8010 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices

1Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of

the Commission’s regulations.

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street,

N.E., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 208–

1371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

FERC, (202) 219–2794, or Linda

Oxendine, TVA, (423) 632–3440.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4247 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–193–000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.;

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed Maiden Lateral Looping

Project and Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

February 14, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction and operation of about

17.77 miles of 16-inch-diameter

pipeline loop and upgrades to an

existing meter station, proposed in the

Maiden Lateral Looping Project.1 This

EA will be used by the Commission in

its decision-making process to

determine whether the project is in the

public convenience and necessity.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Transacontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco) wants to expand

the capacity of its facilities in North

Carolina to transport an additional

38,000 dekatherms of natural gas per

day to Piedmont Natural Gas Company

(Piedmont). Transaco seeks authority to

construct and operate:

• About 17.77 miles of 16-diameter

pipeline loop on Transco’s existing 10-

inch-diameter Maiden Lateral in

Lincoln and Catawba Counties, North

Carolina; and

• The expansion of Transco’s existing

Lowesville Meter Station, which is

located at the interconnection of

Transco’s mainline and the Maiden

Lateral.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2 If you are

interested in obtaining procedural

information, please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of the proposed

facilities, including the meter station

modification, would require about 152.2

acres of land. Transco proposes to use

a construction right-of-way width of

about 65 feet (5 feet southerly and 60

feet northerly of its existing 10-inchdiameter Maiden Lateral). This 20-foot

offset would allow Transco to construct

the majority of its new pipeline loop

within its existing 50-foot-wide right-ofway. Since Transco would use its

existing right-of-way during

construction activities, only 1.19 acres

of new permanent right-of-way would

be required. Temporary work areas

would be restored and allowed to revert

to their former use.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental

impacts that could result from an action

whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity. NEPA also requires us to

discover and address concerns the

public may have about proposals. We

call this ‘‘scoping’’. The main goal of the

scoping process is to focus the analysis

in the EA on the important

environmental issues. By this Notice of

Intent, the Commission requests public

comments on the scope of the issues it

will address in the EA. All comments

received are considered during the

preparation of the EA. State and local

government representatives are

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• Geology and soils.

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands.

• Land use.

• Cultural resources.

• Vegetation and wildlife.

• Endangered and threatened species.

• Public safety.

• Air quality and noise.

• Hazardous waste.

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified two issues

that we think deserve attention based on

a preliminary review of the proposed

facilities and the environmental

information provided by Transco. This

preliminary list of issues may be

changed based on your comments and

our analysis.

• About 48 private water supply

wells and springs are within 150 feet of

the construction right-of-way; and

• About 28 residences are within 50

feet of the edge of the proposed

construction right-of-way; 17 of which

would be within or at 25 feet of the

construction right-of-way.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal, and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact. The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please follow the

instructions below to ensure that your

comments are received and properly

recorded:

• Address your letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First St., N.E., Room

1A, Washington, DC 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP97–193–

000;

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, DC on

or before March 10, 1997.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices 8011

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become intervenor you must file

a motion to intervene according to Rule

214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

You do not need intervenor status to

have your scoping comments

considered.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4246 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5691–5]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:

Notice of Revocation of a Technician

Certification Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of revocation.

SUMMARY: Through this action EPA is

announcing the revocation of

Refrigerant Certification Services (RCS)

of Houston, Texas, previously approved

to provide the technician certification

exam in accordance with the regulations

promulgated at 40 CFR part 82 subpart

F. RCS was issued a letter of revocation

on February 13, 1997, that included an

explanation of the basis for EPA’s

decision.

This program has not complied with

the requirements established for

technician certification programs

pursuant to section 608 of the Clean Air

Act Amendments (the Act). In

accordance with those requirements, all

approved technician certification

programs must provide the certification

test and issue credentials consistent

with the applicable requirements.

Failure to comply with any of the

requirements may result in revocation.

RCS has been indicted for criminal

actions directly related to the

administration of the section 608

Technician Certification Program.

In accordance with 40 CFR 82.161(e),

EPA revoked approval of RCS to offer

the section 608 Technician Certification

Program on February 13, 1997. RCS is

no longer authorized to certify

technicians or issue valid certification

credentials.

The criminal indictment against RCS

and the three related indictments

against RCS representatives are based on

information regarding administration of

certification test and inappropriate

issuance of credentials. Therefore, most

technicians certified by RCS during the

period that the program operated an

EPA-approved program will remain

certified in accordance with 40 CFR

section 82.161(a). Technicians that were

not properly certified by RCS and/or

were issued credentials indicating that

such certification did occur properly

will be contacted by EPA. Technicians

that comprise this subset either

participated in testing events proctored

by Herman E Brodzenski or were in

contact with Mr. Brodzenski regarding

the issuance of certification credentials.

EPA would like to clarify that not every

technician that participated in testing

events administered by Mr. Brodzenski

may be contacted by EPA. However, a

group of approximately 100 technicians

that either participated in a testing event

or requested the issuance of certification

credentials from Mr. Brodzenski will be

contacted regarding whether or not

these individuals are properly certified.

DATE: Refrigerant Certification Services

had their approval to offer a technician

certification program revoked, effective

February 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

Stendebach, Program Implementation

Branch, Stratospheric Protection

Division, Office of Atmospheric

Programs, Office of Air and Radiation

(6205–J), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, 202/233–9117.

The Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1–800–296–1996 can also be

contacted for further information.

Dated: February 13, 1997.

Paul M. Stolpman,

Director, Office Of Atmospheric Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–4331 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5692–5]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement;

request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,

(‘‘CAA’’), notice is hereby given of a

proposed settlement agreement, which

was lodged with the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’) on January 31, 1997, in a

lawsuit filed by the Washington Legal

Foundation. A number of United States

Senators and Representatives are coplaintiffs. This lawsuit concerns, among

other things, EPA’s alleged failure to

meet mandatory deadlines under

section 312 of the CAA to provide to

Congress (1) a Cost/Benefit Report

regarding the costs and benefits of past

compliance with certain CAA standards

(‘‘Retrospective Report’’) and (2) the first

Cost/Benefit Report making projections

into the future regarding expected costs,

benefits and other effects of compliance

with CAA standards (‘‘Prospective

Report’’). The proposed settlement

agreement provides that EPA shall

promulgate the Retrospective Report to

Congress no later than October 15, 1997

and the first Prospective Report no later

than August 30, 1999.

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will accept written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement agreement from persons who

were not named as parties to the

litigation in question. In accordance

with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA or

the Department of Justice may withhold

or withdraw consent to the proposed

settlement agreement if the comments

disclose facts or circumstances that

indicate that such consent is

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or

inconsistent with the requirements of

the Act. Unless EPA or the Department

of Justice determines, following the

comment period, that consent is

inappropriate, the parties intend that

the CAA provisions of the final

settlement agreement, including the

deadlines for the promulgation of the

reports provided for in § 312, will be

incorporated into an appropriate order

of the court.

A copy of the proposed settlement

agreement was lodged with the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia on January 31,

1997. Copies are also available from

Samantha Hooks (2344), Air and

Radiation Division, Office of General

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260–

7620. Written comments should be sent

to Hale Hawbecker at the above address

and must be submitted on or before

March 24, 1997.

Dated: February 10, 1997.

Scott C. Fulton,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–4322 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M