Table 7 does highlight, however, that salmon constitutes the major source of seafood processing waste in the petitioning locations.
The second data source is the National NPDES permit annual reports. The NPDES annual reports are completed each year by processors holding NPDES permits and sent to the EPA. The reports include a variety of processing information, such as the volume of raw seafood utilized by the processor, the quantity of product made by the processor with that raw seafood, and the volume of wastewater discharged through the NPDES permitted outfall. Because the NPDES annual reports are completed by each permitted processor, the reports provide a reliable source of data for raw seafood and waste volumes of particular processors and processing locations, which are specific to ADFG regions (although a comparison of salmon waste generated in 2008 as presented in Table 7 and Table 8 reveals that the waste totals are fairly comparable).
Table 8 shows the volume of salmon waste generated by the petitioning areas and areas of interest. The petitioning areas processor totals were obtained from the EPA questionnaire and aggregated to mask facility level information in communities with only a small number of facilities. The annual totals for the processors in the locations of interest who were not surveyed, were calculated using the information provided in the EPA NPDES annual reports.
Table 8. Annual Salmon Waste Generated by Petitioning Areas and Areas of Interest 2005-2009

                           Total Waste (metric tons)

                                   Location
                                     2005

                                     2006
                                     2007
                                     2008
                                     2009
                           Average Annual Waste (mt)
Petitioning Locations [a]
98,138
67,956
102,591
74,940
77,436
84,212
Additional Locations of Interest [b]
230,476
227,861
199,072
159,061
124,791
188,252
Total Annual Waste
328,613
295,817
301,662
234,001
202,227
272,464
Source: EPA, 2010
[a] Petitioning Areas include Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg, but because Anchorage does not have any direct discharging processors, it is not included in this calculation.
[b] Additional locations of interest may include: Dutch Harbor, the Kenai Peninsula, and Sitka. Facilities in Western Alaska around the Bering Sea, such as those in Dutch Harbor, are already required by The Alaska Department of Conservation to implement by-product recovery technologies (Bechtel, 2010).
Waste utilization estimates
Bimbo (2008) estimates quantities of fishmeal and fish oil based on a percentage of fish 46 percent waste to total landings.  Bimbo suggests that a 5:1 conversation ratio can be used to estimate total fishmeal production from the total volume of fish waste. He also suggests that fish oil is approximately two percent of the total fish waste. Using these calculations, Bimbo posits that Alaska could generate more than 200,000 tons of fishmeal and more than 22,000 tons of fish oil per year based on the state's annual average of 2.43 million tons of seafood landings (Bimbo, 2010).
Table 9 shows the volume of salmon harvested in 2009 by ADFG regions that encompass processing  locations. The volume of fish waste generated by the salmon harvest as well as an estimate of potential fishmeal and fish oil production are also provided.

Table 9. 2009 Regional Salmon Harvests and Estimated Fishmeal and Oil Production (metric tons)
                                    Region
                                Salmon Harvest
                            Volume of Fish Waste[d]
                                   Potential
                                 Fishmeal [e]
                                   Potential
                                  Fishmeal[f]
Southeast [a]
                                    98,285
39,314
7,863
786
Central [b]
                                    139,202
55,681
11,136
1,114
Westward [c]
                                    89,441
35,776
7,155
716
Source: EPA calculation using ADFG regional harvest totals.
[a] Includes processing locations such as Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg.
[b] Includes processing locations such as Naknek, Cordova, and Kenai.
[c] Includes processing locations such as Kodiak and Dutch Harbor.
[d] Estimated as 40 percent of total fish weight (ADFG, 2010).
[e] Estimated as 5:1 ratio of quantity of fish waste to meal (Bimbo, 2008).
[f] Bimbo estimates fish oil by-product as two percent of waste (Bimbo, 2008).

Table 10 uses the estimated volumes for salmon waste in the petitioning locations and  additional locations of interest to calculate potential volumes of fishmeal and fish oil. The values in Table 10 are based on Bimbo's (2008) methods for calculating potential volumes and prices of by-product in Alaska. Due to the annual fluctuations in seafood harvests and commodity prices, Bimbo uses average values from the time period from 2002 to 2007 to calculate average by-product prices (see table footnotes) (Bimbo, 2008).
Table 10. Fishmeal and Fish Oil Production Estimates by Petitioning Locations and Additional  Locations of Interest
Location
Average annual salmon waste
 (tons) [c]
Potential Fishmeal  using 5:1 ratio
(tons)
Fishmeal Value
(using 2002-2007 average) ($ millions) [d]
Potential Fish Oil
2% of waste
(tons)
Fish Oil Value
(using 2002-2007 average) ($ millions)
[d]
Current Oil Value
 ($950 per ton)
($ millions)
 [e]
Petitioning Locations [a]
84,212
16,842
$1.5
1,684
$1.4
$1.4
Additional Locatioins of Interest [b]
188,252
37,650
$32.6
3,765
$3.2
$3.2
Total
272,464
54,493
$47.2
5,449
$4.7
$4.6
Source: U.S. EPA, 2010
[a] Petitioning Areas include: Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg. Because Anchorage does not have and direct discharging processors, it is not included in this calculation.
[b] Areas of interest include the Kenai Peninsula and Sitka.
[c] Average waste calculated from EPA questionnaire and NPDES annual report totals.
[d] Averages prices from 2002-2007 were taken from Bimbo (2008). Average price for meal was $966/ton. Average price for oil was $957/ton. Bimbo (2008) used OilWorld.biz prices to calculate five-year averages.
[e] Current day prices for oil taken from FAO (2010).
Comparing Potential Alaskan and Global Quantities of By-products
Alaska's potential production levels of fishmeal and oil are minor in comparison to global quantities produced. Global quantities are used for comparison because the fishmeal and oil markets are global in scope. Using Knapp's (2008) model for estimating global quantities of fishmeal and fish oil based on 2008 world fish production, it is estimated that the global volume of fish waste ranges from 17-51 million tons. Applying Knapp's (2008) by-product estimates to this waste volume results in a combined 1.7 to 2.8 million tons of fishmeal and fish oil being produced globally. Applying Bimbo's (2008) by-product ratios to Knapp's volume of waste results in the figures presented in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Comparing Alaskan and Global Quantities of Seafood By-products
                                  Alaska [a]
                                 Worldwide [b]
                        Average annual waste (tons) [c]
                                   Potential
                                Fishmeal using
                                   5:1 ratio
                                    (tons)
                        Potential Fish oil 2% of waste
                                    (tons)
                                 Seafood waste
                                (million tons)
                                   Potential
                                Fishmeal using
                                   5:1 ratio
                                (million tons)
                       Potential Fish oil (2% of waste)
                                (million tons)
272,464
54,493
5,449
17-51
3-10
0.3-1
[a] Alaskan totals are comprised of quantities from processors in petitioning areas as well as areas of interest.
[b]Worldwide fish production was taken from FAO (2008) and applied to by-product model waste totals from Knapp (2008).
[c] Based on average annual waste as calculated in Table 10.
Table 11 shows that worldwide production of fishmeal and oil is in the millions of tons while estimates of quantities that potentially could be generated by Alaskan processors do not even reach 60,000 tons (or about three percent of the global estimated total). Therefore, the incremental amount of by-product that could potentially be recovered is probably much less than three percent of global quantities (see also Figure 5). Because Alaska by-product production is so minimal in comparison to global production, the entry of these additional products into the market should not affect the global market price of meal and oil the way that other, larger, by-product-producing areas, such as the Peruvian anchovy fishery, have the potential to affect the by-product industry and pricing (see Section 4.3).
Figure 5. Comparing Global and Alaskan Potential Meal and Oil Production

Source: Knapp, 2008 and EPA calculation.

OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING processors in non-remote Processing  Locations
This section discusses how revised discharge requirements may affect non-remote processors compared to other seafood processors without similar discharge requirements. Two topics are highlighted in this section: 1) the main species harvested (and therefore, potentially processed) by location, and 2) the proximity of non-remote processors that may possibly be subject to a revised effluent regulation to processors that may not be subject to the regulation. Refer to section 3.1 of this Profile for information and data on species of fish processed.
Table 12 shows the distance between the seafood processing locations that have permitted direct discharging seafood processors and those that are classified as remote (and not one of those within a location of interest). Because many of the locations are not connected by roads, the distances are provided in nautical miles (NM). For each location, the table also highlights the nearest processing locations.
Table 12. Other Processors Closest to the Processors in Petitioning Locations and Locations of Interest
Processing Location
Location #/Distance in Nautical Miles (NM)

1  (NM)
2 (NM)
3 (NM)
4 (NM)
5 (NM)
Non-Remote
Anchorage
Whittier
60
Big Lake
64
Seward
127

Cordova
Valdez
40
Whittier
89

Petersburg
Wrangell
28
Kake
34

Juneau
Excursion Inlet
32
Hoonah
34
Pelican
61
Haines
65

Ketchikan
Metlakatla
13
Craig
52

                                    Remote
Dutch Harbor
King Cove
134
Cold Bay
155
St. Paul
232

Kenai [a]
Homer
27
Soldotna
26
Nikiski
36
Anchorage
81
Whittier

90

Sitka
Kake
45
Pelican
62
Hoonah
64
Petersburg
79

Source: Potential processors resulted from EPA, Region 10, ADEC (2010) permit listings and ADFG (2011) land-based processor listing. Latitude and Longitude Coordinates from Google Maps (Google.com, 2011) were entered in Straight Sailing Marine Distance Calculator (CSGnetwork, 2011).
[a] The first three locations -- Homer, Soldotna, and Nikiski -- are on the Kenai Peninsula, while the nearest processors not located on the Kenai Peninsula are in Anchorage and Whittier.
As Table 12 shows, several non-remote processors affected by effluent guideline regulations are near processors without similar discharge restrictions. The table also shows that processors within close geographical proximity are also likely to process similar types of seafood. For example, Wrangell and Petersburg both process similar types of fish, such as salmon, and are only 28 NM apart. See Section 3 for discussion of fish species processed by location.
The communities that are home to the non-remote, petitioning seafood processors and the facilities in the additional remote processing locations of interest have varying economies and population demographics. This section begins with demographic information for the communities in the petitioning locations and locations of interest in order to help provide some context to the discussion afterward about the role of seafood processing in local processing economies.
Demographic information for the petitioning processor communities and  additional locations of interest from the U.S. Census Bureau is provided in Table 13.  The geographic areas surveyed as U.S. census areas do not directly match each municipality in Alaska. For example, as shown in Table 13, Petersburg is part of the Wrangell-Petersburg census area, Cordova statistics are combined with those of Valdez, and Dutch Harbor is included in the Aleutians West census area. Because some communities' population and economic information have been aggregated beyond the individual municipality level of interest, the census information included in this section provides only an overall sense of the characteristics of some areas and should not be used for direct community comparisons.
Table 13. Census Characterization of Petitioning Processor Communities from 2000 US Census
                             Census Characteristic
                       Non-Remote Processor Communities
                         Remote Locations of Interest

                                   Ketchikan
                              Wrangell-Petersburg
                                Valdez Cordova
                                   Anchorage
                            Juneau City and Borough
                                Aleutians West
                                (Dutch Harbor)
                                     Sitka
                      Kenai Peninsula (including Seward)
Total Population
14,070
6,684
10,195
260,283
30,711
5,465
8,835
49,691
Labor Force
7,772
3,406
5,043
143,350
17,623
3,788
4,934
23,116
Median Household Income [a]
51,344
46,434
48,734
55,546
62,034
61,406
51,901
46,397
Percentage of Individuals Below Poverty Line
6.5%
7.9%
9.8%
7.3%
6.0%
11.9%
7.8%
10.0%
Population of American Indian and Alaskan Native
2,109
1,074
1,351
18,941
3,496
1,145
1,641
3,713
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
[a] Median Income was based on U.S. Census data for 1999.

The seafood processing industry has varying effects on the petitioning communities and additional locations of interest because it plays proportionally different roles in each of the local economies. In order to help understand the community impacts of the seafood processing industry, EPA obtained economic and industry information for the petitioning areas and areas of interest from the U.S. Census County Business Patterns (CBP) for 2008. CBP statistics were used rather than the 2007 Economic Census because nuanced, local level information often was withheld in the 2007 Economic Census, given the small number of seafood processors in some locations and the proprietary nature of the information. Even within the County Business Patterns, some communities' information is represented by a range (for example, 1-19 employees) so as not to be able to identify individual companies when there are few processors in a particular area. Also, as mentioned in Section 2.2.2, employment figures from the Census are not recorded during peak fishing and processing season in Alaska, so employment in the seafood processing industry might be higher than that shown here.
Within County Business Patterns, as well as the 2007 Economic Census, seafood processing falls within the broader manufacturing sector.  In order to help highlight the relative importance of seafood processing in each of the communities' local economies, Table 14 compares employment and establishment information from the each community with employment and establishment statistics from the manufacturing sector and the seafood processing industry within that manufacturing sector.  Income and expenditures were not included in the table because the information was not publicly available for the seafood processors. Similar to Table 13, the information in Table 14 also combines communities into U.S. census areas, so the industry statistics for Petersburg and Cordova as well as the remote areas of Dutch Harbor and the Kenai Peninsula are aggregated beyond individual petitioning areas and areas of interest.

Table 14 Seafood Processing in the Context of Census Employment and Establishments
Census Area
Non-Remote Petitioning Locations
Remote Locations of Interest
Total

Anchorage
Juneau
Ketchikan Gateway
Valdez-Cordova
Wrangell-Petersburg
Dutch Harbor-Aleutian Bay
Kenai Peninsula
Sitka

Establishments
Total- All sectors
8,486
1,106
565
405
265
134
1,953
391
13,305
Percent of Total Establishments in Seafood Processing
0.08
0.27
0.71
2.47
3.40
6.72
1.02
2.05
0.53
Total- Manufacturing
195
28
16
14
13
14
62
17
359
Percent of Manufacturing Establishments in Seafood Processing
3.59
10.71
25.00
71.43
69.23
64.29
32.26
47.06
19.50
Total- Seafood Processing
7
3
4
10
9
9
20
8
70
Employment [a]
Total- All sectors
140,981
10,868
4,938
2,516
1,510
4,686
13,090
3,185
181,774
Percent of Total Employees in Seafood Processing
Low
0.01
0.19
2.43
0.83
11.13
67.09
1.70
5.87
2.15
High
0.08
1.09
7.05
4.69
12.32
67.09
1.84
5.87
2.45
Total- Manufacturing
2,353
253
357
139
197
3,236
618
248
7,401
Percent of Manufacturing Employees in Seafood Processing
Low
0.89
8.30
33.61
15.11
85.28
97.16
36.08
75.40
52.76
High
0.08
46.64
7.05
4.69
12.32
67.09
1.84
5.87
2.45
Total-Seafood Processing

Low
21
21
120
21
168
3,144
223
187
3,905
High
118
118
348
118
186
3,144
241
187
4,460
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008) (County Business Patterns).  Employment figures from Census do not reflect employment during peak fish processing periods in Alaska due to the seasonal nature of the work. Alaska employment in the seafood processing industry may be higher than that shown here.
[a] Employment statistics for seafood processing appear as a range in CBP, and a low and high employment estimate were calculated from the ranges provided.

Table 14 shows the relative impact that seafood processing has on number of establishments and employment in non-remote petitioning locations as well as the additional remote locations of interest. Although some census areas encompass more than one community, the information presented in Table 14 suggests that seafood processing plays a larger role in some local economies (such as Wrangell-Petersburg) relative to others (such as Anchorage). The very large Trident processing facility in Akutan is a standalone and self sufficient community. The table also shows the relative role of the seafood processing industry in the remote areas of interest as compared to the non-remote, petitioning areas.
For a more detailed understanding of the composition of the seafood processing industry in each of the communities, Table 15 divides seafood processing into canning and fresh and frozen production as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
Table 15. Seafood Canning and Fresh/Frozen Processor Establishments and Employees [a]
Census Area
State
of Alaska
Non-Remote Petitioning Locations
Remote Locations of Interest
Petitioning Locations and Additional Locations of Interest Combined Total

Anchorage
Juneau
Ketchikan Gateway
Valdez-Cordova
Wrangell-Petersburg
Total
Dutch Harbor-Aleutian Bay
Kenai Peninsula
Sitka
Total

CANNING (NAICS 311711)
Establishments
18
1
1
2
1
4
9
NA
1
NA
1
10
Employees  [b]
Low
936
1
1
20
1
1
24
NA
1
NA
1
25
High

19
19
99
19
19
175
NA
19
NA
19
194
FRESH/FROZEN (NAICS 311712)
Establishments
98
6
2
2
9
5
24
9
19
8
36
60
Employees [b]*
Low
7,934
20
20
100
20
167*
327
3,144*
222*
187*
3,553
3,880
High

99
99
249
99
167*
713
3,144*
222*
187*
3,553
4,266
Source: US Census Bureau (2008), U.S. Census Bureau  (2007b)
[a] Data for the State of Alaska was taken from the 2007 US Economics Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b) while figures for all other categories were taken from  County Business Patterns (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
[b]Employment statistics for seafood processing appear as a range in CBP, and a low and high employment estimate were calculated from the ranges provided.  Employment statistics for seafood processing appear as an aggregate total in the U.S. Economic Census information (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a) used for the state.
NA: NA indicates that the type of processing does not apply to the census area.
* Indicates actual number of employees reported instead of range.

References
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), 2010. Revenue Sharing Programs website. <http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dcra/LOGON/srs/srs-fish.htm>.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 2010. In Person Meeting between ADEC Officials and Betsy Bicknell, ERG, and Lindsay Guzzo, EPA. August 9, Juneau AK.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2011. 2010 Preliminary Processor Buyers (Intent to Operate) Listing as of January 13, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2010. Commercial Fishing Website. <http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercial.main>. August 2, 2011.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2009. 2008 Statewide Shellfish Summary. Accessed at: <http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingCommercial.main>. August 21.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2008. 2008 Alaska Fisheries ExVessel Price. ADFG Division of Commercial Fisheries. Juneau, AK
Alaska Department of Revenue, 2010. Fisheries Related Taxes. <http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/help/faq/faq.aspx?60620>. October.
Alaska General Seafoods, 2010a. Website. <http://www.akgen.com/index.asp>. December.
Alaska Glacier Seafoods, 2010a. Website. <http://www.alaskaglacierseafoods.com/>. December.
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). 2011. Board Meeting Minutes. <http://www.aidea.org/BoardMaterials/Board%20Minutes/2011_3-31_AIDEA.pdf.>. December.
Alaska Protein Recovery (APR). 2010. ERG site visit to Alaska Protein Recovery, Ketchikan, AK. August 13.
Bechtel. P.J., 2010. Enhancing Utilization of Alaska Fish Processing Byproduct Parts. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Bimbo, A.P. 2010. 2008 Update on Potential Products, Markets, and Competing Products. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.).  A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 9-25. doi:10.4027/sffpb.2010.02.
Bimbo, A.P., 2008. Alaska Seafood By-products: Potential Products, Markets and Competing Products. Prepared for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation.
Browning, J., 2010. From Sustainability to Full Utilization. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 5-7. doi:10.4027/sffpb.2010.01.
CSGnetwork, 2010. Straight Sailing Marine Distance Calculator.
Copper River Seafoods, 2010. ERG site visit to Copper River Seafoods, Cordova, AK. August 19.
Copper River Seafoods, 2010a. Website. < http://copperriverseafoods.com/>. December.
Deep Creek Custom Packing. 2011. Telephone Conversation between Jeff, Deep Creek Custom Packing, and Melanie Sands, ERG. April 27.
Double E Seafoods, LLC, 2010a. Website. < http://www.eefoods.com/>. December.
Double E Seafoods, 2010b. Growth through Value and Service Webpage. <http://www.eefoods.com/company.html>. December 6.
E.C. Phillips and Son, Inc., 2010a. Website. < http://www.ecphillipsalaska.com/>. December.
Federal Register (FR), 2010. Small Business Size Regulations. Title 13, Part 121.
Federal Register (FR), 1986. Final Rule. Best Conventional Pollutant Control. FR 24974. 51(131), July 9.
Federal Register (FR), 1981. Proposed Response to Petition. 46 FR 2544. 46 (6), January 9.
Federal Register (FR), 1980. Canned and Preserved Processing Point Source Category. 40 CFR 408. 45(154), August 7.
Federal Register (FR), 1975. Interim Final ELGs, Phase II, 40 FR 4582. Jan. 30.
Federal Register (FR), 1974. Final ELGs, Phase I, 39 FR 23134. June 26
Finstad, G., C. Bucki, G. Aguiar, E. Wiklund, and P.J. Bechtel, 2010. Alaska Fish Byproducts as a Feed Ingredient for Reindeer. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 73-86.
Fishery Industrial Technology Center, (FITC), 2010. Teleconference between Scott Smiley and Peter Bechtel, FITC, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Kodiak, AK, U.S EPA, and ERG. August 17.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2010. Food Outlook Global Market Analysis: Fish and Fishery Products. < http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/ak341e/ak341e11.htm >. December.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2008. FAO World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e01.pdf>. October.
Freedictionary.com, 2011. Definition for Surimi. www.thefreedictionary.com/surimi. August 1.
Google.com, 2011. Latitude and Longitude Coordinates for Processor Locations. Website.
Hoovers, 2010. E & E Seafoods (Double E Seafoods). Company Information Search. <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Icicle_Seafoods_Inc/rrtfjci-1.html>. December.
Hoovers, 2010a. Icicle Seafoods. Company Information Search. <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Icicle_Seafoods_Inc/rrtfjci-1.html>. December.
Hoovers, 2010b. Marubeni Corporation. Company Information Search. <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Marubeni_Corporation/crkkif-1-1njea5.html >. December.
Hoovers, 2010c. Maruha Nichiro Holdings. Company Information Search < http://www.hoovers.com/company/Maruha_Nichiro_Holdings_Inc/hthfxi-1.html >. December.
Hoovers, 2010d Nippon Suison Kaisha. Company Information Search < http://www.hoovers.com/company/Nippon_Suisan_Kaisha_Ltd/hjfkri-1.html >. December.
Hoovers, 2010e. Ocean Beauty Seafoods. Company Information Search <http://www.hoovers.com/search/company-search-results/100003765-1.html?type=company&term=Ocean%20Beauty%20Seafoods>. December.
Hoovers, 2010f. Trident Seafood Corporation. Company Information Search <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Trident_Seafoods_Corporation/rfhsyxi-1.html>. December.
Hoovers, 2010g. Inlet Fish Producers. Company Information Search. <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Inlet_Fish_Producers_Inc/rkjjkkhtc-1.html>. August 2, 2011.
Hoovers, 2011. Alyeska Seafoods. http://www.hoovers.com/company/Alyeska_Seafoods_Inc/ryftcsi-1.html
Icicle Seafoods, 2010a. Website. < http://www.icicleseafoods.com/>. December.
Inlet Fish Producers. 2010. Website. < http://www.inletfish.com/>. December.
International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation (IFFO), 2010. What Are Fishmeal and Fish Oil? http://www.iffo.net/default.asp?contentID=716. December 15.
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), 2010. Alaska webpage. http://www.iphc.int/commercial/7-alaska-commercial.html. August 1, 2011.
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), 2008. 2008 Catch Data. http://www.iphc.int/commercial/189-catch-stat2008.html. August 1, 2011.
Jordan, Edward C. 1979. Reassessment of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Sorce Category. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency. Edward C. Jordan Co. Inc, Portland, Maine.
Kim, S., and E. Mendis, 2006. Bioactive compounds from marine processing byproducts  -  A review. Food Research International 39: 383 - 393.
Knapp, G., 2010. In person meeting between Betsy Bicknell, ERG, and Gunnar Knapp. August 8, Anchorage, AK.
Knapp, G., 2008. The Potential for Increasing Production of Fishmeal and Fish Oil from Food Fishery Byproducts: The Case of Alaska Pollock. Presentation.
Knapp, G., 2007. Overview of Trends in Alaska Fisheries Prices and Values. Updated.
Kodiak Fishmeal Company, 2010. ERG site visit to Kodiak Fishmeal Company, August 18.
Lane. 2010. Personal Communication between Sandro Lane, Alaska Protein Recovery, and Betsy Bicknell, ERG, December 16.
Manta.com, 2011. Silver Bay Seafoods. < www.manta.com/c/mt8g1pm/silver-bay-seafoods-llc >. August 2.
Manta.com, 2011a. Copper River Seafoods. http://www.manta.com/c/mmd76f5/copper-river-seafoods
Manta.com, 2011b. Westward, Dutch Harbor. http://www.manta.com/c/mmnjxv3/westward-seafoods-inc
Manta.com, 2010. Polar Equipment. Company Information Search <http://www.manta.com/c/mmfzrrr/polar-seafoods>. December.
Marubeni Corporation, 2010. Website. < http://www.marubeni.com/division/food.html>. December.
Maruha Nichiro Holdings, 2010. Website. < http://www.maruha-nichiro.co.jp/english/>. December.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2010. Fisheries of the United States 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology. Silver Spring, MD.
Nicklason, P., P. Stitzel, H. Barnett, R. Johnson, and M. Rust, 2010. Montlake Process for Utilization of Salmon Processing Waste in Alaska. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 221-234. doi:10.4027/sffpb.2010.18
Nippon Suison Kaisha, 2010. Website. < http://www.nissui.co.jp/english/index.html>. December.
North Pacific Seafoods, 2010a. Website. <http://northpacificseafoods.com/component/option.com_frontpage/Itemid1/>. December.
Ocean Beauty Seafoods, 2010. ERG site visit to Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Cordova, AK. August 19.
Ocean Beauty Seafoods, 2010a. ERG site visit to Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Kodiak, AK. August 18.
Ocean Beauty Seafoods, 2010b. Website. < http://www.oceanbeauty.com/>. December.
Pacific Star Seafoods, 2010. Webpage. < http://eefoods.com/pdf/pacific.pdf>. December.
Sanmartin et al. 2009. Recent Advances in the Recovery and Improvement of Functional Proteins from Fish Processing By-Products: Use of Protein Glycation as an Alternate Method. Institute of Technologies, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. Vol 8, pp 332-344.
Sathivel, S., 2010. Effects of Extraction and Purification Processes on the Quality of Fish Oil. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 259-263.
Scientific Fisheries Systems (SFS), 2010. In Person Meeting between Scientific Fisheries Systems (SFS) representatives and Betsy Bicknell, ERG, and Lindsay Guzzo, EPA. Anchorage, AK. August 9.
Silver Bay Seafoods, 2010. Website. < www.silverbayseafoods.com/>. December.
Siu Alaska Corporation, 2011. Siu Alaska Corporation Operations webpage. http://www.siualaska.com/operations.html. August 1, 2011.
Smiley, S., N. Demir, A.C.M. Oliveira, and P.J. Bechtel, 2010. Characterization of Dried Heads from Five Pacific Salmon Species, Dried at Different Temperatures. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 55-66.
Snug Harbor Seafoods, 2010. Website. < http://snugharborseafoods.com/index.html>. December.
State of Alaska, 1990. Statute 16.40.210. Prohibits Fin Fish Farming. <http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/16/16.40./03./16.40.210>. August 2, 2011.
Stine, J.J., T.H. Wu, A.C.M. Oliveira, S. Smiley, and P.J. Bechtel, 2010. Extraction and Determination of Chondroitin Sulfate from Fish Processing Byproducts. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 41-53.
Stitzel. 2010. Personal Communication between Peter Stitzel, Sitka Meal, Oil, and Technology, and Betsy Bicknell, ERG, December 16.
Taku (Southeast Alaska Smoked Salmon Company), 2010. ERG site visit to Taku, Juneau, AK. August 16.
Taku (Southeast Alaska Smoked Salmon Company), 2010a. Website. <http://takustore.com/>. December.
The Fish Factory, 2010. Website. <http://www.thefishfactory.net/>. December.
Trident Seafood Corporation. 2010. ERG site visit to Trident-North, Cordova, AK. August 19.
Trident Seafood Corporation. 2010a. ERG site visit to Trident-South, Cordova, AK. August 19.
Trident Seafood Corporation, 2010b. ERG site visit to Trident Seafood Corporation, Petersburg, AK. August 15.
Trident Seafood Corporation, 2010c. Website. <http://www.tridentseafoods.com/company/history.php>. December
Trident Seafood Corporation, letter to Bristol Bay Borough, January 24, 2012.
Troger, C., and K. Niranjan, 2010. Sustainable Chitin Extraction and Chitosan Modification for Application in the Food Industry. Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading,RG6 6AH, United Kingdom. Accessed via <http://www.foodinnova.com/foodInnova/docu2/35.pdf>.  December 2011.
UniSea, 2010. Website. <http://www.unisea.com/>. December.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Definitions Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing. < http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=311712&search=2007>. October.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Definitions Seafood Canning. < http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch>. October.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. 2008 County Business Patterns for NAICS 311711 and 311712. Accessed via <http://factfinder.census.gov>.  December.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a. 2007 Economic Census 2007 for 311711 and 311712 for United States. <http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/index.html>. October.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b. 2007 Economic Census 2007 for 311711 and 311712 for the State of Alaska. Accessed via <http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/index.html>. October.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.  Census Data 2000 for the State of Alaska. <http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ak.html>. October.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a. 1997 Economic Census. Geographic Area Series. Manufacturing  - Codes 311711 and 311712 for the State of Alaska. Geographic Area Series. May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. Report to the Record: Results of Analysis for Alaska Seafood Processors (Facilities and Firms). (CBI)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013a. Report to the Record: Costs and Economic Analysis for Alaska Seafood Processors (Facilities and Firms).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010. NPDES Annual Reports. Received from EPA Region 10 via email, and from ADEC web site
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001. Fact Sheet: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Plans to Reissue a Wastewater Discharge Permit to Alyeska Seafoods, Inc. NPDES Permit Number AK-000027-2. September 14.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001a. Fact Sheet: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Plans to Reissue a Wastewater Discharge Permit to Trident Seafoods, Inc. NPDES Permit Number AK-003730-3. September 14.
Westward Seafoods, 2010a. Website. < http://www.westwardseafoods.com/company.php >. December.
Zhang, M., S. Sparrow, A. Pantoja, and P.J. Bechtel, 2010. Crop Nutrient Recovery from Applied Fish Coproducts. In: P.J. Bechtel and S. Smiley (eds.), A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 87-103.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77940-77941]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0391]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Transportation of
Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval. The FMCSA requests approval to extend an existing
ICR titled, ``Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing.''
The information reported by States and Indian tribes is necessary to
identify designated/restricted routes and restrictions or limitations
affecting how motor carriers may transport certain hazardous materials
on their highways, including dates that such routes were established
and information on subsequent changes or new hazardous materials
routing designations. On September 13, 2010, FMCSA published a Federal
Register notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. No
comment was received.

DATES: Please send your comments by January 13, 2011. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2010-0391. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Bomgardner, Hazardous
Materials Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0014.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: The reporting burden is shared by 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Expiration Date: March 31, 2011.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13 hours [51 annual respondents x 1

response x 15 minutes per response/60 minutes per response = 12.75
hours, rounded to 13 hours].
    Background: The data for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials;
Highway Routing designations ICR is collected under authority of 49
U.S.C. 5112 and 5125. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 5112(c) requires that the
Secretary, in coordination with the States, ``shall update and publish
periodically a list of current effective hazardous materials highway
route designations.''
    Under 49 CFR 397.73, the FMCSA Administrator has the authority to
request that each State and Indian tribe, through its routing agency,
provide information identifying hazardous materials designations within
their jurisdictions. That information is collected and consolidated by
FMCSA and published annually, in whole or as updates, in the Federal
Register.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued on: December 5, 2010.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-31264 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60323-60325]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24392]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1037; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-008-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DASSUALT AVIATION Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a manufacturer revision to the airplane maintenance
manual (AMM) that introduces new or more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would
revise the maintenance program to incorporate new or revised
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are
proposing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1037;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-008-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0246, dated December 22, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for
the Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 50 (MF50) type design are included in
Dassault Aviation Myst[egrave]re-Falcon 50 Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and approved by the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA). EASA issued AD 2008-0221 to require
accomplishment of the maintenance tasks and implementation of the
airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation MF50
AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 17.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued MF50
AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 21, which introduces new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations.
    Dassault Aviation AMM chapter 5-40 revision 21 contains among
other changes the following requirements:

--Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme (CPCP). Compliance with
this programme was required by DGAC [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France AD F-2004-162
(EASA approval number 2004-10117). A new CPCP approach is now
introduced in MF50 AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 21;
--Check of overpressure tightness on pressurization control
regulating valves. Compliance with this check is required by EASA AD
2008-0072 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-
16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010]. MF50 AMM chapter 5-40 at
revision 21 introduces extended inspection interval;
--Non destructive check of the flap tracks 2 and 5. Compliance with
this check is required by EASA AD 2010-0080.

    The maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as
specified in the MF50 AMM chapter 5-40, have been identified as
mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the MF50 type
design. Failure to comply with AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 21 might
constitute an unsafe condition [which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes DGAC France AD F-2004-162, requires the implementation of
the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in
Dassault Aviation MF50 AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 21.

The required action is revising the maintenance program to incorporate
all

airworthiness limitations and maintenance tasks specified in Section
05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual,
Revision 21, dated June 21, 2011. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of
Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX
Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 21, 2011. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 253 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $21,505, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2012-1037; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-008-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 19, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    Certain requirements of this AD terminate the requirements of AD
2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012); and
AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010),
for the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these
inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
inspections.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a manufacturer revision to the airplane
maintenance manual (AMM) that introduces new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

 (f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance program to incorporate all airworthiness limitations and
maintenance tasks specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness
Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the
Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June
21, 2011. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the
applicable times specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness
Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the
Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June
21, 2011, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/
or CDCCLs may be used other than those specified in Section 05-40/
00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual,
Revision 21, dated June 21, 2011, unless the actions, intervals,
and/or CDCCLs are approved as an

alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Certain ADs

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates the requirements of AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77
FR 12175, February 29, 2012); and AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544
(75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010); for the DASSAULT AVIATION Model
MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes specified in those ADs.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0246, dated December 22, 2011; and Section 05-40/00,
Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual,
Revision 21, dated June 21, 2011; for related information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 26, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-24392 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50346-50347]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4660-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4660-DR), dated July 13,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued July 13, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 13, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm and flooding
during the period of April 22 to May 25, 2022, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of North Dakota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Alana B. Kuhn, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Dakota have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Adams, Barnes, Billings, Bottineau, Burke, Cavalier, Dickey,
Divide, Dunn, Foster, Golden Valley, Grand Forks, Grant, Griggs,
Hettinger, Kidder, LaMoure, Logan, McHenry, McIntosh, McKenzie,
McLean, Mountrail, Nelson, Oliver, Pembina, Ramsey, Ransom,
Renville, Richland, Rolette, Sargent, Steele, Stutsman, Towner,
Traill, Walsh, Ward, Wells, and Williams Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of North Dakota are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster

Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-17553 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26454-26455]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1657-000]

Mechanicsville Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Mechanicsville Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR

part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 18, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 28, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09439 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P