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

    \33\ In this context, ``attainment year'' refers to the ozone
season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date.
In the case of the San Joaquin Valley for the 1-hour ozone standard,
the proposed applicable attainment date is November 26, 2017, and
the ozone season immediately preceding that date will occur in year
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 4 and 5 summarize the relevant distinguishing parameters for
each of the emissions scenarios and show the State's corresponding VOC
emissions estimates. Table 4 provides the parameters and emissions
estimates for the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-
hour ozone standard, and table 5 provides the corresponding values for
the revised demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

                                 Table 4--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Year          1000/day          Year          1000/day          Year             tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year...............................................            1990          52,199            1990           7,730            1990             196
No Action...............................................            2017         115,070            2017          17,133            1990             178
VMT Offset Ceiling......................................            1990          52,199            1990           7,730            1990              81
Projected Actual........................................            2017         115,070            2017          17,133            2017              30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB's Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2017 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley
  MPOs.

                              Table 5--VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        VMT                           Starts                 Controls      VOC Emissions
                        Scenario                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Year          1000/day          Year          1000/day          Year             tpd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year...............................................            2002          78,400            2002          11,307            2002              76
No Action...............................................            2023         130,431            2023          19,466            2002              49
VMT Offset Ceiling......................................            2002          78,400            2002          11,307            2002              28
Projected Actual........................................            2023         130,431            2023          19,466            2023              24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CARB's Technical Supplement, April 24, 2014. 2023 VMT based on 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Plans from the eight San Joaquin Valley
  MPOs.

    For the two ``base year'' scenarios, the State ran the EMFAC2011
model for the applicable base year (i.e., 1990 for the 1-hour ozone
standard and 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) using VMT and
starts data corresponding to those years. As shown in tables 5 and 6,
the State estimates the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions at 196 tpd in
1990 and 76 tpd in 2002.
    For the two ``no action'' scenarios, the State first identified the
on-road motor vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in
place since the base years and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and then ran
EMFAC2011 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the applicable
attainment year (i.e., 2017 for the 1-hour ozone standard and 2023 for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) without the emissions reductions from
the on-road motor vehicle control programs put in place after the base
year. Thus, the ``no action'' scenarios reflect the hypothetical VOC
emissions that would occur in the attainment years in the San Joaquin
Valley if the State had not put in place any additional TCSs or TCMs
after 1990 (for the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset demonstration) or
after 2002 (for the 8-hour ozone demonstration). As shown in tables 5
and 6, the State estimates the ``no action'' San Joaquin Valley VOC
emissions at 178 tpd in 2017 and 49 tpd in 2023. The principal
difference between the two estimates is that the latter value (used for
the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 8-hour ozone
standard) reflects the emissions reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in
place by the end of 2002 whereas the former value (used for the revised
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard) reflects only the
emissions reductions from TCSs and TCMs put in place by the end of
1990. The most significant of the measures adopted since 1990 and
relied upon for the 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset demonstration
include tiered (series of increasingly stringent limits) emissions
standards for new motor vehicles (i.e., Low Emissions Vehicles I, II,
and III standards), content specifications for gasoline (i.e.,
California Reformulated Gasoline Phases 1, 2, and 3), and enhancements
to the State's I/M program (i.e., Smog Check II). See attachments A and
B to appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan for lists of TCSs and TCMs
adopted by the State and MPOs since 1990.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The docket for today's action includes an updated list of
the post-1990 transportation control strategies in attachment A of
appendix D to the 2013 Ozone Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenarios, the State ran the
EMFAC2011 model for the attainment years but with VMT and starts data
corresponding to base year values. Like the ``no action'' scenarios,
the EMFAC2011 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in
the attainment years without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road
motor vehicle control programs. Thus, the ``VMT offset ceiling''
scenarios reflect hypothetical VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
if the State had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base years
and if there had been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the
base years and the attainment years.
    The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips
can be determined from the difference between the VOC emissions
estimates under the ``no action'' scenarios and the corresponding
estimates under the ``VMT offset ceiling'' scenarios. Based on the
values in tables 5 and 6, the hypothetical growth in emissions due to
growth in VMT and trips in the San Joaquin Valley would have been 97
tpd (i.e., 178 tpd minus 81 tpd) for the purposes of the revised VMT
emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard, and 21
tpd (i.e., 49 tpd minus 28 tpd) for the purposes of the corresponding
demonstration for the 8-hour ozone standard. These hypothetical
differences establish the levels of VMT growth-caused emissions that
need to be offset by the combination of post-baseline year TCMs and
TCSs and any necessary additional TCMs and TCSs.
    For the ``projected actual'' scenario calculations, the State ran
the EMFAC2011 model for the attainment years with VMT and starts data
at attainment year values and with the full benefits of the relevant
post-baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario,
the State included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in
place since the base year. The most significant measures put in place
during the 2002 to 2023 time frame include Low Emission Vehicles II and
III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, and California
Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3. These measures are also relied upon for
the revised 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration (proposed for
approval herein) and the approved 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration.
    As shown in tables 5 and 6, the results from these calculations
establish projected actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 30 tpd for
the 1-hour standard demonstration and 24 tpd for the 1997 8-hour
standard demonstration. The State then compared these values against
the corresponding VMT offset ceiling values to determine whether
additional TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in
order to offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips.
Because the ``projected actual'' emissions are less than the
corresponding ``VMT Offset Ceiling'' emissions, the State concluded
that the demonstration shows compliance with the VMT emissions offset
requirement and that there are sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips
in the San Joaquin Valley for both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
standards. In fact, taking into account of the creditable post-baseline
year TCMs and TCSs, the State showed that they offset the hypothetical
differences by 148 tpd for the 1-hour standard and by 25 tpd for the
1997 8-hour standards,

rather than merely the required 97 tpd and 21 tpd, respectively.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and
TCMs put in place after the respective base year can be determined
by subtracting the ``projected actual'' emissions estimates from the
``no action'' emissions estimates in tables 5 and 6. For the
purposes of the 1-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions
reductions, 148 tpd (178 tpd minus 30 tpd), exceed the growth in
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (97 tpd). For the
purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions
reductions, 25 tpd (49 tpd minus 24 tpd), exceed the growth in
emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (21 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Action on the VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
    Based on our review of revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions
offset demonstrations in appendix D of the 2013 Ozone Plan and the
related technical supplement, we find the State's analysis to be
acceptable and agree that the State has adopted sufficient TCSs and
TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle
trips in the San Joaquin Valley for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone
and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. As such, we find that the revised San
Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset demonstrations comply with the VMT
emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, we
propose approval of the revised San Joaquin Valley VMT emissions offset
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as
a revision to the California SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve,
under CAA section 110(k)(3), CARB's submittal dated December 20, 2013
of the San Joaquin Valley 2013 Ozone Plan as a revision to the
California SIP.\36\ In so doing, the EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of the plan as meeting the specified requirements
for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In our final action, we also intend to remove a certain
paragraph from the ``Identification of Plan'' section of 40 CFR part
52 for the State of California. In withdrawing our approval of the
2004 Ozone Plan, as revised and clarified, 77 FR 70376 (November 26,
2012), we inadvertently failed to remove 40 CFR 52.220(c)(371) which
codified our March 8, 2010 final approval of the ``2008
Clarifications'' for the 2004 San Joaquin Valley (1-hour ozone)
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     RACM demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(17);
     ROP demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(4);
     Attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(12);
     ROP contingency measures as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(13); and
     Provisions for clean fuels or advanced control technology
for boilers as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) and 40
CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and 51.1100(o)(6).
    The EPA is also proposing to approve the 2013 Ozone Plan as meeting
the specified requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone standard and
the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard:
     VMT emissions offset demonstrations as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1) and
51.1100(o)(10).
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments
from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider
these comments before taking final action.

V. 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, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have Tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.''
    Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San
Joaquin Valley air quality planning area for the 1-hour ozone and 1997
8-hours ozone standards: The Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of
California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California,
the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune
Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria
of the Tachi Yokut Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California,
the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule
River Reservation.
    The EPA's proposed approval of the various SIP elements submitted
by CARB to address the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hours ozone standards in
the San Joaquin Valley would not have tribal implications because the
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
SIP approvals do 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). Therefore, the EPA has concluded that the proposed action will
not have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175,
and would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor
would it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in
the San Joaquin Valley has requested eligibility to administer programs
under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 24, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2016-00089 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10666-10667]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 199

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0335]

Pipeline Safety: Post Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing

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

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA regulations in Part 199 require pipeline operators and
operators of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities to conduct post-
accident drug and alcohol tests of covered employees. Within the
mandated timelines after a reportable pipeline accident or incident,
operators must drug and alcohol test each covered employee whose
performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely
discounted as a contributing factor to the accident or incident.
Operators must make the determination of employee contribution to the
accident or incident promptly to meet the timelines for testing
required by the regulations. This was further emphasized by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in its report of the
September 9, 2010, incident in San Bruno, California.

DATES: February 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Kastanas by phone at 202-550-
0629 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding the subject
matter of this advisory bulletin, or the Dockets Unit,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for copies of this advisory bulletin or other material in the docket.
All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home. General information
about the PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) can be obtained by
accessing OPS's Internet home page at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch-diameter segment of an intrastate
natural gas transmission pipeline owned and operated by the Pacific Gas
and Electric Company ruptured in a residential area in San Bruno,
California. As a result of an NTSB investigation of this event, one of
its recommendations to PHMSA was to issue guidance clarifying the need
to conduct post-accident drug and alcohol testing of all potentially
involved personnel despite uncertainty about the circumstances of the
accident. This advisory bulletin fulfills the NTSB recommendation and
PHMSA's ongoing commitment to pipeline safety.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2012-02)

    To: Operators of Gas, Hazardous Liquid, and Carbon Dioxide
Pipelines and Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.
    Subject: Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing.
    Advisory: ``The need to conduct post-accident drug and alcohol
testing of all potentially involved personnel despite uncertainty about
the circumstances of the accident'' is an important reminder and
recommendation in the final report of the NTSB--Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rupture and Fire,
San Bruno, California, September 9, 2010, Pipeline Accident Report
[NTSB/PAR-11/01; Washington, DC]. The term ``accident'' in Part 199
includes both ``incidents'' reportable under Part 191 and ``accidents''
reportable under Part 195. Covered employees include both operator
employees and contractor employees performing operations, maintenance,
or emergency response functions. Operators and contractors are
encouraged to review and update, where necessary, plans and procedures
governing post-accident substance abuse/misuse testing and train all
those involved with ensuring that such testing is performed promptly
and in an effective manner.

Compliance Reminder

    Operators are reminded that covered functions encompass a broad
range of employee and contractor positions, including, but not limited
to, contract emergency responders, pressure control technicians, temp-
agency covered employees, and control room operators. If a covered
employee's performance cannot be completely discounted as a
contributing factor to the accident or incident, the employee must be
tested for the potential substance abuse or misuse of both drugs and
alcohol. In order to meet the testing timelines, do not delay testing
in order to determine the circumstances surrounding the accident or
incident. However, the accident or incident circumstances and events
must be assessed promptly and documented, especially the reasons for
not drug or alcohol testing an accident-related covered employee.

Key Regulatory Sections Applicable to Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol
Testing

    The following are key regulatory sections addressing post-accident
drug and alcohol testing that should be reviewed, along with other
applicable sections of Part 199:
     Under Sec.  199.105, post-accident drug tests of covered
employees whose performance cannot be completely discounted as a
contributing factor to the accident must be completed no later than 32
hours after the accident.
     Under Sec.  199.225(a), if an operator does not complete
post-accident alcohol testing of covered employees whose performance
cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the
accident within two hours of the accident, the operator must prepare
and maintain on file a record stating the reasons the test was not
promptly administered. If post-accident alcohol testing is not
administered within eight hours following the accident, the operator
must cease attempts to administer an alcohol test and must state in the
record the reasons for not administering the test. Covered employees
must remain available for post-accident testing, but emergency response
or medical care of the employee are never to be delayed for alcohol
testing.
     Under Sec.  199.221, each operator shall prohibit a
covered employee who has actual knowledge of an accident in which his
or her performance of covered functions has not been discounted by the
operator as a contributing factor to the accident from using alcohol
for eight hours following the accident, unless he or she has been given
a post-accident test under Sec.  199.225(a), or the operator has
determined that the employee's performance could not have contributed
to the accident.
     Under Sec.  199.103(a) an operator may not knowingly use
as an employee any person who (1) Fails a drug test required by this
part and the Medical Review Officer makes a determination under DOT
Procedures Part 40; or (2) refuses to take a drug test required by this
part.
     Under Sec.  199.223, each operator shall require a covered
employee to submit to a post-accident alcohol test required under Sec.
199.225(a). No operator shall permit an employee who refuses to submit
to such a test to perform or continue to perform covered functions.
     Under Sec.  199.233, no operator shall permit any covered
employee to perform covered functions if the employee has engaged in
conduct prohibited by Sec. Sec.  199.215 through 199.223.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 15, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-4157 Filed 2-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14882-14884]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-64-000]

Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Stagecoach Phase
II Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
and Notice of Site Visit

March 17, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Stagecoach Phase II Expansion
Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Central
New York Oil and Gas, LLC (CNYOG) in Tioga County, New York and
Bradford County, Pennsylvania.\1\ The EA will be used by the Commission
in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CNYOG's application in Docket No. CP06-64-000 was filed with
the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on April 17, 2006.
    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, Native American Tribes, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project. This
includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes
within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain
aboveground facilities. We encourage government representatives to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' was attached to the
project notice (CNYOG) provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The entire Stagecoach Storage Field would consist of a total of six
reservoirs (``pools''), two of which and were converted into storage
reservoirs as part of the original Stagecoach Phase I construction, and
four of which are nearly depleted production reservoirs and would be
added to the Stagecoach Storage Facility as part of the Phase II
Expansion Project. The existing Stagecoach Storage Facility consists of
the Barnhart-Owen and Widell pools, ten storage wells, seven
observation wells, about 12 miles of interconnecting pipeline, and a
central compressor facility. The existing working storage capacity is
13.25 Billion cubic feet (Bcf).
    The Phase II Expansion Project would develop the four remaining
pools (Lidell, Racht, Brenchley-Cook, and Nichols-Mead pools) for an
additional working storage capacity estimated at 13 Bcf.
    As part of the proposed expansion, CNYOG would construct:
     An additional 12,000-horsepower electric-drive centrifugal
compressor unit to be installed within the existing Stagecoach Central
Compressor Station building;
     A power transformer and gas cooling unit and other
appurtenant facilities to be installed within the Central Compressor
Station;
     A total of nine storage injection/withdrawal wells; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Four of the wells (one in each of the Lidell, Racht,
Brenchley-Cook, and Nichols-Mead pools) would be drilled during the
late spring/early summer of 2006 under the existing FERC
authorization for the Stagecoach Storage Facility issued in 2001
(Docket No. CP00-62-000). The remaining five storage wells would be
located within the Lidell Pool and would be drilled once CNYOG
receives any approval for the Phase II Expansion Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Approximately 7.3-miles of 6-inch-, 8-inch-, and 20-inch-
diameter gathering pipeline and associated rights-of-way;
     Eight wellhead meter stations and other appurtenant
facilities, including isolation valves, separators, measurement and
communication equipment, and a 20-foot by 70-foot building at each
storage well site to house equipment; and
     About 4.4 miles of access roads not contained within
pipeline or well easements.
    As part of the storage facility, CNYOG also proposes to construct
and operate a 9.3-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter lateral (North Lateral)
from the existing compressor station to the proposed Millennium
Pipeline located north of the town of Owego, New York.\3\ Its
appurtenant facilities will include measurement and regulation,
communication, isolation valves, and pigging facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Millennium Pipeline Project was approved by the
Commission on September 19, 2002 in Docket Nos. CP98-150-006 and -
007. Construction of the Millennium Pipeline has not commenced to
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of CNYOG's proposed facilities is shown on the
map attached as appendix 1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (map), are available on the Commission's Web site at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 278.1
acres of land. Of this acreage, 115.5 acres would be permanently
affected. The remaining 162.6 acres would be temporarily impacted and
allowed to revert to its former use. Each of CNYOG's nine test/storage
wells would temporarily disturb about a 250-foot-radius area.
    A 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way is proposed for the North
Lateral pipeline facilities, and a 50-foot-wide construction right-of-
way is proposed for all pipeline laterals to the storage wells. The
North Lateral construction

area parallels/crosses a New York State Electric and Gas Company
(NYSEG) electric transmission line for about 2,852 feet. The North
Lateral follows the same general alignment as an existing Columbia Gas
pipeline across the Susquehanna River north to the proposed Millennium
Pipeline interconnect. CNYOG would maintain a 50-foot permanent right-
of-way for operation of the pipeline facilities.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of
the EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to
notify their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA, we \5\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project. We will also
evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of
the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts
on the various resource areas. The EA we will discuss impacts that
could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the
proposed project under these general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or
portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the
EA may be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local government
agencies; public interest groups; Native American tribes; interested
individuals; affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the
Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day
comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We
will consider all comments submitted in any Commission Order that is
issued for the project.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-64-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC, on or before April 17, 2006.
    Please note that the Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's

Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you
can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on
``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to
select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.''

Public Meeting

    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, we invite
you to attend the public scoping meeting we will conduct in the project
area. The location for this meeting is listed below. The meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2006 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.

    Owego Treadway Inn, 1100 State Route 17C, Owego, NY 13827. (607)
687-4500.

    Public scoping meetings are designed to provide State and local
agencies, interested groups, affected landowners, and the general
public with another opportunity to offer comments on the project.
Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meeting
and to present comments on the environmental issues they believe should
be addressed in the EA.

Site Visit

    On April 5, 2006, the FERC staff will conduct a site visit of the
Stagecoach Storage Facility. The purpose of the visit will be to
inspect both the existing storage facility and the proposed Stagecoach
Phase II Expansion Project. We will view the proposed storage field
expansion, well sites, and associated pipeline routes. Representatives
of CNYOG will be accompanying the FERC staff.
    All interested parties may attend the site visit on April 5, 2006.
Those planning to attend must provide their own transportation. If you
are interested in attending the site visit, please meet at 8 a.m. in
the lobby of the Owego Treadway Inn at the address listed above.

Becoming an Intervener

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

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all

other interveners identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
Please refer to Appendix 2 if you would like more information on how to
intervene in Commission proceedings.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervener status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervener
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you do not want to remain on our mailing list, please return the
Remove From Mailing List Form included in Appendix 3. If you return
this form, you will be removed from the Commission's environmental
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, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP06-64-
000), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Internet 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 Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

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

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4239 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 4, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22230

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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 American Airlines, Inc. (American) filed 8/23/05 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 the terminal point St. Louis, Missouri, and the terminal point
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.  American proposes seasonal service in the
market, beginning February 4, 2006.

Applicant rep:	Carl B. Nelson,<PHONE_NUMBER> 	DOT Analyst: Tretha
Chromey<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: October 4, 2005 through
October 4, 2007.

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)

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, and the notice requirements for seasonal/intermittent
services as set forth in Order 96-11-24, at 5.  Consistent with our
policy, the dormancy notice period will begin on February 4, 2006,
American’s proposed start-up date for the subject service.

Remarks:  Brendan Airways, LLC, d/b/a USA 3000 (USA 3000) and Grand
Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Champion Air (Champion) currently hold the two
available designations under the U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement to
provide scheduled service on the St. Louis-Puerto Vallarta route.
American asserts, however, that Champion never commenced service in this
market and that, as a result, one designation opportunity for the St.
Louis-Puerto Vallarta market is available.  By letter, Champion has
notified us that it has no plans to use its scheduled authority to serve
the St. Louis-Puerto Vallarta market. See letter dated September 1,
2005, to Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief, Docket Section, U.S. Department of
Transportation, from counsel for Champion, filed in this docket.  Under
these circumstances, one designation opportunity is now available and we
are able to grant American’s application here.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

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

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

 Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest) filed an answer to American’s
application, stating that it does not oppose American’s request here
so long as Northwest’s application, in Docket OST-2005-21781, is
granted before, or at least contemporaneously with, American’s instant
application.  American filed a reply to Northwest’s answer stating
that it was withdrawing its objection to the Northwest application and
that the Department should promptly grant both American’s unopposed
St. Louis-Puerto Vallarta application here and Northwest’s application
in Docket OST-2005-21781.  We have already granted Northwest’s
application.  See Notice of Action Taken dated September 2, 2005 in
Docket OST-2005-21781.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78768]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30715]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9921-25-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP69

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and
NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public
comment period and change to public hearing date.

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

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for brick and structural clay products manufacturing and
NESHAP for clay ceramics manufacturing. The EPA is extending the
deadline for written comments on the proposed rule by 30 days to March
19, 2015. In addition, the EPA is changing the date of the public
hearing, if requested, to January 27, 2015, and the date to pre-
register for the hearing if it is held.

DATES: Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2014 (79 FR 75622) is
being extended for 30 days to March 19, 2015.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold a public hearing on
January 27, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m.
[Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will keep the
record of the hearing open for 30 days after completion of the hearing
to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary
information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments on the proposed rule may be
submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through
hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the proposal for the addresses
and detailed instructions.
    Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dockets are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If requested by January 15, 2015, the EPA will hold
a public hearing on January 27, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard
Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of
the Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a hearing, register to
speak at the hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will
be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the
hearing will be January 23, 2015. Additionally, requests to speak will
be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk,
although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled.
Please refer to the proposal for the more detailed information on the
public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule
for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing
Group, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-04), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919)
541-2825; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    After considering a request to extend the public comment period,
the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period for an
additional 30 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on
March 19, 2015, rather than February 17, 2015. This extension will help
ensure that the public has sufficient time to review the proposed rule
and the supporting technical documents and data available in the
docket.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-30715 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P