### 17009 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices

Additionally, some alternatives propose
new road construction within MA–12. This would result in exceeding the open road density standard during the life of the project and require a site-specific
Forest Plan amendment. All roads opened for project activities and all newly constructed roads would be effectively closed after completion of project activities, so there would be no long term increase in open road
densities.

Specifically, the proposed action (Alternative 2) would increase ORDs in MA–12 to 2.3 miles per square mile during harvest activities if all roads were open concurrently. Alternative 3 would result in an ORD of 2.6 miles per square mile during operations, and Alternative 4 would not change the existing condition. Following completion of project activities, openroad densities would return to preproject levels.

Possible Alternatives

Four alternatives have been identified; the No Action, the Proposed
Action described in this Notice of Intent, an action alternative that more specifically addresses concerns and issues related to an on-going, aggressive expansion of mountain pine beetle activity into stands dominated by lodgepole pine, and an action
alternative that would address concerns regarding new road construction which would accomplish stand treatments using the existing transportation system.

Responsible Official

As the Kootenai National Forest Supervisor, I am the responsible official
for this decision.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

My decision will be whether or not to implement the proposed action as described, including timber harvest, road work, prescribed burning to enhance big game forage, approval of a project-specific amendment to the Forest Plan for open road density in MA–12, changes in some Management Area designation for difficult regeneration sites, and to exceed the 40 acre opening size limit under the National Forest Management Act (1976), or to implement an alternative course of action, as expressed in alternatives to the proposed action.

Scoping Process

It is important that reviewers provide
their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency’s preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly
articulate the reviewer’s concerns and

contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.

Dated: March 8, 2012.

Paul Stantus,
Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2012–7052 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–11–P**

**OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL**
**COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA**
**NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION**
**PROJECTS**

**Review of Federal Permit Conditions**

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects.

**ACTION :**  Notice and request for public

comment.

**SUMMARY :**  The Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects is proposing to implement its statutory responsibilities under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15 U.S.C. 720) with respect to federal permit conditions imposed on the gas pipeline project. This policy statement will establish the agency’s procedures for determining whether
certain conditions included in a certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or
other authorization for an Alaska natural gas transportation project by other federal agencies are prohibited under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline

Act.

**DATES :**  Submit comments on or before April 23, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Address all comments concerning this notice to Frank Richards, Deputy Federal Coordinator,
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects; 188 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 600; Anchorage, AK 99503.
Submit electronic comments to: frichards@arcticgas.gov

.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Frank Richards, Deputy Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, 907–271–5240.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background

Congress enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act in 2004 (15 U.S.C. 720) to encourage completion of a pipeline to deliver natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope to the Lower 48 states. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act establishes a new process for approval and construction of the pipeline, either a project that completes the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System that President Carter approved in 1977 pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 719), or a different pipeline project
under the Natural Gas Act. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 created
the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects and charged the Federal Coordinator, the agency head, with four primary responsibilities: (1) Coordinate the expeditious discharge of all activities by all federal agencies with respect to an Alaska natural gas pipeline; (2) Ensure that all federal agencies comply with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act; (3) Prohibit federal agencies from imposing permit conditions that would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project unless the conditions are required by law. The act directs the
Federal Coordinator to determine
whether a term or condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project; and (4) Participate with the state of Alaska in a joint construction surveillance and monitoring agreement.

In addition, Congress transferred to
the Federal Coordinator all of the responsibilities and authorities of the Federal Inspector under the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. These responsibilities will be applicable if the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System gas line is completed or if the 1980’s prebuilt sections of that project are expanded or modified within the United States to handle Alaska gas.

This policy addresses the third of the four statutory requirements listed above by explaining how the Federal
Coordinator will determine whether conditions that federal agencies intend to impose on permits, rights-of-way or other authorizations for an Alaska gas transportation project will prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project.

Several sections of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act require the Federal Coordinator to consider permit conditions imposed by federal agencies with respect to the pipeline. Section 106(d)(2), Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 1255 prohibits agencies from including


### 17010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices

certain conditions in permits and other approvals, it states:

(2) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS—No Federal agency may include in any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or other authorization issued to an Alaska natural gas transportation project any term or condition that may be permitted, but is not required, by any applicable law if
the Federal Coordinator determines that the term or condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project.

Thus, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 prohibits conditions that may be included but are not required by any applicable law if the Federal
Coordinator determines that the condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project. The Federal Coordinator’s function with regard to
some conditions is limited. Under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, Division C, Section 106(d)(4), Public
Law 108–324 denies the Federal Coordinator any authority to override the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s implementation of open seasons for the project or the Commission’s orders for expansion of the project under Section 105 of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, or to add or impose any terms or conditions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate or any agency’s permit or other authorization for the project. Division C, Section 106(d)(4),
Public Law 108–324 states:

(4) LIMITATION—The Federal Coordinator shall not have authority to—

(A) Override— (i) The implementation or enforcement of regulations issued by the Commission under
section 103; or

(ii) An order by the Commission to expand the project under section 105; or

(B) Impose any terms, conditions, or requirements in addition to those imposed by the Commission or any agency with respect to construction and operation, or an expansion of, the project.
The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act also prohibits federal agencies from amending any previously issued permit
or authorization to add conditions determined by the Federal Coordinator to prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the pipeline.

(3) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS—Unless required by law, no Federal agency shall add to, amend, or abrogate any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or other authorization issued to an Alaska natural gas transportation project if the Federal Coordinator determines that the action would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation, Or an expansion, of the Alaska natural gas transportation project. ANGPA § 106(d)(3).

The prohibition of permit conditions which would prevent or impair in any significant respect expeditious construction and operation does not apply to conditions adopted by state agencies, even those issued pursuant to programs encouraged or funded by thefederal government. However, if a stateissued permit includes a condition which is incorporated into a federal permit by a federal agency, the Federal Coordinator may review the condition that the federal agency adopted. Any
determination the Federal Coordinator
makes would not affect the state condition, just the applicability of the federal permit condition.

II. Discussion of Proposed Policy

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects proposes to implement provisions of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 2004 by policy, which will establish the process by
which the Federal Coordinator will exercise its responsibility to determine whether permit conditions would interfere with completion of the project. This policy will apply to the agency’s review of conditions initially included in a permit or authorization for an Alaska natural gas transportation project, as well as any renewal or reissuance of permits or other
authorizations.

A. Intention To Work With Other Agencies

It is the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects’ intention to work closely with other federal agencies before, during and after the National Environmental Policy Act process and during the permit application review process of each agency in order to identify the likely need for permit conditions early and to determine as soon as possible whether a particular permit condition would be inconsistent with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act’s statutory prohibition. The Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects expects that through coordination with other federal agencies and the permit applicant, it should be able to resolve
concerns about most terms and conditions early on and either avoid a formal review process or conclude it expeditiously. B. Definitions

(1) Condition: The agency proposes to
define term or condition of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, Section 106(d) (2), Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 1255—referred to in this policy as condition—to mean any obligation not proposed by the applicant but proposed to be added to the permit or authorization by a federal agency. That includes all terms, stipulations or conditions required by the agency and any other requirement imposed by a federal agency. It excludes any obligation included by the applicant in its application, even if the obligation is suggested by an agency.

(2) Certificate, Right-Of-Way, Permit, Lease, or Other Authorization: The agency proposes to define certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease or other authorization to mean any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, approval or other authorization required in order to construct or operate an Alaska natural gas transportation project, but excludes permissions for useful, but not required authorizations. Accordingly, federal loan guarantees, licenses for communications equipment not necessary for the project and other such permissions would not be subject to

OFC review.

(3) Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Project: The agency does not intend to propose a definition of Alaska natural gas transportation project, as that term is defined in the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act in Section 102 of Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 1255. It is important to note that
the definition includes the entire system, not simply the pipeline. Therefore, this permit review policy will cover conditions addressing support facilities, compressor stations, the gas treatment plant, and other parts of the project.

(4) Prevent or Impair in Any Significant Respect the Expeditious Construction and Operation of the Project: The agency does not intend to define prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project because the agency believes this should be interpreted based on the circumstances of the project at the time of an agency’s action, the agency’s intention and justification in crafting the proposed condition, and the condition’s effect on the project. Prevent or impair in any significant respect
cannot be well-defined in the absence of specific circumstances. As an example, a condition that causes a significant delay in the first in-service date contractually agreed to between the


### 17011 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices

pipeline owner and/or operator and a shipper could, if extreme, be deemed to impair expeditious construction and operation of the project. However, such a determination could only be made if
the contractual in-service date were reasonable in light of the complexity of the project and other circumstances.

C. Process for Review of Permit
Conditions

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects does not intend to review every condition on every permit. Rather, the agency will review permit conditions at the request of the applicant or permittee. In addition, agency reserves the right to select conditions for review
on its own initiative. When the permitting agency’s practice or regulations allow that agency or the
Office of the Federal Coordinator to share a draft permit condition with an applicant, the Office of the Federal
Coordinator will work with the applicant and the agency as early as possible to identify problematic permit conditions. An applicant may request review of a permit condition by the Office of the Federal Coordinator prior to issuance if the applicant believes it may prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project.

If the practice of the permitting agency does not allow draft permit
conditions to be shared with an applicant, the permittee will have to wait to request review of a permit condition until after the permit is
issued.

Requests from the applicant or the permittee for review of permit conditions should specify what specific condition will prevent or impair expeditious construction and operation of the project and should explain why
the condition will have a detrimental impact on the project.

D. Information Required for Review

The Office of the Federal Coordinator will need background information from the agency in order to conduct its review, including:

(1) The language of the specific
condition.

(2) A citation to the legal requirement
for the condition.

(3) Any analysis the agency has prepared of the cost of implementing
the condition.

(4) Any other information that explains the agency’s reasons to include the condition, especially the circumstances that require its inclusion. This should include any discussion ofthe benefits of the conditions, or a costbenefit analysis if one has been prepared.

(5) If the permit has not been issued, a statement addressing whether it is permissible under the agency’s practice
to share the draft condition with the applicant.

The Office of the Federal Coordinator expects this information should be readily available from the agency and will not impose a burden on the agency, as it should have already documented the need for the condition as part of the administrative record. Accordingly, the
Office of the Federal Coordinator anticipates that the agency will be able to provide this information within ten (10) calendar days of Office of the
Federal Coordinator’s notification of a review and request for additional
information.

Based on Office of the Federal Coordinator’s review of the proposed condition, the Federal Coordinator will
determine whether the condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project. In most cases, the Office of the Federal
Coordinator’s review should be completed in less than thirty (30) days after a project applicant requests a
review. The Federal Coordinator will provide notice of its decision and reasoning to the applicant and the agency. If the Federal Coordinator
determines that the condition or proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project, the Office of the Federal Coordinator will facilitate a meeting between the permittee or applicant and the issuing agency and, if appropriate, other experts, in order to help resolve
the issue.

III. Proposed Policy for Review of
Federal Permit Conditions for an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project

The purpose of this policy is to explain how the Office of the Federal Coordinator (OFC) will exercise its responsibilities with respect to review of permit conditions under Section 106(d) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (ANGPA). This policy applies to the issuance of initial permits, as well as the renewal or reissuance of permits for an Alaska natural gas transportation project.

It is the OFC’s intention to work closely with other federal agencies before, during and after the National Environmental Policy Act process and during the permit application review process of each agency in order to identify the likely need for permit conditions early and to determine as soon as possible whether a particular permit condition would be precluded by ANGPA’s statutory prohibition. The OFC expects that through coordination with other federal agencies and the permit applicant, it should be able to
resolve concerns about most terms and conditions early on and either avoid a formal review process or conclude it expeditiously.

1. Definitions

(a) Term or condition in Section 106(d)(2) of ANGPA—referred to in this policy as condition—means any obligation not proposed by the applicant but proposed to be added to the permit or authorization by a federal agency. This includes all terms, stipulations,
conditions or additions to the application and any other requirement imposed by an agency. It excludes any obligation included by the applicant in its application, even if the obligation is suggested by an agency.

(b) Certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease or other authorization means any certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, approval or other authorization required in order to construct or operate an Alaska natural gas transportation project.

2. Review of Proposed Terms or
Conditions

(a) Review of permit conditions by request of applicant.

(1) An applicant for a permit or a permittee for any permit, certificate, right-of-way or other authorization for an Alaska natural gas transportation project may request the Federal Coordinator to review any condition included in or proposed for inclusion in a permit, certificate, right-of-way or
other authorization.

(2) Such requests must be made to the
Federal Coordinator no later than 30 days after permit issuance.

(3) The request shall include a specific identification of each condition which the applicant or permittee
believes is inconsistent with ANGPA and an explanation of the basis of that belief, including information that supports the contention that the permit condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project.

(4) The Federal Coordinator may review a permit condition even if the permittee has not requested review.

(b) Materials necessary for review.
If the Federal Coordinator receives a request for review of any condition, the OFC will notify the issuing agency of the request. The OFC will need the following information from the agency:


### 17012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices

(1) The language of the specific
condition.

(2) A citation to the legal requirement
for the condition.

(3) Any analysis the agency has prepared of the cost of implementing
the condition.

(4) Any other information that explains the agency’s reasons to include the condition, especially the circumstances that require its inclusion. This should include any discussion ofthe benefits of the conditions, or a costbenefit analysis if one has been prepared.

(5) If the permit has not yet been issued, a statement addressing whether agency practice or regulations would allow OFC to discuss the proposed condition with the applicant.

(c) Permit condition review. In determining whether a proposed permit condition would prevent or impair expeditious construction and operation of the project, the OFC will
consider:

(1) Any delays in project construction and operation caused by the condition.

(2) All other available information, including, if available, the project’s cost of meeting the condition.

(3) The statutory and regulatory basis for the condition, as provided by the issuing agency.

(4) The views of the applicant.
(d) The OFC will endeavor to complete its review within 30 days after a request from an applicant or permittee.

(e) The Federal Coordinator’s decision
(1) The Federal Coordinator will determine whether the proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of an Alaska natural gas transportation project or expansion of that project. The Federal
Coordinator’s decision will be sent to the agency and the applicant or permittee.

(2) If the Federal Coordinator
determines that the condition or proposed condition would prevent or impair in any significant respect the expeditious construction and operation of the project, the OFC will facilitate a meeting between the permittee or applicant and the issuing agency and, if appropriate, other experts, in order to help resolve the issue.

Dated: March 9, 2012.
Larry Persily,

Federal Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 2012–6406 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6820–TP–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE** 

**Foreign-Trade Zones Board**

**[Docket 17–2012]**

**Foreign-Trade Zone 158—Vicksburg/ Jackson, MS; Application for**  **Manufacturing Authority; Morgan Fabrics Corporation (Upholstered**  **Furniture Covering Sets), Verona, MS**

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Mississippi Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, requesting manufacturing authority on behalf of Morgan Fabrics Corporation (MFC), to manufacture upholstered furniture covering sets under FTZ procedures within FTZ 158. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 19, 2012.

The MFC facility (33 employees) is located at 108 Lipford Road within the Tupelo Lee Industrial Park (Site 17) in Verona, Lee County, Mississippi. The application proposes that MFC would utilize foreign-origin ‘‘micro-denier suede’’ fabric (up to 3 million square yards per year) to be cut and sewn into upholstery covering sets ( i.e., furniture parts) under FTZ procedures. The finished covering sets (HTSUS 9401.90; duty free) would be shipped from the zone to U.S. furniture manufacturing plants where they would be incorporated into upholstered furniture.

The proposed scope of authority under FTZ procedures would only involve duty savings on foreign origin, micro-denier suede fabrics (classified under HTSUS Headings 5407, 5512,

5515, 5516, 5903, 5906, 6001, 6005, 6006; duty rate range: 2.7–17.2%)
finished with a caustic soda wash process, which the applicant indicates are not produced by U.S. mills. The application indicates that MFC does not seek FTZ benefits on any other foreign fabrics that the company may use in production at the facility ( i.e., full duties would be paid on all such fabrics).

On foreign micro-denier suede fabric used in production for the U.S. market, the company would be able to choose the finished upholstery covering set ( i.e., furniture part) duty rate (free) after the fabric has been cut, sewn, and formed into covering sets, at which time they would be entered for consumption from the zone. The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facility’s international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board’s regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and
recommendations to the Board.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 22, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 6, 2012.

A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ ftz

. For further information, contact Pierre Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or (202)

482–1378.

Dated: March 19, 2012.
Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012–7059 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**Foreign-Trade Zones Board**

**[Docket 18–2012]**

**Foreign-Trade Zone 64—Jacksonville, FL; Application for Reorganization**  **(Expansion of Service Area) Under the**
**Alternative Site Framework**

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Jacksonville Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 64, requesting authority to reorganize its zone to expand its service area under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 1/12/ 09 (correction 74 FR 3987, 1/22/09); 75 FR 71069–71070, 11/22/10). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context of the Board’s standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a general-purpose zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade