[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18648-18656]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R10-OW-2008-0826; FRL-8893-1]

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites Offshore of the Umpqua River, Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the designation of the Umpqua River
ocean dredged material sites pursuant to the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The new sites are
needed primarily to serve the long-term need for a location to dispose
of material dredged from the Umpqua River navigation channel, and to
provide a location for the disposal of dredged material for persons who
have received a permit for such disposal. The newly designated sites
will be subject to ongoing monitoring and management specified in this
rule and in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan, which is also
finalized as part of this action. The monitoring and management
requirements will help to ensure ongoing protection of the marine
environment.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule will be effective May 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: For more information on this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-
R10-OW-2008-0826 use one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to this
final rule.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jonathan Freedman, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy during
normal business hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101. For access to the documents at the Region 10 Library,
contact the Region 10 Library Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between
the hours of 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, for an
appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Freedman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or contact Jessica Winkler, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems,
Tribal and Public Affairs (ETPA-083), Aquatic Resources Unit, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206)
553-7369, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 25, 2008, EPA published a
proposed rule at 73 FR 71575 to designate two new ocean dredged
material disposal sites near the mouth of the Umpqua River, Oregon and
to withdraw an earlier proposed rule to designate a single site. EPA
received one comment on the proposed rule.

1. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material
into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. EPA's
action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of the Umpqua River, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be most affected by this action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially regulated
             Category                              persons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil
                                     Works Projects, and other Federal
                                     Agencies.
Industry and General Public.......  Port Authorities, Marinas and
                                     Harbors, Shipyards and Marine
                                     Repair Facilities, Berth Owners.
State, local and tribal             Governments owning and/or
 governments.                        responsible for ports, harbors, and/
                                     or berths, Government agencies
                                     requiring disposal of dredged
                                     material associated with public
                                     works projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

2. Background

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of the Umpqua River, Oregon

    Two ocean dredged material disposal sites, an Interim Site and an
Adjusted Site, were formerly used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for the disposal of sediments dredged from the Umpqua River
navigation project. An ``Interim Site'' was included in the list of
approved ocean disposal sites for dredged material in the Federal
Register in 1977 (42 FR 2461), a status superseded by later statutory
changes to the MPRSA. A realignment of the approach channel to the
Umpqua River estuary re-routed the navigation channel over the Interim
Site so that in 1991 an Adjusted Site was selected by the Corps
pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA. That authority allows the Corps
to select a site for disposal when a site has not been designated.
Selection of the Adjusted Site was intended to reduce potential hazards
associated with navigational conflicts in the channel and associated
with mounding of dredged material at the Interim Site. The selection of
the Adjusted Site was also intended to increase long-term disposal site
capacity near the mouth of the Umpqua River. EPA concurred on the
selection of the Adjusted Site and approved the Corps' request to
continue to use the site through the end of the 2008 dredging season.
The Adjusted Site is not a suitable candidate for designation by EPA
pursuant to section 102 of the MPRSA because use of the Adjusted Site
resulted in mounding that severely limited site capacity. In 1996,
shoaling and breaking waves associated with mounding at the Adjusted
Site were reported. Subsequently a site utilization study was conducted
by the Corps in 1998. That study found evidence of mounding sufficient
to warrant serious concern regarding impact on the wave environment
near the Umpqua River entrance channel. To address that concern the
volume of dredged material placed at the Adjusted Site was reduced from
an average annual volume of 188,000 cubic yards (cy) prior to 1999 to
an average annual volume of 108,000 cy from 1999 to 2007. EPA
determined that alternatives to the Adjusted Site would be needed for
long-term disposal capacity near the mouth of the Umpqua River.

b. Location and Configuration of Umpqua River Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites

    This action finalizes the withdrawal of the rule the Agency
proposed on October 2, 1991, at 56 FR. 49858, to designate an Umpqua
River site, and finalizes the designation of two Umpqua River ocean
dredged material sites to the north and south, respectively, of the
mouth of the Umpqua River. The coordinates for the two sites are listed
below and the figure below shows the location of the two Umpqua River
ocean dredged material disposal sites (Umpqua River ODMD Sites or
Sites). The configuration of the Sites is expected to allow dredged
material disposed in shallower portions of each Site to naturally
disperse into the littoral zone without creating mounding conditions
that could contribute to adverse impacts to navigation. This will allow
EPA to manage the Sites to keep as much material disposed at the Sites
as possible in the active littoral drift area to augment shoreline
building processes.
    The coordinates for the two Umpqua River ODMD Sites are, in North
American Datum 83 (NAD 83).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 North Umpqua ODMD site                                   South Umpqua ODMD site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43[deg]41[min]23.09[sec] N., 124[deg]14[min]20.28[sec]   43[deg]39[min]32.31[sec] N., 124[deg]14[min]35.60[sec]
 W.                                                       W.
43[deg]41[min]25.86[sec] N., 124[deg]12[min]54.61[sec]   43[deg]39[min]35.23[sec] N., 124[deg]13[min]11.01[sec]
 W.                                                       W.
43[deg]40[min]43.62[sec] N., 124[deg]14[min]17.85[sec]   43[deg]38[min]53.08[sec] N., 124[deg]14[min]32.94[sec]
 W.                                                       W.
43[deg]40[min]46.37[sec] N., 124[deg]12[min]52.74[sec]   43[deg]38[min]55.82[sec] N., 124[deg]13[min]08.36[sec]
 W.                                                       W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Sites are situated in approximately 30 to 120 feet of water
located to the north and south of the entrance to the Umpqua River on
the southern Oregon Coast (see Figure 1). The dimensions of each of the
Sites are 6,300 by 4,000 feet. Each disposal Site will contain a drop
zone, defined by a 500-foot setback inscribed within all sides of the
boundary of each Site, reducing the permissible disposal area to a zone
5,300 feet long by 3,000 feet wide. The drop zone will ensure that
dredged material initially stays within each Site.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24AP09.053

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

c. Management and Monitoring of the Sites

    The final Umpqua River ODMD Sites are expected to receive sediments
dredged by the Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation
project at the Umpqua River, Oregon and dredged material from other
persons who have obtained a permit for the disposal of dredged material
at the Sites. The ocean dumping regulations do not require a
modification of any existing permits issued before this final action.
All persons using the Sites are required to follow the Site Management
and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Umpqua River ODMD Sites. The SMMP is
available to the public as part of this action. The SMMP includes
management and monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials
disposed at the Sites are suitable for disposal in the ocean. The final
SMMP also addresses management of the Sites to ensure adverse mounding
does not occur and to ensure that disposal events are timed to minimize
interference with other uses of ocean waters in the vicinity of the
Sites.

d. MPRSA Criteria

    EPA assessed this action against the criteria of the MPRSA, with
particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of
40 CFR part 228, to determine that the final site designations
satisfied those criteria.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    EPA reviewed the potential for the Sites to interfere with
navigation, recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic resources, commercial
fisheries, protected geologic features, and cultural and/or
historically significant areas and found low potential for conflicts.
The Sites are located away from the approach to the Umpqua River
entrance channel and are unlikely to cause interference with navigation
near the mouth of the Umpqua River. Commercial crab and salmon fishing
have the potential to take place in the Sites because of overlapping
disposal and fishing seasons, but conflicts are not

anticipated based on the past history of fishing and disposal
operations in this area. Other recreational users, for example,
surfers, boarders, and divers, may use the near-shore area in the
vicinity of the Sites. EPA does not expect disposal operations at the
Sites to conflict with these recreationists.
    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    Based on EPA's review of modeling, monitoring data, analysis of
sediment quality, and history of use, no detectable contaminant
concentrations or water quality effects, e.g., suspended solids, would
be expected to reach any beach, shoreline, or other area outside of the
Sites. The drop zones at each of the Sites will help ensure this
criterion is satisfied. All dredged material proposed for disposal will
be evaluated according to the ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR
227.13 and guidance developed by EPA and the Corps. In general, dredged
material which meets the criteria under 40 CFR 227.13(b) is deemed
environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping without further testing.
Dredged material which does not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b)
must be further tested as required by 40 CFR 227.13(c). Suitable
material can be disposed at the Sites. Modeling work performed by the
Corps at the Umpqua River demonstrates that water column turbidity, a
temporary perturbation during disposal, would be expected to dissipate
for an anticipated 97% of the coarser material within a few minutes of
disposal. The remaining 3% of the material, which would be classified
as fine-grained, would be expected to dissipate within a half hour.
Over time, some of the suitable disposed material would be expected to
migrate into the littoral system, and potentially to coastal
shorelines. Bottom movement of material, based on historic trends near
the mouth of the Umpqua River, is expected to show a net movement to
the north at the depth of the disposal Sites with rapid dispersion
after movement.
    (3) If Site designation studies show that any interim disposal
sites do not meet the site selection criteria, use of such sites shall
be terminated as soon as any alternate site can be designated (40 CFR
228.5(c)).
    EPA's recent final rule at 73 FR 74983 (December 10, 2008) repealed
obsolete regulations under the MPRSA regarding interim ocean dumping
sites and interim ocean dumping criteria. EPA stated in the proposed
rule that the use of the Interim Site near the Umpqua River Sites was
terminated upon selection of the 103-selected site, the Adjusted Site,
by the Corps. However, the category of ``interim site'' has now been
removed from the ocean dumping regulations.
    (4) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts,
and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
    EPA sized the final Sites to meet this criterion. The Sites tend to
be moderately dispersive in the near-shore area and less dispersive
farther from shore. The Sites were designed to be large enough to
minimize the potential for adverse mounding and to allow for a minimum
twenty-year capacity. Effective monitoring of the Sites is necessary
and annual bathymetric surveys are required for each Site. Those
surveys are expected to be used to document the fate of the dredged
material disposed at the Sites and to provide information for active
management of the Sites.
    (5) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    The Sites are located near where historic disposal occurred with
only minimal impact to the environment. Locations off the continental
shelf in the Pacific Ocean as a general rule are inhabited by stable
benthic and pelagic ecosystems on steeper gradients that are not well
adapted to the type of frequent disturbance events that are typical of
dredged material disposal in ocean waters. Monitoring and surveillance
of these Sites do not pose the challenges inherent in locations beyond
the edge of the continental shelf. Material disposed at a location
beyond the continental shelf would not be available to the littoral
system. The loss of material would potentially have a negative impact
on the mass balance of the system with a resulting negative impact on
erosion/accretion patterns along this limited area of coastline near
the Umpqua River.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
    (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
    The geographical position, including the depth, bottom topography
and distance from the coastline in the vicinity of the Sites will not
cause adverse effects to the marine environment. Based on EPA's
understanding of currents at the Sites and the influence of those
currents on the movement of material in the area, there is a high
likelihood that much of the material disposed at the Sites will be
transported to the littoral sediment circulation system. Limited
onshore transport of material disposed of at the Sites is expected
because of the nature of the prevailing currents and wave transport in
the vicinity of the Sites. Net predicted material transport at the
Sites is southward in the summer months and northward during the
remainder of the year. These transport mechanisms are expected to move
material into the active littoral drift area and to significantly
decrease or eliminate mounding as an issue for disposal of dredged
material near the mouth of the Umpqua River. This movement is expected
to allow for long-term disposal without creation of adverse mounding
conditions at either of the Sites.
    To help avoid adverse mounding at the Sites, the site management
strategy will include placing the majority of dredged material within
drop zones at each Site and in shallower portions of the Sites closer
to shore where the material can return to the regional littoral
sediment system. Disposal runs will be managed to avoid multiple dumps
in any location to further minimize mounding. Management may include
establishing ``cells'' along the nearshore portions of each Site and
assigning numbers of ``dumps'' to each cell to minimize material
accumulation and avoid excessive or persistent mounding. Disposal will
also alternate as necessary between the two Sites to allow for maximum
dispersal of material and minimal impact to each Site.
    (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
    The Sites are not located in exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of living
resources. Near the Sites, a variety of pelagic and demersal fish
species, as well as shellfish, are found. Modeling of the water column
over the Sites indicates that turbidity from a disposal event is
expected to dissipate rapidly and consequently avoidance behavior by
any species in the Sites or in the surrounding area at

the time of a disposal event would be short-term.
    (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
    The Sites, although located in close proximity to the Umpqua River
navigation channel, are located a sufficient distance offshore to avoid
adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas. Transportation of
dredges or barges to and from the Sites to dispose of dredged material
will be coordinated to avoid disturbance of other activities near the
Umpqua River entrance channel. Dredged material disposed of at the
Sites is expected to disperse into the littoral system, with a possible
positive effect over time of reducing erosion of coastal beaches. There
are no rocks or pinnacles in the vicinity of either Site. The Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area, a part of the Siuslaw National Forest,
is located on the beach adjacent to the South ODMD Site, but does not
extend into the water. Use of the South ODMD Site is not expected to
interfere with any upland uses.
    The ocean area north and south of the south jetty is utilized for
wave-dependent near-shore recreation, such as surfing, diving,
kayaking, boogie-boarding, skim boarding, and body surfing. While some
of these uses may overlap with the Sites, resulting in temporary usage
conflict during disposal activities, the SMMP contains provisions to
minimize or avoid such conflicts. The Sites are sized and located to
provide long-term capacity for the disposal of dredged material without
causing any impacts to the wave environment at, or near, the Sites.
Site monitoring and adaptive management are components of the final
SMMP.
    (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
    Dredged material found suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the
regulatory criteria for dredged material or characterized by chemical
and biological testing and found suitable for disposal into ocean
waters will be the only material allowed to be disposed of at the
Sites. No material defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will be allowed
to be disposed of at the Sites. The dredged material to be disposed of
at the Sites will be predominantly marine sand, far removed from known
sources of contamination. With respect to methods of releasing material
at the Sites, material will be released just below the surface and the
disposal vessel will be required to be under power and to slowly
transit the disposal location during disposal. This method of release
is expected to spread material at the Sites to minimize mounding and to
minimize impacts to the benthic community and to species at the Sites
at the time of a disposal event.
    (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
    EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the Sites to be feasible
and readily performed from small surface research vessels. The Sites
are accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar surveys. At a
minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at each of the
Sites to confirm that no unacceptable mounding is taking place within
the Sites or in their immediate vicinity. Routine monitoring will
concentrate on examining how the distribution of material in the near-
shore portions of the Sites is working to minimize mounding of material
and how the distribution of material augments littoral processes.
Monitoring will also examine the distribution of material in the deeper
portions of the Sites to avoid or minimize mounding.
    (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
    Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area at and in the vicinity of the Sites indicate that the
marine sands and fluvial gravels from the Umpqua River distribute away
from the river mouth rapidly. The beaches do not show significant
accretion or loss, suggesting the system is in equilibrium and that
littoral transport is in balance. The bottom current records suggest a
bias in transport to the north. Fine grained material tends to remain
in suspension and to experience rapid offshore transport compared to
other sediment sizes. Sediment transport of sand-sized or coarser
material tends to move directly as bedload, but is occasionally
suspended by wave action near the seafloor. The final Sites are not
expected to change these characteristics.
    (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
    The two Sites have not been used before for any type of disposal
activity. Disposal of dredged material is not expected to result in
unacceptable environmental degradation at the Sites or in the vicinity
of the Sites. The final SMMP includes requirements, including
bathymetric surveys and preventative steps, for managing the Sites to
address potential mounding issues.
    (8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
    The Sites are not expected to interfere with shipping, fishing,
recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Disposals at the new
Sites will be managed according to the final SMMP to minimize
interference with other legitimate uses of the ocean through careful
timing and staggering of disposals in the Sites. Commercial and
recreational fishing and commercial navigation are the primary uses for
which such timing will be needed. No plans for mineral extraction
offshore of the Umpqua River are planned or proposed for this area.
Wave-dependent near shore recreation may possibly overlap with the
Sites resulting in temporary usage conflict during disposal activities
but the Sites will be managed to minimize such potential conflicts. Use
of the Sites is not expected to change the wave conditions for any
recreational uses. Two wave energy projects are in the preliminary
permitting phases near the Sites. EPA would expect to revise the SMMP
if necessary in the event the proposed wave energy projects moved
forward and potential conflicts seemed likely. Fish and shellfish
culture operations are not under consideration for the area. There are
no known areas of scientific importance in the vicinity of the Sites.
    (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    EPA did not identify any adverse water quality impacts from ocean
disposal of dredged material at the Sites based on water and sediment
quality analyses conducted in the study area of the Sites and based on
experience with past disposals near the mouth of the Umpqua River.
Fisheries and benthic data show the ecology of the area to be that of a
mobile sand community typical of the Oregon Coast.
    (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10))
    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the
vicinity of, the Sites. Material expected to be disposed at the Sites
will be uncontaminated marine sands similar to the sediment present at
the Sites. Some fine-grained material, finer than natural background,
may also be disposed. While this finer-

grained material could have the potential to attract nuisance species
to the Sites, no such recruitment occurred in the past at either the
Interim or the Adjusted Site. The final SMMP includes specific
biological monitoring requirements, which will act to identify any
nuisance species and allowing EPA to direct special studies and/or
operational changes to address the issue if it arises.
    (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11))
    No significant cultural features have been identified at, or in the
vicinity of, the Sites. EPA coordinated with Oregon's State Historic
Preservation Officer and with Tribes in the vicinity of the Sites to
identify any cultural features but none were identified. No shipwrecks
were observed or documented within the Sites or their immediate
vicinity.

3. Response to Comments

    EPA received one indirect comment on the proposed rule. The
commenter objected generally to any dumping in the ocean and criticized
shipping companies for dumping rather than recycling. EPA's action
designates sites for the disposal of dredged material meeting the ocean
dumping criteria for environmental acceptability in the ocean
environment. No other material is allowed at these Sites. The Sites
will not be available to users for any purpose other than the disposal
of dredged material meeting the regulatory criteria for suitability.

4. Environmental Statutory Review--National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act
(ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

(1) NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires that Federal agencies
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because the courts have exempted EPA's actions under the
MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional
equivalence doctrine. EPA has, by policy, determined that the
preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory
actions, including actions under the MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA's
``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA
Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998),
sets out both the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing such
environmental review documents. EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document
for designating the Sites is the final Umpqua River, Oregon Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment, April 2009 (EA), jointly prepared by EPA and the Corps. The
final EA and its Technical Appendices, which are part of the docket for
this action, provide the threshold environmental review for designation
of the two Sites. The information from the final EA is used
extensively, above, in the discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.

(2) MSA and MMPA

    In the spring of 2008, EPA initiated consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning essential fish habitat and
protected marine mammals. EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH)
assessment pursuant to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d. NMFS
reviewed EPA's EFH assessment and ESA Biological Assessment for
purposes of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended
(MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389.
    With respect to marine mammals, NMFS found that all potential
adverse effects to ESA-listed marine mammals are discountable or
insignificant. Those findings are documented in Appendix B. Marine
Mammal Determinations of the Biological Opinion issued by NMFS to EPA
on March 20, 2009. With respect to EFH, NMFS found that disposal of
dredge material, an indirect effect of EPA's action to designate the
two Umpqua River ODMD Sites, will affect suspended sediment levels over
background and temporarily decrease food resources within the Sites
during disposal events. However, these effects are not expected to
functionally change or alter the habitat or habitat value of designated
EFH at or in the vicinity of the Sites. NMFS concluded that safe
passage of the EFH managed species will not be functionally changed by
this action or by subsequent disposal at the Sites. These findings are
documented in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act section of the NMFS Biological Opinion. NMFS included a
``conservation recommendation'' to develop a plan for monitoring fish
interactions with the disposed dredged material at the Sites. EPA will
respond in a separate written response to NMFS' recommendation.

(3) CZMA

    EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon on coastal zone
management issues in June of 2008. EPA prepared a consistency
determination for the Oregon Ocean and Coastal Management Program
(OCMP) to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as
amended, (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, and submitted that
determination formally to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) for review on November 12, 2008. DLCD published
an initial public notice on the consistency determination on November
14, 2008, and in a notice on December 10, 2008, extended the public
comment period to January 2, 2009. DLCD received one comment letter
from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) expressing
support for the designation of the Umpqua River Sites and supporting
ocean disposal of dredged material as the best alternative. ODFW did
express concern with potential impacts to habitat near the mouth of the
Umpqua River and expressed support for ``pinpoint dumping'' over
``uniform placement'' of disposal material at the Sites.
    DLCD concurred on EPA's determination of consistency with one
condition. The condition calls for the final SMMP to assure that
monitoring measures for the Umpqua River Sites are reasonably likely to
identify significant unanticipated adverse affects on renewable marine
resources, biological diversity of marine life and functional integrity
of the marine ecosystem at the Sites, and further asks that the SMMP
include adaptive management measures to avoid significant impairment of
the Sites and significant decreases in abundance of commercial or
recreationally caught species from direct or indirect effects on
important or essential habitat at the Sites. The final SMMP for the
Umpqua River Sites provides the assurances and adaptive management
measures requested by DLCD. DLCD responded to the ODFW concern about
impacts to habitat by including the condition, above, in its
consistency concurrence. DLCD also noted that ``pinpoint dumping'' has
been replaced with the disposal technique of ``uniform placement.''
DLCD suggested that future site designations include opportunities for
EPA and ODFW to coordinate on issues.

(4) ESA

    EPA initiated informal consultation with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on its action to designate the Umpqua River ODMD Sites
beginning in the spring of 2008. EPA prepared a Biological Assessment
to assess the potential effects of designating the two Umpqua River
Sites on aquatic and wildlife species to determine whether or not its
action might adversely affect species listed as endangered or
threatened and/or adversely modify or destroy their designated critical
habitat. EPA found that its action would not be likely to adversely
affect aquatic or wildlife species listed pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, or the critical
habitat of such species. EPA found that site designation does not have
a direct impact on any of the identified ESA species but also found
that indirect impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable future
disposal activities had to be considered. These indirect impacts
included a short-term increase in suspended solids and turbidity in the
water column when dredged material was disposed at the new Sites and an
accumulation of material on the ocean floor when material was disposed
at the Sites. EPA concluded that while its action may affect ESA-listed
species, the action would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
species or critical habitat.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with EPA's
finding that EPA's action to designate the Umpqua River ODMD Sites
would not likely adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
Consultation with the USFWS for this action was completed on July 25,
2008.
    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not concur with
EPA's NLAA finding and subsequently prepared a Biological Opinion (BO),
issued March 20, 2009. NMFS concluded that EPA's site designations are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Oregon Coast (OC)
coho salmon or Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) green
sturgeon and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated
or proposed critical habitat. However, NMFS found that the indirect
effects of designating the Umpqua River Sites related to the exposure
fish could experience from the disposal of dredged material could have
consequences for listed fish. Based on NMFS' estimate of ensuing
indirect effects of designating the Sites, NMFS estimated that injury
and death of as many as 990 yearling OC coho salmon and a smaller
number of small sub-adult southern DPS green sturgeon could occur. For
Steller sea lions, blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales, Southern
Resident killer whales, as described in Appendix B to the BO, NMFS
concurred with EPA's determination of NLAA. For Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coasts (SONNC) coho salmon, as described in
Appendix A to the BO, NMFS also concurred with EPA's determination of
NLAA. NMFS found no effect for four species of marine turtles, sperm
whales, and sei whales because NMFS did not anticipate the species
would be present in the action area.
    NMFS acknowledged in the BO that EPA's action, designation of the
Umpqua River Sites, does not authorize and will not itself result in
disposal of dredged material. NMFS stated that it does not anticipate
any take will be caused by the designation of the Sites and the
adoption of the SMMP. Consequently, NMFS did not include an incidental
take statement in the BO. Rather, NMFS stated that any further analysis
of the effect of disposal of dredged material at the disposal sites and
issuance of an incidental take statement with reasonable and prudent
measures and non-discretionary terms and conditions to minimize take
would be prepared when a disposal permit is requested by the action
agency. NMFS did include a discretionary conservation recommendation in
the BO seeking a study of fish interactions with disposed material.
Such recommendations are purely advisory in nature. EPA appreciates
that such a study could contribute to the scientific knowledge base but
believes that NMFS, the expert Federal agency on fish behavior, would
be better suited than EPA to carry out such a study.

(5) NHPA

    EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon's Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to address National Historic Preservation
Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, which requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on districts,
sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register. EPA determined that no historic
properties were affected, or would be affected, by designation of the
Sites. EPA did not find any historic properties within the geographic
area of the Sites. This determination was based on an extensive review
of the National Register of Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon
National Register list and an assessment of cultural resources near the
Sites. Side scan sonar of the Sites did not reveal the presence of any
shipwrecks or other cultural or historic properties. The SHPO responded
to EPA's determination on September 11, 2008, without objection. The
SHPO clarified on October 13, 2008, that the designation of the Sites
did not require further archeological investigation.

5. Action

    EPA designates the Umpqua River Sites as EPA-approved dredged
material ocean disposal sites in this action. The monitoring and
management requirements that will apply to these Sites are described in
the final SMMP. EPA received one comment on the proposed rule from a
commenter who objected to disposing of harmful material in the ocean.
The Sites designated in this action are only available for the disposal
of material deemed suitable for ocean disposal. The designation of
ocean disposal sites for dredged material does not constitute or imply
Corps or EPA approval of open water disposal of dredged material from
any specific project. Before disposal of dredged material at either of
the Umpqua River Sites may commence by any person, EPA and the Corps
must evaluate the proposal according to the ocean dumping regulatory
criteria (40 CFR part 227) and authorize disposal. EPA independently
evaluates proposed dumping in accordance with those criteria pursuant
to 40 CFR part 225. EPA has the right to disapprove of the actual
disposal of dredged material if EPA determines that environmental
requirements under the MPRSA have not been met.

6. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule designates two ocean dredged material disposal sites
pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This rule complies with
applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

(1) Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. EPA
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.

(2) Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq., because this rule does not establish or modify any information or
recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.
    Burden means 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. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in Title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

(3) Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA determined that this final action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the final
rule will only have the effect of regulating the location of sites to
be used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of this rule, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

(4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

(5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government.'' This rule does not have federalism
implications. It does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

(6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the designation of the two ocean dredged
material disposal Sites will not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes,
on the relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this final rule, EPA consulted with tribal officials in the
development of this rule, particularly as the rule relates to potential
impacts to historic or cultural resources.

(7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The
action concerns the designation of two ocean dredged material disposal
Sites and only has the effect of providing designated locations to use
for ocean disposal of dredged material pursuant to Section 102(c) of
the MPRSA.

(8) Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

(9) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. This final action includes environmental monitoring and
measurement as described in EPA's final SMMP. EPA will not require the
use of specific, prescribed analytic methods for monitoring and
managing the designated Sites. The Agency plans to allow the use of any
method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not,
that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria discussed in the
final SMMP.

(10) Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. EPA determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness of designating
the disposal Sites against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable.

(11) Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective thirty days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 228--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (n)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (7) Umpqua River, OR--North and South Dredged Material Disposal
Sites.
    (i) North Umpqua River Site.
    (A) Location: 43[deg]41'23.09'' N, 124[deg]14'20.28'' W;
43[deg]41'25.86'' N, 124[deg]12'54.61'' W; 43[deg]40'43.62'' N,
124[deg]14'17.85'' W; 43[deg]40'46.37'' N, 124[deg]12'52.74'' W.
    (B) Size: Approximately 1.92 kilometers long and 1.22 kilometers
wide, with a drop zone which is defined as a 500-foot setback inscribed
within all sides of the site boundary, reducing the permissible
disposal area to a zone 5,300 feet long by 3,000 feet wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 9 to 37 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR
227.13, from the Umpqua River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
    (ii) South Umpqua River Site.
    (A) Location: 43[deg]39'32.31'' N, 124[deg]14'35.60'' W;
43[deg]39'35.23'' N, 124[deg]13'11.01'' W; 43[deg]38'53.08'' N,
124[deg]14'32.94'' W; 43[deg]38'55.82'' N, 124[deg]13'08.36'' W.
    (B) Size: Approximately 1.92 kilometers long and 1.22 kilometers
wide, with a drop zone which is defined as a 500-foot setback inscribed
within all sides of the site boundary, reducing the permissible
disposal area to a zone 5,300 feet long by 3,000 feet wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 9 to 37 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR
227.13, from the Umpqua River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-9434 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59395-59396]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2524-018--Oklahoma Salina Pumped Storage Project]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Revised Restricted Service
List for a Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides
that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative
efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list
should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the
judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect

to the phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is
established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Oklahoma Historical
Society (Oklahoma SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 f), to prepare a
programmatic agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places that could
be affected by issuance of a new license for the Salina Pumped Storage
Project No. 2524.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
Oklahoma SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's
section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried
out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is
terminated (36 CFR 800.13(e)). On March 28, 2011, the Commission staff
established a restricted service list for the Salina Pumped Storage
Project. Because Dr. Timothy G. Baugh, Historical Archaeologist,
Oklahoma Historical Society, retired, the restricted service list is
revised to remove his name.

    Dated: September 20, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23804 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12971-12972]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0473]

David E. Berman: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring
David E. Berman, MD, for 3 years from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Berman was
convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to
the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and that the type
of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the
regulation of drugs. Dr. Berman was given notice of the proposed
debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe
prescribed by regulation. Dr. Berman failed to respond. Dr. Berman's
failure to respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing
concerning this action.

DATES: This order is effective March 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory
Affairs (HFC-230), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(2)(B)(i)(I)) permits FDA to debar an individual if it finds
that the individual has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal
law for conduct relating to the regulation of drug products under the
FD&C Act and if FDA finds that the type of conduct that served as the
basis for the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of
drugs.
    On October 30, 2007, Dr. Berman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
offense of the introduction into interstate commerce of a misbranded
drug in violation of 21 U.S.C 331(a), 333(a)(1), and 352(i)(3), and
judgment was entered against Dr. Berman by the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the
misdemeanor conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for the
conviction is as follows: Dr. Berman is a medical doctor licensed by
the Virginia Department of Health Professions, specializing in plastic
surgery with an office in Sterling, VA. On or about January 16, 2004,
and on or about February 16, 2004, Dr. Berman caused TRI-toxin, an
unapproved botulinum toxin type A product, to be introduced into
interstate commerce by causing Toxin Research International, Inc., to
ship vials of TRI-toxin from Arizona to the Eastern District of
Virginia. TRI-toxin was a misbranded drug in that Dr. Berman offered it
for sale to, and used it on, thirty of his patients as BOTOX Cosmetic.
Dr. Berman did not disclose to his patients that he was using a
substitute, unapproved, unlicensed, and less expensive botulinum toxin
type A product. TRI-toxin was not duly registered with the FDA and,
therefore, the TRI-toxin is deemed misbranded.
    As a result of his convictions, on December 17, 2010, FDA sent Dr.
Berman a notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for 3 years
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
a finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act, that Dr.
Berman was convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct
relating to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act, and the
conduct that served as a basis for the conviction undermines the
process for the regulation of drugs. The proposal also offered Dr.
Berman an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from
the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and
advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of
the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Dr. Berman failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by
regulation and therefore has waived his opportunity for a hearing and
waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act,
under authority delegated to him (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds
that David E. Berman has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal
law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the
FD&C Act and that the type of conduct that served as a basis for the
conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Dr. Berman is debarred for 3
years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512,
or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
DATES), (see sections 306(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 201(dd) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(iii), and 321(dd))). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Dr. Berman, in any capacity during Dr.
Berman's debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Dr. Berman
provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or
pending drug product application during his period of debarment, he
will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C
Act. In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new
drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Dr. Berman
during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
    Any application by Dr. Berman for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2010-N-0473 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: February 16, 2011.
Howard R. Sklamberg,
Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-5308 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75609-75611]
[DOCID:fr12de08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA-8053]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of each community's scheduled
suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of
the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region III

Virginia:
    Goochland County,                  510072  April 19, 1973,    Dec. 2, 2008..........  Dec. 2, 2008.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; March 1,
                                                1979, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Hanover County,                    510237  April 4, 1974,     ......*do.............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; September
                                                2, 1981, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.

           Region IV

North Carolina:
    Avery County,                      370010  February 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1976, Emerg;
                                                September 28,
                                                1990, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Banner Elk, Town of, Avery         370011  November 13,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                January 15,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Beech Mountain, Town of,           370480  --, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     Watauga County.                            12, 2004, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Crossnore, Town of, Avery          370287  January 14, 1980,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                19, 1986, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Elk Park, Town of, Avery           370382  March 23, 1979,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 15,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Newland, Town of, Avery            370012  September 17,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                December 4,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
Tennessee:
    Adamsville, Town of,               470292  March 30, 1982,    ......do..............   Do.
     McNairy County.                            Emerg; September
                                                29, 1986, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Michie, City of, McNairy           470336  September 14,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    2006, Emerg;
                                                December 1,
                                                2006, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Ramer, Town of, McNairy            470131  July 17, 2002,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; November
                                                1, 2005, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.

            Region V

Michigan:
    Caseville, Township of,            260257  November 9, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              Emerg; December
                                                1, 1977, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Caseville, Village of,             260677  May 28, 1982,      ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              Emerg; January
                                                1, 1992, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Elkton, Village of, Huron          260569  September 3,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1981, Emerg; May
                                                25, 1984, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Fairhaven, Township of,            260628  August 12, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              Emerg; January
                                                6, 1988, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Gore, Township of, Huron           260785  December 16,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1986, Emerg;
                                                September 18,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Hume, Township of, Huron           260792  January 29, 1987,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                18, 1987, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Huron, Township of, Huron          260415  July 15, 1987,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 2,
                                                1992, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Lake, Township of, Huron           260254  January 30, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 3,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    McKinley, Township of,             260322  November 26,       ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              1974, Emerg;
                                                July 1, 1987,
                                                Reg; December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Oliver, Township of, Huron         261312  December 4, 2002,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; --, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Port Austin, Township of,          260290  April 17, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              Emerg; January
                                                1, 1992, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Rubicon, Township of, Huron        260789  December 22,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1986, Emerg;
                                                September 30,
                                                1988, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Sand Beach, Township of,           260787  December 16,       ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              1986, Emerg;
                                                September 18,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Sebewaing, Village of,             260572  March 24, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     Huron County.                              Emerg; December
                                                3, 1987, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Sherman, Township of, Huron        260788  December 15,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1986, Emerg;
                                                September 18,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.

Ohio:
    Holmes County,                     390276  October 25, 1977,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; December
                                                15, 1990, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Killbuck, Village of,              390279  August 27, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Holmes County.                             Emerg; February
                                                5, 1986, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.

           Region IX

California:
    Cotati, City of, Sonoma            060377  July 22, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 15,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                December 2,
                                                2008, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp--Suspension.

    Dated: November 28, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-29456 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13538]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-84-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application

March 6, 2008.
    Take notice that on March 3, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE, Charleston, West
Virginia 25314, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),
filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity, seeking authority to test and evaluate its Coco C storage
field located in Kanawha County, West Virginia. Columbia will collect
and analyze the information it obtains to validate using these storage
fields to develop further storage services, all as more fully set forth
in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. This filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at FERCOnlineSupport or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Fredric J. Geroge, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation,
PO Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax
(304) 357-3206.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    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.
    Comment Date: March 27, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5026 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36688-36689]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

July 15, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-826-000.
    Applicants: Central New York Oil and Gas Co., LLC.
    Description: Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 103A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/13/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090714-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-827-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: 2009 Annual Report of Cash Out Activity of Cimarron
River Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090714-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-828-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 99A to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090714-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-829-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits two
amendments to an existing negotiated rate Transportation Rate Schedule
FTS Agreement between MEP and Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/14/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090714-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 27, 2009.

    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. E9-17664 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 32064]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC06-122-000]

James A. Goodman, as Receiver for Certain Assets of PMCC Calpine
New England Investment LLC; U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee;
Notice of Filing

May 25, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2006, James A. Goodman, as Receiver For
Certain Assets of PMCC Calpine New England Investment LLC and U.S. Bank
National Association, as Trustee for certain creditors, filed an
application, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act and part
33 of the Commission's Regulations, to transfer control of two electric
generating plants located in Tiverton, Rhode Island and Rumford, Maine.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 8, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8524 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P