Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices 30469

24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Commission believes that the addition

of this provision is appropriate in that

it will increase the level of fairness and

impartiality in disciplinary proceedings

and will aid in the dispassionate

application of the disciplinary rules.

The Commission believes that the PCX

has proposed a reasonable standard

under which an adjudicator or

participant in the disciplinary process

must recuse him or herself or may be

disqualified by the Chief Executive

Officer of the PCX.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning Amendment Nos.

4 and 5, including whether the

proposed amendments are consistent

with the Act. Persons making written

submissions should file six copies

thereof with the Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549–

0609. Copies of the submission, all

subsequent amendments, all written

statements with respect to the proposed

amendment that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

amendment between the Commission

and any person, other than those that

may be withheld from the public in

accordance with the provisions of 5

U.S.C. 552, will be available for

inspection and copying at the

Commission’s Public Reference Room.

Copies of such filing also will be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the PCX.

All submissions should refer to File

No. SR–PCX–99–10 and should be

submitted by June 1, 2000.

VII. Conclusion

For all of the aforementioned reasons,

the Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

requirements of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder applicable to

a national securities exchange.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,24 that the

proposed rule change (SR–PCX–99–10),

as amended, is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.25

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11805 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster

#9H20]

State of New York (and Contiguous

Counties in the State of New Jersey)

New York County and the contiguous

counties of Bronx, Kings, and Queens in

the State of New York, and Bergen and

Hudson Counties in New Jersey

constitute an economic injury disaster

loan area as a result of a water main

break, and subsequent flooding, that

occurred on March 2, 2000. Eligible

small businesses and small agricultural

cooperatives without credit available

elsewhere may file applications for

economic injury assistance as a result of

this disaster until the close of business

on February 5, 2001 at the address listed

below or other locally announced

locations: U.S. Small Business

Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office,

360 Rainbow Blvd, South, 3rd Floor,

Niagara Falls, NY 14303.

The interest rate for eligible small

businesses and small agricultural

cooperatives is 4 percent.

The economic injury number for the

State of New Jersey is 9H2100.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 59002)

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Aida Alvarez,

Administrator

[FR Doc. 00–11869 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Addition of Electric Generation for

Peaking and Baseload Capacity at

Greenfield Sites, Haywood County,

Tennessee

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations (40

CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s

procedures implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act. TVA has

decided to adopt the preferred

alternative identified in its Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Addition of Electric Generation Peaking

and Baseload Capacity at Greenfield

Sites, Haywood County, Tennessee.

The Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) was made available to

the public on March 16, 2000. A Notice

of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS

was published by the Environmental

Protection Agency in the Federal

Register on March 31, 2000. Under the

preferred alternative, TVA has decided

to construct natural gas-fired simple

cycle combustion turbine power plants

with up to 1,400 Megawatts (MW) of

capacity at the Lagoon Creek Site. The

construction will occur in two 700 MW

phases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg

Askew, Senior Specialist, National

Environmental Policy Act,

Environmental Policy and Planning,

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West

Summit Hill Drive, mail stop WT 8C,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902–1499;

telephone (865) 632–6418 or e-mail

gaskew@tva.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In December 1995, TVA issued its

Energy 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

and Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement. This document

projected demands for electricity in the

TVA power service area through the

year 2020 and evaluated different ways

of meeting these projected increases.

Under the forecast adopted by TVA, the

demand for electricity was projected to

exceed TVA’s 1996 generating capacity

of 28,000 (MW) by approximately 6,250

MW in the year 2005. TVA decided to

meet this demand through a

combination of supply-side options and

customer service options.

Since 1995, TVA has added about

2,700 MW of generating capacity and

1,400 MW in option-purchase

agreements to meet the increasing

power demand in the Tennessee Valley

(TVA 1999a). Incrementally, the 2,700

MW growth in capacity consists of

operational efficiencies resulting from

capital improvements at existing fossil,

nuclear and hydro power production

facilities, along with additions in

capacity at several locations.

Over the next few years, TVA plans to

further increase capacity by 2,400 MW

through improvements to existing units

and the addition of peaking units at

existing fossil plants. However, these

increases may not be enough to

maintain adequate reserve capacity.

It is reasonable to expect that the

delivery of reliable and economic power

to customers will require TVA to

continue to pursue all of the portfolio

options recommended in Energy Vision

2020, both demand-side and supplyside. Consistent with Energy Vision

2020, from which this EIS tiers, each of

the portfolio options received an

appropriate environmental review

before a decision was made to proceed

with implementation. Those actions are

30470 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices

not considered to be competing projects

for the purposes of presenting and

comparing environmental impacts in

this EIS. Future projects would receive

similar project-specific reviews for

implementation.

One of the supply-side options was to

construct additional peaking capacity

within the TVA power system. Tiering

from the Energy Vision 2020 EIS, this

FEIS for Addition of Electric Generation

Peaking and Baseload Capacity at

Greenfield Sites, Haywood County,

Tennessee evaluates the decision of

adding up to 1,700 MW of peaking and

baseload capacity at one of three

undeveloped (greenfield) sites in

Haywood County, Tennessee. The

evaluation considered the following: the

No Action Alternative, and nine Action

Alternatives based on combinations of

three power plant configurations sites at

each of the three candidate sites. Other

options evaluated included

transmission connectivity and

distribution, and natural gas fuel

supply. The three candidate sites were

selected based primarily on the

following criteria: power transmission

(system support, connection cost, and

system losses), natural gas supply

(pipeline availability, capacity, and

delivered fuel cost), air quality impacts

(likelihood of the area being able to

incorporate additional emissions), and

water supply (surface or groundwater

availability). The alternative selected

was based on both economic and

environmental considerations.

On June 3, 1999, TVA issued a Notice

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on its

proposed construction of additional

peaking and baseload capacity at

greenfield sites. Newspaper

announcements were published on

April 14 and 15 for a public scoping

meeting to be held on April 19.

Approximately 25 persons attended the

open house format meeting that also

included a presentation by TVA

management and staff. Public comments

received at this meeting were

considered in preparing the draft EIS. A

Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft

EIS was published by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

in the Federal Register on December 17,

1999. A public information and

comment meeting was held on January

13, 2000. After considering all

comments, TVA revised the EIS

appropriately. The Final EIS was

distributed to commenting agencies and

the public on March 16, 2000. A NOA

of the final EIS was published by EPA

in the Federal Register on March 31,

2000.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative methods of meeting TVA’s

future electrical generation capacity

requirements were evaluated in Energy

Vision 2020. One of the selected

methods was to construct additional

electric generation capacity within the

TVA system. Tiering from Energy Vision

2020, to address the capacity additions,

two alternatives were evaluated: a No

Action Alternative and an Action

Alternative.

The No Action Alternative would

result in TVA not constructing a

combustion turbine generating plant at

any of the three candidate sites in

Haywood County, Tennessee. TVA

would either undertake no new

activities to meet anticipated demands

by June 2001 for peaking power or

would rely exclusively on options from

the Energy Vision 2020 portfolio that do

not involve construction and operation

new TVA fossil plant(s). Under this

alternative, TVA would select another

fossil alternative evaluated in Energy

Vision 2020, such as option purchase

agreements or spot market purchases.

There is a significant risk based on

TVA’s experience that these alternatives

would not enable TVA to meet future

demands of its customers for low cost

and reliable power, and thus, not meet

TVA’s need.

Under the action alternative TVA

considered nine alternatives. Three

power plant configurations were each

considered for construction at each of

three candidate sites. The three power

plant configurations are: (1) 700 MW of

simple-cycle combustion turbines for

peaking, (2) 1,400 MW of simple-cycle

combustion turbines for peaking, and (3)

700 MW of simple cycle combustion

turbines for peaking plus 1,000 MW of

combined-cycle combustion turbines for

baseload operation for a total of 1,700

MW. The three candidate sites are

similar, undeveloped agricultural sites

all located in Haywood County,

Tennessee.

Under the Preferred Alternative, TVA

would construct peaking capacity

additions of up to 1,400 MW in two 700

MW phases at the Lagoon Creek Site.

Natural gas-fired simple-cycle

combustion turbines (CTs) would be

constructed. These CTs are designed to

operate with dual fuel capability firing

either natural gas or low sulfur distillate

fuel oil to maximize fuel flexibility and

lower operational costs. For nitrogen

oxides control, these CTs would be

equipped with dry low nitrogen oxides

(NOx) burners for natural gas firing and

would use water injection for NOx

control when firing No. 2 distillate oil.

The first 700 MW of capacity additions

are proposed to be operational by June

2001. In addition to the CTs, associated

transmission lines serving as a

connection to TVA’s power distribution

system and natural gas interconnection

pipelines would be constructed.

Decision

TVA has decided to implement the

Preferred Alternative of constructing up

to 1,400 MW of peaking capacity in two

700 MW phases at the Lagoon Creek

Site. TVA will also build the associated

transmission lines serving as a

connection to the TVA power

distribution system as well as the

natural gas supply pipeline connection.

This will help TVA meet the projected

demand for electricity in its service area

as well as maintain reliable service to

TVA customers.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

TVA has concluded that construction

and operation of a 700 MW peaking

plant at the Lagoon Creek Site is the

environmentally preferred alternative.

This plant configuration is the smallest

of the three alternatives and accordingly

has the least land disturbance and lower

annual air pollutant emissions. Also, as

a simple-cycle combustion turbine,

there are minimal water supply

requirements and minimal wastewater

discharges. Additionally, the Lagoon

Creek Site is more remote than the other

two candidate sites which lessens noise

impacts and visual affects. The larger

acreage of the Lagoon Creek Site offers

an increased buffer between the plant

and future residential development.

Also, no cultural resources eligible for

listing on the National Register of

Historic Places are present.

Environmental Consequences and

Commitments

No significant adverse environmental

impacts were identified in the EIS.

Standard construction and best

management practices (BMPs) would be

followed in all aspects of the project

construction and operation to avoid or

minimize adverse environmental

impacts. In addition, TVA has adopted

the following mitigation measures:

Air Resources

• Open construction areas and

unpaved roads would be sprinkled with

water to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

• Use of low sulfur fuel oil.

• Use of Dry Low NOx burners when

firing natural gas to control NOx

emissions; water injection will be used

as NOx control measure when firing oil.

• Use of best available control

technology to minimize emission of

other criteria air pollutants.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices 30471

Surface Water Resources

• Construct retention/settling pond(s)

as early in the construction phase as

feasibly possible.

• Retention pond(s) would be used to

manage/release site runoff.

• Oil/water separator(s) would be

used to collect oil from oil using/storage

area stormwater runoff.

• Areas disturbed by the initial phase

of construction, such as equipment

laydown areas and construction

temporary parking, would be

revegetated before beginning the second

phase of construction, if applicable.

• Revegetate along transmission line

ROWs to reduce erosion.

Groundwater Resources

• If neighboring wells are adversely

affected by aquifer drawdowns, TVA

would modify the well to lower the

pump intake, install a new well or

provide a connection to public water

supplies, if available, or otherwise take

appropriate action to remedy the

problem.

Floodplains and Flood Risk

• If a site within a floodplain is

selected, all flood damageable facilities

and equipment would be elevated above

or floodproofed to the 100-year flood

elevation to ensure compliance with

Executive Order 11988.

Aquatic Ecology

• Monitoring of aquatic life impacts

will be conducted during periods of wet

stream blasting, if conducted.

• Bore or directionally drill pipelines

under perennial stream beds or unique

aquatic habitats or use flume stream

crossing techniques.

Wetlands

• Use existing roads, ROWs, and

higher elevations, when feasible, for

movement of construction vehicles

along proposed linear features, such as

pipelines and transmission lines.

Transportation

• Implement a pavement

maintenance program during

construction and required physical

improvements, such as paving, addition

of shoulders to select roads off SR 19 to

minimize negative effects on local

travel.

• After completing construction

activities, pave Old SR 19 from its

eastern intersection with SR 19 west to

its intersection with Elm Tree Road.

• Require heavy haulers to assess all

bridge crossings for potential capacity

upgrades.

• At all transmission line and

pipeline road crossings, require

adherence to guidelines in Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

• Require trucks to meet all safety

standards and road load limits.

Land Use/Soils

• Segregate and replace topsoil from

pipeline trenches to preserve fertility.

Visual Resources

• Exterior lighting would be turned

off when not needed.

• Elm Tree Road, from its point of

intersection with Old SR 19 west to the

plant entrance(s), would be covered

with a six inch layer of crushed

limestone, moistened, and compacted to

reduce dust generation during

construction activities and then paved

after completion of construction

activities.

• Pave all high-traffic onsite roads to

prevent dust generation.

Cultural Resources

• Conduct Phase I/II archaeological

survey for selected NG pipeline route to

Texas Gas, if this supply option is

deemed appropriate.

Environmental Noise

• Blasting mats will be used to reduce

and muffle noise released by explosions

created during blasting, if conducted.

• Conduct field monitoring after plant

becomes operational to determine

magnitude of site specific impacts.

Appropriate and cost-effective

mitigation measures would be identified

and implemented if determined

necessary. Potential measures include

turbine silencers, acoustic treatment or

addition of enclosures, and/or

construction of berms to deflect noise

from sensitive receptors.

Safety and Health

• Conduct 100% x-rays on natural gas

pipe welds, maintain x-ray records in

accordance with DOT requirements,

install shut-off valves at each end of the

pipeline which close in the event of an

abnormal operating condition.

Public Comment on the FEIS

TVA received several public

comments on the FEIS, including from

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The EPA comments were in

further response to TVA responses to

EPA comments on the DEIS. Select

comments from the EPA relevant to the

adequacy of the FEIS and TVA’s

responses are summarized below.

EPA comment on TVA response 43 in

the FEIS concerned the need for

additional cumulative air quality

assessment for sulfur dioxide (SO2).

TVA’s response is as follows: TVA

believes that the cumulative air impacts

analysis presented in Section 4.6.1.1 of

the Final EIS is rigorous and adequate

to describe the environmental impacts

of the proposed actions combined with

the impacts of other area sources. That

analysis, which consisted of modeling

the proposed sources and adding the

current levels of pollution in the

vicinity, which include the impacts of

any other sources contributing to

ground level concentrations. This

approach is especially effective in a

rural area such as Haywood County

where few industrial sources of air

pollution exist (no significant industrial

sources of air pollution are closer than

eight miles distant). The approach

certainly provides a conservative

assessment of cumulative impacts since

it combines the highest values actually

measured during the year of record with

the highest predicted concentrations

related to plant operation, and assumes

they would simultaneously occur in

time and space (which is extremely

unlikely). The cumulative impacts

analysis contained in the Final EIS is

not intended to suffice for any

‘‘increment consuming analysis’’

required for a PSD application. As EPA

is aware, the purpose of the NEPA

review is to describe environmental

impacts relative to standards and

criteria which define where impacts to

human health and welfare begin to

occur. For this purpose, the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards are

commonly used as measures of

significance. On the other hand, the

levels used to guide the PSD permitting

procedure are not rigorously consistent,

and are sometimes unrelated totally,

with concentrations at which impacts to

human health or welfare occur.

Consequently, no comparison with PSD

increment levels is made in Section

4.6.1.1. One would not expect the

cumulative impacts analysis contained

in the EIS to necessarily meet the needs

of the increment consuming analysis

required under some circumstances for

PSD, and TVA makes no claims that it

does in this case. Mr. James Lee’s

January 18, 2000, letter stated that a

cumulative impact analysis (meaning

increment consuming analysis), was not

warranted because the SO2 emissions

for the plant alternative being permitted

(2B) are not excessive and are at a

considerable distance to Mingo

Wilderness Area.

EPA comment on TVA response 52 in

the FEIS concerned noise mitigation.

More specific information was

requested concerning mitigation

methods and at what threshold

mitigation would be performed. Source

30472 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices

reduction was recommended by EPA for

noise attenuation. TVA’s response is as

follows: TVA has committed to further

study the noise levels in the vicinity of

the site to determine whether additional

noise mitigation is needed and to

identify appropriate mitigation

methods. Source reduction in noise

levels may not be the most cost effective

way to prevent adverse impacts to area

residents. TVA prefers to follow a plan

to confirm the existence of community

noise concerns, and to obtain adequate

noise data which would allow for the

verification of the legitimacy of the

complaints and support the structuring

of a suitable mitigation measure. This

approach would avoid committing to a

solution to a problem which may or may

not exist, or be the best solution. As

noted in the FEIS, potential mitigation

measures include techniques for

reducing noise at its source and

methods that would reduce noise at

receptor locations.

EPA comment on TVA response 55 in

the FEIS expressed a potential for an

environmental justice (EJ) concern

based on the demographics presented by

TVA. There were also questions

concerning the extent and success of

public interaction with respect to EJ.

TVA’s response is as follows: As

discussed in the FEIS, there are only

three occupied dwellings within one

mile of the Lagoon Creek Site. The EIS

found only minimal environmental

impacts and no significant

environmental impacts on the residents

of area surrounding the site. Due to the

lack of significant impacts and the

sparse population in the area, no EJ

concerns were found. As discussed in

Chapter 2 of the FEIS, the site screening

process included several other sites for

this project, but they were determined

to be less suitable than the sites in

Haywood County. Some of these sites

have relatively smaller minority

populations than does Haywood

County. Residents of the surrounding

area were given various options for

expressing any concerns they might

have. All affected landowners (over

100), which included all adjacent

properties, were sent copies of the

Executive Summaries of the Draft and

Final EISs, along with an invitation to

the public meeting on the DEIS. The

meeting itself included not only a

presentation about the project, but also,

prior to the formal presentation, an open

house where anyone could talk

individually with TVA staff to discuss

concerns or ask questions. Fewer than

fifteen private citizens attended the

public meeting on the DEIS, despite

several paid advertisements in local and

regional newspapers and a TVA news

release, each describing the availability

of the DEIS and the public meeting date

and time. No oral or written comments

were received from any Haywood

County resident not affiliated with local

government. Among the elected officials

involved, participants included one

African American member of County

Commission. None of the public

comments received expressed concern

about EJ issues. Benefits associated with

the project include increased public

revenues, along with a very small

increase in employment and income in

the area

EPA comment on TVA response 57 in

the FEIS was concerned with induced

economic impacts due to increased

power system reliability. TVA’s

response is as follows: Our approach in

preparing the FEIS section on Indirect

Impacts was to assess the local (within

the county) induced impacts of the

proposed project. In keeping with CEQ

guidance for evaluating indirect or

induced effects, we believe that the

regional effects of this proposal are not

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’, or close

enough in time and distance to the

proposed project for a meaningful

evaluation. Such an evaluation would

certainly be speculative and qualitative,

since it could not be predicted how,

where, and when the additional peaking

power would be used in the region, and

consequently of little use to decisionmakers regarding initiation of the

proposal. We agree that basic utilities

are critical to the economic viability of

most any industry. TVA’s mandate, as

defined in the 1933 TVA Act, is, among

other things, to provide reliable, lowcost power to the Tennessee Valley

region and to foster industrial

development for the economic good of

the people of the region. It is our hope

that more reliable peaking power and

other infrastructure being developed by

TVA will be attractive to potential new

industries and lead to the expansion of

existing ones. However, we believe that

economic growth should not sacrifice

environmental quality. We further

believe that the regulatory programs of

the various Valley states, in conjunction

with TVA programs for sustaining the

quality of the environment in the region,

will allow economic growth to occur in

a manner that maintains or enhances

environmental quality.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Joseph R. Bynum,

Executive Vice President, Fossil Power Group.

[FR Doc. 00–11859 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Changes in Permissible Stage 2

Airplane Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of statutory changes.

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice

of further changes to the Airport Noise

and Capacity Act that except certain

airplanes from the law and allow

operation of Stage 2 airplanes after

December 31, 1999, under specified

circumstances. This notice is

necessitated by Congressional action

taken in April 2000 to modify the

statutory changes adopted in November

1999. This notice explains the effect of

the changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Thomas Connor, Manager, Noise

Division (AEE–100), Office of

Environment and Energy, FAA, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–8933, fax (202) 267–5594, email

Thomas. Connor@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of

1990 (ANCA) prohibits the operation of

civil subsonic turbojet Stage 2 airplanes

over 75,000 pounds in the contiguous

United States after December 31, 1999.

The original version of the law did not

distinguish airplanes by type of

certification or operation. The waiver

provisions of the original law are very

limited, and address only limited

revenues operation of Stage 2 airplanes

by U.S. air carriers.

On November 29, 1999, the President

signed into law certain changes to

ANCA that affect operators of Stage 2

airplanes. The prohibit on revenue

operations of Stage 2 airplanes after

December 31, 1999, remained in effect.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) was not granted any new

authority to allow anyone to operate at

Stage 2 airplane in revenue service after

December 31, 1999. The changes to the

law were summarized in the Federal

Register document published December

17, 1999 (64 FR 70571).

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing

legislation became effective. That bill,

the Wendell H. Ford Aviation

investment and Reform Act for the 21st

Century, Public Law 10–181 (Apr. 5,

2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) repealed the

legislative changes that were adopted in

November 1999 and were described in

the Federal Register notice cited above.