[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75104-75107]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29579]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0636; FRL-9920-51-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Rules; Preconstruction
Permit Requirements--Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant full approval for the revisions to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 25, 2012
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on
behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). These
revisions pertain to ACHD's Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
program, and implement an incorporation by reference (IBR) of
Pennsylvania's NNSR provisions. They also correct a citation error in
ACHD's NNSR regulations. This action is in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0636 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0636, Mr. Andrew Kreider, Associate
Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0636. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; and Allegheny County Health
Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality,
301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul T. Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 25, 2012, PADEP submitted a formal revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) (the June 2012 SIP submittal) which revises
ACHD's NNSR program. By letter dated June 27, 2014, PADEP modified the
June 2012 SIP revision, by withdrawing specific language from the June
2012 SIP submittal. The withdrawn language related to a proposed
process for automatically incorporating additions, revisions, or
deletions to PADEP's NNSR regulations into ACHD's SIP effective on the
date of such PADEP NNSR regulation revision. As a result of PADEP's
June 27, 2014 letter, the language withdrawn by PADEP from the June 25,
2012 SIP submission is not being considered as part of this rulemaking
action. The remainder of the SIP revision is the subject of this
rulemaking action and consists of amendments to ACHD's major NNSR
permitting regulations under Article XXI of ACHD's Rules and
Regulations. The June 2012 SIP submittal includes amendments to the
following sections of ACHD's Rules and Regulations, Article XXI:
Section 2102.20 (Definitions); 2102.04 (Installation permits); section
2102.06 (Major sources Locating in or Impacting a Nonattainment Area);
and, section 2102.08 (Emissions Offset Registration). As discussed in
greater detail in this proposal, the June 2012 SIP submittal includes
revisions to ACHD's nonattainment NSR program which are consistent with
currently promulgated federal NSR regulations and with NSR regulations
which EPA has previously approved into Pennsylvania's SIP.
    Generally, the June 2012 SIP revision incorporates provisions
related to two Federal rulemaking actions: (a) The 2002 ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NSR): Baseline
Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual

Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units,
Pollution Control Projects'' (2002 NSR Reform Rules), see 67 FR 80186,
December 31, 2002, and (b) the 2008 ``Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule), see 73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, these rules: (1) Provided a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopted an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allowed major stationary sources to
comply with a Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) to avoid having a
significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the
major NSR program; (4) provided a new applicability provision for
emissions units that are designated clean units; and, (5) excluded
pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical
change or change in the method of operation.'' On November 7, 2003, EPA
published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002
NSR Reform Rules,\1\ which added a definition for ``replacement unit''
and clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on
the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see: (a) EPA's December 31, 2002 final
rulemaking action entitled: ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NSR): Baseline Emissions Determination,
Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability
Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects'' (67 FR 80186),
(b) the 2003 final reconsideration: ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR):
Reconsideration'' (68 FR 63021), and (c) the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration;'' (68 FR
63021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC
Circuit) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (New York I).
    In summary, the DC Circuit vacated portions of the rules pertaining
to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding
recordkeeping and the term ``reasonable possibility'' found in 40 CFR
52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not
comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action to revise
the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove from federal law all provisions
pertaining to clean units and the PCP exemption that were vacated by
the DC Circuit.
    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as the 2007 ``Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule) \2\), was also the subject of litigation before
the DC Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (DC Circuit
Court decision).\3\ On January 4, 2013, the court remanded to EPA both
the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both rules EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to the
general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of
the CAA (subpart 1), rather than pursuant to the additional
implementation provisions specific to particulate matter in subpart 4
of part D of title I (subpart 4).\4\ As a result, the court remanded
both rules and instructed EPA ``to re-promulgate these rules pursuant
to subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Although the DC Circuit
declined to establish a deadline for EPA's response, EPA intends to
respond promptly to the court's remand and to promulgate new generally
applicable implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in
accordance with the requirements of subpart 4. In the interim, however,
states and EPA still need to proceed with implementation of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in a timely and effective fashion in order to
meet statutory obligations under the CAA and to assure the protection
of public health intended by those NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007)
    \3\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
    \4\ The court's opinion did not specifically address the point
that implementation under subpart 4 requirements would still require
consideration of subpart 1 requirements, to the extent that subpart
4 did not override subpart 1. EPA assumes that the court presumed
that EPA would address this issue of potential overlap between
subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements in subsequent actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its response to the January 4, 2013 DC Circuit Court of
Appeals Order, EPA issued a final rulemaking entitled ``Identification
of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final Rule,'' (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014).
See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/actions.html. This
rule classified all existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas as
``Moderate'' nonattainment areas and set a deadline of December 31,
2014, for states to submit any SIP submissions, including nonattainment
NSR SIPs that may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of subpart 4
with respect to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The existing
PM2.5 nonattainment areas addressed by this rule included
the Liberty-Clairton and Pittsburgh nonattainment areas, portions of
which are regulated by ACHD and, therefore, subject to the regulatory
revisions being proposed for approval in this action. See 79 FR 31566
(June 2, 2014). EPA is continuing to evaluate the requirements of
subpart 4 as they pertain to, among other things, nonattainment NSR for
PM2.5 emissions.
    Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule authorized states
to adopt provisions in their nonattainment NSR rules that would allow
major stationary sources locating in areas designated nonattainment for
PM2.5, and major modifications at stationary sources located
in areas designated nonattainment for PM2.5, to offset
emissions increases of direct PM2.5 emissions or
PM2.5 precursors with reductions of either direct
PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors in accordance
with offset ratios contained in the approved SIP for the applicable
nonattainment area. The inclusion, in whole or in part, of the
interpollutant offset provisions for PM2.5 is discretionary
on the part of the states. In the preamble to the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule, EPA included preferred or presumptive offset
ratios, applicable to specific PM2.5 precursors that a state
may adopt in conjunction with the new interpollutant offset provisions
for PM2.5, and for which a state could rely on the EPA's
technical work to demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios for use in any
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Alternatively, the preamble
indicated that states may adopt their own ratios, subject to the EPA's
approval, that would have to be substantiated by modeling or other
technical demonstrations of the net air quality benefit for ambient
PM2.5 concentrations. The preferred ratios were subsequently
the subject of a petition for reconsideration, which the Administrator
granted. EPA continues

to support the basic policy that sources may offset increases in
emissions of direct PM2.5 or of any PM2.5
precursor in a PM2.5 nonattainment area with actual
emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or PM2.5
precursors in accordance with offset ratios as approved in the SIP for
the applicable nonattainment area. However, EPA no longer considers the
preferred ratios set forth in the preamble to the 2008 PM2.5
NSR Rule for PM2.5 NSR implementation to be presumptively
approvable. Instead, any ratio involving PM2.5 precursors
adopted by the state for use in the interpollutant offset program for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be accompanied by a technical
demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of such ratio for
the PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it will be applied.
    A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included in the docket for
this action, and contains additional detail regarding the history and
background of the Federal counterparts to the regulations included in
the June 2012 SIP submittal, which will not be restated here.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The proposed SIP revisions include amendments to ACHD's Rules and
Regulations, Article XXI sections: 2102.20 (Definitions), 2102.04
(Installation permits), 2102.06 (Major sources Locating in or Impacting
a Nonattainment Area), and 2102.08 (Emissions Offset Registration). The
revisions in the June 2012 SIP submittal create a revised NNSR program
in Allegheny County which, through amendment and incorporation by
reference, reflects all the changes to Pennsylvania's NNSR Program from
the revisions to Pennsylvania's SIP approved on May 14, 2012 (NSR
reform rules) and on August 13, 2012 (2008 NSR PM2.5 rule).

III. Analysis

A. NSR Reform

    EPA last took action to approve ACHD's NNSR program into the
Pennsylvania SIP on November 14, 2002 (see 67 FR 68935). At that time,
a portion of ACHD's approved NNSR program directly relied upon an
incorporation by reference of the requirements then codified at 25 PA
Code 127.211. In 2007, Pennsylvania revised its NNSR regulations and
these revised NNSR regulations were approved into the Pennsylvania SIP
on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261). These changes added the NSR reform
elements into Pennsylvania's NNSR program. However, those changes also
deleted section 127.211, and re-codified those requirements elsewhere.
That action created a deficiency in ACHD's NNSR provisions, because
they relied on the incorporation by reference of a regulatory citation
that no longer existed. The June 2012 SIP submittal has incorporated by
reference Pennsylvania's NNSR program provisions which are set forth at
25 PA Code Chapter 127 as approved by EPA, including the correct
citation at 25 PA Code 127.203a. Because EPA has already approved
Pennsylvania's revised NNSR regulations (see 77 FR 28261), there is no
need to re-evaluate these same NSR Reform elements which are set forth,
or incorporated by reference, in the June 2012 SIP submittal.
    EPA has determined that the June 2012 SIP submittal has
incorporated all of PADEP's NNSR construction, modification,
reactivation, and operating permit program provisions at 25 PA Code
section 121.1 and 25 PA Code Chapter 127 (PADEP's NNSR program) and is
proposing to approve this submittal as meeting the Federal NNSR
requirements.

B. Implementation of NSR Requirements for PM2.5

    On July 13, 2012, EPA took final action to approve the provisions
promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule into the Pennsylvania
SIP. See 77 FR 41276. By virtue of the incorporation by reference of
Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations, Pennsylvania's June 2012 SIP submittal
includes revisions to ACHD's nonattainment NSR program consistent with
the provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and
already approved into Pennsylvania's SIP.
    EPA is in the process of evaluating the requirements of subpart 4
as they pertain to nonattainment NSR. In particular, subpart 4 includes
section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the
DC Circuit court decision, PM2.5 precursors) ``except where
the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.'' The evaluation of which precursors need to be controlled to
achieve the standard in a particular area is typically conducted in the
context of the state's preparing and the EPA's reviewing of an area's
attainment plan SIP.
    While ACHD's submittal may not yet contain all of the elements
necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under subpart
4, the proposed revisions represent a considerable strengthening of the
currently approved Pennsylvania SIP, which does not currently address
PM2.5 for Allegheny County. Therefore, EPA is granting full
approval to the nonattainment NSR provisions in ACHD's June 2012 SIP.
    For the reasons previously discussed, EPA is not evaluating at this
time whether ACHD's submittal will require additional revisions to
satisfy the subpart 4 requirements. As discussed in section I
(Background), by separate rulemaking action, EPA has identified the
classification under subpart 4 of areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as
``Moderate.'' These areas include the Liberty-Clairton and Pittsburgh
nonattainment areas, portions of which are regulated by ACHD and,
therefore, are subject to the regulatory revisions being proposed for
approval in this action. That rulemaking also established a December
31, 2014 deadline for the submission of any additional attainment
related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 4. Therefore, those requirements are not yet
due. EPA believes that it is appropriate for the EPA to take into
consideration the timing and sequence of related SIP submissions as
part of determining what it is reasonable to expect a State to have
addressed in a SIP for a NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts on such
submission. Such an approach is reasonable, and to adopt a different
approach by which the EPA could not approve a SIP, whenever there was
any impending or future revision to the SIP that will be required by
another collateral rulemaking action would result in regulatory
gridlock. The EPA believes that such an outcome would be an
unreasonable reading of the statutory process for the SIP's
contemplated in section 110(a) (1) and (2).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing full approval of the June 2012 SIP submittal,
which creates a revised NNSR program in Allegheny County.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does

not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, which concerns a revised NNSR
program in Allegheny County, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 21, 2014.
 Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-29579 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55219-55220]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4081-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4081-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 29, 2012.

    Adams, Claiborne, Franklin, Jefferson, Kemper, Leake, Neshoba,
Newton, Noxubee, Scott, Simpson, Smith, Warren, and Winston Counties
and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22105 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


ENCLOSURE 2

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

AND COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102 and Section 2.1 of Appendix V of 40 CFR
Part 51, the following information regarding public participation
activities and compliance with state administrative procedures is
provided.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), a public comment period to  provide the
opportunity to submit written comments concerning a proposed revision to
the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan was held from
August 4 to September 3, 2010.

As required by 40 CFR Part 51.102(a) and (d)(1) and (2), the public was
given notice of the public comment period in the Washington Examiner
(for the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region), along
with the location of the proposal for public inspection, on August 4,
2010.  The notice included procedures to afford the public the
opportunity to request that a hearing be held pursuant to 40 CFR
51.102(a); no such request was received. The attached copy of the notice
provides the evidence required by Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V of 40 CFR
Part 51.  Similar notices were placed in at least one paper of general
circulation in each of Virginia's other Air Quality Control Regions.

The Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
was notified of the public comment period, as was each local air
pollution control agency which will be significantly affected by the
revision and is located in the affected Air Quality Control Regions.  In
addition, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Tennessee, which share
affected interstate Air Quality Control Regions with Virginia, were
notified of the public comment period.  These notifications follow the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102(d)(3), (4) and (5).

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

As required by Section 2.1(b) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, the
regulation amendments were published in the Virginia Register of
Regulations on February 16, 2009 after being duly adopted by the State
Air Pollution Control Board on December 15, 2008, certified by the
Office of the Attorney General as within the Board’s statutory
authority on December 15, 2008, and thus fully enforceable under
Virginia law, and submitted to the Virginia Registrar on behalf of the
board by the Department of Environmental Quality as a true and accurate
copy of the duly adopted regulation on January 21, 2009, providing the
evidence required by Section 2.1(b) and (e) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part
51.  As required by Section 2.1(d) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, a
copy of the actual regulation submitted for approval and incorporation
by reference into the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan
is attached, along with the effective date of March 18, 2009.

Only those provisions of the final regulation which are not marked out
on the attached copy are to be considered part of the Virginia State
Implementation Plan.

TEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REG02-PH

SIP\NONATTN PLANS\2010\F06c-SIP-2.DOC


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13866-13867]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 12, 2015, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. For those
unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Web cast and will
be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/vrbpac0515/.
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 6128, Silver Spring, MD<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Denise
Royster, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6134, Silver
Spring, MD<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 12, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., the committee
will meet in open session to discuss the development and licensure of
Ebola vaccines.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
5, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
1:15 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal
oral presentations should

notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
April 27, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 28, 2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sujata Vijh (see
Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06116 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 226-228]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-1353]

Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products
Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug
Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management
Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to
provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The
meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for
public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 15, 2022, from 9:30 a.m. to
5 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be
accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2021-N-1353. The docket will close on February
14, 2022. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by February 14, 2022. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before February 14, 2022. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of February 14, 2022. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before February 1, 2022, will be provided
to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the

public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and
``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-1353 for ``Joint Meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic
Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a
Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2894, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The
committees will be asked to discuss new drug application (NDA) 213231,
for tramadol hydrochloride injection, submitted by Avenue Therapeutics,
Inc., for the management of moderate to moderately severe pain in
adults in a medically supervised healthcare setting. The issues for the
committees to discuss include the clinical relevance of tramadol
hydrochloride injection, an opioid intended for management of acute
pain in a medically supervised healthcare setting, when its onset of
action is delayed, and its proposed dosing is a fixed-dosing regimen.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the
link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before February 1, 2022, will be provided to the
committees. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before January 24, 2022.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by January 25, 2022.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Moon Hee V. Choi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 28, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-28474 Filed 1-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28012-28014]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Tier One Environmental Impact Statement for the Rochester,
Minnesota to Twin Cities, Minnesota Passenger Rail Corridor

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

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA, the
Olmsted County (Minnesota) Regional Railroad Authority (OCRRA), and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will jointly prepare a
Tier One Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate potential
passenger rail alternatives for the Rochester, Minnesota to Twin
Cities, Minnesota Passenger Rail Corridor (the Corridor) in Olmsted,
Dodge, Goodhue, Rice, Dakota, Ramsey, and Hennepin Counties in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    The Tier One EIS will analyze environmental impacts for reasonable
corridor-level passenger rail route alternatives between Rochester and
the Twin Cities. The Tier One EIS will also examine passenger rail
service levels, including variations in train frequency, and trip time.
    FRA is issuing this Notice to invite interested parties, including
the public and resource agencies, to comment about the proposed scope
of the EIS; to provide information on the nature of the proposed
action, including the purpose and need for the proposed action; and to
invite public participation in the Tier One EIS process.

DATES: OCRRA and MnDOT will host a series of public scoping meetings
beginning in Spring 2013. These meetings will occur at various
locations within the Corridor and will be advertised through the
project Web site, direct mailings, and press releases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Vaughn, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and Development,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop
20), Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Dan Krom,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Passenger Rail Office, 395 John
Ireland Boulevard, MS 480, St. Paul, MN 55155, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
In addition, a project Web site has been established
(www.goziprail.org), and is available to provide project related
information to the general public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRA, in cooperation with OCRRA and
MnDOT, will prepare a Tier One EIS to evaluate passenger rail service
improvements from Rochester, Minnesota to Twin Cities, Minnesota. The
agencies will use a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28
and in accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts (64 FR 28546) (Environmental Procedures), in the completion of
the environmental review. Tiering is a staged environmental review
process applied to environmental reviews for

complex projects. The proposed Tier One EIS described in this Notice is
a service level analysis that will examine a range of reasonable
corridor route alternatives between Rochester, Minnesota and Twin
Cities, Minnesota. It is anticipated that the route alternative
analysis will involve a screening process to identify reasonable and
feasible alternatives for evaluation in the Tier One EIS. The study has
recently begun to identify conceptual alternatives for consideration.
Alternatives under preliminary consideration will include an alignment
of the Trunk Highway 52 corridor from Rochester to the Twin Cities; an
alternative running west from Rochester and then north in the vicinity
of Trunk Highway 56; and multiple alignments in both the Rochester and
the Twin Cities metro areas depending on the termini identified at both
ends of the corridor. Alternatives will be analyzed and made available
for public comment as they are refined and more precise information can
be provided. The No-Action (or No-Build) Alternative will also be
considered.
    The Tier One EIS will also appropriately address Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (see 36 CFR part 800), Section 4(f)
of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303)
and other applicable Federal and state laws and regulations. The Tier
One NEPA document addresses broad overall issues of concern for
corridor decisions including, but not limited to:
     Describing the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Describing the study area appropriate to assess reasonable
alternatives.
     Describing the environment potentially affected by the
proposed action.
     Developing evaluation criteria to identify route
alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and
those that do not.
     Identifying the range of reasonable route alternatives
that satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Developing the no-build alternative to serve as a baseline
for comparison.
     Describing and evaluating the potential environmental
impacts and mitigation strategies associated with the reasonable route
alternatives.
     Identifying component projects for Tier Two NEPA
evaluation as described below.
    The Tier Two assessment(s) would address component projects of the
overall rail corridor alternative selected in the Tier One EIS, and
would incorporate by reference the data and evaluations included in the
Tier One EIS. Subsequent Tier Two NEPA evaluations would: Concentrate
on the site-specific issues and alternatives relevant to implementing
component projects of the selected Tier One alternative; and identify
the environmental consequences and measures necessary to mitigate
environmental impacts at a site-specific level of detail.
    Project Background and Study Area: Based upon travel demand and
growth between the two regional centers, previous feasibility studies
for the proposed Corridor have supported its independent utility to
support high speed intercity passenger rail. Currently, between
Rochester and the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area (Twin Cities),
the proposed Corridor has no existing rail infrastructure south of
Dakota County. OCRRA would develop new rail infrastructure with an
emphasis on existing public and railroad rights-of-way utilized to the
maximum extent feasible and practicable. The Corridor would be planned
to be consistent with an eventual high speed intercity passenger rail
connection between the Twin Cities and Chicago.
    The Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail
Plan outlines steps that should be taken to accomplish the vision of a
robust intrastate and interstate intercity passenger rail system. One
of the steps includes developing an intrastate intercity passenger rail
network connecting the Twin Cities with viable service to major
outlying regional centers. The Corridor was identified as a Phase I
corridor in the State Rail Plan for high-speed rail development.
Significant growth in Rochester and Olmsted County has occurred over
the past 50 years--long after the majority of existing rail corridors
in the region had been established. The number of jobs currently
supported by Rochester employers exceeds the available adult working
population in the urban area, making it an economic driver for an area
of roughly 2,300 square miles in southeast Minnesota, northeast Iowa,
and western Wisconsin, and impacting employment as far away as the Twin
Cities area. Based in Rochester, Mayo Clinic patients and visitors
account for nearly 3 million visits per year, with many arriving via
the Twin Cities, and travelling via US 52. Rochester also ranks as the
fastest growing metropolitan area in the state, with a low unemployment
rate and a relatively high per capita and household income compared to
other regional centers in Minnesota.
    US 52 is the main highway that connects Rochester to the Twin
Cities. Further to the west, I-35 is the closest interstate highway. A
traveler would need to utilize an east-west route, such as US 14, to
access I-35 to make the connection to the Twin Cities. A trip by
automobile between the Twin Cities and Rochester is approximately 1
hour and 30 minutes. The proposed Rochester--Twin Cities Passenger Rail
service would need to offer intercity travelers a reasonable
alternative to automobile travel.
    Project Purpose and Need: The purpose of the project is to provide
a reliable and safe passenger rail transportation alternative that will
meet forecasted population and economic growth mobility demands in the
Southeast Minnesota corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities
area. The system is to connect the Twin Cities and Rochester providing
convenient and cost effective transportation. The project is being
developed to:

 Provide intercity passenger rail service linking the regional
economic center of Rochester and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
economic hub
 Provide options for the growing population and accessibility
to population centers
 Improve safety, convenience and time of travel
 Complement the plans of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
and Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan
    The need for expanded transportation options in this corridor is
based on the following elements:

 Increase in population and employment in Rochester, the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area, and Southeast Minnesota
 Future travel demand
 Limited direct connection opportunities for the Corridor
between Rochester and the Twin Cities
    The development of world-class and internally recognized medical
facilities in Rochester, along with its agribusiness and high-tech
industrial base, makes the city a significant economic engine in the
north central United States. The Twin Cities, also a base of high-tech
industry, and the main transportation hub in the north central states,
marks the importance of economic intercourse between these cities.
Transportation connecting these cities is primarily based on the
private automobile with limited commercial transportation

options. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester draws patients and their
companions from around the nation and the world, and constitutes a
primary need for transportation options not based on the private
automobile. There is a growing need for travel, connectivity, and
transportation capacity between Rochester and the Twin Cities from
current and future economic growth.
    Scoping Process: To ensure issues related to this proposal are
addressed and any significant impacts identified, comments and
suggestions regarding the scope of the Tier One EIS are invited from
all interested parties. Comments and suggestions concerning the
proposed action and the Tier One EIS should be directed to MnDOT at the
addresses above. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting
comments will be sent to the appropriate Federal, State and local
agencies, Native American tribes and to private organizations who might
have previously expressed or who are known to have an interest in this
proposal. Federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to potential environmental issues will be
invited to act as a Cooperating Agency in accordance with 40 CFR
1501.6.
    MnDOT will lead the outreach activities, including public meetings,
newsletters, advisory group meetings, a project Web site
(www.goziprail.org), public open houses, stakeholder group meetings,
and other methods to solicit and incorporate public input throughout
the Tier One EIS process. Opportunities for public participation will
be announced through the Web site, mailings, notices, advertisements,
and press releases.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on: May 7, 2013.
Corey Hill,
Director, Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-11307 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31133-31134]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10588]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R04-OW-2020-0056; FRL-10009-50-Region 4]

Ocean Dumping: Reopening of Comment Period for Modification of an
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of Port Everglades,
Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reopening of public comment period for proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the
comment period for a proposed rulemaking notice published in the
Federal Register on March 13, 2020, which proposed modification of the
existing EPA designated ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS)
offshore of Port Everglades, Florida (referred to hereafter as the
existing Port Everglades ODMDS) pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The primary purpose
for the site modification is to enlarge the ODMDS to serve the long-
term need for a location to dispose of suitable material dredged from
the Port Everglades Harbor and for the disposal of suitable dredged
material for persons who receive a MPRSA permit for such disposal. The
modified ODMDS will be subject to monitoring and management to ensure
continued protection of the marine environment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published on March 13, 2020 (85 FR
14622) must be received on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OW-2020-0056, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments and accessing the docket and materials related to
this proposed rule.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Wade Lehmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine Management Section, 61
Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-
2020-0056. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The

www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal
business hours from the regional library at the EPA, Region 4 Library,
9th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For access to the
documents at the Region 4 Library, contact the Region 4 Library
Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m., and between the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wade Lehmann, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Division, Oceans and Estuarine
Management Section, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA published a proposed rulemaking on
March 13, 2020 (85 FR 14622), which was a proposal to expand the Port
Everglades ODMDS. Additionally, the EPA released on March 13, 2020, and
will re-release concurrent with this notice, a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) including a draft Site Monitoring and Management Plan
(appendix to the EA) for comment. The draft EA is available on the EPA
Region 4 web page, which may be accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#Public%20Notices. The EPA is
reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days on all
associated documents.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1412.

Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-10588 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P