[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 116 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35234-35238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Draft General Conformity Determination; Golden Pass LNG Terminal 
and Pipeline Project; Jefferson, Newton, and Orange Counties, TX, and 
Calcacieu Parish, LA

June 10, 2005.
    In Reply Refer to: OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2, Golden Pass LNG 
Terminal LP, Docket No. CP04-386-000, Golden Pass Pipeline LP, 
Docket Nos. CP04-400-000, CP04-401-000, and CP04-402-000.

To the Party Addressed

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 
Commission) has prepared a draft General Conformity Determination to 
assess the potential air quality impacts associated with the 
construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import 
terminal and natural gas pipeline proposed by Golden Pass LNG Terminal 
LP and Golden Pass Pipeline LP, referred to as the Golden Pass LNG 
Terminal and Pipeline Project, in the above referenced dockets.
    This Draft General Conformity Determination was prepared to satisfy 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Comment Procedures

    Any person wishing to comment on the Draft General Conformity 
Determination may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments in 
the Final General Conformity Determination, it is important that we 
receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully 
follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in 
time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to: 
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Reference Docket Nos. CP04-386-000 and CP04-400-000 et 
al.;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 
Branch 2, PJ11.2; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in 
Washington, DC on or before July 12, 2005.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail 
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include 
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our 
environmental analysis of this Project. However, the Commission 
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions 
to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-
Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file 
comments you will need to create a free account, which can be created 
by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.''
    After all comments are reviewed, the staff will publish and 
distribute a Final General Conformity Determination for the Project.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction to Proposed Action
2.0 Regulatory Background--General Conformity
3.0 General Conformity Applicability
4.0 Air Emissions Inventory
5.0 Preliminary General Conformity Determination
    5.1 NOX Emission Offsetting
    5.2 Other Impact Mitigation Practices
    5.3 Conditions for Granting a Final Conformity Determination

Tables:

Table 4-1 Estimated Onshore and Marine Construction Emissions
Table 4-2 Controlled Air Emission Estimates for the Proposed LNG 
Terminal
Table 4-3 Estimated Indirect Emissions During Terminal Operation

Attachments:

1 September 24, 2004, Conditional Conformity Certification From the 
Texas Council of Environmental Quality

Introduction to Proposed Action

    On July 29, 2004, Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP filed an application 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in 
Docket No. CP04-386-000 for authorization under Section 3(a) of the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate a liquefied 
natural gas (LNG) terminal on the Port Arthur Channel of the Sabine-
Neches Waterway (SNWW) in Jefferson County, Texas. In related 
applications filed on August 20, 2004, Golden Pass Pipeline LP seeks a 
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to site, 
construct, and operate a new natural gas pipeline system and ancillary 
facilities to connect the LNG terminal to existing intrastate and 
interstate gas transmission facilities in Texas and Louisiana (Docket 
No. CP04-400-000); a blanket certificate to perform routine activities 
in connection with the future construction, operation, and maintenance 
of the proposed natural gas pipelines (Docket No. CP04-401-000); and 
authority to provide open-access

[[Page 35235]]

transportation of natural gas to others (Docket No. CP04-402-000). 
Golden Pass LNG Terminal LP and Golden Pass Pipeline LP hereafter are 
referred to collectively as Golden Pass.
    Golden Pass' proposed facilities would import, store, and vaporize 
an average of approximately 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of 
natural gas (with a peak capacity of 2.7 Bcfd) for delivery into the 
existing intrastate and interstate pipeline systems. The LNG import 
terminal would be constructed in two phases, each lasting approximately 
48 months. Phase 2 construction would begin approximately 12 months 
after the start of Phase 1 construction and would increase the average 
capacity from 1.0 to 2.0 Bcfd. The import terminal would be designed to 
accept LNG cargoes, temporarily store and vaporize LNG, and would 
contain the following facilities:
     A protected LNG unloading slip, LNG ship and support 
vessel maneuvering area that would be capable of receiving up to 200 
LNG ships per year;
     Ship unloading facilities consisting of two berths, each 
capable of accommodating LNG ships ranging from 125,000 cubic meters 
(m\3\) to 250,000 m\3\, and associated facilities (the first berth 
would be constructed during Phase 1 and the second during Phase 2);
     A total of five full-containment LNG storage tanks each 
with a working capacity of 155,000 m \3\ (three tanks would be 
constructed during Phase 1 and two during Phase 2);
     A total of ten shell-and-tube heat transfer fluid (HTF) 
LNG heat exchangers to vaporize the LNG (five exchangers would be 
installed during Phase 1 and five during Phase 2); and
     Associated support facilities, including administrative 
buildings, storage and maintenance areas, electric power systems, 
access roads, and other facilities related to the LNG import terminal.
    Golden Pass also proposes to construct a pipeline system, capable 
of transporting up to 2.5 Bcfd of natural gas and consisting of three 
pipelines and associated pipeline support facilities, including pig 
launchers and receivers, and meter stations. The pipeline system would 
be installed in overlapping phases across three counties in Texas and 
one parish in Louisiana, and would consist of the:
     Mainline--A 77.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline 
extending from the LNG import terminal in Jefferson County through 
Orange, and Newton Counties, Texas (66.5 miles) and Calcacieu Parish, 
Louisiana (11.3 miles) to an interconnection with an existing 
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) interstate 
pipeline near Starks, Louisiana (to be installed over an estimated 14-
month period);
     Loop--A 42.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline that 
would be installed adjacent to (e.g.,) loop \1\ the Mainline and would 
extend from the LNG import terminal in Jefferson County to an 
interconnection with the existing American Electric Power (AEP) 
intrastate Texoma Pipeline in Orange County, Texas (to be installed 
over an estimated 9-month period beginning with and concurrently with 
the Mainline);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A loop is a segment of pipeline that isusually installed 
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Beaumont Lateral--A 1.8-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter 
pipeline extending from the Mainline in Jefferson County, Texas to 
industrial customers in Beaumont-Port Arthur, including the Exxon Mobil 
Corporation (ExxonMobil) Beaumont Refinery Complex (to be installed 
over an estimated 1-month period after installation of the Loop is 
complete);
     Meter stations and interconnection facilities to 
interconnect with up to 11 existing intrastate and interstate 
pipelines; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Currently, there are no formal agreements in place for 
interconnects between the Golden Pass pipeline system and other 
existing pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Associated pipeline facilities, including pig launchers 
and receivers, and block valves.
    All of these facilities are referred to as the Golden Pass LNG 
Terminal and Pipeline Project. The LNG terminal facilities (or Project) 
would be located in Jefferson County, Texas, in the Beaumont-Port 
Arthur area, which is currently designated nonattainment for the l-hour 
ozone standard. Therefore, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are regulated as nonattainment 
pollutants for this project and may trigger the general conformity 
requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA).

Regulatory Background--General Conformity

    The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule on November 30, 
1993 in Volume 58 of the Federal Register (FR) Page 63214 (58 FR 63214) 
to implement the conformity provision of title I, section 176(c)(1) of 
the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1) requires that the 
Federal Government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance 
for licensing or permitting, or approving any activity not conforming 
to an approved CAA implementation plan The applicable plan for this 
Project is the Beaumont-Port Arthur ozone attainment State 
Implementation Plan (SIP).
    The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, subpart W, ``Determining Conformity 
of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans'' 
and the conformity analysis criteria are specified in 40 CFR part 93. 
General conformity provisions are also incorporated in Texas 
regulations at 30 TAC Sec.  114.260. The General Conformity Rule 
applies to all Federal actions except programs and projects requiring 
funding or approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 
the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, 
or the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In lieu of a conformity 
analysis, these latter types of programs and projects must comply with 
the Transportation Conformity Rule promulgated originally by the EPA on 
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and revised several times thereafter, 
most recently on July 1, 2004.
    Title 1, Section 176(c)(1), of the CAA defines conformity as the 
upholding of ``an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or 
reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving attainment of such 
standards.'' Conforming activities or actions should not, through 
additional air pollutant emissions:
     Cause or contribute to new violations of any NAAQS in any 
area;
     Increase the frequency or severity of any existing 
violation of any NAAQS; or
     Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission 
reductions.
    The General Conformity Rule establishes conformity in coordination 
with and as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. The 
rule takes into account air pollution emissions associated with actions 
that are federally funded, licensed, permitted, or approved, and 
ensures emissions do not contribute to air quality degradation, thus 
preventing the achievement of State and Federal air quality goals. In 
short, General Conformity refers to the process of evaluating plans, 
programs, and projects to determine and demonstrate that they meet the 
requirements of the CAA and the SIP. The purpose of this General 
Conformity requirement is to ensure that Federal agencies consult with 
State and local air quality districts so that these regulatory entities 
know about the expected impacts of the Federal action

[[Page 35236]]

and can include expected emissions in their SIP emissions budget.
    Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, a Federal agency must make 
a General Conformity Determination for all Federal actions in 
nonattainment or maintenance areas where the total of direct and 
indirect emissions of a nonattainment pollutant or its precursors 
exceeds levels established by the regulations.
    The Beaumont-Port Arthur area currently does not have an approved 
ozone SIP. On March 30, 2004, EPA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register withdrawing its approval of the Beaumont-Port Arthur 
attainment demonstration and the associated 2007 attainment date, and 
finding that the Beaumont-Port Arthur area had failed to come into 
attainment by applicable deadlines. The Beaumont-Port Arthur area was 
reclassified as a serious one-hour nonattainment area for ozone 
effective April 29, 2004 with an attainment deadline of November 15, 
2005. Even though the Beaumont-Port Arthur area does not currently have 
an approved ozone SIP, a General Conformity Determination is still 
needed to ensure that the Project would not interfere with efforts to 
achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
    This draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared 
pursuant to the CAA section 176(c)(1) to assess whether the emissions 
that would result from the FERC's action in authorizing the Golden Pass 
LNG Project would be in conformity with the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP 
for ozone. The FERC has worked with Golden Pass to quantify and present 
the emissions associated with the Project described herein. Should the 
FERC act favorably on Golden Pass' application, any final authorization 
for construction would be withheld by the FERC until any appropriate 
mitigation measures required to ensure the Project's conformity with 
the SIP are finalized and agreed to by Texas Council on Environmental 
Quality (TXCEQ) and Golden Pass.

General Conformity Applicability

    The General Conformity Rule applies to all nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. The LNG terminal would be located in the Beaumont-
Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area, which has been designated as a 
serious ozone nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour NAAQS for 
ozone. The Project area is in attainment with NAAQS for all other 
criteria pollutants.
    A General Conformity Determination in a serious ozone nonattainment 
area is required for any project that would result in combined direct 
and indirect emissions of either NOX or VOCs equal to or 
greater than 50 tons per year (tpy). A General Conformity Determination 
is not required for actions where the total of direct and indirect 
emissions is below these emissions levels. In addition, even if the 
total of direct and indirect emissions of NOX or VOCs is 
below 50 tpy, when the total of direct and indirect emissions of any 
pollutant from the Federal action represents 10 percent or more of a 
nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions of those 
pollutants, then the action is defined as a regionally significant 
action and a General Conformity Determination would be required.
    Consistent with section 176(c)(1) of the CAA, a Federal action is 
generally defined as any activity engaged in or supported in any way by 
any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government 
(40 CFR 51.852). Federal actions include providing Federal financial 
assistance or issuing a Federal license, permit, or approval. Where the 
Federal action is a permit, license, or other approval for some aspect 
of a non-Federal undertaking, the relevant activity is the part, 
portion, or phase of the non-federal undertaking that requires the 
Federal license, permit, or approval. Because the FERC would authorize 
the construction and operation of the proposed Golden Pass LNG Terminal 
and Pipeline Project pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, it 
is considered a Federal action, and the resulting emissions of 
NOX and VOCs must be assessed to determine if they would 
conform to the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP.

Air Emissions Inventory

    The air emissions inventory for the Project was prepared using 
widely-accepted methods. Emissions were estimated for both construction 
and operation of the proposed project. Onshore construction emissions 
estimates include exhaust resulting from combustion of fuels to operate 
equipment, fugitive dust emissions from operation of construction 
equipment at the construction site, offsite vehicle exhaust, and 
fugitive dust from vehicle travel to the site. Marine construction 
emissions estimates include vehicle exhaust from deliveries made by 
off-site vehicles, exhaust from marine construction equipment, exhaust 
from operation of the dredge, dredged material maintenance activities, 
and fugitive dust generated from these activities. Estimated 
construction emissions are listed in Table 4-1 for onshore and marine 
construction activities.
    Emission estimates for terminal operations include emissions from 
the HTF heaters, diesel fuel storage tanks, diesel firewater pumps, the 
emergency diesel electric generator, and from fugitive emissions from 
the terminal. Emissions from the eight natural gas-fired HTF heaters 
are based on an operating heat duty of 227 MMBtu/hr per heater. 
Emission estimates from diesel fuel storage include a nominal 33,600-
gallon primary storage tank, a 3,800-gallon day tank to supply diesel 
fuel for the emergency electric generator, and two 500-gallon day tanks 
to supply diesel fuel for each of the two firewater pumps. Emissions 
from the diesel generator are based on a 2,500 kW unit using diesel 
fuel containing 0.3 percent sulfur, and an assumed 100 hours of 
operation per year. Fugitive emissions as based on the number of 
valves, pumps, compressors, relief valves, flanges/connections, open-
ended lines, and sampling connections incorporated into the terminal 
facility design.

                                             Table 4-1.--Estimated Onshore and Marine Construction Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Emission estimates (lb/hr)                    Total emission estimates (tons/yr)
                    Description                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX       CO        VOC       SO2       PM10       NOX       CO        VOC       SO2      PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Onshore Emissions:
    Onsite Construction--Exhaust...................     145.8      45.5       8.1      26.0       9.4      150.5      48.1       8.6      26.9      10.0
    Offsite Vehicle--Exhaust.......................      36.6      66.1       5.2       4.9       2.8       60.9      75.1       6.1       9.1       4.1
    Construction--Fugitive Dust Emissions..........  ........  ........  ........  ........     269.6   ........  ........  ........  ........     245.1

[[Page 35237]]

 
    Offsite Vehicle Travel--Fugitive Dust..........  ........  ........  ........  ........     107.4   ........  ........  ........  ........     103.8
                                                    -----------
        Total......................................     182.4     111.6      13.3      30.9     389.3      211.4     123.2      14.7      35.9     363.0
                                                    ===========
Estimated Marine Emissions:
    Dredge Spoils Management--Exhaust..............       7.9       1.8       0.5       1.5       0.6     a 34.6     a 7.8     a 2.1     a 6.4     a 2.4
    Marine Deliveries--Exhaust.....................      34.9       3.4       0.3      26.2       0.9      a 4.8     a 0.5    a 0.04     a 3.6     a 0.1
    Dredging Exhaust...............................     143.1      29.7       7.4      23.8       6.9    a 479.2    a 99.5    a 24.8    a 79.7    a 23.2
    Slip Construction Activities--Exhaust..........      87.4      80.3       8.6      31.9       6.0    a 143.6   a 138.0    a 14.5    a 54.0     a 9.9
                                                    -----------
        Total......................................     273.3     115.2      16.8      83.3      14.4    a 662.2   a 245.8    a 41.4   a 143.7    a 35.9
                                                    -----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions are presented in total tons instead of tpy because most of the individual marine construction activities will be completed in less than a
  year.

    Estimated LNG terminal operating emissions are listed in Table 4-2. 
The listed values represent emissions with the application of add-on 
emission controls for the HTF heaters, which consist of low-
NOX burners and a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 
control system for NOX control. The SCR system will also 
incorporate an oxidation catalyst for reduction of CO emissions.
    The total estimated direct long-term emissions from the Golden Pass 
LNG terminal equipment are a maximum of 47.7 tpy NOX and 
33.4 tpy of VOCs.

                                       Table 4-2.--Controlled Air Emission Estimates for the Proposed LNG Terminal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Emission estimates (lb/hr)                              Emission estimates (tons/yr)
              Description               ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NOX     CO      VOC     SO2    PM10    HAPs     NH3     NOX     CO      VOC     SO2    PM10    HAPs     NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTF Heaters............................    12.7    27.3     9.8    24.9    13.5     0.7    11.4    41.8    89.5    32.2     5.0    44.5     2.2    37.5
Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks..............  ......  ......     1.2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......     0.0  ......  ......  ......  .......
Diesel Firewater Pumps.................    37.2     8.0     3.0     2.5     2.6     0.1  ......     1.9     0.4     0.2     0.1     0.1     0.0  .......
Emergency Generator....................    80.4    18.4     2.1     8.1     2.3     0.2  ......     4.0     0.9     0.1     0.4     0.1     0.0  .......
Fugitives--VOC from Piping.............  ......  ......     0.2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......     1.0  ......  ......  ......  .......
Ammonia Piping Fugitives...............  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......     0.2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......     0.8
                                        ---------
    Total..............................   130.3    53.7    16.4    35.5    18.5     1.0    11.6    47.7    90.9    33.4     5.5    44.7     2.2    38.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The indirect long-term emissions associated with operation of the 
LNG terminal include emissions from LNG ships, tug assists, and from 
commuting and delivery vehicles. Estimated indirect emissions 
associated with operation of the LNG terminal are summarized in Table 
4-3. The estimated emissions are based on an assumption of 200 calls 
per year by LNG carriers and correspond to the estimated emissions 
submitted by Golden Pass to the TXCEQ on August 9, 2004.

                     Table 4-3.--Estimated Indirect Emissions During LNG Terminal Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total estimated emissions (tons/
                                                                                              yr)
                Source                          Description            NOX   -----------------------------------
                                                                                 CO      VOC      SO2      PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNG Carriers.........................  Main Propulsion Engines.....    332.8     32.6     11.1    414.3      5.8
LNG Carriers.........................  On-board Electric                84.2      4.7      9.7     58.0      1.9
                                        Generators--Vessels
                                        Transiting.
LNG Carriers.........................  On-board Electric               252.4     14.7     28.2    178.5      5.9
                                        Generators--Vessels at the
                                        Slip.
Tug Assists..........................  Initial Tug Escort..........     24.3      1.9      0.2     18.0      0.6
Tug Assists..........................  Tug Assist--Midpoint Channel     48.7      3.9      0.3     36.0      1.2
Tug Assists..........................  Maneuvering/Docking.........     16.4      5.8      1.0     13.6      0.4
Motor Vehicles.......................  Commuting and Deliveries....      0.8     12.2      1.1     0.01     0.04
                                                                    ----------
    Total............................  ............................    759.6     75.8     51.6    718.4     15.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35238]]

    The combined (direct plus indirect) emissions of NOX 
would exceed 50 tpy during the construction and operational phases of 
the project. Therefore, a General Conformity Determination is required 
for NOX emissions. Similarly, the combined emissions of VOCs 
exceed 50 tpy during the operational phases of the project, and a 
General Conformity Determination is also required for VOC emissions.

Preliminary General Conformity Determination

    A General Conformity Determination must be completed for projects 
requiring Federal authorization that are undertaken in areas designated 
as ``nonattainment'' or ``maintenance'' for certain criteria air 
pollutants and for which the combined direct and indirect emissions of 
those air pollutants will equal or exceed certain thresholds. The EPA 
has designated the Beaumont-Port Arthur area as a serious nonattainment 
area for the 1-hour ozone standard. Consequently, a General Conformity 
Determination is required for certain projects undertaken in the 
Beaumont-Port Arthur area for which the combined direct and indirect 
emissions of either NOX or VOCs, as ozone precursors, will 
equal or exceed 50 tpy. See 40 CFR 93.153(b) and 30 TAC Sec.  101.30. 
The Project requires a General Conformity Determination for 
NOX because the combined direct and indirect emissions of 
NOX would equal or exceed 50 tpy. In addition, the Project 
requires a General Conformity Determination for VOC because the 
combined direct and indirect emissions of VOC would equal or exceed 50 
tpy.
    On September 24, 2004, the TXCEQ issued a conditional general 
conformity certification for the Project based on a review of project 
emissions estimates, modeling of the emissions from the Project, and a 
number of commitments proposed by Golden Pass (see Attachment A). These 
commitments include: (1) NOX emission offsetting of terminal 
emissions, and (2) other impact mitigation practices. Each is described 
in the sections to follow.

NOX Emission Offsetting

    The Project may potentially result in NOX emission 
reductions that are far greater then the NOX emissions 
generated by the LNG terminal and associated sources (LNG trucks and 
ships). This emission reduction would occur when power plants and 
residential customers convert boilers and furnaces to higher-efficiency 
natural gas fired units. However, these NOX emission 
reductions would not be enforceable reductions; therefore their impact 
on the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP cannot be quantified or credited for 
purposes of the general conformity determination.

    Golden Pass has committed to purchasing and retiring 48 tons of 
NOX emission reduction credits prior to commencement of 
operations. The 48 tons of NOX credits offset the maximum 
projected long-term emissions of NOX from terminal 
operations (47.7 tpy). This commitment by Golden Pass is documented in 
the September 24, 2004 letter from TXCEQ.

Other Impact Mitigation Practices

    TXCEQ's conditional conformity certification put forth additional 
conditions as requirements for a determination of acceptability of the 
project relative to the Beaumont-Port Arthur SIP. These additional 
conditions, which are also stated in the September 24, 2004 letter from 
TCEQ (see Attachment 1), are as follows:
     Golden Pass will encourage construction contractors to 
participate in the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) grant program 
and to apply for TERP grant funds;
     Golden Pass will establish bidding conditions to give 
preference to ``Clean Contractors'';
     Golden Pass will direct, through provisions included in 
its construction contracts, construction contractors to exercise Best 
Management Practices relating to air quality; and
     Golden Pass will encourage construction contractors to use 
appropriate low emission fuels.

Conditions for Granting a Final Conformity Determination

    The commitments by Golden Pass as described in sections 5.1 and 5.2 
above constitute conditions for granting a final conformity 
determination. Documentation of fulfillment of each condition is 
required prior to issuance of the final conformity determination and 
authorization of project construction. Golden Pass may not begin 
construction of the LNG terminal until the Commission has issued its 
final General Conformity Determination and Golden Pass has received 
written approval by the Director of Office of Energy Projects of its 
filing stating that it would comply with all requirements of the 
General Conformity Determination.
[FR Doc. E5-3124 Filed 6-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P