Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Notices 33213 

1Licensing is not required under conditions 1, 2, 

or 3 above if the project is constructed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with the terms of a 

valid federal permit issued prior to June 10, 1920. 

water or water power from a federal 

dam; 1 or (4) are located on nonnavigable streams over which Congress 

has jurisdiction under its authority to 

regulate interstate and foreign 

commerce, would affect the interests of 

interstate or foreign commerce (such as 

by connection to the interstate electrical 

grid, and are constructed or enlarged 

after August 26, 1935. 

A stream is navigable under section 

3(8) of the FPA if: (1) It is currently 

being used or is suitable for use, or (2) 

it has been used or was suitable for use 

in the past, or (3) it could be made 

suitable for use in the future by 

reasonable improvements, to transport 

persons or property in interstate or 

foreign commerce. Navigability under 

section 3(8) of the FPA is not destroyed 

by obstructions or disuse of many years; 

personal or private use may be sufficient 

to demonstrate the availability of the 

river for commercial navigation; and the 

seasonal floatation of logs is sufficient to 

determine that a river is navigable. 

Comments are invited on the staff’s 

navigability report. Copies of this 

navigability report are on file with the 

Commission and are available for public 

inspection. This navigability report may 

be viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number, UL11–1, 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, please contact FERC 

Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. 

Please file your response with the 

Commission’s Secretary by July 2, 2012. 

All comments may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s web 

site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. If unable to be filed 

electronically, comments may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and eight 

copies should be filed with: Secretary, 

Mail Code PJ–12, 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 at http:// 

www.ferc.gov.filing-comments.asp. 

Please include the docket number 

(UL11–1–000) on any filing. 

For further information, please 

contact Henry Ecton at (202) 502–8768. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13504 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP12–463–000] 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC; Notice of Request 

Under Blanket Authorization 

Take notice that on May 17, 2012 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office 

Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed 

in Docket No. CP12–463–000, a Prior 

Notice request pursuant to Sections 

157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the 

Commission’s Regulations under the 

Natural Gas Act, and Transco’s blanket 

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82– 

426, for authorization to replace two 

existing Ansaldo electric motors with 

two new electric motors at Transco’s 

existing Compressor Station 205 in 

Princeton, New Jersey (Compressor 

Station 205). Specifically, Transco 

proposes to replace two 7,000 

horsepower high speed electric motors 

and associated variable frequency drives 

for units 1 and 2 with two new Siemens 

electric motors with new variable 

frequency drives that will be certificated 

and operated at 7,000 horsepower each, 

all as more fully set forth in the 

application which is on file with the 

Commission and open to public 

inspection. The filing may also be 

viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions regarding this 

Application should be directed to Bela 

Patel, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, 

Texas 77251, or call (713) 215–2659. 

Any person may, within 60 days after 

the issuance of the instant notice by the 

Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 

of the Commission’s Procedural Rules 

(18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene 

or notice of intervention. Any person 

filing to intervene or the Commission’s 

staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of 

the Commission’s Regulations under the 

NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to 

the request. If no protest is filed within 

the time allowed therefore, the proposed 

activity shall be deemed to be 

authorized effective the day after the 

time allowed for protest. If a protest is 

filed and not withdrawn within 30 days 

after the time allowed for filing a 

protest, the instant request shall be 

treated as an application for 

authorization pursuant to section 7 of 

the NGA. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 

two copies of their comments to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Environmental commenter’s will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 

associated with he Commission’s 

environmental review process. 

Environmental commenter’s will not be 

required to serve copies of filed 

documents on all other parties. 

However, the non-party commentary, 

will not receive copies of all documents 

filed by other parties or issued by the 

Commission (except for the mailing of 

environmental documents issued by the 

Commission) and ill not have the right 

to seek court review of the 

Commission’s final order. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests, 

and interventions via the internet in lieu 

of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) 

and the instructions on the 

Commission’s Web site (www.ferc.gov) 

under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Persons 

unable to file electronically should 

submit an original and 14 copies of the 

protest or intervention to the Federal 

Energy regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13509 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9681–3; EPA–HQ–ORD–2012–0358] 

An Assessment of Potential Mining 

Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of 

Bristol Bay, Alaska—Peer Review 

Panel Members and Charge Questions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
33214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of availability and public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the peer 

review panel members assembled by an 

independent contractor to evaluate the 

draft document titled, ‘‘An Assessment 

of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon 

Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska’’ 

(EPA–910–R–12–004a–c). EPA is also 

announcing a three week public 

comment period for the draft charge 

questions to be provided to the peer 

review panel. The assessment was 

prepared by the U.S. EPA’s Region 10 

Office (Pacific Northwest and Alaska), 

EPA’s Office of Water, and EPA’s Office 

of Research and Development. The U.S. 

EPA conducted this assessment to 

determine the significance of Bristol 

Bay’s ecological resources and evaluate 

the potential impacts of large-scale 

mining on these resources. 

DATES: The public comment period 

begins June 5, 2012, and ends June 26, 

2012. Comments should be in writing 

and must be received by EPA by June 

26, 2012. 

Availability: Draft charge questions 

are provided below. Copies of the draft 

charge questions are also available via 

the Internet on the EPA Region 10 

Bristol Bay Web site at www.epa.gov/ 

bristolbay. The draft document ‘‘An 

Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts 

on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, 

Alaska’’ is also available on the Internet 

on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay Web 

site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay. A 

limited number of paper copies of the 

draft charge questions are available from 

the Information Management Team, 

NCEA; telephone: 703–347–8561; 

facsimile: 703–347–8691. If you are 

requesting a paper copy, please provide 

your name, your mailing address, and 

title, ‘‘Peer Review Charge Questions on 

An Assessment of Potential Mining 

Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of 

Bristol Bay, Alaska.’’ 

Comments on the draft charge 

questions may be submitted 

electronically via www.regulations.gov, 

by email, by mail, by facsimile, or by 

hand delivery/courier. Please follow the 

detailed instructions provided in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the public comment 

period, contact the Office of 

Environmental Information Docket; 

telephone: 202–566–1752; facsimile: 

202–566–9744; or email: 

ORD.Docket@epa.gov. 

For technical information concerning 

the report, contact Judy Smith; 

telephone: 503–326–6994; facsimile: 

503–326–3399; or email: 

r10bristolbay@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Information About the Project 

The U.S. EPA conducted this 

assessment to determine the 

significance of Bristol Bay’s ecological 

resources and evaluate the potential 

impacts of large-scale mining on these 

resources. The U.S. EPA will use the 

results of this assessment to inform the 

consideration of options consistent with 

its role under the Clean Water Act. The 

assessment is intended to provide a 

scientific and technical foundation for 

future decision making. The Web site 

that describes the project is 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay. 

EPA released the draft assessment for 

the purposes of public comment and 

peer review on May 18, 2012. Consistent 

with guidelines for the peer review of 

highly influential scientific assessments, 

EPA asked a contractor (Versar, Inc.) to 

assemble a panel of experts to evaluate 

the draft report. Versar evaluated the 86 

candidates nominated during a previous 

public comment period (February 24, 

2012 to March 16, 2012) and sought 

other experts to complete this peer 

review panel. The twelve peer review 

panel members are as follows: 

Mr. David Atkins, Watershed 

Environmental, LLC.—Expertise in mining 

and hydrology. 

Mr. Steve Buckley, WHPacific/NANA 

Alaska—Expertise in mining and seismology. 

Dr. Courtney Carothers—Expertise in 

indigenous Alaskan cultures. 

Dr. Dennis Dauble, Washington State 

University—Expertise in fisheries biology 

and wildlife ecology. 

Dr. Gordon Reeves, USDA Pacific NW 

Research Station—Expertise in fisheries 

biology and aquatic biology. 

Dr. Charles Slaughter, University of 

Idaho—Expertise in hydrology. 

Dr. John Stednick, Colorado State 

University—Expertise in hydrology and 

biogeochemistry. 

Dr. Roy Stein, Ohio State University— 

Expertise in fisheries and aquatic biology. 

Dr. William Stubblefield, Oregon State 

University—Expertise in aquatic biology and 

ecotoxicology. 

Dr. Dirk van Zyl, University of British 

Columbia—Expertise in mining and 

biogeochemistry. 

Dr. Phyllis Weber Scannel—Expertise in 

aquatic ecology and ecotoxicology. 

Dr. Paul Whitney—Expertise in wildlife 

ecology and ecotoxicology. 

The peer review panel will be 

provided with draft charge questions to 

guide their evaluation of the draft 

assessment. These draft charge 

questions are designed to focus 

reviewers on specific aspects of the 

report. EPA is seeking comments from 

the public on the draft charge questions 

and welcome input on additional charge 

questions consistent with the objectives 

of the assessment. The draft charge 

questions are as follows: 

(1) The assessment brought together 

information to characterize the 

ecological, geological, and cultural 

resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak 

watersheds. Was this characterization 

accurate? Was any significant literature 

missed that would be useful to complete 

this characterization? 

(2) A formal mine plan or application 

is not available for the porphyry copper 

deposits in the Bristol Bay watershed. 

EPA developed a hypothetical mine 

scenario for its risk assessment. Given 

the type and location of copper deposits 

in the watershed, was this hypothetical 

mine scenario realistic? Has EPA 

appropriately bounded the magnitude of 

potential mine activities with the 

minimum and maximum mine sizes 

used in the scenario? Is there significant 

literature not referenced that would be 

useful to refine the mine scenario? 

(3) EPA assumed two potential modes 

for mining operations: A no-failure 

mode of operation and a mode outlining 

one or more types of failures. The nofailure operation mode assumes best 

practical engineering and mitigation 

practices are in place and in optimal 

operating condition. Is the no-failure 

mode of operation adequately 

described? Is the choice of engineering 

and mitigation practices reasonable and 

consistent with current practices? 

(4) Are the potential risks to salmonid 

fish due to habitat loss and modification 

and water quantity/quality changes 

appropriately characterized and 

described for the no-failure mode of 

operation? Does the assessment 

appropriately describe the risks to 

salmonid fish due to operation of a 

transportation corridor under the nofailure mode of operation? 

(5) Do the failures outlined in the 

assessment reasonably represent 

potential system failures that could 

occur at a mine of the type and size 

outlined in the mine scenario? Is there 

a significant type of failure that is not 

described? Are the assumed risks of 

failures appropriate? 

(6) Does the assessment appropriately 

characterize risks to salmonid fish due 

to a potential failure of water and 

leachate collection and treatment from 

the mine site? If not, what suggestions 

do you have for improving this part of 

the assessment? 

(7) Does the assessment appropriately 

characterize risks to salmonid fish due 

to culvert failures along the 

transportation corridor? If not, what 

suggestions do you have for improving 

this part of the assessment? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Notices 33215 

(8) Does the assessment appropriately 

characterize risks to salmonid fish due 

to pipeline failures? If not, what 

suggestions do you have for improving 

this part of the assessment? 

(9) Does the assessment appropriately 

characterize risks to salmonid fish due 

to a potential tailings dam failure? If 

not, what suggestions do you have for 

improving this part of the assessment? 

(10) Does the assessment 

appropriately characterize risks to 

wildlife and human cultures due to 

risks to fish? If not, what suggestions do 

you have for improving this part of the 

assessment? 

(11) Does the assessment 

appropriately describe the potential for 

cumulative risk from multiple mines? 

(12) Does the assessment identify the 

uncertainties and limitations associated 

with the mine scenario and the 

identified risks? 

The preferred method to submit 

comments on the draft peer review 

charge is through the docket, which is 

described below. This docket is separate 

from the docket collecting public 

comments on the draft assessment itself. 

The EPA will evaluate comments 

received on these draft charge questions. 

Charge questions will be finalized and 

provided to EPA’s independent 

contractor, Versar, Inc., who will 

convene the expert panel for 

independent external peer review. 

The external peer review panel 

meeting is scheduled to be held in 

Anchorage, AK on August 7, 8, and 9, 

2012. The public will be invited to 

attend on August 7 and 8, 2012. Further 

information regarding the external peer 

review panel meeting will be 

announced at a later date in the Federal 

Register. 

II. How to Submit Technical Comments 

to the Docket at www.regulations.gov 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2012– 

0358, by one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ORD.Docket@epa.gov. 

Include the docket number EPA–HQ– 

ORD–2012–0358 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 

28221T), Docket # EPA–HQ–ORD– 

2012–0358, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

The phone number is 202–566–1752. If 

you provide comments by mail, please 

submit one unbound original with pages 

numbered consecutively, and three 

copies of the comments. For 

attachments, provide an index, number 

pages consecutively with the comments, 

and submit an unbound original and 

three copies. 

• Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is 

located in the EPA Headquarters Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. If 

you provide comments by hand 

delivery, please submit one unbound 

original with pages numbered 

consecutively, and three copies of the 

comments. For attachments, provide an 

index, number pages consecutively with 

the comments, and submit an unbound 

original and three copies. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2012– 

0358. Please ensure that your comments 

are submitted within the specified 

comment period. Comments received 

after the closing date will be marked 

‘‘late,’’ and may only be considered if 

time permits. It is EPA’s policy to 

include all comments it receives in the 

public docket without change and to 

make the comments available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless a 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comments. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters and any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket 

visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: Documents in the docket are 

listed in the www.regulations.gov_index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters 

Docket Center. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Darrel A. Winner, 

Acting Director, National Center for 

Environmental Assessment. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13431 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9680–7] 

Changes to the Central Data Exchange 

System 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the CrossMedia Electronic Reporting Regulation 

(CROMERR), this notice announces 

EPA’s plan to change its Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) system, as described in 

this notice. 

DATES: EPA’s changes to CDX are 

effective August 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina 

Chen, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Environmental 

Information, Mail Stop MC–2823T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, (202) 566–0248, 

Chen.Tina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule was 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). CROMERR establishes electronic 

reporting as an acceptable regulatory 

alternative to paper reporting and 

provides requirements to assure that 

electronic documents are as legally 

dependable as their paper counterparts. 

Subpart B of CROMERR sets 

requirements for electronic reporting to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES