[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10195-10198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1295]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Chief executive                           Online location of
       State and county          Location and       officer of         Community map          letter of map           Effective date of       Community
                                   case No.          community           repository              revision               modification             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado:
    El Paso..................  Unincorporated    The Honorable     Development Services   http://                February 28, 2013.........       080059
                                Areas of El       Amy Lathan        Department, 2880       www.bakeraecom.com/
                                Paso County (12-  Chair, El Paso    International          index.php/colorado/
                                08-0579P).        County, Board     Circle, Suite 110,     el-paso.
                                                  of Commisioners   Colorado Springs, CO
                                                  200 South         80910.
                                                  Cascade Avenue,
                                                  Suite 100,
                                                  Colorado
                                                  Springs, CO
                                                  8903.
Connecticut:
    New Haven................  Town of Beacon    The Honorable     Beacon Falls Town      http://www.starr-      March 6, 2013.............       090072
                                Falls (12-01-     Gerald F.         Hall, 10 Maple         team.com/starr/
                                1573P).           Smith, First      Avenue, Beacon         RegionalWorkspaces/
                                                  Selectman, Town   Falls, CT 06403.       RegionI/pages/
                                                  of Beacon                                LOMR.aspx.
                                                  Falls, 10 Maple
                                                  Avenue, Beacon
                                                  Falls, CT 06403.
Idaho: Latah.................  City of Moscow    The Honorable     Moscow Community       http://www.starr-      March 27, 2013............       160090
                                (11-10-1574P).    Nancy Chaney,     Development, 221       team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  Mayor, City of    East 2nd Street,       Pages/RegionX.aspx.
                                                  Moscow, 206       Moscow, ID 83843.
                                                  East 3rd
                                                  Street, Moscow,
                                                  ID 83843.
Illinois:
    DuPage...................  Village of        The Honorable     Roselle Village Hall,  http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       170216
                                Roselle (12-05-   Gayle             31 South Prospect      team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                8596P).           Smolinski,        Street, Roselle, IL    Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  Mayor, Village    60172.
                                                  of Roselle, 31
                                                  South Prospect
                                                  Street,
                                                  Roselle, IL
                                                  30172.
Indiana:
    Lake.....................  Town of Munster   The Honorable     1005 Ridge Road,       http://www.starr-      March 1, 2013.............       180139
                                (12-05-7873P).    David Nellans,    Munster, IN 46321.     team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  President,                               Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  Munster Town
                                                  Council, 1005
                                                  Ridge Road,
                                                  Munster, IN
                                                  46321.
    Lake.....................  City of Hammond   The Honorable     Hammond City Hall,     http://www.starr-      March 1, 2013.............       180134
                                (12-05-7873P).    Thomas M.         5925 Calumet Avenue,   team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  McDermott Jr.,    Hammond, IN 46320.     Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  5925 Calumet
                                                  Avenue,
                                                  Hammond, IN
                                                  46320.
Kansas:
    Sedwick..................  City of Wichita   The Honorable     455 North Main, 8th    http://www.starr-      March 12, 2013............       200328
                                (12-07-0465P).    Carl Brewer,      Floor, Wichita, KS     team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  Mayor, City of    67202.                 Pages/RegionVII.aspx.
                                                  Wichita, 455
                                                  North Main,
                                                  Wichita, KS
                                                  67202.
    Sedwick..................  City of Maize     The Honorable     10100 West Grady       http://www.starr-      March 12, 2013............       200520
                                (12-07-0465P).    Clair Donnelly,   Avenue, Maize, KS      team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  Mayor, City of    67101.                 Pages/RegionVII.aspx.
                                                  Maize, 10100
                                                  West Grady
                                                  Avenue, Maize,
                                                  KS 67101.
    Sedwick..................  Unincorporated    The Honorable     144 South Seneca       http://www.starr-      March 12, 2013............       200321
                                Areas of          Tim R. Norton,    Street, Wichita, KS    team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                Sedwick County    Chairman,         67213.                 Pages/RegionVII.aspx.
                                (12-07-0465P).    Sedwick County,
                                                  Board of
                                                  Commissioners,
                                                  525 North Main,
                                                  Suite 320,
                                                  Wichita, KS
                                                  67203.
Massachusetts:
    Norfolk..................  Town of Sharon    The Honorable     217R South Main        http://www.starr-      March 11, 2013............       250252
                                (12-01-2415P).    Richard Alan      Street, Sharon, MA     team.com/starr/
                                                  Powell, Chair,    02067.                 RegionalWorkspaces/
                                                  Town of Sharon,                          RegionI/pages/
                                                  Board of                                 LOMR.aspx.
                                                  Selectman, 90
                                                  South Main
                                                  Street, Sharon,
                                                  MA 02067.
    Plymouth.................  Town of Wareham   The Honorable     54 Marion Road,        http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       255223
                                (12-01-2090P).    Stephen M.        Wareham, MA 02571.     team.com/starr/
                                                  Holmes,                                  RegionalWorkspaces/
                                                  Chairman, Town                           RegionI/pages/
                                                  of Wareham                               LOMR.aspx.
                                                  Board of
                                                  Selectman, 54
                                                  Marion Road,
                                                  Wareham, MA
                                                  02571.
Minnesota:
    Olmsted..................  City of           The Honorable     2122 Campus Drive,     http://www.starr-      March 21, 2013............       275246
                                Rochester (12-    Ardell F.         Southeast, Suite       team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                05-4929P).        Brede, Mayor,     100, Rochester, MN     Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  City of           55904.
                                                  Rochester, 201
                                                  4th Street
                                                  Southeast, Room
                                                  281, Rochester,
                                                  MN 55904.
Missouri:

    Greene...................  City of           The Honorable     840 Boonville Avenue,  http://www.starr-      March 29, 2013............       290149
                                Springfield (12-  Bob Stephens,     Springfield, MO        team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                07-2300P).        Mayor, City of    65801.                 Pages/RegionVII.aspx.
                                                  Springfield,
                                                  840 Boonville
                                                  Avenue,
                                                  Springfield, MO
                                                  65801.
Wisconsin:
    Walworth.................  Village of Genoa  The Honorable     Village Hall, 715      http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       550465
                                City (12-05-      John Wrzeszcz,    Walworth Street        team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                6204P).           President,        Genoa City, WI 53128.  Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  Village of
                                                  Genoa City
                                                  Board, 810 Oak
                                                  Ridge Lane,
                                                  Genoa City, WI
                                                  53128.
    Walworth.................  Unincorporated    The Honorable     100 West Walworth      http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       550462
                                Areas of          Nancy Russell,    Street, Elkhorn, WI    team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                Walworth County   Chairperson,      53121.                 Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                (12-05-6204P).    Walworth,
                                                  County Board of
                                                  Supervisors,
                                                  100 West
                                                  Walworth
                                                  Street,
                                                  Elkhorn, WI
                                                  53121.
    Dane.....................  City of Monona    The Honorable     5211 Schluter Road,    http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       550088
                                (12-05-5696P).    Bob Miller        Monona, WI 53716.      team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  Mayor, City of                           Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  Monona, 5211
                                                  Schluter Road,
                                                  Monona, WI
                                                  53716.
    Dane.....................  City of Madison   The Honorable     Department of Public   http://www.starr-      March 15, 2013............       550083
                                (12-05-5696P).    Paul R. Soglin,   Works and              team.com/starr/LOMR/
                                                  Mayor, City of    Transportation,        Pages/RegionV.aspx.
                                                  Madison, 210      Enginnering
                                                  Martin Luther     Division, 210 Martin
                                                  King Jr.          Luther King Junior
                                                  Boulevard, Room   Boulevard, Room 115,
                                                  403, Madison,     Madison, WI 53703.
                                                  WI 53703.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-03257 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Notes from Meeting with Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO), April 19, 2011

Attendees:

Ronald Shell (AL)

Bob Reinke (MT)

Carl Spadoro (PA)

Cliancia Pielle (USVI)

Jack Schinderle (MI)

Jim Patterson (MA)

Kathryn Fergus (NV)

Penny Wilson (AR)

Tom Judge (MO)

Summary of general findings:

	Small quantity generators have difficulty making correct hazardous
waste determinations due to confusing and vague laws. They rarely have
the resources to dedicate the staff or time to properly interpret these
laws for their specific industry. Large quantity generators may have the
resources but often times use them to interpret the laws in ways which
are economically favorable to them. For example, many large firms will
inappropriately use RCRA exclusions to avoid making a hazardous waste
determination.

	A general lack of awareness about hazardous waste determination
regulations exists. This is due to a combination of a lack of interest
and resources on the part of generators and a lack of outreach and
training on the part of the states. Adequate regulation awareness is
also diminished by laws which are vague and difficult to interpret at an
industry specific level.

	The effectiveness of third parties is a mixed bag. While some have
strong business models, allowing them to provide a reliable service to
their clients (ex. Triumvirate Environmental), others have reverse
incentives and may profit from making incorrect determinations. Third
parties are more likely to ignore the fact that their clients must meet
both local and federal regulations.

	The economic downturn has compounded issues with regard to hazardous
waste determination. Handling hazardous wastes is expensive. If a waste
is not declared hazardous, these expenses are avoided. This leads to an
incentive for businesses to risk that they will not be inspected. The
lack of funding available to states has led to a decrease in state
outreach and training efforts. Many programs that were previously
implemented to assist hazardous waste generators are no longer
available.

1) Have you found similar patterns of hazardous waste determination
non-compliance within your state?

One state was skeptical of RCRAInfo data because an incorrect
determination is often times cited/reported as another violation type
(ie. Failure to keep paper work etc…).

Another state had a similar experience while another state had
specifically been told that it is almost impossible to make a case on a
failure to properly characterize waste. Therefore, different violations
are the ones they issue citations for.

2) Why do generators have a difficult time making hazardous waste
determinations?

One state mentioned the inappropriate use of RCRA exclusions

Stating that wastes can be burned for energy recovery (when in fact it
either cannot or is not) and therefore are eligible for RCRA exclusion.

Make claims that a waste is not a waste because there is a market for
it.

Industry claims that ignitable chemical products can be burned as fuel
source and eligible for RCRA exclusion

Larger firms seem to pull this information from RCRAInfo and apply their
own interpretations.

Smaller firms rely upon the interpretation from other sources (McCoys,
Lion Technology).

Another state’s program focuses on enforcement. Hazardous waste
determinations   are in the top 3 of violations for which enforcement is
issued.

CEG’s make a proper determination on their main waste stream but do
not make a determination for secondary waste streams

Product vs. waste issue

Business will claim a waste is being stored to be used later as a
product

State claim’s item is “on shelf” too long and is therefore a waste

Easier/cheaper for businesses to leave item and claim as a product than
claim it as hazardous waste.

Common occurrence with the chrome plating industry in their state

There is no specific rule with regard to how long a product can sit on a
shelf and not be considered a hazardous waste

Some facilities are not determining if the waste is a solid waste, let
alone a hazardous waste. Causes systemic incorrect determination

Smaller facilities will often store a waste until they can afford to pay
for it as a hazardous waste. If the inspector comes in the mean time the
have a violation.

Many firms are willing to take the chance that they won’t be
inspected.

Another state gets a lot of ‘Oh how could we have done that?!’
situations where the violator either doesn’t connect the dots or just
makes a plain old dumb mistake”

Seems to be a pattern amongst these where the smaller companies don’t
understand the rules for any number of reasons (resources, staff
dedicated to determinations) while larger businesses get casual and
don’t pay much attention to their determinations.

Another state mentioned that sometimes businesses change their operating
procedures and produce new waste streams which they fail to
characterize. If the companies have procedures in place to monitor new
waste streams when operations are changed, they avoid these problems.

This stems in part from company culture but not always

ISO certified company tend to have these procedures in place and avoid
these violations

Follow-up Question – Do multinational firms have similar issues?

One state mentioned, as an example, waste management is generating
arsenic as part of their enhanced gas recovery. They try and use RCRA
exclusions to avoid having to designate as hazardous waste. Take the
attitude of “We’re giving it a shot”

Another state mentioned, as an example, a trade association that claims
the laws are too confusing despite clearly having plenty of resources to
correctly interpret the laws and make appropriate determinations.
“They are dumb like a fox.”

State’s response is to write “too descriptive” guidance

Some larger firms take a position of, “don’t argue, just pay.”

Personnel training issues are also prevalent

EX. Operator throwing away ignitable paint

3rd Party assistance – Transporters/brokers:

Believe that some are intentionally duping their clients for financial
gain

Will make a sale by claiming something is not hazardous and offering a
lower price for handling the waste. Thereby, subjecting their client to
potential violations

Other cases, may claim something that is not a hazardous waste is one to
collect a larger fee for handling

- Checking with local officials about state laws is often ignored. Many
violations occur when the generator adheres to federal regulations only.

3) What programs does your state operate to help generators with making
hazardous waste determinations?

One state mentioned:

Training is not in the budget

Outreach programs are only done when major changes are made

Do not have the funding to provide much outreach anymore

Another state mentioned:

No formalized training

Training is done on a case by case basis

Passive approach to determination training/outreach is taken.

Another state mentioned:

Budget restrictions have decreased training

Now done on a case by case basis

Another state mentioned:

Generator training is done in each congressional district

Small business public outreach

Another state mentioned:

State licenses their hazardous waste transporters. Therefore, they must
have proper training on determinations.

Extensive information is available via the web

Another state mentioned:

Have only two inspectors for all of his state.

Provide information on the web

Have training CD’s available to generators

Will speak with college students assuming these are the people who will
be making hazardous waste determinations in the future.

Another state mentioned:

Conduct a workshop for hazardous waste generators

Provide hazardous waste information during small business workshops

Another state mentioned:

Used to speak to individual groups that needed assistance but no longer
have the funding to do so.

Have a yearly environmental conference at which hazardous waste
determination is one topic.

They often rely upon transporters to train generators on determinations

Another state mentioned:

Web based Toxics Use Reduction program

Hold hazardous waste determination talks that businesses can attend

Have a technical assistance program but now staffed by only six people

They will walk through the inspection process with generators

Another state mentioned:

Used to have a bureau to help with compliance assistance

Would hold individual trainings with generators

Speak with trade schools

Generator list serve (generators must sign up via email)

Information about hazardous waste compliance is sent to generators

Hold a hazardous waste forum and notify the generators on the list serve
of the topics

Speak at state chamber of commerce environmental conference (hazardous
waste generation may be a topic)

Used to do individual trainings but no longer have funding to do too
many

4) What other state programs stand out?

Many folks respond saying they aren’t aware of any other state
programs they feel are especially successful.

One state does more outreach and less enforcement. Outreach before
enforcement

Another state used to have a lot of outreach programs. Not certain if
this is still the case.

5) What is the effectiveness of third parties within your state?

One state mentioned a environmental federation that conducts hazardous
waste training twice a year

Another state mentioned a company that is good at preventing incorrect
determinations for hazardous waste

Another state mentioned that they used to have a company that outsourced
environmental health and safety

6) What is the one thing you would like your state to implement?

Outreach and training programs

Certification system to ensure that businesses attend the assistance
programs

There is no economic incentive for businesses to implement changes

Negative incentive exists (fear of enforcement)

“don’t know”

More training and outreach – Fed. Funding needs to be more specific so
that it can be devoted to these types of programs

“Until the generators get caught, they don’t care”

Training

It needs to be tied to a financial incentive

Hire an entity to create industry specific interpretations of hazardous
waste determination regulations

More face to face technical assistance and training

Face to face outreach/training with both generators and inspectors


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31628-31629]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the Milwaukee, WI to
Minneapolis, MN Rail Corridor

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement.

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

SUMMARY: On December 9, 2010, FRA published a notice of intent to
advise the public that a Tier I environmental impact statement (EIS)
would be prepared for the Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
(Milwaukee-Twin Cities) High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. The original
project included passenger stations, maintenance facilities, and the
construction of a high-speed rail line between Milwaukee and the Twin
Cities. Alternatives originally under consideration included taking no
action (No Build), as well as several build alternatives along a
variety of corridors between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. However, to
prioritize the limited funding available for the EIS, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) now intends to focus the Tier 1
EIS on improvements to existing service using the existing route on the
Milwaukee to Twin Cities passenger rail corridor (the Corridor) from
Milwaukee Intermodal Station to the Minneapolis Transportation
Interchange.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the current proposed action is to
meet future regional travel demand and provide intermodal connectivity
to existing and planned transportation systems in Minnesota and
Wisconsin. The proposed action offers an opportunity to provide
reliable and competitive passenger rail service as an attractive
alternative transportation choice between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities
by: decreasing travel times, increasing frequency of service, and
providing safe and reliable service. The need for the proposed action
is based on the limitations and vulnerabilities of available travel
modes between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. Existing transportation
modes, including highway, bus, and air travel, have inherent problems
including congested highways near the Milwaukee, Madison, and Twin
Cities metro areas and airport capacity issues at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport and Milwaukee's General Mitchell International
Airport. Improved and expanded passenger rail service can provide an
alternative mode and/or relief to these congested roadways and
airports.
    The environmental process will identify improvements to
infrastructure that would allow for increased train frequency and
reduced travel times for passenger rail service along the existing
route on the Corridor. The existing route currently has passenger
service; Amtrak's Empire Builder serves the Corridor, and, therefore,
provides the best opportunity to implement a phased approach for
infrastructure improvements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Krom, Director, Passenger
Rail Office, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), 395 John
Ireland Boulevard, MS 480, St. Paul, MN 55155, telephone (651) 366-
3193; or Ms. Colleen Vaughn, Office of Railroad Policy and Development,
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-
20/W38-303, Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Vision of the Minnesota Comprehensive
Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan is to develop a robust
intrastate and interstate intercity passenger rail system which results
in improved travel options, costs and speeds for Minnesota and
interstate travelers. One of the priority program elements identified
in the Statewide Rail Plan is to advance corridors incrementally and
simultaneously with MnDOT's support, sequencing corridors and
improvements depending on financing, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and
agreements with freight railroads.
    MnDOT is cognizant of hurdles faced in completely funding the
vision for the Corridor in a single funding cycle in favor of partial
or incremental funding and building of a passenger rail route in phases
allowing for incremental increases in frequency as well as ``phased''
reduction in travel time. The existing passenger rail service route
between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities provides the best opportunity to
implement a phased approach for infrastructure improvements due to its
potential to incrementally implement a reduction in travel time and
increase in frequency. This phased approach recognizes the constraints
associated with funding requirements for major infrastructure
improvements at the state and federal levels and is consistent with the
Minnesota Statewide Rail Plan.
    Currently, MnDOT and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WisDOT) are coordinating with Amtrak to determine the feasibility of
increasing the frequency of the current service from one round-trip per
day to two with the introduction of the second Empire Builder train
between the Twin Cities and Chicago via Milwaukee.

Environmental Review Process

    The EIS will be developed in accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.)
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and FRA's
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545; May 26,
1999). FRA and MnDOT will use a tiered process, as provided for in 40
CFR 1508.28 and in accordance with FRA guidance, in the completion of
the environmental review of the Program. The Tier 1 EIS will address
broad corridor-level issues. Subsequent Tier 2 reviews would analyze,
at a greater level of detail, narrower site-specific projects based on
the decisions made in the Tier 1 EIS.
    The Tier 1 EIS will result in a NEPA document with the appropriate
level of

detail for corridor-level decisions and will address broad overall
issues of concern, including but not limited to:
     Confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Identifying the infrastructure and equipment investment
requirements for the reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Identifying the operational changes required for the
reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Describing the environmental impacts associated with
proposed changes in passenger rail train frequency, speed, and on-time
performance.
     Characterizing the environmental consequences of the
reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Establishing the timing and sequencing of independent
actions to maintain a state of good repair and to implement the
proposed action.
     Selecting component projects for Tier 2 NEPA
documentation.
    Additional information on the Project can be obtained by visiting
the Project Web site at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/mwrri/phase7.html or sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2013.
Corey Hill,
Director, Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-12435 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36167]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft
Registration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information collected is used by the FAA to register
aircraft or hold an aircraft in trust. The information required to
register and prove ownership of an aircraft is required by any person
wishing to register an aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0042.
    Title: Aircraft Registration.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8050-1, 8050-2, 8050-4, 8050-98, 8050-117.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Public Law 103-272 states that all aircraft must be
registered before they may be flown. It sets forth registration
eligibility requirements and provides for application for registration
as well as suspension and/or revocation of registration. The
information collected is used by the FAA to register an aircraft or
hold an aircraft in trust. The information requested is required to
register and prove ownership.
    Respondents: Approximately 201,016 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 107,188 hours.
    Addresses: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms.
Carla Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-15404 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 10818]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05500]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-116-000]

Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Texas LNG Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Texas LNG Project, proposed by Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC
(Texas LNG) in the above-referenced docket. Texas LNG requests
authorization to site, construct, modify, and operate liquefied natural
gas (LNG) export facilities on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron
County, Texas. The Texas LNG Project would include a new LNG export
terminal capable of producing up to 4 million tonnes per annum of LNG
for export. The terminal would receive natural gas to the export
facilities from a third-party intrastate pipeline.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Texas LNG Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
FERC staff concludes that approval of the Texas LNG Project would
result in adverse environmental impacts. However, with the mitigation
measures recommended in the EIS, impacts in the project area would be
avoided or minimized and would not be significant, with the exception
of visual resources when viewed from the Laguna Atascosa National
Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the Texas LNG Project, combined with
other projects in the geographic scope, including the Rio Grande LNG
and Annova LNG Projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts
from sediment/turbidity and shoreline erosion within the Brownsville
Ship Channel during operations from vessel transits; on the federally
listed ocelot and jaguarundi from habitat loss and potential for
increased vehicular strikes during construction; on the federally
listed aplomado falcon from habitat loss; and on visual resources from
the presence of aboveground structures. Construction and operation of
the Texas LNG Project would result in mostly temporary or short-term
environmental impacts; however, some long-term and permanent
environmental impacts would occur.
    The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration and Federal Aviation Administration,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Park Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service participated as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating
agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to
resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the
NEPA analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the
conclusions and recommendations presented in the EIS, the agencies will
present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective
Records of Decision for the project.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following project facilities:
     Gas gate station and interconnect facility;
     pretreatment facility to remove water, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, mercury, and heavier (pentane and above)
hydrocarbons;
     a liquefaction facility consisting of two liquefaction
trains utilizing Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APCI) C3MR
technology and ancillary support facilities;
     two approximately 210,000 cubic meter (m\3\) aboveground
full containment LNG storage tanks with cryogenic pipeline connections
to the liquefaction facility and berthing dock;
     LNG carrier berthing dock capable of receiving LNG
carriers between approximately 130,000 m\3\ and 180,000 m\3\ capacity;
     a permanent material offloading facility to allow
waterborne deliveries of equipment and materials during construction
and mooring of tug boats while an LNG carrier is at berth;
     thermal oxidizer, warm wet flare, cold dry flare, spare
flare, acid gas flare, and marine flare; and
     administration, control, maintenance, and warehouse
buildings and related parking lots; electrical transmission line and
substation, water pipeline, septic system, and stormwater facilities/
outfalls.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The final EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the final EIS may be accessed by using
the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP16-116). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. 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.

    Dated: March 15, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05500 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P