[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18091-18095]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    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 final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 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.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      *Elevation in
                                                                       feet (NGVD)
                                                                      +Elevation in
                                                                       feet (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced   Depth in     Communities affected
                                                 elevation          feet above ground
                                                                     [caret]Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Madison County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aldridge Creek.........................  Approximately 0.4 mile                  +576  City of Huntsville.
                                          upstream of Green Cove
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 75 feet                   +682
                                          downstream of Drake
                                          Avenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Huntsville

Maps are available for inspection at 308 Fountain Circle Southwest, Huntsville, AL 35804.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Sebastian County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adamson Creek..........................  At South Coker Street....               +494  City of Greenwood,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Sebastian County.
                                         Approximately 2,000 feet                +533
                                          upstream of U.S. Route 7.
Heartsill Creek........................  At West Denver Street....               +510  City of Greenwood,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Sebastian County.
                                         Approximately 180 feet                  +575
                                          downstream of Hester Cut
                                          Road.
Heartsill Creek Tributary 1............  At the confluence with                  +525  City of Greenwood.
                                          Heartsill Creek.
                                         Approximately 700 feet                  +547
                                          upstream of Meadow
                                          Bridge Drive
                                          intersection.

Hester Creek...........................  Approximately 280 feet                  +510  City of Greenwood,
                                          upstream of West Center                       Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Street.                                       Sebastian County.
                                         Approximately 600 feet                  +547
                                          upstream of Hester Cut
                                          Road.
Little Vache Grasse Creek..............  At the confluence with                  +402  City of Barling
                                          Unnamed Stream.
                                         Approximately 4,060 feet                +479
                                          upstream of Rye Hill
                                          Road.
Little Vache Grasse Creek Tributary 9..  At the confluence with                  +434  City of Barling.
                                          Little Vache Grasse
                                          Creek.
                                         Approximately 3,580 feet                +478
                                          upstream of Unnamed Road.
Unnamed Stream.........................  At the confluence with                  +445  City of Barling.
                                          Little Vache Grasse
                                          Creek.
                                         Approximately 1,260 feet                +448
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Little
                                          Vache Grasse Creek.
Vache Grasse Creek.....................  Approximately 5,200 feet                +484  City of Greenwood,
                                          downstream of Arkansas                        Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Highway 10.                                   Sebastian County.
                                         Approximately 1,800 feet                +541
                                          upstream of Steward
                                          Court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Barling

Maps are available for inspection at 304 Church Street, Barling, AR 72923.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

City of Greenwood

Maps are available for inspection at 35 South 6th Street, Fort Smith, AR 72901.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Sebastian County

Maps are available for inspection at 35 South 6th Street, Fort Smith, AR 72901.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Crawford County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
                                            Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mermac River...........................  Approximately 5,000 feet                +708  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of City of                         Crawford County.
                                          Steelville corporate
                                          limits.
                                         Approximately 150 feet                  +719
                                          upstream of Highway 19.
Whittenburg Creek......................  Approximately 120 feet                  +725  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Snake Road.                     Crawford County, City of
                                                                                Steelville.
                                         Approximately 275 feet                  +734
                                          upstream of Highway 8.
Yadkin Creek...........................  At the confluence with                  +731  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Whittenburg Creek.                            Crawford County.
                                         Approximately 900 feet                  +790
                                          upstream of City of
                                          Steelville corporate
                                          limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Steelville

Maps are available for inspection at 204 3rd Street, Steelville, MO 65565.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Crawford County

Maps are available for inspection at 302 Main Street, Steelville, MO 65565.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Stone County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
                                    Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1028 and FEMA-B-1029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Creek............................  Approximately 960 feet                 +1109  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of City of                         Stone County.
                                          Crane corporate limits.
                                         Approximately 430 feet                 +1128
                                          upstream of City of
                                          Crane corporate limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.

 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Stone County

Maps are available for inspection at 108 4th Street, Galena, MO 65656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Bee County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Branch............................  Intersection of Unnamed                 +163  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Road and Salt Branch.                         Bee County.
                                         Approximately 249 feet                  +184
                                          downstream of Emily
                                          Drive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum..............................................................................
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Bee County

Maps are available for inspection at the Bee County Courthouse, 105 West Corpus Christi Street, Beeville, TX
 78102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Nacogdoches County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1043
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayou La Nana..........................  Approximately 1,246 feet                +248  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the                               Nacogdoches County.
                                          confluence with Egg Nog
                                          Branch.
                                         Approximately 523 feet                  +255
                                          downstream of Loop 224.
Bayou La Nana..........................  Approximately 921 feet                  +317  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Loop 224.                         Nacogdoches County, City
                                                                                of Nacogdoches.
                                         Just upstream of Old Post               +320
                                          Oak Road.
Bonita Creek...........................  Approximately 729 feet                  +355  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Loop 224.                         Nacogdoches County, City
                                                                                of Nacogdoches.
                                         Just upstream of U.S.                   +373
                                          Route 59.
Egg Nog Branch.........................  Approximately 1,246 feet                +248  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the                               Nacogdoches County, City
                                          confluence with Bayou La                      of Nacogdoches.
                                          Nana.
                                         Approximately 727 feet                  +284
                                          downstream of Loop 224.
Toliver Branch.........................  At the confluence with                  +317  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Bayou La Nana.                                Nacogdoches County, City
                                                                                of Nacogdoches.
                                         Just upstream of Old Post               +320
                                          Oak Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Nacogdoches

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 202 East Pillar Street, Nacogdoches, TX 75963.

                                   Unincorporated Areas of Nacogdoches County

Maps are available for inspection at 101 West Main Street, Nacogdoches, TX 75961.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 26, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-8059 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Date: August 27, 2003 Subject: Evaluation of Concentration Based Applicability Cut Offs for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry EPA Contract No. 68 D 01 079; WA No. 003 RTI Project No. 08550 000 003 From: Becky Nicholson Katie Hanks To: Mary Tom Kissell ESD/ WCPG ( C439 03) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 I. Introduction The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) proposed national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for the plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) source category on January 9, 2003.1 Plywood and composite wood products include the following: medium density fiberboard ( MDF), particleboard ( PB), hardboard ( HB), fiberboard, oriented strandboard ( OSB), softwood plywood and veneer, hardwood plywood and veneer, engineered wood products ( EWP), and kiln dried lumber. The proposed NESHAP includes six different compliance options for PCWP process units equipped with add on controls; these six options are shown in Table 1.2 Two other compliance options were included in the proposal emissions averaging and production based emission limits. The production based emission limits are shown in Table 2.3 All of these compliance options were developed based on an analysis of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) floor for PCWP process units. 2 The American Forest and Paper Association ( AF& PA) requested that EPA include a concentrationbased applicability cut off ( below which affected PCWP process units would not be required to control hazardous air pollutant [ HAP] emissions) in addition to the options shown in Tables 1 and 2 and the emissions averaging compliance option. 4,5 2 TABLE 1. ADD ON CONTROL SYSTEMS COMPLIANCE OPTIONS ( PRE PROPOSAL)

For each of the following process units... You must comply with one of the following six compliance options by using an emissions control system...

Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones ( at new affected sources only); Green rotary dryers; Hardboard ovens; Press predryers ( at new affected sources only); Pressurized refiners; Tube dryers; Reconstituted wood product board coolers ( at new affected sources only); Reconstituted wood product presses; Softwood veneer dryer heated zones; and Strand dryers ( 1) Reduce emissions of total HAP, measured as THC ( as carbon), a by 90 percent; or ( 2) Limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC ( as carbon) a, to 20 parts per million by volume, dry ( ppmvd); or ( 3) Reduce methanol emissions by 90 percent; or ( 4) Limit methanol emissions to less than or equal to 1 ppmvd if uncontrolled methanol emissions entering the control device are greater than or equal to 10 ppmvd; or ( 5) Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent; or ( 6) Limit formaldehyde emissions to less than or equal to 1 ppmvd if uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions entering the control device are greater than or equal to 10 ppmvd.

a You may choose to subtract methane from THC as carbon measurements.

TABLE 2. PRODUCTION BASED COMPLIANCE OPTIONS ( PRE PROPOSAL) a For the following process units... You must meet the following production based compliance option ( total HAPb basis)...

( 1) Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones ( at new affected sources only) 0.022 lb/ MSF 1/ 2"

( 2) Green rotary dryers 0.058 lb/ ODT ( 3) Hardboard ovens 0.022 lb/ MSF 1/ 8"

( 4) Press predryers ( at new affected sources only) 0.037 lb/ MSF 1/ 2"

( 5) Pressurized refiners 0.039 lb/ ODT ( 6) Tube dryers 0.26 lb/ ODT ( 7) Reconstituted wood product board coolers ( at new affected sources only) 0.015 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

( 8) Reconstituted wood product presses 0.30 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

( 9) Softwood veneer dryer heated zones 0.022 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

( 10) Strand dryers 0.18 lb/ ODT For the following process units... You must meet the following production based compliance option ( total HAPb basis)...

3 a You may not use an add on control system to meet the production based compliance options. b Total HAP is defined here as the sum of emissions of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. lb/ ODT = pounds per oven dried ton; lb/ MSF = pounds per thousand square feet with a specified thickness basis ( inches).

II. Overview of AF& PA's Recommendation In December 2001, the AF& PA submitted a white paper to EPA which outlined the industry's recommendation and rationale for including a 50 parts per million by volume ( ppmv) HAP applicability cut off in the PCWP NESHAP. 4 The AF& PA then resubmitted their recommendation in their comments on the proposed rule in March 2003.5 The 50 ppmv concentration cut off suggested by AF& PA would be based on the combined concentration of the six most predominant HAP emitted, namely, acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. These six HAP represent " total HAP" as defined for the production based emissions limits and for the emissions averaging provisions.

In their white paper and comments on the proposed rule, AF& PA cited three reasons why EPA should add the concentration based applicability exemption to the PCWP proposal: ( 1) court cases have established EPA's authority to create " de minimis exemptions;" ( 2) EPA has promulgated several NESHAP with concentration based applicability cut offs; and ( 3) the applicability cut off is justified due to the expected high cost of the PCWP rule and the " substantial negative environmental impacts" that would result from implementation of the rule without such a cut off. However, AF& PA did not cite any NESHAP that explicitly relied upon a " de minimis" rationale to exempt emissions from MACT standards, nor any court cases holding that EPA had such authority when promulgating standards under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act. The AF& PA also did not establish any common link between the industries regulated by those other NESHAP with concentration based applicability cut offs and the PCWP industry, nor any link between the proposed 50 ppmv applicability cut off and the MACT floor analysis for the PCWP industry. The remainder of this memorandum evaluates the appropriateness of establishing a concentration based applicability cut off for PCWP process units by comparing emission sources covered by other NESHAP cited by AF& PA ( i. e., those with concentration based exemptions) to those emission sources that will be covered by the PCWP NESHAP.

III. Evaluation of AF& PA Proposal A. Comparison to Emission Sources in Rules with Applicability Cut Offs In their white paper and comments on the proposed rule, AF& PA listed 12 NESHAP that included concentration based applicability cut offs. Of the 12 NESHAP, 4 weren't relevant because the cut offs did not apply to process vents ( e. g., equipment leaks, limitations on HAP content in coatings). The remaining 8 NESHAP were petro chemical sources with concentrationbased cut offs of 50 ppmv ( or in some cases, 20 ppmv). These 8 NESHAP include the hazardous organic NESHAP ( HON) ( 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart G), which served as the template 4 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF EMISSION SOURCES6,7,8,9 Emission stream characteristic Chemical process plant sources ( e. g., HON, MON, pharmaceuticals) PCWP process sources No. of emission points per plant 25 to > 100 3 to 7 ( e. g., 2 dryers and 1 press)

Typical flowrates, scfm 100 scfm dryers: 30,000 scfm; presses 60,000 scfm Typical HAP concentrations, ppmv >> 1,000 ppmv < 150 ppmv for similar petro chemical rules that came later, and the pharmaceuticals NESHAP ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGG). We focused our comparison analyses on these two NESHAP and the proposed miscellaneous organic NESHAP ( MON) because these NESHAP are representative of the 8 petro chemical NESHAP, and we had ready access to the project data bases for these NESHAP. Table 3 provides a comparison between the emission streams associated with chemical manufacturing industries and those associated with PCWP plants. As shown in Table 3, the emissions from PCWP process units are typically high volume, low concentration ( HVLC) emission streams. Chemical manufacturing plants such as those covered by the HON, pharmaceutical NESHAP, MON, and other similar NESHAP, typically have many more emission points, and these emission points ( process vents) have significantly lower flow rates ( e. g., 100 standard cubic feet per minute [ scfm]) and significantly higher VOC/ HAP concentrations ( e. g., >> 1,000 ppmv). For example, approximately 63 percent of the process vents in the HON data base have flow rates less than 100 scfm, and 90 percent have flow rates less than 5,000 scfm. 6 The typical NESHAP cut offs established for chemical/ pharmaceutical manufacturing industries are process vents with total organic carbon ( TOC) concentrations less than 50 ppmv, or flow rates less than 0.005 cubic meters per minute ( 0.17 scfm). The wood products industry does not have any applicable emission sources with such small flow rates. For example, a typical wood products press exhaust flow rate would be about 60,000 scfm. Also, if the same TOC concentration cut off is applied to both a low and a high flow rate stream, the higher flow rate stream will have a higher mass emissions ( ton/ yr), so concentration based cut offs are generally developed for lower flow rate streams. For example, the pharmaceuticals NESHAP exempts process vents with HAP concentrations below 50 ppmv, and the majority of these emission streams ( i. e., 70 percent) have flow rates

25 scfm, and none are above 2,500 scfm. 7 Those process vents with HAP concentrations below 50 ppmv represent about 40 percent ( i. e., 878 vents) of the approximately 2,224 process vents in the pharmaceuticals NESHAP data for which concentration data were available; however, these exempted vents account for only 0.2 percent of the total HAP emissions from the 2,224 process vents. The estimated average HAP emissions from these exempted pharmaceutical process vents is approximately 88 pounds per year per vent. 7 5 TABLE 4. PCWP INLET ( UNCONTROLLED) EMISSIONS CONCENTRATION DATA10 APCD HAP data ( formaldehyde + methanol) THC data ( for comparison)

Total No. w/ HAP data No. w/ inlet < 50 ppmv No. w/ inlet < 20 ppmv Total No. w/ THC data No. w/ inlet < 50 ppmv No. w/ inlet < 20 ppmv RTO 14 11 4 16 0 0 RCO 2 2 1 3 1 0 BIO 2 1 0 3 0 0 TOTAL 18 14 5 22 1 0 As shown in Table 3, the emissions from dryers and presses at wood products plants are not comparable to the emissions from process vents at chemical/ pharmaceutical manufacturing plants ( differences in number of emission points per plant, flowrates, and concentrations), and therefore, it may not be appropriate to " borrow" concentration cut offs from these rules.

B. Relationship Between Cut Off and MACT Floor Analysis When the concentration based applicability cut off was included in the HON, the assumption was that none of the vent streams at that level ( e. g., 50 ppmv concentration or lower) would be subject to the MACT floor ( i. e., no emission controls would be required for those sources, even without the cut off). Therefore, we analyzed the available data for PCWP emission sources to determine if the same would be true for the PCWP NESHAP. The PCWP MACT floor analysis is based on an add on control device that can reduce HAP emissions by at least 90 percent. 2 The majority of the emissions data used to support this level of control was supplied by the PCWP industry and is summarized in a separate memorandum. 10 Table 4 summarizes the available HAP and total hydrocarbon ( THC) concentration data measured at the inlets of the control devices. Data were available for three different types of add on control devices capable of reducing HAP emissions by 90 percent: RTO, regenerative catalytic oxidizers ( RCO), and biofilters ( BIO). Emissions data were not available for all of the HAP emitted from all of the tested PCWP sources equipped with MACT controls; however data for methanol and formaldehyde were available for the majority of these sources. Therefore, the concentrations of methanol and formaldehyde were summed to approximate the total HAP concentration ( these two pollutants represent approximately 80 percent of total HAP emissions from PCWP sources). As shown in Table 4, of the 18 controlled process units for which HAP control efficiency data are available, 14 ( 78 percent) have associated uncontrolled HAP concentrations < 50 ppmv. Thus, a 50 ppmv cut off does not represent the MACT floor. Five of the 18 controlled process units ( i. e., 28 percent) have HAP concentrations < 20 ppmv; so a 20 ppmv HAP cut off also would not represent the MACT floor.

A review of emissions data collected by the industry shows similar results. Table 5 summarizes the concentration data for PCWP sources tested by the National Council of the Paper 6 Industry for Air and Stream Improvement ( NCASI). 11,12,13,14,15,16 The NCASI data set represents the only available data set that includes emissions data for all six of the HAP listed in the definition of " total HAP." These data include some of the PCWP process units with MACT controls that are included in Table 4 as well as uncontrolled PCWP process units. As shown in Table 5, 72 percent of the PCWP process units tested by NCASI have uncontrolled total HAP emissions concentrations below 50 ppmv, and 79 percent of those PCWP units already equipped with MACT controls have uncontrolled total HAP emissions concentrations below 50 ppmv. In addition, 38 percent of the PCWP process units tested by NCASI have uncontrolled total HAP emissions below 20 ppmv, and 36 percent of the process units with MACT controls have uncontrolled total HAP concentrations below 20 ppmv. Because many of the process units with MACT controls have uncontrolled total HAP concentrations less than 50 ppmv and less than 20 ppmv, it is clear that these concentration cut offs do not represent the MACT floor for PCWP process units.

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF NCASI DATA11,12,13,14,15,16 Process unit No. of units tested by NCASI No. of units tested w/ MACT controls Range in concentration of emissions ( ppmv total for 6 HAP) ( average) a No. of units with uncontrolled concentration < 50 ppmv No. of units with uncontrolled concentration < 20 ppmv All units tested Units with MACT controls All units tested Units with MACT controls Primary tube dryer 4 0 9 to 134 ppmv ( 54 ppmv) 2 ( 50%) NAb 1 ( 25%) NAb Presses 9 7 5 to 153 ppmv ( 49 ppmv) 5 ( 55%) 5 ( 71%) 3 ( 33%) 3 ( 43%)

OSB dryer 3 3 22 to 114 ppmv ( 48 ppmv) 2 ( 67%) 2 ( 67%) 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%)

PB dryer ( green) 4 1 6 to 51 ppmv ( 30 ppmv) 3 ( 75%) 1 ( 100%) 1 ( 25%) 1 ( 100%)

Veneer dryer 9 3 4 to 46 ppmv ( 20 ppmv) 9 ( 100%) 3 ( 100%) 6 ( 67%) 1 ( 33%)

TOTAL 29 14 4 to 153 ppmv 21 ( 72%) 11 ( 79%) 11 ( 38%) 5 ( 36%)

a Six HAP are acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. b NA = Not applicable because no units equipped with MACT controls were tested by NCASI.

C. Relationship Between Cut Off and Low Level Emission Sources When setting a cut off of 50 ppmv in the development of other NESHAP, the assumption was that such sources had only minimal emissions that were below levels that would be regulated by the applicable MACT floor. This would not be the case with wood products plants because of 7 the higher flow rates. Table 6 shows the effect of higher flow rates on the mass emissions of HAP at the same concentration ( 50 ppmv). As shown in Table 6, at a flow rate of 20,000 dscfm ( a typical PCWP dryer flow rate), the methanol emissions associated with a 50 ppmv emission stream would be about 21 tons per year, which exceeds the threshold for a major source. 8 TABLE 6. FLOW RATE VERSUS MASS EMISSIONS FOR 50 PPMV METHANOL EMISSION STREAM Flowrate, dscfm Mass emissions, ton/ yr 20,000 21 50,000 50 100,000 103 Assumptions: ( 1) 50 ppmv of methanol in emission stream; ( 2) standard conditions; and ( 3) source operates 8,424 hours per year Based on these calculations, inclusion of a concentration based applicability cut off would allow major sources of emissions to go uncontrolled. Therefore, a 50 ppmv applicability cut off applied to PCWP sources would not correspond to a low level of emissions that would not be regulated by the MACT floor. Table 7 shows the typical annual HAP emissions from PCWP process units that would be subject to emission limits in the PCWP NESHAP. These data further demonstrate that a 50 ppmv cut off would exempt most PCWP process units and many major sources of HAP emissions from MACT controls, and thus, would be inconsistent with the intent and effect of similar cut offs in other NESHAP.

TABLE 7. TYPICAL ANNUAL HAP EMISSIONS FROM PCWP PROCESS UNITS Process units with emission limits in PCWP rule Would a significant number of process units be exempted with a 50 ppmv HAP cut off? a Typical total HAP emissions from individual process units ( ton/ yr) b ( 1) Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones ( at new affected sources only) yes 9 ( 2) Green rotary dryers yes 11 ( 3) Hardboard ovens yes 18 ( 4) Press predryers ( at new affected sources only) ( no data) 15 ( 5) Pressurized refiners no 21 ( 6) Tube dryers yes 65 ( MDF), 60 ( HB)

( 7) Reconstituted wood product board coolers ( at new affected sources only) yes 5 ( PB), 3 ( MDF)

( 8) Reconstituted wood product presses yes 37 ( PB), 76 ( OSB), 38 ( MDF), 23 ( HB)

( 9) Softwood veneer dryer heated zones yes 5 ( 10) Strand dryers yes 32 Process units with emission limits in PCWP rule Would a significant number of process units be exempted with a 50 ppmv HAP cut off? a Typical total HAP emissions from individual process units ( ton/ yr) b 9 a Based on a review of the range of available HAP concentration data. b Based on typical ton/ yr documented in BID. 17 D. Other Issues 1. Compliance issues. Given the fact that most PCWP process units have uncontrolled HAP concentrations between 20 and 50 ppmv and that the emissions vary over time for a given process unit ( not to mention among similar process units), setting and enforcing cut offs in this range would be very difficult, notwithstanding the MACT floor issue. Any change in wood species, increase in operating temperature, reformulation of resin, etc, could push a process unit over or under the concentration limit. Even with no changes in raw material or operating conditions, sources would be continually cycling above and below the cut off due to the inherent variability in emissions and the fact that most sources have emissions in the ranges being suggested as cut offs.

2. Dilution issues. The emission sources at wood products plants are diluted sources under normal operating conditions, and therefore, the requirement in other rules that the emissions sources complying with the cut offs be " undiluted and uncontrolled" ( to ensure that the standards are not circumvented via dilution) could not be met for wood product sources. The measured oxygen levels from many wood products sources are at ambient levels under normal operating conditions. This means a facility could double or triple the amount of air added to the emission stream and still have the same measured oxygen concentration, thus making it impossible to determine if " excessive" dilution has occurred. The reason these emission streams are diluted is that air is used to transport the wood fiber through the dryers ( e. g., tube dryers and rotary dryers) as well as to dry the fibers. Air also may be added between the burner exhaust and the dryer inlet to cool the hot exhaust to the desired temperature before it enters the dryer. The ratio of added air to the total flow through the dryer is highly variable and is affected by the burner type, fuel, and dryer system. 18 Note that operators control the amount of air that is added to the dryers, and the industry likely would not want the rule to take away that flexibility. In their white paper, AF& PA suggested that the dilution issue could be addressed by having facilities accept federally enforceable permit limits on their exhaust flow rates. 4 However, this would not address the fact that the streams are already dilute under normal operation conditions. Also PCWP facilities would likely want to set the permit limit at the maximum flow rate, which would equate to further dilution at normal production rates.

Although Table 1 provides three concentration based options for complying with the PCWP NESHAP as alternatives to a 90 percent reduction in emissions ( i. e., achieve 20 ppmv THC, 1 ppmv methanol, or 1 ppmv formaldehyde in the outlet of the control device), these three concentration based options only apply to sources that are equipped with add on control systems. Generally, concentration based emission limits at the outlet of a control device are expressed in terms of a percent oxygen level, so that emissions can be normalized and dilution effects accounted 10 for. The concentration based emission limits in Table 1 do not include a percent oxygen basis because the dilute nature of the emission streams entering these devices would cause the oxygen correction equation to go to zero in the denominator. For sources equipped with add on controls, this is not perceived as a significant issue because sources equipped with add on controls would not be expected to further dilute the emission streams being treated because in doing so they would increase their control device capital and operating costs.

IV. Conclusion When establishing applicability cut offs for NESHAP, EPA must evaluate these cut offs in concert with the MACT floor analysis. To support the inclusion of a 50 ppmv cut off or an alternative cut off, EPA would have to clearly demonstrate that the cut off levels do not exempt emission volumes that should be caught by the MACT floor. The 50 ppmv concentration based applicability cut off proposed by AF& PA does not meet this criterion because it would exempt many process units that would be subject to MACT floor controls. In fact, a 50 ppmv cut off would exempt the majority of process units in the PCWP industry from regulation, despite the fact that many of these process units are major sources of HAP emissions at PCWP facilities. In addition, the process vent characteristics ( e. g., combination of concentration and flow rate) for PCWP facilities are dissimilar to process vents regulated by the NESHAP cited by AF& PA as precedents for the concentration based applicability exemption. For these reasons, and the reasons discussed in Section III. D, we recommend against including a concentration based applicability cut off in the PCWP NESHAP.

V. References 1. Federal Register. Volume 68, Number 6. Page 1276 1339. January 9, 2003. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule.

2. Memorandum from B. Nicholson and K. Hanks, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. July 13, 2000 ( Revised June 7, 2002). Determination of MACT floors and MACT for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry.

3. Memorandum from K. Hanks, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. June 2, 2000 ( Revised June 26, 2002). Development of Production Based Emission Limits of Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Units.

4. Letter and attachments from S. Kneiss, AF& PA, to J. Holmstead, EPA/ OAR. December 21, 2001. AF& PA White Paper on Concentration Based DeMinimis Applicability Exemptions in the Wood Products MACT.

5. Letter and attachments from T. Hunt, AF& PA, to EPA Docket No. A 98 44. March 7, 2003. Comments on Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT. 11 6. Memorandum from B. Ferrero and T. Olsen, Radian, to S. Milliken, EPA/ SDB. June 17, 1992. HON Process Vents Flow Rate and Concentration Limits. EPA Docket No. A 90 19. Docket Item No. II B 272.

7. Data Base Used to Support the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing NESHAP ( 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart GGG). Process Vents Data Base.

8. Memorandum from D. Bullock, K. Hanks, and B. Nicholson, MRI to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. April 28, 2000. Summary of Responses to the 1998 EPA Information Collection Request ( MACT Survey)  General Survey.

9. Data Base Used to Support the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP ( 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart FFFF). Process Vents Data Base.

10. Memorandum from R. Nicholson, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. May 26, 2000. Control Device Efficiency Data for Add on Control Devices at PCWP Plants.

11. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part I  Plywood, Technical Bulletin No. 768, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

12. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part III  Medium Density Fiberboard, Technical Bulletin No. 770, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

13. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part IV  Particleboard, Technical Bulletin No. 771, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

14. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part V  Oriented Strandboard, Technical Bulletin No. 772, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

15. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Wood Products Manufacturing Facilities, Part VI  Hardboard/ Fiberboard, Technical Bulletin No. 773, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999.

16. Memorandum from D. Bullock, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD/ WCPG. November 3, 1999. Approach to Using Values Below Test Method Detection Limits in the Development of Emission Factors and Control Efficiencies.

17. U. S. EPA. Background Information Document for Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. September, 2000. 12 18. R. Nicholson, MRI, to D. Word, NCASI. February 17, 2000 ( Confirmed via Email on 9/ 7/ 00). Contact report to ( 1) find out if oxygen measurement data were available from the NCASI MACT emissions test program, and ( 2) to get some information on typical oxygen concentrations in dryer and press exhaust at plywood and composite wood products plants.

19. " EcoDRY: The Almost Emission Free Drying of Woodchips, OSB Flakes, and the Like," by Swiss Combi. Paper distributed at AF& PA Wood Products MACT Workshop. March 13 14, 2001. Raleigh, NC.

20. Memorandum from K. Hanks, RTI, to Project File. August 26, 2002. Information on American Purification Regenerative Adsorption Technology.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12854-12855]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0636; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Uvalde, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Uvalde, TX. This
action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning
of the Uvalde non-directional beacon (NDB).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. 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 JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Garner Field Airport, Uvalde, TX, to support instrument
flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 70425; December 10, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0636
to amend the Class E airspace at Uvalde, TX. 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 JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Garner Field
Airport, Uvalde, TX; removes the Uvalde NDB and associated extensions
from the airspace legal description; removes the city associated with
the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply
with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters.
    This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Uvalde NDB which provided guidance to instrument
procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Uvalde, TX [Amended]

Garner Field, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]12'41'' N, long. 99[deg]44'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Garner Field Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 2, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-04820 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10993-10995]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0149]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing fixed and moving security
zones around the Motor Vessel (M/V) ARC ENDURANCE. The security zone
encompasses all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius around the M/
V ARC ENDURANCE. The zone is needed to protect the vessel while
transiting the Corpus Christi Ship Channel in Corpus Christi, TX with
military cargo onboard. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from 9 a.m. until
midnight on March 25, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from March 18, 2019 until 9 a.m. on March 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0149 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles, Sector Corpus Christi
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-
5125, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this security zone by March 18, 2019 and lack sufficient time
to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to provide for the security of the vessel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the transit and of
the Motor Vessel (M/V) ARC ENDURANCE when loaded with military cargo
between the dates of March 18, 2019 through March 25, 2019, will be a
security concern within a 500-yard radius of the vessel. This rule is
needed to protect the vessel while the vessel is transiting within
Corpus Christi, TX.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary fixed and moving security zone
from time of first arrival and last departure of M/V ARC ENDURANCE
while transiting within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel between the
dates of March 18, 2019 through March 25, 2019. The fixed and moving
security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius
of the M/V ARC ENDURANCE while transiting while loaded with military
cargo through the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The duration of the zone
is intended to protect military cargo while the vessel is in transit.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone
without

obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
    Entry into this fixed and moving security zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG
Sector Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass
through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a
designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate of the
enforcement times and dates for this security zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and location of the security zone. This rule will impact a
small designated area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel during the
vessel's transit while loaded with cargo over an eight-day period.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary fixed and moving security zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a fixed and moving security zone lasting for the duration of time that
any of the vessels are within the Corpus Christi Ship Channel that will
prohibit entry within 500 yard radius of M/V ARC ENDURANCE while
transiting within Corpus Christi whilst loaded with military cargo. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0149 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0149  Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Corpus
Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all navigable
waters encompassing a 500-yard radius around M/V ARC ENDURANCE while
transiting loaded with cargo in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from March 18, 2019
through March 25, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in Sec.  165.33 of
this part apply. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zone
must request permission from the COTP Sector Corpus Christi on VHF-FM
channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) of
the enforcement times and date for this security zone.

    Dated: March 15, 2019.
E.J. Gaynor,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2019-05562 Filed 3-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 43693-43694]
[DOCID:fr27au09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13529-000]

City of Morgan City, LA; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

August 20, 2009.
    On July 6, 2009, the City of Morgan City, Louisiana filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Wax
Lake Outlet Project to be located on the Wax Lake Outlet in St. Mary
Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 25 proposed 200 kilowatt
Underwater Electric Kite generating units having a total installed
capacity of 5 megawatts; (2) a 1-mile-long, 138 kilovolt transmission
line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Wax Lake Outlet
Project would have an average annual generation of 43.8 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Genie Bonner, Executive Secretary, 512 First
Street, Morgan City, LA 70381,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13439-000 filed April 29, 2009. Competing applications must be filed on
or before August 24, 2009.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance

of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types
of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://
www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project,
including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13529) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20646 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1113]
[FR Doc No: X10-900108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 12, 2009

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0329.
    Date Filed: December 9, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: December 30, 2009.
    Description: Application of Kalitta Air, L.L.C. requesting: (1) A
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to
provide scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail
between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in
China, via intermediate points, and beyond China to any point or
points; (2) an exemption to the extent necessary authorizing the
service described above; (3) designation as the additional U.S.-flag
carrier permitted effective March 25, 2010; (4) allocation of six of
the 15 scheduled all-cargo frequencies that become available March 25,
2010 or which are otherwise unused and available; (5) and motion to
consolidate this application with the exemption application filed by
Southern Air, Inc. to be considered contemporaneously.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-131 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43182-43184]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0371]

Voluntary Registration by Authorized Officials of Non-Covered
Retail Food Establishments and Vending Machine Operators Electing To Be
Subject to the Menu and Vending Machine Labeling Requirements
Established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act) established requirements for
nutrition labeling of standard menu items for restaurants and similar
retail food establishments with 20 or more locations doing business
under the same name and offering for sale substantially the same menu
items (hereinafter ``chain retail food establishments''), and for
certain foods sold in vending machines operated by an operator that
owns or operates 20 or more vending machines (hereinafter ``chain
vending machine operators''). Under the Affordable Care Act, retail
food establishments and vending machine operators not covered by
section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act may elect to become subject to
its requirements by registering biannually with FDA. Congress required
that, within 120 days of enactment of the Affordable Care Act (March
23, 2010), FDA issue a Federal Register notice specifying the terms and
conditions for implementation of voluntary registration, pending
promulgation of regulations. FDA is issuing this notice to assist
restaurants and similar retail food establishments and vending machine

operators that are not subject to the menu labeling requirements of
section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act, but choose to register to
become subject to them, in voluntarily registering with FDA, pending
promulgation of regulations.

DATES:  Submit electronic or written comments by October 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the notice to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the notice to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kathleen Lewis, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-608), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)
requires restaurants and similar retail food establishments with 20 or
more locations doing business under the same name and offering for sale
substantially the same menu items (hereinafter ``chain retail food
establishments'') to disclose specific nutrition information about
certain food items offered for sale. Section 4205 also requires that
calorie information be disclosed for certain food articles sold in
vending machines operated by an operator that owns or operates 20 or
more vending machines (hereinafter ``chain vending machine
operators''). For chain retail food establishments, as that term is
used in this notice, and for vending machines regardless of how many
vending machines the operator owns or operates, section 4205 preempts
State and local nutrition labeling laws unless they are ``identical``
to the requirements imposed by section 4205.
    This notice is to explain how retail food establishments and
vending machine operators not otherwise subject to the provisions of
section 4205 may voluntarily elect to become subject to them. In future
actions, FDA will provide information to the public and the regulated
communities about the new requirements in section 4205.

II. Terms and Conditions for Implementation of Voluntary Registration

A. Why is the section 4205 voluntary registration program being
established?

    Congress provided in section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act that
restaurants and similar retail food establishments and vending machine
operators not covered by section 4205 may elect to become subject to
its requirements by registering biannually (every other year) with FDA.
Congress required FDA to publish a notice in the Federal Register,
within 120 days of enactment of the Affordable Care Act (March 23,
2010), specifying the terms and conditions for implementation of
voluntary registration, pending promulgation of regulations.

B. What is the effect of voluntary registration under section 4205?

    Unlike chain retail food establishments (as that term is used in
this document), restaurants and similar retail food establishments that
are not covered by section 4205 can still be regulated under State and
local nutrition labeling laws that are not ``identical to'' the Federal
requirements. If these restaurants and similar retail food
establishments voluntarily register, they will no longer be subject to
State or local nutrition labeling requirements unless those
requirements are identical to Federal requirements. Vending machine
operators are in a different position; under section 4205, no State or
locality may have a requirement concerning vending machines that is not
``identical to'' the Federal requirements, regardless of how many
vending machines the operator owns or operates (section 403A(a)(4) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)(4))).
Therefore, whether a vending machine operator has or has not
registered, it cannot be subject to State or local nutrition labeling
requirements that are not identical to the Federal requirements.
However, Congress expressly provided in section 4205 that vending
machine operators not subject to the requirements of the law might
elect to be subject to them by registering with FDA.

C. Who must register?

    No restaurant or similar retail food establishment, or vending
machine operator, is required to register under section 4205. However,
if a restaurant or similar retail food establishment, or vending
machine operator not otherwise subject to the provisions of section
4205 elects to be subject to the Federal requirements of that section,
registration must be by an authorized official.

D. Who is an authorized official of a restaurant or similar retail food
establishment, or of a vending machine operator?

    The authorized official of a restaurant or similar retail food
establishment or of a vending machine operator may be the owner,
operator, agent in charge, or any other person authorized by the
restaurant or similar retail food establishment or vending machine
operator to register the restaurant, similar retail food establishment
and/or vending machine operator with FDA under section 4205.

E. Should a separate registration be submitted for every location at
which a restaurant or similar retail food establishment is operating?

    Section 4205 applies to restaurants or similar retail food
establishments that are part of a chain with 20 or more locations,
doing business under the same name (regardless of the type of ownership
of the locations, e.g., individual franchisees), and offering for sale
substantially the same menu items.
    Restaurants, similar retail food establishments, and operators of
vending machines doing business at one or more but fewer than 20
locations can register to be subject to section 4205. If a restaurant
or similar retail food establishment has more than one but fewer than
20 locations that are doing business under the same name, regardless of
the type of ownership of the locations, which offer for sale
substantially the same menu items, an authorized official may register
multiple locations within the group of restaurants or retail food
establishments on a single registration form. Alternatively, an
authorized official of an individual restaurant or retail food
establishment may register just that restaurant or retail food
establishment.

F. When will the registration process begin and how often must the
authorized official register?

    FDA will accept registrations beginning July 21, 2010, on a
continuous basis. The authorized official must register every other
year with FDA, and the registration will automatically expire if not
renewed.

G. What information must be provided for the registration of
restaurants or similar retail food establishments?

    Authorized officials for restaurants and similar retail food
establishments must provide FDA with the following information:

     The name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and
contact information for the authorized official;
     The name, address, and e-mail address of each restaurant
or similar retail food establishment being registered, as well as the
name and contact information for an official onsite, such as the owner
or manager, for each specific restaurant or similar retail food
establishment;
     All trade names the restaurant or similar retail food
establishment uses;
     Preferred mailing address (if different from location
address for each establishment) for purposes of receiving
correspondence; and
     Certification that the information submitted is true and
accurate, that the person or firm submitting it is authorized to do so,
and that each registered restaurant or similar retail food
establishment will be subject to the requirements of section 4205.
    As described in section II.I of this document, FDA has created and
made available at a Web site, http://www.fda.gov/menulabeling, a form
that contains fields requesting this information. Registrants must use
this form to ensure that complete information is submitted.

H. What information must be provided for the registration of vending
machine operators?

    Authorized officials for vending machine operators must provide FDA
with the following information:
     The name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and
contact information for the vending machine operator;
     The address of each vending machine owned or operated by
the vending machine operator, and the name and contact information,
including e-mail address, of the location in which each vending machine
is located;
     Preferred mailing address (if different from location
address), for purposes of receiving correspondence; and
     Certification that the information submitted is true and
accurate, that the person or firm submitting it is authorized to do so,
and that each registered restaurant or similar retail food
establishment will be subject to the requirements of section 4205.
    As described in section II.I of this document, FDA has created and
made available at a Web site, http://www.fda.gov/menulabeling, a form
that contains fields requesting this information. Registrants must use
this form to ensure that complete information is submitted.

I. How do authorized officials of restaurants, similar retail food
establishments, and vending machine operators register?

    Authorized officials of restaurants, similar retail food
establishments, and/or vending machine operators electing to be subject
to the section 4205 requirements can register by visiting http://www.fda.gov/menulabeling. FDA prefers that the information be submitted
by e-mail by typing complete information into the form (PDF), saving it
on the registrant's computer, and sending it by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If e-mail is not available, the
registrant can either fill in the form (PDF) and print it out (or print
out the blank PDF and fill in the information by hand or typewriter),
and send it to FDA either by faxing the completed form to<PHONE_NUMBER>
or mailing it to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Compliance Information Branch (HFS-681), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville,
MD 20857.

J. Will each registrant receive a confirmation of the registration?

    Initially, FDA will not provide automatic confirmation of
registrations. We recommend that registrants save a copy of the
completed form and evidence that it has been transmitted to FDA
electronically, by fax, or by mail.

K. What does it mean to be ``registered''?

    Pending promulgation of regulations, FDA considers that an
authorized official of any restaurant or similar retail food
establishment, or of any vending machine operator, that completely and
accurately provides the information described in response to sections
II.G and II.H of this document, has registered the restaurant or
similar retail food establishment, or vending machine operator.

L. How will future changes to the voluntary registration program be
announced?

    FDA is required to propose regulations implementing the provisions
of section 4205. We intend to include in those proposed regulations
further specifications about the voluntary biannual registration of
restaurants, similar retail food establishments, and vending machine
operators that are not otherwise subject to the requirements of section
4205.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice refers to previously approved collections of
information found in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and
established by section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act. These
collections of information are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in section 4205
of the Affordable Care Act have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0664.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
notice. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-18123 Filed 7-21-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34032]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14202-001]

FFP Project 70, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 14202-001.
    c. Date Filed: April 3, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: Free Flow Power Corporation on behalf of FFP
Project 70, LLC (FFP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Free Flow Power,
LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Mississippi Lock and Dam 19 Water Power
Project.
    f. Location: Mississippi River at river mile 364.2, in Lee County,
Iowa at an existing out-of-service lock and dry dock area owned and
operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The proposed
project would occupy 23.3 acres of land, all of which are owned by the
Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; (978)
283-2822; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Free Flow Power Corporation on behalf of FFP Project 70, LLC
filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on April 3,
2012. Free Flow Power Corporation provided public notice of the request
on March 13 and 14, 2012. In a letter dated June 1, 2012, the Director
of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved the request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section
106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating FFP Project 70, LLC and
Free Flow Power Corporation as the Commission's non-federal
representatives for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Free Flow Power Corporation on behalf of FFP Project 70, LLC
filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process
plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-14202), excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13882 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P