decreases in the reserve requirements from energy efficiency under the final rule; in 2025 new energy efficiency under the final rule contributes 45,085 MW to reserve capacity (see Table B1 for regional detail).  Moreover, these reductions are from energy efficiency that is available in all hours, not just at peak, so it can substitute for existing or new baseload capacity. A reduction of 4.7 percent in 2025 will therefore have little overall impact, particularly given the length of time available to plan for any system changes. Moreover, retirements are distributed throughout the power grid, so any impacts are expected to be small at the regional level.
      Although there are substantial existing regional variations in reserve margin, IPM adjusts regional operating capacities in 2025 to meet the specific target reserve margin in each region, through changes in the level of retirements, construction of new generating capacity, or transfers of capacity among regions to meet the specific reserve margin in each region. Each of these adjustments in the 2025 projections is described below.
Changes in Retirements and New Capacity Additions in the CPP Scenarios
      The incremental retirements in the final rule case are shown above in Table 1; the 36,931 MW of retirements are in addition to 69,254MW of coal and 12,973MW of oil/gas retirements already occurring in the base case.
      By 2025, the increased level of energy efficiency in the CPP case, compared to the base case, leads to lower levels of overall new capacity additions (shown regionally in Table A5).  Renewable additions are approximately the same in both the base and policy cases, largely a result of reduced demand compared to the base case.  The largest decreases in new capacity are in NGCC (7,808MW) and CT (3,131MW).   Although there can be local grid reliability issues in replacing some units, these are expected to be manageable within the normal reliability planning and management time frames provided by the flexible resource options and time frames in the rule.  These retirements and additions in the projections are the result of economic planning for energy and capacity needs modeled in the projections, they are not forced on individual units.  In particular, new additions in a base case scenario that do not occur in the policy scenario projections might, in reality, be retained under a policy if local reliability conditions rendered this the most appropriate choice.  This rule does not prevent generation owners from shifting retirements and additions among specific sources to ensure reliability in such circumstances.
Reserve Transfers
      In cases where it is economic to transfer reserves from a neighboring region, rather than supply reserves from within a region, IPM will transfer reserves, subject to summer and winter limits that are designed to ensure that these reserves can be transferred reliably. The transfer of reserves can occur, for example, if a region retires capacity that was used in the base case to meet reserve requirements, but a neighboring region has lower cost reserves that are not needed for its own reserve requirements. To examine these transfers, the EPA analyzed the change in net transfers from each region, where the net transfer for the base and policy cases is measured by the reserves sent to neighboring regions. In these cases, a positive value signifies the reserve capacity sent to other regions is larger than the reserve capacity received from other regions (sending and receiving regions can be different), while a negative value signifies that the capacity received is larger than the capacity sent. Thus, the value measures the degree to which resources in the region were reserved for use by other regions (positive value), or where the capacity to meet load in the region was served by resources in other regions (negative value). In each case these reserve transfers represent the use of the transmission system on a firm basis for at least a season.
      To look at the impact of the CPP case on transfers, the measure used was the change in the summer reserves sent in the policy case compared to the base case. To develop a relative measure of the impact of the policy, the change in reserves was measured as a percentage of load in the sending region. This percentage gives an indication of the significance of the policy for changes in the grid. In general, the percentage changes in the final rule are below the changes in the proposed rule, and all are below 5%.
      Using this measure, the largest percentage changes in reserve transfers are in the Northwest (4.3%), SERC-North (-3.5%), and FRCC (3.1%).  The change in the Northwest is attributable primarily to change in transfers from the Pacific Northwest IPM region to California, where an additional 2000MW are transferred to Northern California, including 1000MW shifted from Southern California (LADWP).  The net change of 1,134(MW) occurs, in part, as a result of additional operating capacity made available by increased energy efficiency in the policy case compared to the base case.  This shift does not indicate any reliability challenges, as the total transfers of 3,499MW in the policy case remain substantially below the transfer limit of 4,200MW.
      The SERC regions and FRCC have shifts around three percent, with some areas increasing net transfers and others decreasing.  These areas also saw shifts in transfers in the modeling for the proposed rule, but the changes in this final rule have reduced these shifts to modest transfers compared to the proposal.  In general, the shifts under the final rule show transfers from the Southeastern areas with greater natural gas resources available  -  FRCC and SERC-SE  -  toward northern areas with greater amounts of coal -- TVA and Kentucky.  These transfers in the modeling remain well below the interregional transfers limits and 3 percent or less of the regional load in each case, and it is reasonable to expect them to be manageable, if needed, given the length of time available.
CPP Rate-Based Scenario in 2020 and 2030
      There are other model projection periods that include years that fall in the period for compliance with the rule.  The 2020 projections include the years 2019 through 2022, so one of the years in the period falls in the compliance period.  EPA examined the information for the rate scenario for 2020 corresponding to the rate scenario in 2025.  This information is shown the tables in Appendix A, which correspond to the tables for the 2025 case in Appendix B.  Since the projections are representative of the entire four year period, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with regard to impacts on reliability resulting from the rule.  This is because most of the period is outside the compliance period of the final rule, and there can be no direct conflict with the rule except in the very last year of the projection period.  The results can be compared below with the 2025 results for purposes of illustration.
  	The differences between 2020 and 2025 in the CPP rate scenario are driven by the fact that IPM modeling retires capacity from the start of the modeling period in 2016, based on projections that assume complete information about the future and precise economic planning.  It thus assumes that capacity retires at the earliest possible moment that it becomes possible to do so, so that excess reserves are used up and reserve margins can fall to target levels earlier than expected in practice.  Nevertheless, in 2020, seven regions maintain margins above their levels in 2025 (See Table A3).  This is consistent with the lower level of overall retirements in 2020 compared to 2025 (24,567MW compared to 36,961MW in 2025), so the modeling confirms that the any potential resource adequacy pressures from the final rule are not seen until the projections for 2025.
	Results for the rate scenario in 2030 are contained in Appendix C.   Reserve margins in the policy case in 2030 are essentially unchanged (less than 0.5% difference in all regions) from 2025, reflecting the fact that most regions were already at their target margins in 2025 rate scenario.  Base case margins decline from 2025 to 2030, as margins above targets are reduced, so that the base case and policy case overall national margins are less than 1 percent different (Table C3).  There continue to be more retirements in the policy case relative to the base case in 2030 (Incremental retirements of 41,009MW in 2030 compared to 36,961MW in 2025, an increase of 5,048 MW).  These retirements are offset by a corresponding combination of new energy efficiency and changes in new capacity.  In 2025, there were 12,626 MW fewer new capacity additions in the CPP case; in 2030 there were 16,964 MW fewer: a net decrease of an incremental 4,338 MW (over the base case) in the 2030 case compared to the comparable 2025 figure.  However, the increase in the contribution of energy efficiency to reserve margin capacity was considerably greater than the combined decrease in new capacity additions and increase in retirements in 2030:  the contribution of new energy efficiency to reserve margin in 2030 was 77,741 MW compared to 45,085 MW in 2025 (See Tables B1 and C1 in the Appendices), an increase of 22,656 MW.
      The generation mix in incremental capacity changes compared to 2025: compared to the base case there less NGCC capacity (7,808 MW less in 2025, 30,080 MW in 2030) and more solar (1,628 less in 2025, 19,970 more in 2030).  Given the long planning horizon of 2030, there will be adequate time to plan for potential shifts in the mix of demand and supply resources as these evolve over time.  None of these results suggest there will be reasons for concern over the management of resource adequacy

                           CPP Mass-Based Scenarios
      The EPA also examined the mass scenario modeling results to identify differences with the rate scenario potential impacts.  The results for the CPP mass-based scenarios are contained in Appendices D through F for the projection years 2020, 2025 and 2030.  These tables correspond to the tables for the CPP Rate-Based scenarios in Appendices A through C.
      As expected, rate and mass cases showed very similar patterns in total operating and reserve capacity, since the IPM model must serve the same loads and ensure the same reserve margins in each case. In 2025, total operating capacity between rate and mass cases differs by less than one percent and regional operating capacities are within 5 percent except for the BASN regions, where the percentage difference is 8.6%, the result of retirement of a resource (coal) in Utah, which is offset by increased transmission capacity transfers. Reserve capacity and projected reserve margins for the mass scenario (Tables E2 and E3) follow a pattern similar to operating capacity: totals are within 1% of the projections for the corresponding outputs rate scenario and regional reserve capacities are under 5 percent.
      Differences between the scenarios develop in the types of capacity that are retired and in the amount and types of new capacity built in 2025. The mass scenario results show more incremental retirements of coal capacity (29,319 MW compared to 22,984 MW in the rate scenario) and in Oil-Gas capacity (10,421 MW compared to 9,264 MW).  The mass scenario also results in more new NGCC and CT capacity, and less new wind and solar capacity.  The mass scenario still is projected to have a decrease in new capacity compared to the base case, but the decrease is only 9,971 MW compared to the 12,626 MW in the rate scenario.  No reliability concerns are raised by these differences.
      The patterns of transfers are also similar.  In the mass scenario, there is somewhat more variation in net transfers than in the rate case.  In particular there are two regions with shifts of more than 5% in the mass scenario: the Northwest and BASN, both in WECC.  These two shifts are linked.  The Northwest reserve transfers include the transfers in the rate scenario discussed above, plus additional transfers from the Northwest to BASN to compensate for the coal retirements in BASN discussed above.   The two cases with the largest percentage shift examined above are reduced in magnitude. These transfers in the mass scenario remain below the interregional transfer limits in the modeling and do not appear to present significant reliability related concerns.
      The same general patterns noted here for 2025 are also present in 2020 and 2025: only minor variations in total operating capacity, somewhat higher fossil steam retirements, more NGCC and CT capacity.   These differences do not raise further issues of resource adequacy.  Details can be found in the Appendices.

     Appendix A: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Rate-Based Scenario in 2020
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      A1. Projected Operational Capacity
            A2. . Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              A3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           A4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           A5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                A6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region
     Appendix B: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Rate-Based Scenario in 2025
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      B1. Projected Operational Capacity
            B2 . Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              B3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           B4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           B5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                B6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region
     Appendix C: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Rate-Based Scenario in 2030
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      C1. Projected Operational Capacity
             C2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              C3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           C4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           C5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                C6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region
     Appendix D: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Mass-Based Scenario in 2020
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      D1. Projected Operational Capacity
             D2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              D3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           D4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           D5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                D6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region

     Appendix E: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Mass-Based Scenario in 2020
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      E1. Projected Operational Capacity
             E2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              E3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           E4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           E5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                E6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region
     Appendix F: Tables by IPM Region for CPP Mass-Based Scenario in 2020
            (Note: All Results Cumulative through Projection Year)
                      F1. Projected Operational Capacity
             F2. Summary of Summer Peak Loads and Reserve Capacity
              F3. Summary of Target and Projected Reserve Margins
           F4. Policy Case Retired Capacity Incremental to Base Case
           F5. New Capacity in Policy Case Incremental to Base Case
                F6. Net Reserves Sent by NERC Assessment Region

                               Appendix C: Maps
                                C1. IPM Regions
                         C2. . NERC Assessment Regions

                            C1:  IPM v5.13 Regions

        C2:  NERC Assessment Areas in Long Term Reliability Assessment.

Source: NERC 2012 Long Term Reliability Assessment
        C2:  NERC Assessment Areas in Long Term Reliability Assessment.

Source: NERC 2012 Long Term Reliability Assessment


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 2 Proposed Priority: Wet Weather: Combined Sewer Overflows/ Sanitary Sewer Overflows ( CSOs/ SSO) s, Storm water, and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ( CAFOs)

Universe and Types of Facilities: CSOs/ SSOs are defined as municipal facilities with combined sewer overflows ( CSOs) and separate sanitary overflows ( SSOs). There are approximately 900 CSO communities serving over 40 million people. Most combined sewer systems were constructed 50 or more years ago. There are approximately 19,000 separate sanitary sewer municipal systems with over 40,000 overflows annually. The total number of storm water dischargers is unknown but expected to be several hundred thousand. Storm water discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops during rainfall and snow events that often contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely effect water quality. A CAFO is a livestock facility where animals are kept and raised in confinement and which meets specific regulatory criteria. The total number of CAFOs is estimated to be about 15,500. CAFO discharges account for a significant share of remaining water quality problems. ( For further information and explanations on CSOs/ SSOs, Storm water and CAFOs go to http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ civil/ programs/ cwa/ cwaenfpriority. html and for additional information on CAFOs go to http:// www. epa. gov/ agriculture/ anafoidx. html.)

Geographic Range: Most CSO communities are located in the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Northwest regions. Separate sanitary sewer systems and storm water discharges are nationwide occurrences. CAFOs exist in all regions of the country with more facilities in the mid plains states, the eastern sea board, and the western coastal region.

Environmental Risks: Discharges from wet weather events ( e. g., overflows from combined sewers or sanitary sewers, CAFO discharges and run off, and storm water run off) are contributors to the leading causes of water quality impairment as documented in CWA Section 305( b) reports and represent significant threats to public health and the environment. EPA has prioritized wet weather compliance problems by looking at regulated facilities contributing to the impairment of watersheds, beaches and other recreational areas, shellfish beds, source water protection areas, environmental justice areas, and other sensitive areas.

The main pollutants in sewer overflows are fecal coliform ( raw sewage), bacteria, pathogens, and nutrients, untreated industrial wastes, toxic pollutants such as oil and pesticides, and debris washed into the sewer system. Storm water runoff is a major cause of water quality impairment. According to the Report to Congress on The Phase I Storm Water Regulations ( U. S. EPA, 2000), urban storm water runoff contributes to 13 percent of impaired river and stream miles, 21 percent of impaired lake acres, 55 percent of impaired ocean shoreline miles, and 46 percent of impaired estuary square miles. Storm water runoff can carry high levels of pollutants such as sediment, oil and grease, suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, toxins, and trash into sewer systems and ultimately into our streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and oceans. 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 2 This creates an unhealthy environment for aquatic organisms, wildlife and humans. Pollutants in sewer overflows and storm water discharges can cause a variety of diseases in humans, ranging from dysentery to hepatitis. They can also contaminate fish, shellfish, and drinking water sources create harmful algal blooms, and impair water quality.

Discharges from CAFOs to water bodies can occur through poor maintenance of waste lagoons, improper storage of animal waste, excessive and improper application of manure to crops, and excessive rainfall resulting in spills and leaks of manure management areas. Key pollutants from CAFOs that impair water quality include nutrients ( nitrogen and phosphorus) and pathogens ( i. e. fecal coliform) These pollutants kill fish and contaminate shellfish, cause excessive algae growth, harm marine mammals, and contaminate drinking water. Changes within the sector such as increases in the number of large CAFOs, the increased size of individual CAFOs slaughterhouses, and concentration of CAFOs in some geographical areas has resulted in increased potential for environmental impacts.

Noncompliance Information:

The noncompliance universe of CSOs and SSOs is currently being developed as directed under the CSO and SSO Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. The NPDES storm water requirements have been in effect for more than ten years. However, EPA and state storm water inspection data reveal that a majority of industrial facilities inspected over the last ten years do not have an NPDES storm water permit. Moreover, there is significant non compliance at permitted sites. In August, 2003, EPA issued a national strategy to improve compliance with storm water requirements and protect our nation's waters from the harmful effects of polluted storm water. The Strategy was developed for use by EPA Regions. In addition, the Regions are encouraged to work with their states in adopting similar approaches to storm water enforcement. The IG Audit, " State Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can be More Effective," noted the need for states to have more effective risk based enforcement strategies to better protect human health and the environment and to meet the goals of the CWA. The Strategy anticipates a strong EPA/ state partnership to address non compliance with storm water requirements. On February 12, 2003, EPA promulgated new regulations to update the national program to manage and avoid environmental harm from animal manure and waste generated by CAFOs. Educational outreach and compliance assistance over the next several years will be necessary to bring into compliance the approximately 15,500 CAFOs that require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits under the Clean Water Act. EPA regional offices and States are working to balance varying State circumstances and program approaches so that all CAFOs will be covered by NPDES permits and have adopted nutrient management plans by 2006. On August 18, 2003, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement issued the Final CWA Enforcement Strategy Update for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to address noncompliance problems at large CAFOs regulated since 1974 whose discharges are causing significant public health impacts or environmental harm.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67915-67917]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23599]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0529; FRL-9953-34-Region 7]

Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans and
Operating Permits Program; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and Non-
Substantive Definition and Language Changes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP) and the 40 CFR part 70 operating permits program. EPA is
approving revisions to two Missouri rule(s) entitled, ``Construction
Permits Required,'' and ``Operating Permits.'' This approval action is
consistent with the July 12, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia and the June 23, 2014, U.S. Supreme Court actions
regarding Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Permitting. This action makes non-substantive changes to
definitions, and language clarifications.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 2, 2016,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
2, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0529, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP and Operating
Permits Program requested from four separate requests. In the first
request dated August 8, 2011, the State of Missouri asked that EPA
amend the SIP and the state's operating permits program to include rule
revisions that incorporate Federal permitting requirements for
greenhouse gas emissions under state rule 10 CSR 10-6.065.
    In the second request, also dated August 8, 2011, the State of
Missouri asked that EPA amend the SIP to incorporate Federal permitting
requirements to address new construction projects that emit 100,000
tons per year or more of greenhouse gases, as well as clarifying some
rule text.
    In the third request dated August 31, 2012, the State of Missouri
asked that EPA amend the SIP to include recently promulgated revisions
to the state rule 10 CSR 10-6.065 in order to defer for a period of
three years the application of Title V permitting to carbon dioxide
emissions from biogenic sources. In addition to the biogenic deferral
language, Missouri included non-substantive edits and minor
administrative rule revisions in this submission. For example, Missouri
relabeled 10 CSR 10-6.065(3)(A)5 to 10 CSR 10-6.065(3)(B), and reworded
the following in that same subsection ``40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE''
to ``40 CFR 63, subpart EEE.''
    On July 14, 2016, the State of Missouri modified the 2011 and 2012
requests in a letter to EPA. The letter addresses the court directed
revisions to EPA's GHG permitting provisions. Specifically, in the July
14, 2016, letter, Missouri identified regulatory language of the
earlier submittals that it was withdrawing its request to EPA to
approve into the SIP and notified EPA that the state will update its
rules in the future to remove those provisions. The State explained
that these changes to their earlier submittals are a result of court
decisions by the Supreme Court (Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA,
June 23, 2014) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. et al. v. EPA,
April 10, 2015), in which the courts vacated certain permitting
requirements that were included in Missouri's August 8, 2011,
submission. In the July 2016 submittal, the state clarified this
earlier request to EPA as follows:
    (1) Missouri requested that in 10 CSR 10-6.060(8)(A), not include
as part of the Missouri SIP the phrase ``including the revision
published at 75 FR 31606-07 (effective August 2, 2010).'' Instead
subsection (8)(A) will read ``. . . promulgated as of July 1, 2009 are
hereby incorporated . . .''
    (2) Missouri requested that in 10 CSR 10-6.6065(2)(A)2., not
include the words ``Except that:'' and do not include the subparagraphs
(2)(A)2.A. and (2)(A)2.B. as part of the Missouri SIP.
    In addition, Missouri requested that EPA only include into the
Missouri SIP the non-substantive wording clarifications submitted on
August 31, 2012, without the biogenic deferral

wording revisions because the biogenic deferrals had expired.
    These requested and remaining revisions to Missouri's earlier
submittals are consistent with the changes in Federal permitting
requirements that were necessitated by the two earlier mentioned court
decisions. These changes will make Missouri's GHG permitting
requirements included in the SIP consistent with current Federal
requirements.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submissions have met the public notice requirements of
SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submissions also
satisfy the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part appendix V. In
addition, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the request to amend the Missouri SIP and
operating permits program by approving the State's request to amend 10
CSR 10-6.060, and 10 CSR 10-6.065 to align the State's rule with EPA's
GHG Tailoring rule, streamline the public notice procedures to align
them with similar procedures in the EPA rules, and allows the
flexibility to publish notices on the internet.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.
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.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri
Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA
for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 21, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52
and 70 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by revising entries 10 CSR 10-6.060
and 10 CSR 10-6.065 under subheading ``Chapter 6'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
    Missouri citation               Title          effective date    EPA  approval  date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-6.060.................  Construction Permits          08/30/11  10/3/16 [Insert         Provisions of the
                            Required.                               Federal Register        2010 PM2.5 PSD--
                                                                    citation].              Increments, SILs and
                                                                                SMCs rule (75 FR
                                                                                64865, October 20,
                                                                                2010) relating to
                                                                                SILs and SMCs that
                                                                                were affected by the
                                                                                January 22, 2013
                                                                                U.S. Court of
                                                                                Appeals decision are
                                                                                not SIP approved.
                                                   ..............                          Provisions of the
                                                                                2002 NSR reform rule
                                                                                relating to the
                                                                                Clean Unit
                                                                                Exemption, Pollution
                                                                                Control Projects,
                                                                                and exemption from
                                                                                recordkeeping
                                                                                provisions for
                                                                                certain sources
                                                                                using the actual-to-
                                                                                projected-actual
                                                                                emissions
                                                                                projections test are
                                                                                not SIP approved.
                                                   ..............                          In addition, we have
                                                                                not approved
                                                                                Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's
                                                                                2007 revision of the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``chemical
                                                                                processing plants''
                                                                                (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                Rule,'' 72 FR 24060
                                                                                (May 1, 2007) or
                                                                                EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule,'' 73 FR 77882
                                                                                (December 19, 2008).
                                                   ..............                          Although exemptions
                                                                                previously listed in
                                                                                10 CSR 10-6.060 have
                                                                                been transferred to
                                                                                10 CSR 10-6.061, the
                                                                                Federally-approved
                                                                                SIP continues to
                                                                                include the
                                                                                following exemption,
                                                                                ``Livestock and
                                                                                livestock handling
                                                                                systems from which
                                                                                the only potential
                                                                                contaminant is
                                                                                odorous gas.''
                                                   ..............                          Section 9, pertaining
                                                                                to hazardous air
                                                                                pollutants, is not
                                                                                SIP approved.
                                                   ..............                          EPA is not approving
                                                                                in subsection (8)(A)
                                                                                the phrase
                                                                                ``including the
                                                                                revision published
                                                                                at 75 FR 31606-07
                                                                                (effective August 2,
                                                                                2010).''

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.065.................  Operating Permits.....        08/30/11  10/3/16 [Insert         EPA has not approved
                                                                    Federal Register        Section (4) as part
                                                                    citation].              of the SIP.
                                                                                EPA is not approving
                                                                                in paragraph (2)(A)2
                                                                                the words, ``except
                                                                                that'' and is not
                                                                                approving
                                                                                subparagraphs
                                                                                (2)(A)2.A. and
                                                                                (2)(A)2.B.

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

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (ff) under
Missouri to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *
    (ff) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to CSR on April 28, 2011. We are approving this rule
except for Section (4) which relates to the State Basic Operating
permits, and we are not approving in paragraph (2)(A)2 the words,
``except that'' and are not approving subparagraphs (2) (A)2.A. and
(2)(A)2.B. This approval is effective December 2, 2016.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-23599 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P