[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 155 (Monday, August 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 55040]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17310]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11273-01-OAR]

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program Compliance; Notification of
Webinar

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of webinar.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
public webinar on the new regulatory provisions of the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program.

DATES: The webinar will be held on September 7, 2023. Additional
information regarding the workshop appears below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: All attendees must pre-register for the webinar by notifying
the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
August 31, 2023. Additional information related to the webinar will be
posted at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/rfs-set-rule-implementation-webinar. Interested parties should check the
website for any updated information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Parsons, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental
Protection Agency; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is hosting a public webinar to discuss
the implementation of the new regulatory provisions promulgated as part
of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) final rule for 2023-2025 (the
``Set Rule'').\1\ These regulatory provisions include updated third-
party engineering review requirements, new independence requirements
for independent third-party auditors and professional engineers, an
alternative recordkeeping requirement for parties using separated food
waste, and updated regulatory provisions for the production,
distribution, and use of biogas as a renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 44468 (July 12, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the webinar, EPA intends to discuss the following:
     An overview of the regulatory amendments in the Set Rule.
     A detailed overview of the updated biogas regulatory
provisions.
     A demonstration of the registration system updates for
parties that want to use the alternative recordkeeping provisions for
separated food waste.
     Changes to three-year engineering review updates and
third-party engineer independence requirements.
     An overview of the new regulatory provisions for mixed
digesters.
     A moderated question-and-answer period for stakeholders to
ask additional questions related to these provisions.
    EPA will post an agenda approximately one week before the webinar
at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/rfs-set-rule-implementation-webinar. Interested parties should check this website
for any updated information.
    If you require the services of an interpreter or special
accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the
webinar and describe your needs by August 24, 2023. EPA may not be able
to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2023-17310 Filed 8-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5555-5556]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Rickenbacker
International Airport, Columbus, Ohio

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately 328
acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and
to authorize the lease and ultimate sale of airport property located at
Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, Ohio. The aforementioned
land is not needed for aeronautical use. The property is located
southeast of the airfield and currently consists of vacant land, paved
roadways, fencing and utilities. The land is proposed to be used to
expand the Rickenbacker Global Logistics Park (RGLP) and all activities
necessary to prepare the site as a Cargo Campus for development capable
of accommodating growth in bulk warehouse/distribution facilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Detroit Airports District Office, Mark Grennell, Program Manager, 11677
South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174, Telephone: (734) 229-
2933/

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Mark
Kelby, Airport Planner, 4600 International Gateway, Columbus, OH 43219,
(614) 239-5014. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be
delivered or mailed to: Mark Grennell, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South
Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174, Telephone Number: (734) 229-
2933/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Grennell, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office,
11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174. Telephone Number:
(734) 229-2933/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The land was originally transferred from the United States of
America by quitclaim deeds to the Rickenbacker Port Authority on March
30, 1984 and May 11, 1999, under the Surplus Property Act of 1944. On
December 31, 2002, the Rickenbacker Port Authority transferred
ownership of the airport to the Franklin County, Ohio Board of
Commissioners. On the same day, the Franklin County, Ohio Board of
Commissioners transferred ownership to the Columbus Municipal Airport
Authority. The Columbus Municipal Airport Authority was re-structured
to form the Columbus Regional Airport Authority on January 28, 2003.
The land currently consists of vacant land, paved roadways, fencing,
utilities, a small arms outdoor firing range and a former munitions
site. The proposed future use of the land is for a cargo campus that
will be capable of accommodating several industrial buildings ranging
in size from 500,000 to 1,000,000 square feet. The Columbus Regional
Airport Authority will receive fair market value for the initial lease
and ultimate sale of this land.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Rickenbacker International Airport,
Columbus, Ohio from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation
for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released
property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does
not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of
eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Description of 328.672 Acres

    Situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Franklin and Pickaway,
Township of Madison, lying in Sections 7 and 18, Township 10, Range 21
of the Congress Lands, and being part of 2,995.065 acre (Tract 1) as
conveyed to Columbus Regional Airport Authority by deed of record in
Instrument Number<PHONE_NUMBER>00768, records of the Recorder's Office,
Franklin County, Ohio, also being a deed of record in Official Record
514, Page 2561, records of the Recorder's Office, Pickaway County,
Ohio, and being more particularly described as follows:
    Beginning at an angle point in the 2,995.065 acre tract at the
northeasterly corner of Section 18 on the line between Franklin and
Pickaway Counties;
    Thence the following seven (7) courses and distances along the
lines of said 2,995.065 acre (Tract 1):
    1. South 03[deg]55'27'' West, a distance of 2,644.31 feet, to a
point;
    2. North 86[deg]24'01'' West, a distance of 437.75 feet, to a
point;
    3. North 06[deg]36'41'' West, a distance of 402.20 feet, to a
point;
    4. North 01[deg]05'17'' East, a distance of 750.00 feet, to a
point;
    5. North 86[deg]24'43'' West, a distance of 550.00 feet, to a
point;
    6. South 03[deg]35'17'' West, a distance of 1,145.00 feet, to a
point;
    7. North 86[deg]24'01'' West, a distance of 2,156.03 feet, to a
point;
    Thence the following three (3) courses and distances across the
said 2,995.065 acre tract:
    1. North 44[deg]30'28'' West, a distance of 2,197.96 feet, to a
point;
    2. North 45[deg]29'32'' East, a distance of 4,510.96 feet, to a
point;
    3. South 44[deg]25'27'' East, a distance of 789.72 feet, to a point
on an easterly line of said 299.065 acre tract;
    Thence the following four (4) courses and distances along the lines
of said 2,995.065 acre (Tract 1):
    1. South 03[deg]53'50'' West, a distance of 516.90 feet, to a
point;
    2. South 43[deg]04'26'' East, a distance of 1,208.90 feet, to a
point;
    3. South 23[deg]57'33'' West, a distance of 325.08 feet, to a
point;
    4. South 86[deg]11'07'' East, a distance of 536.00 feet, along the
to the Point of Beginning, containing 328.672 acres, more or less, of
which 88.312 acres lie in Franklin County and 240.360 acres lie in
Pickaway County.
    The bearings in the above description are based on the bearing of
North 86[deg]24'01'' West, for the southerly line of the 2,995.065 Acre
(Tract 1) conveyed to Columbus Regional Airport Authority.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan, on January 27, 2022.
Stephanie Swann,
Acting Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-02023 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54343-54344]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0392, FRL-9985-03-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Requirements and Exemptions for
Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Requirements and Exemptions for
Specific RCRA Wastes (EPA ICR Number 1597.13, OMB Control Number 2050-
0145), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
October 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on July 3, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 28,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0392, FRL 9985-03-OEI, to (1) EPA, either online using
www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
and (2) OMB via email to [email protected]. Address comments
to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Universal Wastes, which include certain batteries,
pesticides, mercury-containing lamps and thermostats, are generated in
a variety of non-industrial settings present in non-hazardous waste
management systems. Regulations at 40 CFR part 273, which govern the
collection and management of Universal Wastes, are designed to ensure
facilities collect these wastes and manage them in an appropriate
hazardous waste management system. EPA collects notifications of
Universal Waste management to obtain general information on handlers
and to facilitate enforcement of the Part 273 regulations. EPA
promulgated labeling and marking requirements and accumulation time
limits to ensure that Universal Waste is being accumulated responsibly.
EPA collects information on illegal Universal Waste shipments to
enforce compliance with applicable regulations. Finally, EPA requires
tracking of Universal Waste shipments to help ensure that Universal
Waste is being properly treated, recycled, or disposed.
    Regulations at 40 CFR part 266 provide increased flexibility to
facilities managing wastes commonly known as ``Mixed Waste.'' Mixed
Wastes are low-level mixed waste (LLMW) and naturally occurring and/or
accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) containing hazardous
waste, which are also regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. When
specified eligibility criteria and conditions are met, LLMW and NARM
are exempt from the definition of hazardous waste in Part 261. Although
these wastes are exempt from RCRA manifest, transportation, and
disposal requirements, facilities must still comply with the manifest,
transportation, and disposal requirements under the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) regulations. Section 266.345(a) requires that
generators or treaters notify EPA or the Authorized State that they are

claiming the Transportation and Disposal Conditional Exemption prior to
the initial shipment of a waste to a LLRW disposal facility. This
exemption notice provides a tool for RCRA program regulatory agencies
to become aware of the generator's exemption claims. The information
contained in the notification package provides the RCRA program
regulatory agencies with a general understanding of the claimant. This
information also allows the agencies to document the generator's
exemption status and to plan inspections and review exemption-related
records.
    Regulations at 40 CFR part 279, which codify used oil management
standards, establish, among other things, streamlined procedures for
notification, testing, labeling, and recordkeeping. They also establish
a flexible self-implementing approach for tracking off-site shipments
that allow used oil handlers to use standard business practices (e.g.,
invoices, bill of lading). In addition, part 279 sets standards for the
prevention and cleanup of releases to the environment during storage
and transit. These requirements minimize potential mismanagement of
used oils, while not discouraging recycling. Used oil transporters must
comply with all applicable packaging, labeling, and placarding
requirements of 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179 and must report
discharges of used oil according to existing 49 CFR part 171 and 33 CFR
part 153 requirements.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private Sector and State, Local, or
Tribal Governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 273),
required to obtain or retain a benefit (40 CFR parts 266 and 279).
    Estimated number of respondents: 141,038.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 791,715 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $68,980,149 (per year), includes $14,161,065
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This increase is an increase in the number of respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-23556 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (1/1/2007)

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton<PHONE_NUMBER>

Notice of Filing: PP# 7E7253

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP # 7E7253) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180. 511 by establishing a tolerance for residues of buprofezin in
or on the raw agricultural commodities: Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 and
Okra at 1.8 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition. This summary has been prepared by Nichino
America, Inc., Wilmington, DE 19808, the registrant.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolic profile of buprofezin has been
elucidated in a wide range of crops, including tomatoes, lettuce,
cotton, and citrus.   In citrus, although buprofezin was a major
component of the residue, a chromatographically well-defined region of
radioactivity, clearly associated with polar conjugates, was observed.
Mass spectrometry identified the principal polar residue as a hexose
conjugate of BF4 (buprofezin hydroxylated in the t-butyl group).
Although the conjugate was resistant to enzyme hydrolysis, acid
hydrolysis of the polar fraction released predominantly BF26 with minor
amounts of BF9 and BF12. The same compounds were observed following acid
hydrolysis of a standard of BF4 clearly indicating that BF4 is the
conjugated metabolite existing in citrus. Although only limited
metabolism was observed in lettuce and cotton, trace levels of similar
metabolites, including the conjugate BF4 were observed indicating that
the metabolic pathway does not differ with plant species.

	2. Analytical method. The proposed analytical method involves
extraction, partition, clean-up and detection of residues by gas
chromatography using nitrogen phosphorous detection.  ADVANCE \d 4

      3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were conducted on tomatoes
and peppers, with buprofezin, the principal residue of concern, in the
required geographic regions in the United States at the maximum rate and
minimum application and the minimum preharvest interval.  The highest
average residue value for tomatoes, both greenhouse and field treated
with buprofezin (HAFT) at a 1 day PHI was 0.47 ppm.  The highest average
residue value for bell and non-bell peppers treated with buprofezin
(HAFT) at a 1 day pHI was 1.1 ppm.  With a concentration in tomato paste
of 1.24 X, the residues in tomatoes are sufficient to cover residues in
/on processed tomatoes. The requested tolerances are adequately
supported.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. An extensive battery of toxicology studies has been conducted with
buprofezin.  EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and
considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the
relationship of the results of the studies to human risk  The nature of
the toxic effects caused by buprofezin is discussed in Unit III.A. of
the Final Rule on Buprofezin Pesticide Tolerance published in the
Federal Register on September 5, 2001 (66 FR 46381) (FRL-6796-6).   An
assessment of toxic effects caused by buprofezin including the
toxicological endpoints of concern is also discussed in Unit III.A. and
Unit III B. of the Federal Register dated June 25, 2003   (FRL-7310-7)
(68 FR 37765).

2. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of buprofezin has been extensively
studied in various species of animals and fish. Buprofezin has several
groups that can metabolize in a variety of ways thus potentially
producing a very large number of metabolites. Extensive metabolism to
many minor metabolites was observed in all the animal species.
Metabolism in fish was, however, much more limited and clearly defined.
Although not all metabolic intermediates have been detected in all the
species, the major routes of metabolism have been identified in animals
and fish and a consistent pattern is observed throughout these species.
The proposed metabolic pathway was provided in the tolerance petition,
PP 0F6087. For convenience, degradates are referred to by an internal
code: BF 1 through 13. Corresponding chemical structures were provided
in the tolerance petition, PP 0F6087.

	3. Metabolite toxicology.

	i. Metabolism in rats.  The major metabolite found in rat excreta was
parent buprofezin in addition to several compounds formed after
extensive metabolism. Whereas plant metabolism appeared restricted
mainly to oxidation of the tertiary butyl group, oxidation of the butyl
group and hydroxylation of the phenyl ring were both observed in rats.
Oxidation of the t-butyl group proceeded beyond an alcohol to an acid
and was accompanied by ring opening. The most extensively metabolized
compound identified in rats was BF23 (acetylated p-aminophenol).

	ii. Metabolism in ruminants and hens. Residue levels were low (0.05
ppm) in all ruminant and poultry tissues and commodities, following
treatment at exaggerated rates (approximately 20x and 7,500x the
anticipated dietary burden, respectively). The only exceptions were cow
liver (1.21 ppm), cow kidney (0.41 ppm), hen liver (0.15 ppm), and egg
yolk (0.11 ppm). Extensive metabolism was observed in both species with
a large number of minor metabolites being produced.  The principal
metabolites identified in the cow were BF2 and BF23, indicating that the
major pathway of degradation in ruminants is hydroxylation of the phenyl
ring followed by opening and degradation of the heterocyclic ring. The
identification of trace levels of BF13 confirms this pathway. As in
rats, BF23 was the most extensively metabolized compound identified.
Trace levels of BF12 were also detected. This indicates that the
parallel pathway of heterocyclic ring opening without hydroxylation of
the phenyl ring is also in operation. Similarly in hens, the identified
metabolites were derived from degradation of the heterocyclic ring
either with (BF13) or without (BF9 and BF12) phenyl ring hydroxylation.
No single unidentified compound accounted for more than 6% of the total
residue in any animal tissue or commodity, with the exception of a
component comprising 8.7% of egg white. The total residue in egg white
was, however, only 0.02 ppm even at this highly exaggerated dose rate.

	 iii. Metabolism in fish. Analysis of fish tissues, following a
bioaccumulation study, found a much simpler metabolic profile.
Buprofezin was present in both edible and non-edible tissues, but the
principle metabolites were polar conjugates of BF4. Trace levels of BF12
were also detected.

	4. Endocrine disruption. No special studies have been conducted to
investigate the potential of buprofezin to induce estrogenic or other
endocrine effects. The standard battery of required toxicity studies has
been completed. These studies include an evaluation of the potential
effects on reproduction and development and an evaluation of the
pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term
exposure. These studies are generally considered to be sufficient to
detect any endocrine effects. The only effect noted on endocrine organs
was an increased incidence of follicular cell hypertrophy and C-cell
hyperplasia of the thyroid gland in rats administered buprofezin.
Buprofezin also caused mild to moderate hepatotoxic effects at this
dietary concentration.  The effect on the thyroid isconsistent with an
increased turnover of T3/T4 in the liver with a resultant rise in TSH
secretion (due to the hepatotoxicity). The rat is known to be much more
susceptible than humans to these effects due to the very rapid turnover
of thyroxine in the blood in rats (12 hours vs. about 5-9 days in
humans). Therefore, the thyroid pathological  changes which have been
noted following administration of high doses of buprofezin are
considered to be of minimal relevance to human risk assessment,
particularly considering the low levels of buprofezin to which humans
are likely to be exposed.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary risk analyses were
conducted to estimate to potential buprofezin residues in/on the
following crops: avocado, banana, bell and non-bell peppers, canistel,
celery, spinach, cotton, grape, grape raisin, longan, lychee, mango,
papaya, mamey sapote, Spanish lime, head lettuce, leaf lettuce, snap
bean, fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, citrus fruits, pome
fruits, stone fruits, almond, pistachio, olive, and strawberry using
LifeLine™ version 4.3.  Residue estimates for water consumption were
based on PRZM3/EXAMs and SCIGROW  models and exposure assessments using
LifeLineTM version 4.3.

	i. Food. The acute dietary exposure was based on the following
assumptions: residues at tolerance levels, 100% crop treated, and
DEEM™ (ver. 7.76) default processing factors for all
registered/proposed commodities (Tier 1).  The Hazard Identification
Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) met on 15-February-2000 and
determined the endpoint selection for buprofezin (HED Doc. No. 014093)
and subsequently on 22-October-2002 to evaluate the potential for
increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to
buprofezin.  Based on toxicological considerations, the special FQPA
safety factor was set at 1X when assessing acute and chronic dietary
exposures.  The acute dietary aPAD (acute population adjusted dose) was
set at 2.0 mg/kg/day for females aged 13-50 years old based on a
developmental toxicity study in rats that had an oral NOEL of 200
mg/kg/day.  The chronic dietary cPAD (chronic Population Adjusted Dose)
was determined to be 0.01 mg/kg/day for the general population based on
a oral NOAEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day in the two-year rat chronic/oncogenicity
study.  The uncertainty factor of 30 was used to account for
interspecies and intraspecies variations.  An additional 10x database
uncertainty factor was applied.  The resultant safety factor used to
establish the cPAD was 300.  The cPAD was set at 0.0033 mg/kg/day.
Since the only evidence of carcinogenicity was ‘suggestive’, this
endpoint was not deemed relevant to this assessment.

Using tolerance values for exposure and a default value of 100% crop
treated, the resulting food exposure estimate for females 13-49 years
old was 6% of the acute RfD. No acute endpoint was identified for the
remaining population subgroups.

The chronic dietary exposure used the following % crop treated:  21 %
grapes and raisin,  5% cantaloupe; 2.5% crop treated for avocado, cotton
seed, tomato, 1% cottonseed, tomato, olive, almond, pistachio, casaba,
honeydew, watermelon, and all other cucurbit crop group, all citrus crop
group, exclusive of oranges; 3% for celery and strawberry; 1% pear; 13%
for peaches; 60% nectarines; 35 % plums;  40% apricots; 76% cherries;
100% for oranges, apples, okra and peppers; 1.5 % spinach, and 0.1% for
all the other commodities.  For most crops the average field trial
residues at maximum label rates and minimum PHI's with no reduction
factors for common washing, cooking, or preparation practices were used
for the assessment.  For a few crops, tolerance values were used.  For
apples and oranges the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) residues were
used.  The food exposure estimates from residues of buprofezin  for the
U.S. population was 33% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).
The subpopulation with the highest exposure was infants less than 1 year
old with 77% of the cPAD used. These can be considered conservative
values.

	ii. Drinking water. The residue of concern in drinking water was
determined to be buprofezin.  There are no established maximum
contaminant levels or health advisory levels for residues of buprofezin
in drinking water.  In the absence of comprehensive water monitoring
data, the Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool or the
Pesticide Root ZoneModel/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS)
to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index resevoir.
The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in
shallow ground water. For a screening-level assessment for surface water
EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2
model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a
specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. Both FIRST and
PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, and both models
include a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the
maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health
levels of concern.

The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in surface water
were determined using the Tier II PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model) and
EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PE4-PL, version 01).  PRZM is
used to simulate pesticide transport as a result of runoff and erosion
and spray drift from an agricultural field and EXAMS estimates
environmental fate and transport of pesticides in surface water.  The
EPA estimated that based on the maximum use pattern of two applications
to New York grapes for the acute estimate and two applications to
Michigan cherries for the chronic and long-term estimates.  The acute
EDWCs are 23.2 ppb, and for chronic 7.8 ppb.  In ground water, using
Tier I SCI-GROW, the acute level is 0.1 ppb and chronic is 0.1 ppb.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The term residential exposure is used in this
document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g. for
lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets). Buprofezin is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential exposure.

D. Cumulative Effects

	A determination has not been made that buprofezin has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Buprofezin does not appear
to produce a common toxic metabolite with other substances. A cumulative
risk assessment was, therefore, not performed for this analysis. Section
408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.'' Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
buprofezin and any other substances and buprofezin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
buprofezin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's OPP
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating
effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web
site at     HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/"
ADVANCE \d 4 http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/cumulative/ .

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population.

i. Acute risk.  Using the conservative assumptions discussed above,
based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it is
concluded that aggregate exposure to the proposed uses of buprofezin are
estimated at 0.122 mg/kg/day and will utilize at most 6 % of the acute
reference dose of females (13-49).  This estimate is likely to be much
less, as more realistic data and models are developed.  Drinking water
and other water consumption (EDWC of 23.2 ppb) scenarios were included
in the dietary risk assessment modeling.

@

B*

@

@

@

@

@

@

Chronic exposure to food and water to infants less than 1 year old, the
highest exposed population subgroup, was 0.00256 mg/kg/day (77% of the
cPAD).  EPA has determined that reliable data support the uncertainty
factor (300 for combined interspecies and intraspecies variability and a
data base uncertainty factor) for buprofezin.  EPA deemed an additional
FQPA safety factor is not necessary to be protective of infants and
children.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the
cPAD. The Agency has considered the potential aggregate exposure from
food, water and non-occupational exposure routes and has concluded
aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the chronic
reference dose, and consequently, has determined there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to residues of buprofezin.

F. International Tolerances

Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not have maximum residue limits for
residues of buprofezin in/on the proposed crops.  Therefore,
harmonization is not an issue.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73553-73554]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2327-049]

Great Lakes Hydro America. LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Temporary Variance from Reservoir Elevation.
    b. Project No: P-2327-049.
    c. Date Filed: November 15, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Great Lakes Hydro America. LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Cascade Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Androscoggin River, in
Coos County, New Hampshire.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kyle Murphy, Brookfield Renewable, 150 Main
Street, Lewiston, Maine 04240,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the

Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include the docket
number P-2327-049. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Great Lakes Hydro America LLC.
(applicant) requests Commission approval for a temporary variance from
the normal reservoir elevation to conduct concrete repairs to the
forebay headgate structure which were identified in the 11th (2019)
Part 12 Inspection Recommendations. The applicant requests to draw down
the head pond from elevation of 901.4 feet to 897.2 feet (i.e., 4.2
feet from normal operating level) for a period of approximately twelve
weeks beginning in June 2023 to dewater the concrete areas in need of
repair. The applicant would lower the head pond at a rate not to exceed
3 inches per hour to avoid potential fish stranding and maintain the
minimum required bypass flow of 6 cubic feet per second via leakage
(consistent with operations during routine flashboard replacement).
Once the repairs are completed, the head pond will be refilled at a
rate not to exceed 3 inches per hour. The applicant requests the
temporary variance to remain into effect until the end of September
2023.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 211,
214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26091 Filed 11-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56122-56123]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0124]

Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee (GPAC), also known as the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC),
also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee. The committees will meet in joint session to discuss a
variety of topics to keep committee members up-to-date on DOT's
pipeline safety program.

DATES: The committees will meet in joint sessions on Tuesday, October
21, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Wednesday, October 22,
2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., E.S.T.
    The meetings will not be web cast; however, presentations will be
available on the meeting Web site and posted on the E-Gov Web site
http://www.regulations.gov under docket number PHMSA-2014-0124 within
30 days following the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Washington Marriott
Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC, 20037-1203. Phone
202-872-1500. Web site: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/waswe-washington-marriott-georgetown/.
    Please register for the meeting at the following PHMSA Web site:
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=100. Any
additional information, including the meeting agenda, will be posted on
this page as well.
    Comments on the meeting may be submitted to the docket in the
following ways:
    E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2009-0203 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or view the Privacy Notice at http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2009-0203.'' The Docket Clerk
will date-stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to
Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider
an alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service)
of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt
at DOT.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual who
submitted the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to seek special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Cheryl Whetsel at<PHONE_NUMBER> by October 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the meeting,
contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Meeting Details

    The committees will meet to discuss performance metrics for
pipeline operations, safety management systems in other industries, and
agency, state, and stakeholder priorities.
    Members of the public may attend and make a statement during the
advisory committee meeting. If you intend to make a statement, please
notify PHMSA in advance by forwarding an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by October 6, 2014.

II. Committee Background

    The GPAC and LPAC are statutorily mandated advisory committees that
advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments and safety
policies for natural gas pipelines and for hazardous liquid pipelines.
Both committees were established under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the pipeline safety law (49
U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee consists of 15 members--with
membership evenly divided among the Federal and state government, the
regulated industry and the public. The committees advise PHMSA on the
technical feasibility, practicability and cost-effectiveness of each
proposed pipeline safety standard.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115; 60118.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2014.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-22202 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44374]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6972-033]

Ampersand Hollow Dam Hydro LLC; Notice Soliciting Applications

    On April 29, 2021, Ampersand Hollow Dam Hydro LLC (Ampersand),
licensee for the Hollow Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 6972, filed a
pre-application document (PAD) and notice of its intent (NOI) to file
an application for a subsequent license for the 1,060-kilowatt project
pursuant to section 15(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). On the
same date, Ampersand filed a request to use the Commission's
Traditional Licensing Process, which the Director, Division of
Hydropower Licensing, approved on June 25, 2021. On June 27, 2022,
Ampersand filed notice of the withdrawal of its NOI and PAD, indicating
it is no longer seeking a subsequent license for the project.
    The project is located on the West Branch Oswegatchie River in the
town of Fowler in St. Lawrence County, New York. The principal project
works consist of: (a) a 350.5-foot-long concrete gravity dam; (b) a
reservoir with a surface area of 16 acres and storage volume of 220
acre-feet; (c) two vertical submersible hydraulic turbine-generator
units; (d) a concrete intake-powerhouse structure; (e) a tailrace; (f)
a 200-foot-long, 2.3-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; (g) a 2.4-kV
generator bus; and (h) a 2.4/34.5-kV step-up transformer. Ampersand
estimates the average annual generation of the project to be 3,900
megawatt-hours.
    Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ a withdrawal of a pleading is effective at the end of 15
days from the date of filing the notice of withdrawal. No motion in
opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the
Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal; thus, the
withdrawal became effective on July 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any party interested in filing a license application for a
subsequent license for a project must first file a NOI \2\ and PAD.\3\
Although the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is the default pre-
filing process, section 5.3(b) of the Commission's regulations allows a
potential license applicant to request to use alternative licensing
procedures when it files its NOI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 5.5 (2021).
    \3\ 18 CFR 5.6 (2021).
    \4\ 18 CFR 5.3(b) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice sets a deadline of 120 days from the date of this
notice for interested applicants, other than the existing licensee, to
file NOIs, PADs, and requests to use an alternative licensing process
as discussed above.
    In the event that no other applicant files an application for a
license by April 30, 2024, the current licensee will be provided with
written notice that no timely application for the project has been
filed.\5\ Within 90 days of such written notice, the current licensee
must file a schedule for the filing of a surrender application for the
project.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 16.26(a) (2021).
    \6\ 18 CFR 16.26(b) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Claire
Rozdilski,<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15999 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60367-60370]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0218; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-006-AD;
Amendment 39-16820; AD 2009-13-06 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-23, PA-23-160, PA-23-235, PA-23-
250, PA-23-250 (Navy UO-1), PA-E23-250, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325,
PA-31-350, PA-31P, PA-31P-350, PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-31T3, PA-
42, PA-42-720, and PA-42-1000 airplanes that are equipped with a
baggage door in the fuselage nose section (a nose baggage door). That
AD currently establishes life limits and replacement requirements for
safety-critical nose baggage door components and repetitive inspections
and lubrication of the nose baggage door latching mechanism and lock
assembly. This new AD removes the requirement for the nose baggage door
compartment interior light inspection and retains the other
requirements from AD 2009-13-06, Amendment 39-15944. This AD was
prompted by further investigation and a request for an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC). We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 3, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 24,
2009 (74 FR 29118, June 19, 2009).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone:
(772) 567-4361; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.newpiper.com/company/publications.asp. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to revise AD 2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR 29118, June
19, 2009). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011 (76 FR 29176). That
NPRM proposed to continue to require establishment of life limits for
safety-critical nose baggage door components. That NPRM also proposed
to continue to require replacement of those safety-critical nose
baggage door components

and repetitive inspections and lubrications of the nose baggage door
latching mechanism and lock assembly. The NPRM also proposed to remove
the requirement for the nose baggage door compartment interior light
inspection.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. Ed Keith of Wright Air Service, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association, Gary King, and several others commented that they support
the NPRM. The following presents a comment received on the proposal and
the FAA's response to the comment:

Revised Compliance Time

    Ben Stevens and another commenter requested we revise the
compliance time in paragraph (f)(2) for the repetitive interval to
allow for a 10 percent (110 hours) overrun for return to a maintenance
base for inspection. The commenters stated this would match program
extensions for aircraft that are in for-hire or instructional usage per
14 CFR 91.409(b) and that similar allowance had been allowed in other
ADs.
    We agree with this comment because the requested extension provides
an acceptable level of safety for this class of aircraft. We revised
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to include the following text: ``Initially
within 100 hours TIS after July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained
from AD 2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR 29118, June 19, 2009);
and repetitively thereafter at intervals of 100 hours TIS. The 100-hour
interval may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours TIS to reach a place
where the inspection can be done, per 14 CFR 91.409(b). The excess time
used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included
in computing the next 100 hours of TIS.''

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8,000 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and parts replacement of  4 work-hours x $85 per hour            $190            $530      $4,240,000
 nose baggage door.                   = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.
The increased estimated cost of this AD is due to increased labor cost
from 2009 when AD 2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR 29118, June 19,
2009) was issued.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive AD
2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR 29118, June 19, 2009), and adding
the following new AD:

2009-13-06 R1 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-16820; Docket No.
FAA-2009-0218; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-006-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 3, 2011.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR 29118,
June 19, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Models PA-23, PA-23-160, PA-23-235, PA-23-
250, PA-23-250 (Navy UO-1), PA-E23-250, PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325,
PA-31-350, PA-31P, PA-31P-350, PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-

31T3, PA-42, PA-42-720, and PA-42-1000 airplanes, all serial
numbers, that are:
    (1) Certificated in any category; and
    (2) Equipped with a baggage door in the fuselage nose section (a
nose baggage door).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code, 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several incidents and accidents,
including fatal accidents, where the nose baggage door opening in
flight was listed as a causal factor. We are issuing this AD to
establish life limits for safety-critical nose baggage door
components, replace those safety-critical nose baggage door
components, and repetitively inspect and lubricate the nose baggage
door latching mechanism and lock assembly. The door opening in
flight could significantly affect the handling and performance of
the aircraft. It could also allow baggage to be ejected from the
nose baggage compartment and strike the propeller. This failure
could lead to loss of control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For all aircraft: (i)     Initially within      Follow INSTRUCTIONS:
 Inspect the nose baggage      1,000 hours time-in-  PART I of Piper
 door assembly for damaged,    service (TIS) since   Aircraft, Inc.
 worn, corroded, or            all life-limited      Mandatory Service
 non[dash]conforming           components were       Bulletin No. 1194A,
 components; (ii) Replace      installed new         dated November 10,
 life-limited components       following Piper       2008. As an
 specified in the service      Aircraft, Inc.        alternative to
 information; and (iii)        Mandatory Service     using the part
 Install or inspect, as        Bulletin No. 1194A,   number 100700-079
 applicable, the nose          dated November 10,    placard, you may
 baggage placard following     2008, or within the   fabricate a placard
 the service information.      next 100 hours TIS    (using at least \1/
                               after July 24, 2009   8\-inch letters)
                               (the effective date   with the words in
                               retained from AD      figure 1 of this AD
                               2009-13-06,           and install the
                               amendment 39-15944    placard directly
                               (74 FR 29118, June    above the nose
                               19, 2009),            baggage door
                               whichever occurs      handle. This AD
                               later. Repetitively   does not require
                               thereafter at         the verification of
                               intervals not to      proper functioning
                               exceed 1,000 hours    of the nose baggage
                               TIS.                  compartment
                                                     interior light set
                                                     forth in the last
                                                     sentence of PART 1,
                                                     paragraph 1, of
                                                     Piper Aircraft,
                                                     Inc. Mandatory
                                                     Service Bulletin
                                                     No. 1194A, dated
                                                     November 10, 2008.
(2) For all aircraft: (i)     Initially within 100  Follow INSTRUCTIONS:
 Lubricate and inspect all     hours TIS after       PART II of Piper
 nose baggage door latching    July 24, 2009 (the    Aircraft, Inc.
 and locking components for    effective date        Mandatory Service
 damaged, worn, corroded, or   retained from AD      Bulletin No. 1194A,
 non-conforming components;    2009-13-06,           dated November 10,
 and (ii) Verify the key can   amendment 39-15944    2008.
 only be removed from the      (74 FR 29118, June
 lock assembly in the locked   19, 2009); and
 position in accordance with   repetitively
 the service instructions.     thereafter at
                               intervals of 100
                               hours TIS. The 100-
                               hour interval may
                               be exceeded by not
                               more than 10 hours
                               TIS to reach a
                               place where the
                               inspection can be
                               done, per 14 CFR
                               91.409(b). The
                               excess time used to
                               reach a place where
                               the inspection can
                               be done must be
                               included in
                               computing the next
                               100 hours of TIS.
(3) For all aircraft with     Before further        Follow Piper
 damaged, worn, corroded, or   flight after any      Aircraft, Inc.
 non-conforming components:    inspection required   Mandatory Service
 Repair/replace any damaged,   in paragraphs         Bulletin No. 1194A,
 worn, corroded, or non-       (f)(1) and (f)(2)     dated November 10,
 conforming components.        of this AD where      2008.
                               any evidence of
                               damaged, worn,
                               corroded or non-
                               conforming
                               components was
                               found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE11.000

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2009-13-06, amendment 39-15944 (74 FR
29118, June 19, 2009) are approved as AMOCs for this AD. The format
has been revised and certain paragraphs have been rearranged since
AD 2009-13-06 was issued, including changes to paragraph identifiers
in this AD. Previous AMOCs may refer to particular paragraph
identifiers from the original AD, however, the corresponding actions
of the AMOC in the revised AD still apply even though the
identifiers have changed.

(h) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K. Noles,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 1194A, dated November 10, 2008, to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 on July 24, 2009 (74 FR 29118,
June 19, 2009).
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.newpiper.com/company/publications.asp.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on September 20, 2011.
Wes Ryan,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25008 Filed 9-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 46622-46625]
[DOCID:fr21au07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-4-000]

Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent
To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Midcontinent Express Project, Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues, and Notice of Public Site Visit

August 14, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will identify and address the environmental impacts that could result
from the construction and operation of the Midcontinent Express
Pipeline Project (Project) proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline,
LLC (MEP). On June 25, 2007, MEP filed draft Resource Reports that
identified a modification to the Project in Richland and Madison
Parishes, Louisiana, consisting of an approximately 4.2-mile-long
lateral pipeline (CenterPoint Lateral). MEP subsequently filed
additional information clarifying the location of the Project
facilities associated with the CenterPoint Lateral on August 3, 2007.
    On April 27, 2007, the FERC issued a ``Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Midcontinent Express
Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings'' (NOI). The NOI was published in the
Federal Register and was also mailed to interested parties, including
Federal, state and local officials, agency representatives,
conservation organizations; Native American groups; local libraries and
newspapers; and property owners affected by the proposed facilities.
This notice is being issued because the CenterPoint Lateral was not
identified in the NOI, and landowners potentially affected by that
facility were therefore not included on the environmental mailing list
for that correspondence.
    In order to assist staff with the identification of environmental
issues associated with the modified facilities and to comply with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), a
30-day scoping period has been opened to receive comments on the
proposed Project, as modified by the addition of the CenterPoint
Lateral. Please note that the scoping period for this project will
close on September 10, 2007.
    Comments on the Project and the issues that should be addressed in
the EIS may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to
submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation
section of this notice. Additionally, as part of the scoping process,
we will sponsor a public site visit of the proposed CenterPoint
Lateral, as described below. Please note that attendees at the site
visit must obtain their own transportation for the site visit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 9 am (CST)......  Delhi Municipal Airport
                                             (parking lot), Airport Road/
                                             Louisiana Highway 17,
                                             Delhi, Louisiana 71232
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to landowners affected by the CenterPoint
Lateral, as well as those that previously requested to remain on the
Project environmental mailing list; federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers; all of which are encouraged to submit
comments on the proposed Project. Details on how to submit comments are
provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by an MEP representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the FERC, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on

the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a

number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    MEP proposes to construct, own and operate approximately 495 miles
of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline, a total of approximately 111,720 horsepower (hp)
of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor
stations, and related appurtenant facilities located in portions of
Oklahoma, northeast Texas, northern Louisiana, central Mississippi, and
Alabama. The proposed pipeline route identified by MEP would extend
from a receipt point with existing pipeline infrastructure near
Bennington in Bryan County, Oklahoma, to an interconnect with the
existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation system near Butler
in Choctaw County, Alabama. The general location of the proposed
pipeline is shown in the figure included as Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
Public Participation section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made
directly to MEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as part of the Midcontinent Express Pipeline Project,
MEP proposes to construct, own, and operate the approximately 4.2-mile-
long, 16-inch-diameter CenterPoint Lateral in Richland and Madison
Parishes, Louisiana.
    Specifically, the MEP Project facilities under FERC jurisdiction
would include the following:
     Approximately 40 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in
Bryan County, Oklahoma, and Lamar County, Texas;
     Approximately 262 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in
Lamar, Red River, Franklin, Titus, Morris, and Cass Counties, Texas,
and Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Lincoln, Union, Ouachita,
Morehouse, Richland, and Madison Parishes, Louisiana;
     Approximately 193 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in
Madison Parish, Louisiana, and Warren, Hinds, Rankin, Simpson, Smith,
Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi, and Choctaw County, Alabama;
     The newly proposed, approximately 4.2-mile-long, 16-inch-
diameter lateral pipeline, which would extend from an interconnect with
the Project mainline pipeline in Madison Parish, Louisiana, to the
Delhi Booster Station and an interconnect with a CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company pipeline in Richland Parish, Louisiana;
     Four new mainline and one booster, natural gas-fired
compressor stations, including:

--The 38,555-hp Lamar Compressor Station at Milepost (MP) TX 28.5 in
Lamar County, Texas;
--The 12,270-hp Atlanta Compressor Station at MP TX 117.4 in Cass
County, Texas;
--The 32,720-hp Perryville Compressor Station at MP LA 109.0 in Union
Parish, Louisiana;
--The 18,405-hp Vicksburg Compressor Station at MP MS 11.8 in Warren
County, Mississippi;
--The 9,470-hp Delhi Booster Station, which would be located along the
CenterPoint Lateral in Richland Parish, Louisiana;

 Meter stations at up to 13 interconnects with existing
pipeline infrastructure in Bryan County, Oklahoma; Lamar and Cass
Counties, Texas; Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes, Louisiana;
Hinds, Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi; and Choctaw
County, Alabama;
     Various pig \2\ launching and receiving facilities; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pig is a mechanical tool used to clean and inspect the
interior of a pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     29 mainline valves.
    MEP indicates that the proposed Project facilities would provide
long-haul takeaway capacity to facilitate the transport of natural gas
from production areas in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to markets in
the Southeast, Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States that
can be accessed through interconnects with existing pipeline
infrastructure. The Project would consist of two capacity zones. The
initial transport capacity of Zone 1, which would include the 30- and
42-inch-diameter portions of the pipeline facilities, would be 1.4
billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/d). However, additional
supporting contracts could provide for expansion of the Zone 1
transport capacity to 1.5 Bcf/d. Zone 2, which would include the
balance of the pipeline facilities, would have an initial transport
capacity of 1.0 Bcf/d, with the potential for expansion to 1.2 Bcf/d.
    MEP proposes to place the first 40 miles of 30-inch-diameter
pipeline in service by October 31, 2008, with the remainder of the
pipeline constructed and operational by February 2009.

Land Requirements for Construction

    As proposed, the typical construction right-of-way width for the
30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter sections of Project pipeline would be
100, 110, and 125 feet, respectively. The typical construction right-
of-way width for the CenterPoint Lateral would be 75 feet. Following
construction, MEP would generally retain a 50-foot-wide permanent
right-of-way for operation of the Project, though MEP proposes to
expand the maintained permanent right-of-way width to 60 feet in
limited areas based on site-specific conditions. Additionally,
temporary extra workspaces beyond the typical construction right-of-way
limits would also be required at certain feature crossings (e.g.,
roads, railroads, wetlands, or waterbodies), in areas with steep side
slopes, in association with special construction techniques, or at pipe
storage and contractor yards. In residential areas, wetlands, and other
sensitive areas, the construction right-of-way width would be reduced
as necessary to protect homeowners and environmental resources.
Following construction, all temporary workspaces (including the
temporary construction rights-of-way and extra workspaces) would be
restored and allowed to revert to its former use.

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from the approval of an interstate natural
gas pipeline. The FERC will use the EIS to consider the environmental
impact that could result if the Midcontinent Express Pipeline Project
is authorized under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
    NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public
may have about proposals to be considered by the Commission. This
process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. With this NOI, the Commission staff is requesting
public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS.
All comments received will be considered during preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we 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;
     Wetlands and vegetation;
     Fish and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;

     Land use, recreation, and visual resources;
     Air quality and noise;
     Cultural resources;
     Socioeconomics;
     Reliability and safety; and
     Cumulative environmental impacts.
    In the EIS, 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 affected resources.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft
EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; affected landowners;
commentors; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers;
and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. A 45-day
comment period will be allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will
consider all comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a final EIS. We will consider all comments on
the final EIS before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To
ensure that your comments are considered, please follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking federal, state, and local
governmental agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with
respect to environmental issues, to express their interest in becoming
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project. We have already
identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a
preliminary review of the project site, comments filed in response to
the April 27, 2007 NOI, and the facility information provided by MEP.
This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments
and our analysis.
     Potential impacts to water resources, including
groundwater and ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies.
     Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands
and development of appropriate mitigation.
     Potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, including
potential impacts to federal and state-listed threatened and endangered
species.
     Potential impacts to natural vegetative communities,
including native prairie and forestland.
     Potential effects on prime farmland soils and soils with a
high potential for compaction or erosion.
     Potential impacts to existing land uses, including
agricultural and managed forested lands.
     Potential impacts to recreation and special interest
areas, including Wetland Reserve Program lands and the Natchez Trace
Parkway.
     Potential impacts to residential areas, planned
developments, and property values.
     Potential disruption to area businesses associated with
construction.
     Potential visual effects of the pipeline easement and
aboveground facilities on surrounding areas.
     Potential impacts to local air and noise quality
associated with construction and operation.
     Potential impacts to cultural resources and Native
American lands.
     Public safety and hazards associated with the transport of
natural gas.
     Alternative alignments for the pipeline route and
alternative sites for the compressor stations.
     Assessment of the effect of the proposed Project when
combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the Project area, including the potential cumulative effect
of collocating multiple utility rights-of-way.
     Use of the existing and proposed rights-of-way to minimize
the need for additional temporary construction workspace and/or reduce
the width of the permanent easement.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed project. By becoming a
commenter, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative
facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please carefully follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3, DG2E.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-4-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before September 10, 2007.
    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. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing of any comments in response to this Notice
of Intent. For information on electronically filing comments, please
see the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.

    Once MEP formally files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Project. This includes all landowners along
the CenterPoint Lateral who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose
property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own
property within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of
certain aboveground facilities. In addition, this notice is also being
sent to potentially affected landowners along other portions of the
Project that previously requested to remain on the Project
environmental mailing list.
    If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing
list for this project. If you do not want to send comments at this
time, but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the
Information Request (Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information
Request, you will be removed from the

Commission's environmental mailing list. Please note that interested
individuals who previously responded to the April 27, 2007 NOI with a
request to stay on the environmental mailing list need not reply again.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).
Additional information can also be found on the Internet at
http://www.ferc.gov. The ``eLibrary link'' on the FERC Web site provides

access to documents submitted to and issued by the Commission, such as
comments, orders, notices and rulemakings. Once on the FERC Web site,
click on the ``eLibrary link,'' select ``General Search'' and in the
``Docket Number'' field enter the project docket number excluding the
last three digits (i.e., PF07-4). When researching information be sure
to select an appropriate date range. In addition, the FERC now offers a
free e-mail service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track
of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries and direct links to the documents. To register for
this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or

toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY, contact 1-202-502-8659.
    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx) along

with other related information.
    Finally, MEP has established an Internet Web site for this Project
at http://www.midcontinentexpress.com. The Web site includes a description of

the Project, a map of the proposed pipeline route, and answers to
frequently asked questions. You can also request additional information
or provide comments directly to MEP at 1-877-327-5515 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16383 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19474-19475]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07201]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10007-69-OLEM]

FY2020 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) Grantees; Extension of Application Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the availability of funds; extension of application
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
application period for a notice issued in the Federal Register of March
9, 2020, announcing the availability of approximately $5 million to
provide supplemental funds to Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) cooperative
agreements previously awarded competitively under section 104(k)(3) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). This document extends the due date for supplemental
funding requests to April 22, 2020.

DATES: Supplemental funding requests must be submitted by April 22,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13647) (FRL-
10006-24-OLEM).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Lentz, Office of Brownfields
and Land Revitalization, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202)
566-2745; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact the
appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator listed under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION in the Federal Register document of March 9, 2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is extending the due date for
supplemental funding requests Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
cooperative agreements to April 22, 2020 due to disruptions stemming
from the Novel Coronavirus

(COVID-19) public health emergency. The original due date was April 8,
2020. This extension is consistent with the guidance that the Office of
Management and Budget provided on March 19, 2020 in M-20-17,
Administrative Relief for Recipients and Applicants of Federal
Financial Assistance Directly Impacted by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-
19) due to Loss of Operations regarding extending due dates for funding
applications EPA will continue to monitor the impact on COVID-19 and
any further extension of the due date for submission of FY2020 RLF
Supplemental Funding applications will be announced on the EPA's
Brownfields web page at www.epa.gov/brownfields rather than in the
Federal Register.

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
David Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2020-07201 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P