Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\.  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Moderate.
    Cook County
    DuPage County
    Grundy County (part)
        Aux Sable Township
        Goose Lake Township
    Kane County
    Kendall County (part)
        Oswego Township
    Lake County
    McHenry County
    Will County
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,   ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
 MO-IL: \2\.
    Madison County
    Monroe County
    St. Clair County

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
30. Section 81.315 is amended in the table for ``Indiana--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                        Indiana--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\.  ..............  Nonattainment........         6/3/16.  Moderate.
    Lake County
    Porter County

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
0
31. Section 81.321 is amended in the table for ``Maryland--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE'';
0
b. Revising the heading entry ``Washington, DC-MD-VA''; and
0
c. Adding a footnote ``4''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  81.321  Maryland.

* * * * *

                                        Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic    ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
 City, PA-NJ-MD-DE: \2\.
    Cecil County..................  ..............  .....................  ..............  .....................
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\.........  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\ 4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
32. Section 81.326 is amended in the table for ``Missouri--2008--8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the heading entry for
``St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL'' and adding a footnote ``4''
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.326  Missouri.

* * * * *

                                        Missouri--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,   ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
 MO-IL: \2\.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
33. Amend Sec.  81.331 by revising the table for ``New Jersey--2008 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.331  New Jersey.

* * * * *

                                       New Jersey--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-N. New Jersey-Long         ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Moderate.
 Island, NY-NJ-CT: \2\.
    1Bergen County................
    Essex County..................
    Hudson County.................
    Hunterdon County..............
    Middlesex County..............
    Monmouth County...............
    Morris County.................
    Passaic County................
    Somerset County...............
    Sussex County.................
    Union County..................
    Warren County.................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic    ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\3\.
 City, PA-NJ-MD-DE: \2\.
    Atlantic County...............
    Burlington County.............
    Camden County.................
    Cape May County...............  ..............
    Cumberland County.............
    Gloucester County.............
    Mercer County.................
    Ocean County..................
    Salem County..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
34. Section 81.333 is amended in the table for ``New York--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for ``New
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.333  New York.

* * * * *

                                        New York--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
New York-N. New Jersey-Long         ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Moderate.
 Island, NY-NJ-CT: \2\.
    Bronx County..................
    Kings County..................
    Nassau County.................
    New York County...............
    Queens County.................
    Richmond County...............
    Rockland County...............
    Suffolk County................
    Westchester County............
    Shinnecock Indian Nation \3\..

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information
  pertaining to areas of Indian country in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an
  EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA lacks the authority to
  establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this
  table.

* * * * *
0
35. Section 81.336 is amended in the table for ``Ohio--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                         Ohio--2008--8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH: \2\...  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
    Ashtabula County..............
    Cuyahoga County...............
    Geauga County.................
    Lake County...................
    Lorain County.................
    Medina County.................
    Portage County................
    Summit County.................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
36. Section 81.339 is amended in the table for ``Pennsylvania--2008 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE'' and
``Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                      Pennsylvania--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              Type              Date\1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic    ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
 City, PA-NJ-MD-DE \2\.
    Bucks County..................
    Chester County................
    Delaware County...............
    Montgomery County.............
    Philadelphia County...........
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA \2\..  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
    Allegheny County..............
    Armstrong County..............
    Beaver County.................
    Butler County.................
    Fayette County................
    Washington County.............
    Westmoreland County...........

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
37. Section 81.344 is amended in the table for ``Texas--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  81.344  Texas.

* * * * *

                                         Texas--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              Type              Date\1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX:\2\  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
    Brazoria County...............
    Chambers County...............
    Fort Bend County..............
    Galveston County..............
    Harris County.................
    Liberty County................
    Montgomery County.............
    Waller County.................

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
38. Section 81.347 is amended in the table for ``Virginia--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by revising the entries for
``Washington, DC-MD-VA'' and adding a footnote ``4'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.347  Virginia.

* * * * *

                                        Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
        Designated area \1\        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \2\              Type             Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\.........  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\
    Arlington County..............
    Fairfax County................
    Loudoun County................
    Prince William County.........
    Alexandria City...............
    Fairfax City..................
    Falls Church City.............
    Manassas City.................
    Manassas Park City............

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *

0
39. Section 81.350 is amended in the table for ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' by:
0
a. Revising the heading entry for ``Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI'' and
the entries for ``Sheboygan County, WI''; and
0
b. Adding a footnote ``4''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

                                       Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI: \2\.  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Moderate.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sheboygan County, WI: \2\.........  ..............  Nonattainment........          6/3/16  Marginal.\4\

    Sheboygan County..............

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * *
\4\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2016.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-09729 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68316-68317]
[DOCID:fr18no08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0529; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-6]

Establishment and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Havasu, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Lake Havasu,
AZ. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment
(VOR/DME) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at Lake Havasu City Airport, Lake Havasu, AZ. This
action also will revoke Class E airspace at the old Lake Havasu
Airport, Lake Havasu, AZ, as that airport has been abandoned. This will
improve the safety and management of aircraft operations at Lake Havasu
City Airport, Lake Havasu, AZ.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 21, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish controlled airspace at Lake
Havasu, AZ, (73 FR 42284). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Lake Havasu City Airport,
Lake Havasu, AZ. This rulemaking also removes the Class E airspace area
at the old Lake Havasu Airport, which has been abandoned. Controlled
airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft using VOR/DME (GPS)
approach procedures at Lake Havasu City Airport, Lake Havasu, AZ.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAAs authority to issue
rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at Lake Havasu City Airport, Lake Havasu, AZ, and
removes Class E airspace at the old abandoned Lake Havasu Airport.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Lake Havasu, AZ [Revoked]

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Lake Havasu, AZ

Lake Havasu City, AZ
    (Lat. 34[deg]34'16'' N., long. 114[deg]21'30'' W.)
Chemehuevi Valley Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]31'44'' N., long. 114[deg]25'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4-mile radius of Lake Havasu City Airport, excluding that
airspace with a 1.5-mile radius of Chemehuevi Valley Airport. That
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
by a line beginning at lat. 34[deg]42'47'' N., long. 114[deg]29'37''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]42'47'' N., long. 114[deg]12'00'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]23'54'' N., long. 114[deg]12'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]18'13''
N., long. 114[deg]32'12'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 5, 2008.
Kathryn Higgins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
 [FR Doc. E8-27277 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 79379-79381]
[DOCID:fr20de10-941]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Food and Drug
Administration Expanding In Vivo Biomarker Detection Devices Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public workshop cosponsored with the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA): Expanding In Vivo Biomarker Detection Devices Workshop.
    The DARPA Defense Sciences Office and the FDA Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (CDRH) are hosting a workshop to discuss
current state-of-the-art and innovative research opportunities in the
area of in vivo analytical devices capable of measuring biomarkers that
characterize normal biological processes, pathologic

processes, and pharmacologic responses. In particular, this workshop
will focus on the technical challenges for developing implanted or
continuously applied devices capable of measuring and monitoring
clinically relevant molecular biomarkers (small molecules, proteins,
peptides, and nucleic acids) to alert the user of the need for clinical
attention and/or to inform the clinician with regard to appropriate
action.
    Date and Time: The workshop will be held on February 9, 2011, from
7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The workshop will be held at the Executive Conference
Center at Liberty Center, 4075 Wilson Blvd., suite 350, Arlington, VA
22203.
    Contact: Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5410, Silver Spring, MD 20903,
301-796-5420, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Daniel
Wattendorf, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 3701 North
Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Administrative
questions about the workshop should be directed to the attention of Ms.
Jenifer Schimmenti (jschimmenti@sainc.com).
    Registration and Requests for Presentations: Registration logistics
will be managed by DARPA according to instructions posted on their Web
site at http://www.sa-meetings.com/DARPA_FDA_Workshop (login:
DARPAFDA, password: arlington), including instructions for registration
and presentation of previous or potential research and development
capabilities consistent with the workshop goals in order to facilitate
discussions. The deadline to submit abstracts and requests for poster
presentations is listed on the DARPA Web site. After the deadline
posted, no submissions will be considered.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Jenifer Schimmenti (see Contact) at least 7 days in advance.
    Transcripts: There will not be a transcription of this workshop.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Currently available glucose monitoring systems provide the most
developed approach to continuous monitoring of a biomarker in real-
time. Despite FDA approval for human use and extensive research and
development, these monitoring systems exhibit several important
limitations including accuracy/precision, durability, adaptability, and
reliability. For example, many of these technologies are limited to
detecting one biomarker (glucose) in real-time and the approach cannot
be used for the detection of other classes of biomarkers (e.g., nucleic
acids), nor do they have the capabilities for being multiplexed.
Additionally, these technologies also require frequent secondary
testing of blood glucose levels to assure the performance and accuracy
of the device. Such technical challenges limit the ability to
conveniently monitor health status in real-time settings outside of the
patient-physician encounter. These challenges are not isolated to
implantable/applied technologies. Available in vitro tools are
primarily developed for intermittent measurements, typically within a
clinical environment, and do not account for biologic dynamics or
responses to environmental stimuli.
    With accelerating advances in genomics, epigenomics,
transcriptomics, proteomics, and microbiomics, innumerable biomarkers
could be informative for the health/disease of individuals and/or
populations, particularly when considering potential exposure to
allergens, infections, and toxins. Owing to the typical paradigm for
development of diagnostic devices, these next generation class of
biomarkers that function either as a surrogate endpoint for efficacy or
an adverse response do not have their clinical utility qualified in the
real-world setting. Without a device to accurately measure predictive
biomarkers either continuously or at an acceptable interval, clinical
utility may be difficult to establish and translation to accepted
screening or diagnostic testing may be impaired. Qualification of
biomarkers that inform an individual to seek medical attention or guide
a medical provider toward an intervention or clinical decision, within
the context of an implanted/applied technology, is a priority.
    DARPA and CDRH are seeking to understand challenges and develop
technological advancements necessary to enable in vivo medical devices
for biomarker detection. While glucose is a critical biomarker,
workshop interest will focus broadly on technologies for detection of
next-generation biomarkers including chemical biomarkers, proteins,
peptides, and nucleic acids. The workshop will address the challenges
for developing in vivo devices to clinically validate biomarkers for
disease screening, surveillance, prediction of therapeutic response, or
prognosis, as well as the potential for using an in vivo approach to
measure biomarkers for safety and effectiveness of a therapy
(metabolites, toxicity, or surrogate endpoints) as part of a real-time
Phase 4 postmarketing surveillance.
    The workshop will not focus on the discovery or identification of
relevant biomarkers or potential surrogates. Instead, the workshop will
focus on critical topic areas and specific technical challenges related
to the development of in vivo technologies capable of biomarker
detection.
    We encourage you to address the following specific technical
challenges related to development of in vivo devices:
     Novel materials: Materials and chemistries that can be
safely applied for continuous in vivo detection of biomarkers, and do
not induce/stimulate a biological response (e.g., inflammation).
     Device design for analytical validation: Methods for
maximizing and verifying accuracy, sensitivity, specificity,
reproducibility, and reliability of in vivo biomarker detection
methods.
     Minimal invasiveness: Device delivery methods and device
size reduction, to include issues related to on-board versus external
power, communication, and processing.
     Maximum duration: Operational lifetime of the implanted
device to include overcoming bio-fouling, enhanced biocompatibility,
and continuous versus periodic measurements.
     Capacity to measure multiple biomarkers simultaneously.
     Capacity to be rapidly adapted to measure an emerging
biomarker of concern.
     Potential for using an in vivo approach to clinically
validate biomarkers for disease screening, surveillance, prediction of
therapeutic response, or prognosis.
    Ideally, these challenges are within the context of the following,
as summarized in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Evaluation of
Biomarker and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease 2010 Consensus
Report (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12869):
    1. Analytical validation to assure biomarker tests are reliable,
reproducible, and adequately sensitive and specific.
    2. Qualification to assure the measurement methods can be
correlated to a clinical outcome of concern.
    3. Utilization analysis to determine that the biomarker used to
develop the technology is appropriate.
    The goals of this workshop are to define the current state-of-the-
art and innovative research opportunities and challenges in developing
such devices.

Participants are asked to submit an abstract of no more than 250 words
to explain their research efforts and how they specifically pertain to
the objectives of the Expanding In Vivo Biomarker Detection Devices
Workshop. A workshop representative will contact participants after
abstract submission.

    Dated: December 14, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-31811 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48138-48145]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Jordan Cove Energy Project LP--Docket No. PF12-7-000: Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline LP--Docket No. PF12-17-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Planned Jordan Cove Liquefaction and Pacific Connector Pipeline
Projects, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meetings

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission), in cooperation with other federal agencies, will prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the
environmental impacts of Jordan Cove Energy Project LP's (Jordan Cove)
proposed liquefaction project in Coos County, Oregon, and Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline LP's (Pacific Connector) proposed pipeline
project crossing portions of Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos
Counties, Oregon. The FERC is the lead federal agency in the
preparation of an EIS to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The United States (U.S.) Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy
(DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service),
and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and Fish and Wildlife
Service are cooperating agencies assisting the FERC in preparation of
the EIS.
    The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process, to
determine whether the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal
is in the public interest, and whether the Pacific Connector pipeline
is in the public convenience and necessity, in accordance with the
Natural Gas Act (NGA). The BLM and Forest Service propose to adopt the
FERC EIS in accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1506.3 to support decisions and findings that must be made by each
agency with respect to the Pacific Connector pipeline project.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission, Forest Service, BLM, and Reclamation will use to gather
input from the public and interested agencies on the planned projects.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues should
be evaluated in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close
on September 4, 2012.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending in written comments, the Commission invites you to make verbal
comments \1\ at the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Verbal comments at the public scoping meetings will be
transcribed by a court reporter and placed into the public record
for these proceedings.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monday, August 27, 2012, 6:30 p.m.  Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
Southwestern Oregon Community        Umpqua Community College, Campus
 College, Hales Performing Arts       Center Dining Room, 1140 Umpqua
 Center, 1988 Newmark Ave., Coos      College Rd., Roseburg, OR 97470,
 Bay, OR 97420,<PHONE_NUMBER><PHONE_NUMBER>

  Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 6:30     Thursday, August 30, 2012, 6:30
                p.m.                                 p.m.
Oregon Institute of Technology,      Medford School District, Education
 College Union Auditorium, 3201       Center Auditorium, 815 S. Oakdale
 Campus Dr., Klamath Falls, OR        Ave., Medford, OR 97501, 541-842-
 97601,<PHONE_NUMBER>                  3636.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for these projects. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents about these projects
and this scoping effort, and encourage interested members of the public
to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a Pacific Connector
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Pacific Connector pipeline project, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation
would be determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Background

    On December 17, 2009, the Commission issued an Order authorizing
the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal in Docket No. CP07-444-000 and
Pacific Connector pipeline in Docket No. CP07-441-000. The Commission
vacated those authorizations in an Order issued April 16, 2012, after
Jordan Cove submitted its request to begin the pre-filing process to
change the facility's purpose from an LNG import terminal to an export
terminal.
    The FERC staff and cooperating agencies produced an EIS for the
previous projects in May 2009. The new EIS for the currently proposed
projects will make use of the previous analyses, update information, as
needed, and evaluate the impacts associated with the new or modified
facilities and routes.

Summary of the Planned Projects

    Jordan Cove proposes to construct and operate an LNG export
terminal on the North Spit of Coos Bay. The terminal would have the
capacity to produce about six million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of
LNG (equivalent to 0.9 billion cubic feet per day [Bcf/d] of natural
gas). Facilities would include:
     7.3-mile-long waterway in Coos Bay for about 80 LNG
carriers per year;
     0.3-mile-long access channel and marine berth;
     A cryogenic transfer pipeline;
     Two 160,000 cubic meter LNG storage tanks;
     Four liquefaction trains (each with a capacity of 1.5
MMTPA);
     two feed gas and dehydration trains with a combined
throughput of 1 Bcf/d of natural gas; and
     a 350 megawatt South Dunes power plant.
    The Pacific Connector pipeline would be 36-inches-in-diameter and
about 230-miles-long, extending from interconnections with other
interstate pipelines near Malin, Oregon to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal
at Coos Bay. The pipeline would have a design capacity of 0.9 Bcf/d of
natural gas. Related facilities include:
     Two meter stations at the interconnections with the
existing Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) and Ruby pipelines near
Malin, in Klamath County, Oregon;
     A 23,000-horsepower compressor station adjacent to the GTN
and Ruby meter stations;
     A meter station at the interconnection with the existing
Williams Northwest Pipeline system near Myrtle Creek, in Douglas
County, Oregon; and
     A meter station at the Jordan Cove terminal, in Coos
County, Oregon.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The newly proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in PF12-7-000
occupies the same footprint that was analyzed in our \3\ May 2009 EIS,
with the addition of the South Dunes power plant at the location of the
previously proposed dredged material placement area. Likewise, the
Pacific Connector pipeline as proposed in Docket PF12-17-000 basically
follows the route that was previously analyzed, with a few minor
adjustments, and the relocation of the compressor station to the east
end of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As presented in our May 2009 EIS, construction of the Jordan Cove's
LNG terminal would affect about 390 acres onshore, with an additional
72 acres needed to construct the marine berth and access channel for
the LNG ships in Coos Bay. Construction of the Pacific Connector
pipeline would affect a total of about 6,217 acres. The permanent
operational easement for the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) and
aboveground facilities would occupy about 1,439 acres.

The EIS Scoping Process

    The NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, or makes a public interest determination. The NEPA also
requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned projects under these
general headings:
     Land use;
     Geology and soils;
     Water resources and wetlands;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Cultural resources;
     Recreation and visual resources;
     Air quality and noise; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned projects
or portions of the projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various environmental resources. The EIS will
present our independent analysis of the issues.
    Although no formal applications have been filed yet, we have
already initiated

our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose
of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of
interested stakeholders, and to identify and resolve issues before the
FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have
begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The COE, DOE, Forest Service, BLM, and Reclamation also have
responsibilities under the NEPA, and can adopt the EIS for their own
agencies purposes. The BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service will use
this EIS to evaluate the effects of the Pacific Connector pipeline
project on lands and facilities managed by these agencies. The BLM and
Forest Service will also use the EIS to address proposed amendments of
their respective land management plans \4\ that may be necessary to
make provision for the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BLM land management plans are called ``Resource Management
Plans'' or RMPs. Forest Service land management plans are called
``Land and Resource Management Plans'' or LRMPs. The term ``land
management plan'' is generic and may apply to either an RMP or LRMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, we are asking other agencies with jurisdiction by
law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to the projects to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\5\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at 40 CFR 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will publish and distribute a draft EIS for public comment.
After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To
ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments,
please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation
section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), we are using this notice to initiate
consultations with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), and to solicit its views, and those of other government
agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects'
potential effects on historic properties.\6\ The EIS will define the
project-specific area of potential effects (APE), determined in
consultation with the SHPO. On natural gas projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (including
the construction ROW, temporary extra workspaces, contractor/pipe
storage yards, compressor stations and other aboveground facilities,
and access roads). The EIS will document our findings on the projects'
potential impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106. The cooperating agencies will also
participate in the section 106 consultation process to ensure that
their requirements under the NHPA are met.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at 36 CFR part 800. Those regulations define historic properties
as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure,
or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register for Historic Places.
    \7\ We and the federal land managing agencies previously
executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to resolve adverse effects
at historic properties for the Jordan Cove LNG terminal and Pacific
Connector pipeline in Docket Nos. CP07-441-000 and CP07-444-000. The
MOA will be amended for the new proposals under Docket Nos. PF12-7-
000 and PF12-17-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant
issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis,
including alternatives. Scoping also allows the public to comment on
the BLM and Forest Service plan amendment process, and the
consideration of a ROW Grant.
    Based in part on our previous environmental analysis, information
provided by Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector for their new proposals,
and input from other federal and state resource agencies, and other
stakeholders, we have already identified several issues that we think
deserve attention during our current review. This preliminary list of
environmental issues may change based on your comments and our further
analysis. The FERC staff identified the following preliminary list of
issues:
     Reliability and safety for LNG carrier traffic in Coos
Bay, the LNG terminal, and the pipeline;
     Impacts on aquatic resources from dredging the LNG
terminal access channel and berth, and pipeline trenching in Coos Bay;
     Geological hazards to the LNG terminal from seismic
activity;
     Geological hazards, including landslides at steep slopes,
along the pipeline route;
     Impacts of pipeline construction on federally listed
threatened and endangered species, including salmon, marbled murrelet,
and northern spotted owl;
     Impacts of pipeline construction on private landowners;
and
     Visual impacts resulting from construction and operation
of the projects.
    Preliminary issues for the plan amendments have been identified by
BLM and Forest Service staff. The issues include:
     Effects of proposed amendments on Survey and Manage
species and their habitat;
     Effects of proposed amendments on contiguous existing or
recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets within 0.5 mile of occupied
marbled murrelet sites;
     Effects of proposed amendments on habitat in Known Owl
Activity Centers (KOAC); and
     Effects of the proposed amendments on Late Successional
Reserves (LSR).
    Preliminary BLM and Forest Service planning criteria include:
     Evaluation of significance of proposed amendments of
Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) in the context
of goals and objectives of the affected LRMPs. Whether a plan amendment
is significant is guided by several factors, including the timing and
duration of the proposed change, the location and size of the project,
and how the proposed change could alter multiple-use goals and
objectives for long-term land and resource management;
     Likelihood of persistence of affected Survey and Manage
species within the range of the northern spotted owl;
     Amount and quality of marbled murrelet habitat affected by
construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project;
     Amount and quality of habitat in KOAC affected by
construction and operation of the Pacific Connector pipeline project;
     Functionality of LSR; and
     Impacts on Connectivity and Diversity Blocks on BLM lands.
    The BLM and Forest Service seek public input on issues and planning
criteria related to amendment of their District and Forest land
management plans related to the Pacific Connector pipeline project. The
BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service also seek public input on issues
and planning criteria related to issuance of the ROW Grant, as
discussed below (under Proposed Actions of the BLM and Forest Service).

Proposed Actions of the DOE

    The DOE must meet its obligation under section 3 of the NGA, to
authorize the import and export of natural gas, including LNG, unless
it finds that the proposed import or export will not be consistent with
the public interest. The purpose and need for DOE actions is to respond
to the application filed by Jordan Cove with the DOE on March 23, 2012
(FE Docket No. 12-32-LNG), seeking authorization to export up to 6
MMTPA of LNG, an export volume equivalent to about 292 Bcf per year of
natural gas, for a 25-year period, commencing the earlier of the date
of first export or seven years from the date of issuance of the
requested authorization. The LNG proposed for export would be from
Jordan Cove's proposed Coos Bay terminal to any country: (1) With which
the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement requiring the national
treatment for trade in natural gas; (2) that has, or in the future
develops, the capacity to import LNG; and (3) with which trade is not
prohibited by U.S. law or policy.
    Because the proposed projects may involve actions in floodplains,
in accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review Requirements, the EIS will include a
floodplain assessment, as appropriate. A floodplain statement of
findings will be included in any DOE determinations.

Proposed Actions of the BLM and Forest Service

    The purpose of and need for the proposed action by the BLM is to
respond to a ROW Grant application originally submitted by Pacific
Connector on April 17, 2006 to construct, operate, maintain, and
eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and
facilities administered by the BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service. In
addition, there is a need for the BLM and the Forest Service to
consider amending affected District and Forest land management plans to
make provision for the Pacific Connector ROW.
    The proposed action of the BLM and Forest Service has two
components. First, the BLM would amend its Resource Management Plans
(RMP) for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford Districts, and Klamath
Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District; while the Forest Service
would amend its LRMPs for the Umpqua, Rogue River, and Winema National
Forests to make provisions for the Pacific Connector pipeline project.
Reclamation has no land use plan amendments associated with this
action. Second, in accordance with 43 CFR 2882.3(i), the BLM would
issue a ROW Grant in response to Pacific Connector's application for
the project to occupy federal lands, with the written concurrence of
the Forest Service and Reclamation. Each agency may submit specific
stipulations, including mitigation measures, for inclusion in the ROW
Grant related to lands, facilities, and easements within their
respective jurisdictions.
    The Secretary of the Interior has delegated authority to the BLM to
grant a ROW in response to Pacific Connector's application for natural
gas transmission on federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920. The Responsible Official for amendments of BLM RMPs and issuance
of the ROW Grant is the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director. The
Responsible Official for amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the
Forest Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest. The Responsible
Official for concurrence on issuance of the ROW Grant by Reclamation is
the Area Manager of the Mid-Pacific Region's Klamath Basin Area Office.
In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), the Deciding Official for the
Forest Service has elected to use the 1982 planning rule procedures to
amend Forest Service LRMPs as provided in the transition procedures of
the 2000 planning rule.
    If the BLM adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific Connector
pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the Oregon/Washington
State Director of the BLM will make the following decisions and
determinations:
     Determine whether to amend the RMPs for the BLM Coos Bay,
Roseburg, and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of
the Lakeview District as proposed or as described in an alternative to
the Proposed Action; and
     Respond to the Pacific Connector application, with
concurrence of Reclamation and Forest Service, by issuing a ROW Grant,
granting the ROW with conditions, or denying the application.
    If the Forest Service adopts the new FERC EIS for the Pacific
Connector pipeline project (in Docket No. PF12-17-000), the Forest
Supervisor of the Umpqua National Forest will make the following
decisions and determinations:
     Decide whether to amend the LRMPs of the Umpqua, Rogue
River, and Winema National Forests as proposed or as described in an
alternative; and
     Determine the significance of the proposed amendments or
alternatives in accordance with national forest planning regulation 36
CFR 219.10(f) (1982 procedures) using criteria in Forest Service Manual
1926.5

Amendment of BLM and Forest Service Land Management Plans

BLM/FS-1--Site-Specific Waiver of Management Recommendations for Survey
and Manage Species on the BLM Coos Bay District, Roseburg District,
Medford District, and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview
District RMPs, and the Umpqua National Forest, Rogue River National
Forest, and Winema National Forest LRMPs
    Applicable BLM District RMPs and National Forest LRMPs would be
amended to exempt certain known sites within the area of the proposed
Pacific Connector ROW Grant from the Management Recommendations
required by the 2001 ``Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines
for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other
Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines,'' as modified in July
2011. For known sites within the proposed ROW that cannot be avoided,
the 2001 Management Recommendations for protection of known sites of
Survey and Manage species would not apply. For known sites located
outside the proposed ROW but with an overlapping protection buffer only
that portion of the buffer within the ROW would be exempt from the
protection requirements of the Management Recommendations. Those
Management Recommendations would remain in effect for that portion of
the protection buffer that is outside of the ROW. The proposed
amendment would not exempt the BLM or the Forest Service from the
requirements of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision, as
modified, to maintain species persistence for affected Survey and
Manage species within the range of the northern spotted owl. This is a
site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW
and would not change future management direction at any other location.

Amendments of BLM RMPs

BLM-1--Site-Specific Exemption of Requirement To Protect Marbled
Murrelet Habitat on the BLM Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts
    The Coos Bay District and Roseburg District RMPs would be amended
to waive the requirements to protect contiguous existing and
recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets within the Pacific Connector
ROW that is within 0.5 miles of occupied marbled murrelet sites, as
mapped by the BLM. This is a

site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW
and would not change future management direction at any other location.
BLM-2--Site Specific Exemption of Requirement To Retain Habitat in KOAC
on the BLM Roseburg District
    The Roseburg District RMP would be amended to exempt the Pacific
Connector pipeline project from the requirement to retain habitat in
KOAC at three locations. This is a site-specific amendment applicable
only to the Pacific Connector ROW and would not change future
management direction at any other location.
BLM-3--Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR, Roseburg District
    The Roseburg District RMP would be amended to change the
designation of approximately 409 acres from Matrix land allocations to
the LSR land allocation in Sections 32 and 34, Township (T.) 29\1/2\
South (S.), Range (R.) 7 West (W.); and Section 1, T.30S.,
R.7W.,Willamette Meridian (W.M.), Oregon (OR). This change in land
allocation is proposed to mitigate the potential adverse impact of the
Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSRs in the Roseburg District.
The amendment would change future management direction for the lands
reallocated from Matrix lands to LSR.
BLM-4--Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR, Coos Bay District
    The Coos Bay District RMP would be amended to change the
designation of approximately 454 acres from Matrix land allocations to
the LSR land allocation in Sections 19 and 29 of T.28S., R.10W., W.M.,
OR. This change in land allocation is proposed to mitigate the
potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on
LSRs in the Coos Bay District. The amendment would change future
management direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix lands to
LSR.

Amendment of the Umpqua National Forest LRMP

UNF-1--Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Removal of Effective Shade on
Perennial Streams
    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
Standards and Guidelines for Fisheries (Umpqua National Forest LRMP,
page IV-33, Forest-Wide) to allow the removal of effective shading
vegetation where perennial streams are crossed by the Pacific Connector
ROW. This change would potentially affect an estimated total of three
acres of effective shading vegetation at approximately five perennial
stream crossings in the East Fork of Cow Creek subwatershed from
pipeline mileposts (MP) 109 to 110 in Sections 16 and 21, T.32S.,
R.2W., W.M., OR. This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to
the Pacific Connector ROW and would not change future management
direction at any other location.
UNF-2--Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Utility Corridors in Riparian
Areas
    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change
prescriptions C2-II (LRMP IV-173) and C2-IV (LRMP IV-177) to allow the
Pacific Connector pipeline route to run parallel to the East Fork of
Cow Creek for approximately 0.1 mile between about pipeline MPs 109.5
and 109.6 in Section 21, T.32S., R.2W., W. M., OR. This change would
potentially affect approximately one acre of riparian vegetation along
the East Fork of Cow Creek. This is a site-specific amendment
applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW and would not change
future management direction at any other location.
UNF-3--Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil
Conditions Within the Pacific Connector ROW in All Management Areas
    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive
limitations on the area affected by detrimental soil conditions from
displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector ROW. Standards
and Guidelines for Soils (LRMP page IV-67) requires that not more than
20 percent of the project area have detrimental compaction,
displacement, or puddling after completion of a project. This is a
site-specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW
and would not change future management direction at any other location.
UNF-4--Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR
    The Umpqua National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
designation of approximately 588 acres from Matrix land allocations to
the LSR land allocation in Sections 7, 18, and 19, T.32S., R.2W.; and
Sections 13 and 24, T.32S., R.3W., W.M., OR. This change in land
allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the potential adverse
impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on LSR 223 on the
Umpqua National Forest. This amendment would change future management
direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix to LSR.

Amendment of the Rogue River National Forest LRMP

RRNF-1--Amendment To Provide for Energy Transmission
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to establish
a Forest Plan objective that states: ``While considering other multiple
use values, the Forest shall facilitate and make provision for energy
transmission via the Pacific Connector consistent with the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Natural Gas Act, the
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the National Forest Management
Act.''
RRNF-2--Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) on
the Big Elk Road
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
VQO where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road
at about pipeline MP 161.4 in Section 16, T.37S., R.4E., W.M., OR, from
Foreground Retention (Management Strategy 6, LRMP page 4-72) to
Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7, LRMP page 4-86)
and allow 10-15 years for amended VQO to be attained. The existing
Standards and Guidelines for VQO in Foreground Retention where the
Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Big Elk Road require that
VQOs be met within one year of completion of the project and that
management activities not be visually evident. This amendment would
apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of
Big Elk Road and would not change future management direction for any
other project.
RRNF-3--Site-Specific Amendment of VQO on the Pacific Crest Trail
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
VQO where the Pacific Connector pipeline route crosses the Pacific
Crest Trail at about pipeline MP 168 in Section 32, T.37S., R.5E.,
W.M., OR, from Foreground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 7,
LRMP page 4-86) to Modification (USDA Forest Service Agricultural
Handbook 478) and to allow 15-20 years for amended VQOs to be attained.
The existing Standards and Guidelines for VQOs in Foreground Partial
Retention in the area where the Pacific Connector pipeline route
crosses the Pacific Crest Trail require that visual mitigation measures
meet the stated VQO within three years of the completion of the project
and that management activities be visually subordinate to the
landscape. This

amendment would apply only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in
the vicinity of the Pacific Crest Trail and would not change future
management direction for any other project.
RRNF-4--Site-Specific Amendment of Visual Quality Objectives Adjacent
to Highway 140
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-
15 years to meet the VQO of Middleground Partial Retention between
Pacific Connector pipeline MPs 156.3 to 156.8 and 157.2 to 157.5 in
Sections 11 and 12, T.37S., R.3E., W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines
for Middleground Partial Retention (Management Strategy 9, LRMP Page 4-
112) require that VQOs for a given location be achieved within three
years of completion of the project. Approximately 0.8 miles or 9 acres
of the Pacific Connector ROW in the Middleground Partial Retention VQO
visible at distances of 0.75 to 5 miles from State Highway 140 would be
affected by this amendment. This amendment would apply only to the
Pacific Connector pipeline project in Sections 11 and 12, T.37S.,
R.3E., W.M., OR, and would not change future management direction for
any other project.
RRNF-5--Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Utility Transmission Corridors
in Management Strategy 26, Restricted Riparian Areas
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow the
Pacific Connector ROW to cross the Restricted Riparian land allocation.
This would potentially affect approximately 2.5 acres of the Restricted
Riparian Management Strategy at one perennial stream crossing on the
South Fork of Little Butte Creek at about pipeline MP 162.45 in Section
15, T.37S., R.4E., W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for the
Restricted Riparian land allocation prescribe locating transmission
corridors outside of this land allocation (Management Strategy 26, LRMP
page 4-308,). This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the
Pacific Connector ROW and would not change future management direction
at any other location.
RRNF-6--Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental
Soil Conditions Within the Pacific Connector ROW in All Management
Areas
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive
limitations on areas affected by detrimental soil conditions from
displacement and compaction within the Pacific Connector ROW in all
affected Management Strategies. Standards and Guidelines for
detrimental soil impacts in affected Management Strategies require that
no more than 10 percent of an activity area should be compacted,
puddled or displaced upon completion of project (not including
permanent roads or landings). No more than 20 percent of the area
should be displaced or compacted under circumstances resulting from
previous management practices including roads and landings. Permanent
recreation facilities or other permanent facilities are exempt (RRNF
LRMP 4-41, 4-83, 4-97, 4-123, 4-177, 4-307). This is a site-specific
amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW and would not
change future management direction at any other location.
RRNF-7--Reallocation of Matrix Lands to LSR
    The Rogue River National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
designation of approximately 512 acres from Matrix land allocations to
the LSR land allocation in Section 32, T.36S., R.4E. W.M., OR. This
change in land allocation is proposed to partially mitigate the
potential adverse impact of the Pacific Connector pipeline project on
LSR 227 on the Rogue River National Forest. This amendment would change
future management direction for the lands reallocated from Matrix to
LSR.

Amendment of the Winema National Forest LRMP

WNF-1--Site-Specific Amendment To Allow Utility Corridors in Management
Area 3
    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to change the
Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 3 (MA-3) (LRMP page 4-103-
4, Lands) to allow the 95-foot-wide Pacific Connector pipeline corridor
in MA-3 from the Forest Boundary in Section 32, T.37S., R.5E., W.M.,
OR, to the Clover Creek Road corridor in Section 4, T.38S, R.5. E.,
W.M., OR. Standards and Guidelines for MA-3 state that the area is
currently an avoidance area for new utility corridors. This proposed
new utility corridor is approximately 1.5 miles long and occupies
approximately 17 acres. This is a site-specific amendment applicable
only to the Pacific Connector ROW and would not change future
management direction at any other location.
WNF-2--Site-Specific Amendment of VQO on the Dead Indian Memorial
Highway
    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15
years to achieve the VQO of Foreground Retention where the Pacific
Connector ROW crosses the Dead Indian Memorial Highway at approximately
pipeline MP 168.8 in Section 33, T.37S., R.5E., W. M., OR. Standards
and Guidelines for Scenic Management, Foreground Retention (LRMP 4-103,
MA 3A, Foreground Retention) requires VQOs for a given location be
achieved within one year of completion of the project. The Forest
Service proposes to allow 10-15 years to meet the specified VQO at this
location. This is a site-specific amendment that would apply only to
the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of the Dead
Indian Memorial Highway and would not change future management
direction for any other project.
WNF-3--Site-Specific Amendment of VQO Adjacent to the Clover Creek Road
    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to allow 10-15
years to meet the VQO for Scenic Management, Foreground Partial
Retention, where the Pacific Connector Right-of-Way is adjacent to the
Clover Creek Road from approximately pipeline MP 170 to 175 in Sections
2, 3, 4, 11, and 12, T.38S., R.5E., and Sections 7 and 18, T.38S.,
R.6E., W.M., OR. This change would potentially affect approximately 50
acres. Standards and Guidelines for Foreground Partial Retention (LRMP,
page 4-107, MA 3B) require that VQOs be met within three years of
completion of a project. This is a site-specific amendment would apply
only to the Pacific Connector pipeline project in the vicinity of
Clover Creek Road and would not change future management direction for
any other project.
WNF-4--Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil
Conditions Within the Pacific Connector ROW in All Management Areas
    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive
restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and
compaction within the Pacific Connector ROW in all affected management
areas. Standards and Guidelines for detrimental soil impacts in all
affected management areas require that no more than 20 percent of the
activity area be detrimentally compacted, puddled, or displaced upon
completion of a project (LRMP page 4-73, 12-5). This is a site-

specific amendment applicable only to the Pacific Connector ROW and
would not change future management direction at any other location.
WNF-5--Site-Specific Amendment To Waive Limitations on Detrimental Soil
Conditions Within the Pacific Connector ROW in Management Area 8
    The Winema National Forest LRMP would be amended to waive
restrictions on detrimental soil conditions from displacement and
compaction within the Pacific Connector ROW within the Management Area
8, Riparian Area (MA-8). This change would potentially affect
approximately 0.5 mile or an estimated 9.6 acres of MA-8. Standards and
Guidelines for Soil and Water, MA-8 require that not more than 10
percent of the total riparian zone in an activity area be in a
detrimental soil condition upon the completion of a project (LRMP page
4-137, 2). This is a site-specific amendment applicable only to the
Pacific Connector ROW and would not change future management direction
at any other location.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector
projects, and proposed BLM and Forest Service land management plan
amendments. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives
them in Washington DC on or before September 4, 2012.
    The BLM, Reclamation, and Forest Service are participating as
cooperating agencies with the FERC in this public scoping process. With
this notice, the BLM is requesting comments through the FERC's public
scoping process on proposed amendments of BLM RMPs to make provision
for the Pacific Connector ROW on the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford
Districts and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. The
BLM is also requesting public comments on the issuance of the ROW Grant
that would allow the Pacific Connector pipeline to occupy federal land.
The Forest Service is requesting public comments on the proposed
amendments of Forest Service LRMPs to make provision for the Pacific
Connector ROW on the Rogue River, Umpqua, and Winema National Forests.
Timely comments submitted by the public in response to the NOI
previously issued by the Forest Service to make provision for the
Pacific Connector ROW, published in the Federal Register on June 15,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 113, pages 27214-28217), will be considered in this
scoping process if they are applicable to the current Forest Service
proposal. Reclamation has no proposed land management plan amendments,
but will consider comments related to the ROW Grant on Reclamation-
administered lands and facilities.
    Comments on actions by the BLM, Reclamation, or Forest Service
should be submitted through the FERC comment process and within the
timeline described. The submission of timely and specific comments can
affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative
or judicial review of BLM and Forest Service decisions. Comments
concerning BLM and Forest Service actions submitted anonymously will be
accepted and considered; however such anonymous submittals would not
provide the commenters with standing to participate in administrative
or judicial review of BLM and Forest Service decisions.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the FERC. In all instances, please reference the
docket numbers for these projects (PF12-7-000 and PF12-17-000) with
your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments, and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
Documents & Filings link. This is an easy method for interested persons
to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
Documents & Filings link. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be
aware that the entire text of your comments--including your personal
identifying information--would be publicly available through the FERC
eLibrary system, if you file your comments with the Secretary of the
Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    The FERC's environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and
local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental groups and non-governmental organizations; interested
Indian tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined
in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way
grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes,
or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities,
and anyone who submits comments on the projects. We will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we
send the information related to this environmental review to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the planned projects. Please note that if
you submitted comments on the previously reviewed projects (CP07-441-
000 and CP07-444-000) and want to be involved in the currently proposed
projects (PF12-7-000 and PF12-17-000) you must resubmit comments.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS on compact discs (CD) will be
sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment.
If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of
the CD version, or would like to remove your name from the mailing
list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector file their applications with
the FERC, the Commission will issue a Notice of Application. In
response to the Notice of Application, you may want to file a request
to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
FERC process, and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be
heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final
ruling. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide
under the ``e-filing'' link

on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not
accept requests for intervenor status during the pre-filing period. You
must wait until the Commission receives applications for these
projects.

Administrative Review of BLM and Forest Service Decisions To Amend Land
Management Plans

    Decisions by the BLM and Forest Service to amend land management
plans are subject to administrative review. In accordance with 36 CFR
219.59, the Forest Service has elected to use the administrative review
procedures (otherwise known as protest procedures) of the BLM.
Administrative objections to Forest Service land management plan
amendment decisions and protests of BLM land management plan amendment
decisions may be filed under the provisions of 43 CFR 1610.5-2.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). On the FERC Web page, go to Documents &
Filings, and click on the eLibrary link. Then click on ``General
Search,'' and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits
in the field (i.e., PF12-7 or PF12-17). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19781 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P