1 BOONE COUNTY, KENTUCKY Boone County is part of the Cincinnati Hamilton, OH KY IN Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located to the west of Kenton County, Kentucky, to the north of Grant County, Kentucky, to the northeast of Gallatin County, Kentucky, and to the southwest of Cincinnati, Ohio.

EPA s June 29, 2004 proposal on appropriate designations for Kentucky included Boone County as nonattainment based on the following criteria:

  EPA indicates that Boone County has significant emissions and a large power plant in the County.

  EPA indicates that the population growth and VMT data for Boone County has a potential to contribute to the PM2.5 violations in the area.

Emissions Data In Kentucky s February recommendations, 1999 NEI data was used in the original analysis. As stated in the General Comments portion of this document, EPA had recommended that states use the 1999 since it was the latest available to states at that time.

It is important to note here that EPA, in their review, used the 2001 NEI data, which provided different data than what EPA had recommended that states use. The 2001 NEI data, nor the methodology used in the calculations for that inventory have been made available to states for review.

In EPA s June 29, 2004 letters to states, EPA looked outside the original MSA boundaries to determine if large emissions contributions from adjacent areas were having an impact on PM2.5 levels within the MSA. Specifically, in the Cincinnati Hamilton metropolitan area, EPA has included Montgomery County, Ohio in the analysis for the Cincinnati Hamilton area and indicates that it too will be nonattainment, despite the fact that Montgomery County, Ohio, is in an entirely different MSA, the Dayton Springfield MSA.

Hamilton and Clermont Counties in Ohio, and Dearborn County in Indiana contribute 88% of all SOx within the counties EPA has recommended as nonattainment for PM2.5. By comparison, Boone County emits only 6% of SOx emissions from the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. A similar comparison can be made with both NOx and PM. Boone County s NOx and PM emissions stand at 8% of the total EPA recommended areas. In a detailed review of EPA s recommended areas to be designated nonattainment, Boone County ranks consistently less than 8% of 2 combined emissions contributions within EPA s proposed nonattainment boundaries. See Figures 1 4 below.

Figure 1 NKY Area SOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Dearborn, IN 22%

Butler, OH 5% Kenton, KY 1% Campbell, KY 0% Warren, OH 0%

Boone, KY 6% Clermont, OH 32% Hamilton, OH 34%

Figure 2 NKY Area NOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Dearborn, IN 16%

Butler, OH 10% Kenton, KY 4% Campbell, KY 3% Boone, KY 8% Warren, OH 4% Hamilton, OH 31%

Clermont, OH 24% 3 Figure 3 NKY Area PM Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Dearborn, IN 14%

Boone, KY 8% Campbell, KY 2% Kenton, KY 3% Butler, OH 12% Clermont, OH 25% Hamilton, OH 29%

Warren, OH 7%

Figure 4 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 T o n s P e r Y e a r Boone, KY Campbell, KY Kenton, KY Butler, OH Clermont, OH Hamilton, OH Warren, OH Dearborn, IN EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Emissions 2001 PM SOx NOx VOC NH3 Carbon Crustal Additional Emission Reductions in Boone County, Kentucky A factor not taken into account, either in the 1999 nor 2001 NEI data sets, was the implementation of additional NOx controls at the Cynergy East Bend Power Plant in Boone County. In 2002, NOx emissions were dropped substantially by the installation of SCR on Unit # 2. The operation of this control technology was 4 responsible for a 2,534 ton reduction in NOx emissions during the 2003 summer ozone season, which includes the quarters where Kentucky, and the region, typically record the highest PM2.5 levels. The implementation of these controls at that facility further reduce the potential emission contribution to monitors in question in Southwestern Ohio.

It is also important to note that the East Bend facility has existing controls to lower emissions of SO2 and PM.

Additional Regional/ National Controls The implementation of new federal rules to decrease the amount of sulfur in both gasoline and diesel fuel will significantly decrease the amount of SO2 in the entire area. Because of the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, in 2007, new clean engines operating on 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur program, by 2006 average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower.

Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

The first phase of compliance under the CAIR rule to reduce both SO2 and NOx emissions would be required by 2010, allowing substantial emission reductions in the area, by the proposed attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Monitoring Data & Trends As can been seen in Figure 5 below, the speciation data from Kentucky s Covington speciation monitor indicates that sulfate and organic carbon are the major components of the PM2.5 values. In Figure 1 above and Figure 6 below, Boone County, Kentucky, contributes only 6% of the SO2 in the area, and only 8% of the organic carbon ( figure 6 below) within EPA s proposed nonattainment counties. 5 Figure 5 Covington Speciation Data 2001 2003 Average Concentration ( µ g/ m ³ )

Elemental carbon 4% Crustal component 3%

Organic carbon 24% Ammonium 12% Sulfate 32% Nitrate 10% Other 15%

Figure 6 NKY Area Carbon Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Campbell, KY 3%

Kenton, KY 5%

Butler, OH 11%

Clermont, OH 20% Hamilton, OH 33% Warren, OH 9% Dearborn, IN 11% Boone, KY 8%

The monitors located in Campbell and Kenton Counties for the 2001 2003 timeframe show attainment with the standard and the annual concentrations continue to show a downward trend as depicted in Figure 7 below, which utilized data from the year 2000 through April 2004. Monitors in Southwestern Ohio also continue to show comparable downward trends in monitoring values. 6 Figure 7 Northern Kentucky Area PM 2.5 Trend 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year A n n u a l A r i th m e t i c M e a n ( m ic r o g r a m s / c u b i c m e t e r )

Campbell, KY Kenton, KY Butler, OH Hamilton, OH PM2.5 levels throughout the entire region have been steadily decreasing over the last four years. Specifically, the PM2.5 levels in Campbell County have decreased by 11%, Kenton County s levels have decreased by 12%, 12% in Hamilton County, and 11% in Butler County ( See Figure 8 below).

Figure 8 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Hamilton, OH Butler, OH Kenton, KY Campbell, KY Decline in PM Values for NKY Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 11% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 11% 7 Population Growth and VMT Levels EPA stated that Boone County had relatively high population growth that had the potential to impact PM2.5 violations in the area. Boone County makes up only 5% of the population in the entire MSA, see Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 Northern Kentucky Area 2002 Population for USEPA Proposed PM2.5 Nonattainment Counties Campbell, KY 5% Kenton, KY 8% Boone, KY 5% Dearborn, IN 2%

Clermont, OH 10% Butler, OH 18% Warren, OH 9% Hamilton, OH 43%

Therefore, Kentucky believes that the population in Boone County should not be used as a determining factor for potential contributions to PM2.5 violations in Southwestern Ohio.

Based on EPA s June 29, 2004, discussion of VMT data in the region, an attempt was made to segregate county VMT data by state rather than reviewing the data for the region as a whole. This is an unfair comparison. Data presented by EPA shows the overwhelming contribution from VMT in the area to be occurring outside of Boone County. Figure 10 below outlines total VMT per county for the MSA. 8 Figure 10 Cincinnati Hamilton MSA VMT per year in thousands 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Hamilton, OH Clermont, OH Dearborn, IN Butler, OH Boone, KY Warren, OH Kenton, KY Campbell, KY Brown, OH Grant, KY Pendleton, KY Gallatin, KY Ohio, IN VMT Conclusions Based on the factors discussed above, Kentucky believes that Boone County should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

  Kentucky believes that EPA s use of the weighted emissions scoring approach was skewed. A review of actual percentages of emissions contributions to an area shows that Boone County does not have the potential to contribute to PM2.5 levels within the region.

  PM2.5 levels continue to decline throughout the entire region. From a review of all monitors in the region, an average 12% decline in PM2.5 levels has occurred from 2000 through 2003. Every monitor in Kentucky is currently showing values well within attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard using 2002 through 2004 data.

  The population growth nor VMT of Boone County is significant enough to have the potential to impact PM2.5 levels in the region. Boone County s population actually represents only 5% of the actual MSA. The VMT from Boone County is substantially lower than other counties within the MSA.

  Additional emission reductions on a national and regional level will provide substantial benefits in the region. The anticipated sulfur reductions due to the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and 9 Gasoline Sulfur programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) will further lower pollutant levels within this region.

  It appears EPA has included Boone County as a potential nonattainment area due to an emissions contribution from the East Bend power plant. However, a review of the actual percentage of emissions in the entire area, shows that Boone County s contribution pales in comparison to other counties within the proposed nonattainment counties. That facility already has in place existing controls for SO2, NOx and PM. Including Boone County as nonattainment in order to gain additional controls would serve no purpose.

Based on the above conclusions, Boone County, Kentucky should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard. To have this county designated nonattainment would invoke additional, substantial, unnecessary requirements on local government planning agencies with little or no benefit to the area.

Substantial local emission reductions from Boone County have already occurred, or will have occurred well before attainment dates for this standard. Drastic emission reductions are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area. Couple these changes with those anticipated by the CAIR provisions, which will further reduce SOx and NOx emissions within the region, and the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 Standard, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Boone County, Kentucky, should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 Standard.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 13, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20396

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  FLYJET LIMITED (Flyjet)							Date Filed:  February 10, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 40109 to engage in: 1)
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United Kingdom and any point or
points in the United States; and 2) other charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212 of the Department’s economic
regulations.  The applicant requests that the exemption authority it
seeks be granted for a term of two years.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Josh Romanow,<PHONE_NUMBER>	      DOT analyst:
 Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved in part (one-year grant), remainder (request for
longer-term authority) dismissed.

Action date:  April 13, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  April 13, 2006, through April 13,
2007.

Basis for approval:  United States-United Kingdom Air Services
Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached).

Special conditions/Remarks:  Flyjet submitted its application pursuant
to the May 25, 1989, Exchange of Notes (1989 Exchange of Notes) between
the United States and the United Kingdom under which the aviation
authorities of each country will normally accept, on a reciprocal basis,
the other government’s fitness and citizenship determinations in
regard to carriers seeking authority to conduct certain bilateral
services, including the authority sought by Flyjet.  Based on the record
in this case, we found that Flyjet is operationally and financially
qualified to conduct the proposed services, and that it is substantially
owned and effectively controlled by homeland nationals.  We make this
finding based on the 1989 Exchange of Notes.  We also note that the
applicant is properly licensed by its homeland to perform the proposed
services.  In addition, by memorandum dated March 22, 2006, the Federal
Aviation Administration advised us that it knew of no reason why we
should act unfavorably on the applicant’s requests.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

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

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

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its 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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  05/2004

 Flyjet’s exemption application also references its pending foreign
air carrier permit application in Docket OST-2005-20395.  We will handle
its permit application separately.

 We note that Flyjet sought authority for a two-year period.  The
one-year duration of the authority we granted is consistent with our
usual policy of granting exemption authority in the circumstances
presented.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22103-22105]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0019]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone during
the Xterra swim, a swimming race occurring on waters of the
Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Xterra Swim
is scheduled to take place on Sunday, May 3, 2015. The temporary safety
zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until
8:30 a.m. on May 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0019. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector
Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-
3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 2, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC in the Federal
Register (76 FR 246). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No
public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    (a) The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    (b) The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the
swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public
during the Xterra Swim.

C. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety
zone will only be enforced for a total of 1 hour; (2) although persons
and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the
surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels
may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612), as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    (1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on May 3, 2015.
    (2) For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review
section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone on waters of
the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the
Xterra Swim event on Sunday, May 3, 2015. Persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0019 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0019  Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone:
all waters within the following two points of position and the North
shore: 33[deg]45.076 N., 78[deg]50.790 W. to 33[deg]45.323 N.,
78[deg]50.214 W. The Xterra Swim race consists of approximately 150
swimmers. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective on May 3, 2015. This
rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Sunday, May 3,
2015.

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
B.D. Falk,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2015-09047 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 39422]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-194-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule
for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Alabama
Georgia Connector Project

    On April 19, 2023, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
(Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP23-194-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Alabama
Georgia Connector Project (Project), and would provide Transco's
Project Customers with firm access to 63,800 dekatherms per day of
incremental natural gas supply, increase overall system reliability,
and add natural gas infrastructure to meet growing demand in Georgia.
    On May 3, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
environmental document for the Project.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule
for the completion of the environmental review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1501.10 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--November 27, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \2\--February 25, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Transco proposes to construct and operate various modifications at
five existing compressor stations in Marengo and Randolph Counties,
Alabama, and Coweta, Henry, and Walton Counties, Georgia. These
modifications include re-wheeling two existing compressors at
Compressor Station 90 in Marengo County; increasing horsepower (hp) of
two natural gas-fired compressor units from 35,500 hp to 39,365 hp at
Compressor Station 110 in Randolph County; re-wheeling three compressor
units at Compressor Station 115 in Coweta County; replacing a 12,000 hp
compressor unit with a 22,500 hp unit at Compressor Station 120 in
Henry County; and increasing the hp of Compressor Station 125 in Walton
County from 49,800 hp to 55,800 hp.

Background

    On June 2, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Alabama
Georgia Connector Project (Notice of Scoping). The Notice of Scoping
was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. All substantive comments received in response to the
Notice of Scoping will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the
Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service
provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members, and others access
publicly available information and navigate the Commission processes.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    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, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP23-194), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 12, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12945 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P