[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36141-36143]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7857; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-22]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace for the Following
Oklahoma Towns: Antlers, OK; Oklahoma City, OK; Oklahoma City Wiley
Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E airspace
designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK;
El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport,
Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport,
Shawnee, OK. The decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB)
and/or cancellation of NDB approaches due to advances in Global
Positioning System (GPS) capabilities have made this action necessary
for the safety and

management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above
locations. This action also updates the airport names of University of
Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, Norman, OK; David Jay Perry Airport,
Goldsby, OK; El Reno Regional Airport; Shawnee Regional Airport;
Chandler Regional Airport, OK; and Sundance Airport, Oklahoma City, OK,
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, this
action updates the geographic coordinates for Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
City, OK; El Reno Regional Airport; Wiley Post Airport; Antlers
Municipal Airport; Sundance Airport; Seminole Municipal Airport, OK;
Prague Municipal Airport, OK; Chandler Regional Airport, OK; Tilghman
NDB; Cushing Municipal Airport, OK; Cushing NDB; and Cushing Regional
Hospital Heliport, OK, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as surface
areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional
Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley
Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK.

History

    On March 11, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class
E airspace designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport,
Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post
Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional
Airport, Shawnee, OK (81 FR 12845). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received.
    One comment from Mr. Robert Pigott, Aeronautical Information
Services, identified an error in the geographic coordinates for the
Tilghman NDB and Antlers Municipal Airport, and identified that the
name of Sundance Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the
commenter and amends the geographic coordinates for Antlers Municipal
Airport and the Tilghman NDB, as well as noting the name change to
Sundance Airport.
    Another comment was received from Carolyn Bloom, Aeronautical
Information Services, advising that the geographic coordinates for
Chandler Regional Airport had been updated after the NPRM was
published, and that the name of University of Oklahoma Westheimer
Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the commenter and amends
the geographic coordinates for Chandler Regional Airport, and the name
of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional
Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; and Prague Municipal Airport, Shawnee, OK.
After review, the FAA found that with the decommissioning of NDBs,
cancellation of the NDB approaches, and implementation of area
navigation (RNAV) instrument approaches the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at: Antlers Municipal Airport
should be reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension
to the south of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.3 miles was
no longer required; El Reno Regional Airport should be reduced from a
7.4-mile radius to 6.6 miles; and Prague Municipal Airport should be
reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension to the
north of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.9 miles was no
longer required in accordance with airspace requirements specified in
FAA Joint Order 7400.2K. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations under standard instrument approach
procedures.
    Additionally, this amendment notes the name change of the following
airports: University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport (formerly
University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airpark), Norman, OK; El Reno
Regional Airport (formerly El Reno Municipal Airpark); Sundance Airport
(formerly Sundance Airpark), Oklahoma City, OK; David Jay Perry
Airport, Goldsby, OK (formerly David J. Perry Airport, Norman, OK);
Shawnee Regional Airport (formerly Shawnee Municipal Airport); and
Chandler Regional Airport (formerly Chandler Municipal Airport).

Geographic coordinates are also being updated for the following
airports and navigation aids: Tinker AFB; El Reno Regional Airport;
Wiley Post Airport; Antlers Municipal Airport; Sundance Airport;
Seminole Municipal Airport; Prague Municipal Airport; Chandler Regional
Airport; Tilghman NDB; Cushing Municipal Airport; Cushing NDB; and
Cushing Regional Hospital Heliport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW OK D Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK [Amended]

Oklahoma City, Wiley Post Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]32'03'' N., long. 97[deg]38'49'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport
excluding that airspace within the Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World
Airport, OK, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW OK E2 Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK [Amended]

Oklahoma City, Wiley Post Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]32'03'' N., long. 97[deg]38'49'' W.)

    Within a 4.3-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport excluding that
airspace within the Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World Airport, OK,
Class C airspace area. This Class E airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Antlers, OK [Amended]

Antlers Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]11'33'' N., long. 95[deg]39'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Antlers Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Oklahoma City, OK [Amended]

Oklahoma City, Will Rogers World Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]23'35'' N., long. 97[deg]36'03'' W.)
Oklahoma City, Tinker AFB, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]24'53'' N., long. 97[deg]23'12'' W.)
Norman, University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]14'44'' N., long. 97[deg]28'20'' W.)
University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer
    (Lat. 35[deg]14'58'' N., long. 97[deg]27'51'' W.)
Goldsby, David Jay Perry Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]09'18'' N., long. 97[deg]28'13'' W.)
Oklahoma City, Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]29'17'' N., long. 97[deg]49'25'' W.)
El Reno Regional Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]28'22'' N., long. 98[deg]00'21'' W.)
Oklahoma City, Wiley Post Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]32'03'' N., long. 97[deg]38'49'' W.)
Oklahoma City, Sundance Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]36'07'' N., long. 97[deg]42'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.1-mile radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and within
an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and within an 8.9-mile radius of
University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 1.8 miles each
side of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport ILS Localizer
southwest course extending from the 8.9-mile radius to 12 miles
southwest of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay
Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Clarence E. Page
Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional Airport,
and within a 6.8-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport, and within a
6.8-mile radius of Sundance Airport.
* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Shawnee, OK [Amended]

Shawnee Regional Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]21'26'' N., long. 96[deg]56'34'' W.)
Seminole, Seminole Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]16'28'' N., long. 96[deg]40'31'' W.)
Prague Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]28'51'' N., long. 96[deg]43'08'' W.)
Chandler Regional Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]43'27'' N., long. 96[deg]49'13'' W.)
Tilghman NDB
    (Lat. 35[deg]43'31'' N., long. 96[deg]49'07'' W.)
Cushing Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]57'00'' N., long. 96[deg]46'24'' W.)
Cushing NDB
    (Lat. 35[deg]53'24'' N., long. 96[deg]46'24'' W.)
Cushing Regional Hospital Heliport, OK, Point In Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 35[deg]58'41'' N., long. 96[deg]45'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Shawnee Regional Airport, and within a
6.6-mile radius of Seminole Municipal Airport, and within a 6.3-mile
radius of Prague Municipal Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of
Chandler Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the
352[deg] bearing from the Tilghman NDB extending from the 6.4-mile
radius to 7.3 miles north of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile
radius of Cushing Municipal Airport and within 2.1 miles each side
of the 185[deg] bearing from the Cushing NDB extending from the 6.5-
mile radius to 9.3 miles south of the airport, and that airspace
within a 6-mile radius of the Point In Space serving Cushing
Regional Hospital Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 25, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-13146 Filed 6-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34653-34654]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-12-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-523); Comment
Request; Revision and Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-523, (Application
for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of
Liabilities) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of
the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued
a Notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 20475, 5/2/2017) requesting
public comments. The Commission received no comments on FERC-523 and is
making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by August 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0043, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC17-12-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-523, Application for Authorization for the Issuance of
Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0043.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-523 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The information collected by FERC-523 is required to
implement the statutory provisions of section 204

of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824c). Under section 204 of
the FPA no public utility or licensee shall issue any security, or
assume any obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person, until the
public utility applies for and receives Commission approval by order
authorizing the issue or assumption of the liability. The Commission
issues an order if it finds that such issue or assumption (a) is for
lawful object, within the corporate purposes of the applicant and
compatible with the public interest, which is necessary or appropriate
for or consistent with the proper performance by the applicant as a
public utility, and which will not impair its ability to perform that
service, and (b) is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission uses the information contained in filings to
determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for
authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or
liability by the public utilities and their licensees who submit these
applications.
    The specific application requirements and filing format are found
at 18 CFR part 34; and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. This information is
filed electronically.
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities subject to the Federal Power
Act.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \1\: The Commission estimates the
reduction in the annual public reporting burden for the FERC-523, as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ The number of respondents is derived from the actual number
of applications processed.
    \3\ The Commission staff thinks that the average respondent for
this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of
salary plus benefits. Based upon FERC's 2017 annual average of
$158,754 (for salary plus benefits), the average hourly cost is
$76.50/hour.

         FERC-523, Applications for Authorization for Issuance of Securities or Assumption of Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Annual  number                   Average  burden    Total annual
   Information collection        Number of     of  responses   Total number    hours  and cost    burden hours
        requirements            respondents         per        of responses     per  response       and total
                                    \2\         respondent                           \3\           annual cost
                                         (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =               (4)   (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                         (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-523....................             145               1             145                70   10,150 $776,475
                                                                                $5,355
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15646 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Bacillus mycoides isolate J

                    Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920
                               Date: May 9, 2016

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if the EPA determines that the exemption is "safe." Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines "safe" to mean that "there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, the EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require the EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption, and to "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . ." Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."
 The EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, the EPA determines the toxicity of the pesticide. Second, the EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
I.  Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance Exemption
In the Federal Register of January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4525), the EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8252) by Certis USA LLC, 9145 Guilford Rd., Suite 175, Columbia, MD 21046. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J, in or on all agricultural commodities. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Certis USA LLC, which is available in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0920 via http://www.regulations.gov.
II.  Toxicological Profile
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), the EPA reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information on Bacillus mycoides isolate J, and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. The EPA also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
 Overview of Bacillus mycoides isolate J
Bacillus mycoides isolate J is in the Bacillus cereus group of Gram positive microbes. Bacillus species are primarily soil and water associated and are commonly found in a variety of fresh produce and other foods with no ill effects from ingestion. Bacillus mycoides is very commonly found in soils, fresh water and all kinds of foods including those consumed with minimal processing. A literature review reveals that Bacillus mycoides has not been shown as the cause of any foodborne illnesses.

Temporary exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus mycoides isolate J were previously approved to support two experimental use permits and a FIFRA section 18 emergency exemption. At this time, 40 CFR 180.1269 lists a temporary exemption that expired on December 31, 2015 for the FIFRA section 18 emergency exemption for potatoes and this paragraph will need to be removed.

The applicant claims that Bacillus mycoides isolate J acts a biological disease control agent that reduces the occurrence and severity of plant disease by triggering the plant's natural defense mechanisms against pathogens by a mechanism known as "Systemic Acquired Resistance" and that this microorganism does not directly affect plant pathogens.

The Bacillus mycoides isolate J manufacturing process was refined.  Subsequent testing after these changes did not result in any pharmacological or toxicological effects after intratracheal dosing, and resulted in no lethality using the current manufacturing process. Based on extensive animal testing of the Bacillus mycoides isolate J active ingredient no toxicity, irritation, infectivity, pathogenicity or other adverse effects from dietary exposure to Bacillus mycoides isolate J are expected. The overall conclusions from all toxicological information submitted by the petitioner are briefly described below, and more in-depth synopses of study results can be found in the Refer to risk assessments in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0007, for additional information. (Ref. 1 and 2)

 Microbial Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements
 Acute Pulmonary Toxicity and Pathogenicity - Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 885.3150; (Master Record Identification Number MRID No.: 468448-01)]. An acceptable acute pulmonary toxicity and pathogenicity study demonstrated that Bacillus mycoides isolate J is not infective when instilled at 1.1 x 10[8] CFU/rat, though a pattern of clearance was not established. An explanation was not provided about the results of the preliminary assay where 6 rats that had been treated with unwashed spores, and 2 of 6 rats died within 26 hours.  (Ref. 1 and 3). Effects seen from the preliminary assay are likely attributable to excessive amounts of Bacillus enzymes in the lungs, which would not otherwise occur else from concentrated application of the pesticide.

 Waiver Rationale for Acute Inhalation Toxicity  -  Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 870.1300 (MRID No.: 493324-07)] and Additional Confirmatory Testing for Acute Pulmonary Toxicity and Pathogenicity - Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 885.3150 (MRID No.:498474-02).  The rationale for waiving the 14 day acute inhalation study submitted explained that Bacillus mycoides is widespread and likely ubiquitously found in all soil types, and in surface waters and that there have been no reported adverse effects to humans or animals via the inhalation route of exposure. Exposure on food products is common with no known health concerns, as demonstrated by a literature review. However the Agency finds that fermentation and production of a concentrated spore preparation is not assumed to be a natural exposure and so safety by inhalation cannot be inferred from such a literature review concerning natural exposures. Bacillus species in soil are known to produce copious amounts of degradative enzymes, such as proteases, useful for utilizing various food sources. Some of these have been produced industrially for products such as drain cleaners and laundry detergents. Likely the mortalities and lung lesions observed in the provided Pulmonary Toxicity and Pathogenicity study, and severe eye irritation noted in an Acute Eye Irritation study are the result of these enzymes. Subsequently the manufacturing process was refined and testing afterwards of the test substance with similar intratracheal dosing did not result in any pharmacological or toxicological effects nor any lethality.

An acceptable 48 hour acute pulmonary toxicity study was submitted. The 48-hour tracheal instillation lethal dose (LD50) which is a statistically derived single dose that can be expected to cause death in 50% of test animals for Bacillus mycoides isolate J TGAI is greater than 10[8] CFU/rat. There were no treatment related clinical signs or changes in body weight (EPA Toxicity Category III). (Ref. 1 and 2).

 Acute Injection Toxicity and Pathogenicity - Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 885.3200; (MRID No.: 495815-06)]. An acceptable acute intravenous injection toxicity and pathogenicity study demonstrated that Bacillus mycoides isolate J is not toxic, infective, or pathogenic when instilled at 1 x 10[7] CFU/rat  -  a pattern of clearance was established. (Ref. 1 and 3).

 Acute Oral Toxicity  -  Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 870.1100 (MRID No.: 493324-05)]. An acceptable acute oral toxicity study, demonstrated that BmJ WG (The end use product containing Bacillus mycoides isolate J) is not toxic, The oral median lethal dose (LD50), which is a statistically derived single dose that can be expected to cause death in 50% of test animals, was greater than 5,000 mg/Kg for female rats (EPA Toxicity Category IV). (Ref. 1 and 3).

 Acute Dermal Toxicity  -  Rat. [OCSPP Guideline: 870.1200 (MRID No.: 493324-06)] An acceptable acute dermal toxicity study demonstrated that BmJ WG was not toxic to male and female rats when dosed at 5,050 mg/kg of body weight for 24 hours. The dermal LD50 was greater than 5,050 mg/kg for female and male rats (EPA Toxicity Category IV). (Ref. 1 and 3).

 Primary Eye Irritation  -  Rabbit. [OCSPP Guideline: 870.2400 (MRID No.: 493324-08)] An acceptable primary eye irritation study demonstrated that BmJ WG was severely irritating to the eye.  Corneal opacity was noted in all rabbits immediately following exposure with clearance by 24 hours. Positive conjunctival irritation was noted on 3 of the 3 rabbits treated 24 hours after test material instillation with resolution by 48 hours (EPA Toxicity Category III). (Ref. 1and 3).

 Primary Dermal Irritation Study  -  Rabbit. [OCSPP Guideline: 870.2500 (MRID No.: 493324-09)] An acceptable primary dermal irritation study demonstrated that BmJ WG was non-irritating (EPA Toxicity Category IV). (Ref. 1 and 3).

III.  Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs the EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

Food Exposure: Bacillus mycoides are commonly found in agricultural settings (Ref. 4) (i.e. water, soils and plant roots) and are present on fresh produce of all kinds with no known adverse effects. Bacillus mycoides isolate J is not known to produce mammalian toxins of foodborne concern and no foodborne disease outbreaks associated with Bacillus mycoides or toxin production from Bacillus mycoides in food or feed have been reported.
Drinking Water Exposure: According to the World Health Organization, Bacillus species are often detected in drinking water even after going through acceptable water treatment processes, largely because the spores are resistant to these disinfection processes (Ref. 5). Should this microbial pesticide be present, no adverse effects are expected from exposure to Bacillus mycoides through drinking water, based on the results of toxicity studies described in Unit IV.
Other Non-occupational Exposure: Because Bacillus mycoides isolate J products do not currently include residential settings, exposure to the bacterium from its pesticide use would be very unlikely and the bacterium is already naturally-occurring in soils and water. Repeated exposures to the Bacillus mycoides isolate J microorganism from pesticidal applications do not exceed EPA's level of concern, particularly in light of available data that demonstrate Bacillus mycoides isolate J produced with the current manufacturing process is not toxic or pathogenic. (See additional discussion in Section II of this document).   Exposures other than those to workers, mitigated by label language for use patterns and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), are not expected.

1. Dermal exposure. Bacillus mycoides isolate J was shown to be non-toxic and not irritating to the skin (primary dermal irritation). (See additional discussion in Section II of this document).

 2. Inhalation exposure. Bacillus mycoides isolate J that was prepared with the current manufacturing process was shown to not be toxic or pathogenic. (See additional discussion in Section II of this document).

IV.  Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the EPA consider "available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity."
EPA has not found Bacillus mycoides isolate J to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and Bacillus mycoides isolate J does not appear to produce toxic metabolites from normal exposures, like those produced by other substances. Thus, for the purposes of this tolerance action, the EPA has concluded that Bacillus mycoides isolate J does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Following from this, therefore, the EPA concludes that there are no cumulative effects associated with Bacillus mycoides isolate J that need to be considered.

For information regarding the EPA's efforts to determine chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

V.  Determination of Safety for the U.S. Population, Infants and Children

A.  U.S. Population, Infants and Children
No irritation or pathogenic endpoints were noted in mammalian testing of Bacillus mycoides isolate J and differential effects to infants and children are not expected. No relevant inhalation exposures to Bacillus mycoides isolate J resulting in pulmonary toxicity is expected from use on exempt treated foods. Bacillus mycoides is already very commonly present on a wide range of foods, including those consumed raw or with minimal processing.

VI.  Conclusions
The EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in or on all agricultural commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

In addition, the Agency is removing the existing paragraph contained in section 180.1269 because that tolerance for Bacillus mycoides isolate J has expired.

VII.  References
 U.S. EPA. 2016, Memorandum from J. Gagliardi and John Kough, to S. Cerrelli, Re: Bacillus mycoides isolate J, Review of product characterization and a food tolerance exemption petition. Dated April 7, 2016.

 PMRA 2016, Jonas Ptasinski and Brian Belliveau, Data Evaluation Record, Re: Acute Pulmonary Infectivity and Toxicity.  Dated April 12, 2016.

 U.S. EPA. 2015, Joel Gagliardi (U.S.EPA) and Jonas Ptasinski [Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)] Review of Submitted Studies to Support FIFRA section 3 registration of a TGAI and EP and a new tolerance exemption, Dated July 14, 2015.

 Ludwig, W., Schleiffer, Whitman, W.H. (2009) Class I: Bacilli, class. nov., in "Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology", 2nd Edition, Volume 3, The Firmicutes, P. DeVos, G.M. Garrity, D. Jones, N.R.Krieg, W. Ludwig, K.H. Schleiffer, & W.B. Whitman (eds.) Springer Publishing.
4. 	World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. (2011) Fourth Edition. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55582-55584]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17434]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0486; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0828; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0854;
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0947; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0948; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0949;
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0964; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0965; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0966;
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0968; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0021; and FRL-10633-02-OLEM]

Deletion From the National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of three sites and the partial deletion of eight sites from
the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, created under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the states, through their designated State agencies, have determined
that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: The document is effective August 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
the Docket Identification included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. The Final Close-Out
Report (FCOR, for a full site deletion) or the Partial Deletion
Justification (PDJ, for a partial site deletion) is the primary
document which summarizes site information to support the deletion. It
is typically written for a broad, non-technical audience and this
document is included in the deletion docket for each of the sites in
this rulemaking. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Docket materials
are available through https://www.regulations.gov or at the
corresponding Regional Records Centers. Locations, addresses, and phone
numbers-of the Regional Records Center follows.
     Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4308.
     Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 1600 John F.
Kennedy Boulevard, Mail code 3MD50, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-
5382.
     Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303.
     Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund
Division Records Manager, Mail code SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building,
7th Floor South, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-
4465.
     Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd.,
Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7079.
     Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Mail code Records Center, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-7273.
     EPA Headquarters Docket Center Reading Room (deletion
dockets for all states), William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, (202)
566-1744.
    EPA staff listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section may assist the public in answering inquiries about deleted
sites and accessing deletion support documentation, determining whether
there are additional physical deletion dockets available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Mabel Garcia, U.S. EPA Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI),
[email protected], 212/637-4356.
     Andrew Hass, U.S. EPA Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
[email protected], 215/814-2049.
     Leigh Lattimore, U.S. EPA Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,
NC, SC, TN), [email protected], 404/562-8768.
     Karen Cibulskis, U.S. EPA Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,
WI), [email protected], 312/886-1843.
     Maria Morey, U.S. EPA Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE),
[email protected], 913/551-7079.
     Linda Kiefer, U.S. EPA Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
[email protected], 303/312-6689.
     Charles Sands, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPL, created under section 105 of
CERCLA, as amended, is an appendix of the NCP. The NCP establishes the
criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with
40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further
response is appropriate. Partial deletion of sites is in accordance
with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and are consistent with the Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities
List, 60 FR 55466, (November 1, 1995). The sites to be deleted are
listed in Table 1, including docket information containing reference
documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the
EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete. The NCP
permits activities to occur at a deleted site, or that media or parcel
of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the
remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the
site are entered in Table 1 in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section,
if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1= site has continued
operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2= site receives continued
monitoring, and 3= site five-year reviews are conducted. As described
in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site or portion of a site deleted
from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if
future conditions warrant such actions.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site name               City/county, state        Type           Docket No.            Footnote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haviland Complex.................  Town of Hyde Park,    Full.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09
                                    NY.                                  68.
Smithtown Ground Water             Smithtown, NY.......  Full.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09
 Contamination.                                                          64.
Jackson Ceramix..................  Falls Creek, PA.....  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-08
                                                                         54.
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone       Olaton, KY..........  Full.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09  1, 2, 3.
 Quarry.                                                                 48.
Marine Corps Logistics Base......  Albany, GA..........  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-04
                                                                         86.
Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA)...  Huntsville, AL......  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09  1, 3.
                                                                         49.
Tyndall Air Force Base...........  Panama City, FL.....  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09
                                                                         47.

Aircraft Components (D & L Sales)  Benton Harbor, MI...  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-08
                                                                         28.
Omaha Lead.......................  Omaha, NE...........  Partial......  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2023-0  1, 3.
                                                                         021.
Anaconda Co. Smelter.............  Anaconda, MT........  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09  1, 3.
                                                                         65.
Eagle Mine.......................  Minturn/Redcliff, CO  Partial......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-09  1, 3.
                                                                         66.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information concerning the sites to be deleted and partially
deleted from the NPL, the proposed rule for the deletion and partial
deletion of the sites, and information on receipt of public comment(s)
and preparation of a Responsiveness Summary (if applicable) are
included in Table 2.

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Full site deletion
                                                                                Responsiveness        (full) or media/
             Site name                 Date, proposed rule         FR citation          Public  comment            summary          parcels/ description
                                                                                for partial deletion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haviland Complex...................  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  Yes..................  Yes..................  Full.
Smithtown Ground Water               2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  Full.
 Contamination.
Jackson Ceramix....................  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  Soils and unsaturated
                                                                                subsurface vadose
                                                                                zones from OU 1
                                                                                Baseball Field.
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  Full.
Marine Corps Logistics Base........  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  Yes..................  Yes..................  OU 3 Soils.
Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA).....  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  Soils and pipeline
                                                                                sediments from OU-
                                                                                26.
Tyndall Air Force Base.............  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  Yes..................  No...................  13 specified operable
                                                                                units.
Aircraft Components (D & L Sales)..  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  Yes..................  No...................  OU 1 radiological
                                                                                cleanup.
Omaha Lead.........................  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  13 residential
                                                                                properties.
Anaconda Co. Smelter...............  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  No...................  No...................  OU 15 Mill Creek.
Eagle Mine.........................  2/22/2023.............  88 FR 10864...........  Yes..................  Yes..................  5.31 acres of soils
                                                                                in the OU 3 North
                                                                                Property
                                                                                Redevelopment--Trest
                                                                                le Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the sites proposed for deletion, the closing date for comments
in the proposed rule was March 24, 2023. EPA received no public comment
on six sites proposed for deletion or partial deletion from the NPL.
The EPA received public comments on five sites: Tyndall Air Force Base,
Havilland Complex, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Aircraft Components (D
& L Sales), and Eagle Mine. Tyndall Air Force Base received two public
comments; one supportive of the proposed deletion and one comment which
was not germane to the proposed deletion. No Responsiveness Summary was
prepared. Aircraft Components (D & L Sales) received two public
comments from one submitter. The first comment was not adverse to the
proposed deletion and the second comment requested EPA remove some of
the comment information previously submitted. EPA attempted to contact
the commentor, who did not respond. EPA documented the actions in a
memo which is included with the docket. The Havilland Complex site
received one public comment which acknowledged that collaboration
between the state and EPA is essential to protect human health and the
environment and recommended that review of sites should be conducted
more often than every five years. EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary
indicating there was frequent collaboration with the state and that the
established five-year review period is mandated by statute. The Marine
Corps Logistics Base site received one public comment with no specific
site concerns, which acknowledged that collaboration between the state,
U.S. Navy and EPA is essential to protect human health and the
environment and recommended that review of sites should be conducted
more often than every five years. EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary
indicating there was frequent collaboration among the parties and that
the established five-year review period is mandated by statute. The
Eagle Mine site received two public comments. One commentor supports
the deletion but has issue with who is stated as the property owner. A
second commentor stated ecological risks have not been evaluated and
potential future residents would not feel safe. The second commenter
also stated that field data verified by the purchaser's contractor is a
conflict of interest therefore a third party should verify the data,
and that the purchaser cannot be trusted to assure the area remains
protective as the site will always grapple with contamination. EPA
prepared a Responsiveness Summary addressing the concerns in the
comments. EPA recognizes the property owner of record for the site as
determined in an August 2018 Colorado Court of Appeals ruling. EPA also
indicated an ecological assessment was conducted. All work conducted by
the purchaser and their contractors is overseen by both the EPA and
State under an Administrative Order of Consent. EPA placed the public
comments, memo and the Responsiveness Summaries in the docket specified
in Table 1, on https://www.regulations.gov, and in the appropriate
Regional Records Center listed in the ADDRESSES section. Thus, EPA
concluded for all sites that no action is warranted under CERCLA, and
the sites can be deleted from the NPL.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

Larry Douchand,
Office Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 300
as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. In appendix B to part 300:
0
a. Amend table 1 by:
0
i. Removing the entry for ``KY, Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry,
Olaton'';
0
ii. Revising the entry for ``MI, Aircraft Components (D & L Sales),
Benton Harbor'';
0
iii. Removing the entry for ``NY'', ``Havilland Complex'', ``Town of
Hyde Park'';
0
iv. Removing the entry for ``NY, Smithtown Ground Water Contamination,
Smithtown''; and
0
v. Revising the entry for ``PA, Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek''; and
0
b. Amend table 2 by:
0
i. Revising the entry for ``FL, Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City'';
and
0
ii. Revising the entry for ``GA, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                      Site name                 City/county                 Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
MI............................  Aircraft Components (D &   Benton Harbor...........  P
                                 L Sales).

                                                  * * * * * * *
PA............................  Jackson Ceramix..........  Falls Creek.............  P

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 * * * * * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

                                       Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                      Site name                 City/county                 Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
FL............................  Tyndall Air Force Base...  Panama City.............  P

                                                  * * * * * * *
GA............................  Marine Corps Logistics     Albany..................  P
                                 Base.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 * * * * * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. 2023-17434 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21289-21290]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 12, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC10-49-000.
    Applicants: GWF Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information Supporting Section 203
Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional
Facilities and Request for Privileged Treatment of GWF Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100407-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 22, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER97-324-018; ER97-3834-024.
    Applicants: The Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: The Detroit Edison Co et al. submits a compliance
filing, Attachment A.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100409-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-862-013.
    Applicants: Entergy Power Ventures, L.P.
    Description: Entergy Power Ventures, LP submits an amendment to
their application requesting Category 1 Seller designation, etc.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100412-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-312-006.
    Applicants: Dogwood Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Filing to Market Power Update of Dogwood
Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010
    Accession Number: 20100409-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-468-002.
    Applicants: Google Energy LLC.
    Description: Google Energy LLC submits substitute FERC Electric
Tariff, Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 04/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100406-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-715-003.
    Applicants: Llano Estacodo Wind, LLC.
    Description: Llano Estacado Wind, LLC submits an amendment to their
updated market power analysis to support the continued allowance of
market-based rates.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100412-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-820-001.
    Applicants: The Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: Detroit Edison Company submits a First Revised Sheet 1
to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2--Notice of Cancellation.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100409-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-881-001
    Applicants: Reliable Power, LLC.
    Description: Reliable Power, LLC submits an Amendment to
Application for Market-Based Rate Authority.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100409-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1036-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100409-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1037-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Northern States Power Company-Minnesota submits a
proposed termination of the Market Interface Integration Services
Agreement, as amended, Rate Schedule FERC 600 with Tatanka Wind Power
LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100412-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 30, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES10-30-000.
    Applicants: Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Amendment to Application of Southern Indiana Gas &
Electric Company for Authority to Issue Short-Term Debt and Request for
Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100412-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 22, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9438 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, April 4, 2016 8:46 AM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
4/4/16 - Added testing assignments to Enclosure 2 as Appendix B

Same table as in email.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Coke ICR-Enclosure 2-04-04-16.doc >>
<< Coke ICR-Enclosure 2-04-04-16.pdf >>

________________________________________
From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 8:22 AM
To: David Ailor (dailor@accci.org); BATTEN, KATIE M
Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND
Subject: Coke letters signed - will send out Monday 4/4 by mail and by email

We will post these copies on ICR website today 4/1/16. Same versions, just new date. Letters will be sent by email to you two on Monday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register: November 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 70636]
[DOCID:fr21no08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-21-000]

Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

November 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on November 7, 2008, Carolina Gas Transmission
Corporation (CGT), 1426 Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201,
filed with the Commission in docket number CP09-21-000, a prior notice
request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.214, Subpart F (2008), of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and CGT's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP06-72-000, to construct and
operate a delivery point located in Effingham County, Georgia to serve
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP facility. The construction of this
delivery point will constitute a bypass of Atlanta Gas Light, a local
distribution company that currently is serving the Georgia-Pacific
facility. CTG's facilities will have the capability of delivering up to
15,000 Dth per day. The estimated construction costs for these
facilities are $194,385, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the Web 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. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Randy
D. Traylor, Jr., Manager of Engineering--Capital Projects, Carolina Gas
Transmission Corporation, 601 Old Taylor Road, Cayce, South Carolina
29033, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27689 Filed 11-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66303-66304]
[DOCID:fr28oc10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1014; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Restricted Areas R-3807 Glencoe, LA, and R-6320
Matagorda, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Restricted Areas R-3807 Glencoe, LA, and
R-6320 Matagorda, TX. These restricted areas were originally
established to contain aerostat balloons used in detecting illegal
entry across the southern border of the United States. The aerostat
balloons have not been operational for several years and the United
States Air Force (USAF) has no intent to replace them. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that a valid requirement for the airspace no longer
exists.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73 by

removing Special Use Airspace R-3807 Glencoe, LA, and R-6320 Matagorda,
TX. The Department of Defense no longer has a use for the two
restricted areas, which were originally established as Tethered Air
Radar Sites (TARS) to contain aerostat balloons used in detecting
illegal entry across the southern border of the United States. The
aerostat balloons have not been operational for several years and the
USAF has no intent to replace them. Additionally, the USAF no longer
controls the surface lands underlying the restricted areas and has
taken action to terminate leases and return the control of the lands to
the owners. Therefore, the FAA has determined that a valid requirement
for the airspace no longer exists and the restricted areas are being
returned to the National Airspace System.
    Sections 73.38 and 73.63 of 14 CFR part 73 were published in FAA
Order 7400.8S, dated February 16, 2010.
    Since this action reduces restricted airspace, the solicitation of
comments would only delay the return of airspace to public use without
offering any meaningful right or benefit to any segment of the public;
therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this action: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures.'' paragraph 311c. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.38  Louisiana [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.38 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-3807 Glencoe, LA [Removed]

* * * * *

Sec.  73.63  Texas [Amended]

0
3. Section 73.63 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-6320 Matagorda, TX [Removed]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-27251 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55803-55805]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-494-000]

Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed BSC
Compresssion Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the BSC Compression Replacement Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Boardwalk Storage
Company, LLC (Boardwalk Storage) in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The
Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to

as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental
issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is
described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section
of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00pm Eastern Time on October 6, 2022. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on August 5, 2022, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP22-494-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    Boardwalk Storage provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by
the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What
Do I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions,
including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the
Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner
topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website
(www.ferc.gov) under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics
link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
494-000) on your letter. 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.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Boardwalk Storage proposes to replace and operate one new electric
unit. The BSC Compression Replacement Project includes the installation
of yard and station piping and appurtenant facilities in Iberville
Parish, Louisiana. The project would decrease the current certificated
injection capability from 350,000 dekatherms per day to 150,000
dekatherms per day and the certificated horsepower would decrease from
20,000 horsepower to 9,000 horsepower. According to Boardwalk Storage,
its project would improve efficiency and reliability at Choctaw
Compressor Station.
    The BSC Compression Project would consist of the abandonment of one
10,000 horsepower compressor unit, installation of a new electric
driven 9,000 horsepower centrifugal compressor unit, and installation
of new yard and station piping and auxiliary appurtenant facilities.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 33.5
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline within
the limits of the Choctaw Storage Facility. Boardwalk Storage would
utilize existing public roads and private roads within the Choctaw
Storage Facility for access. No new permanent impacts would result from
operation of the project.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts

that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the
proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     socioeconomics and environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-494-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: September 6, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19633 Filed 9-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P