[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3164-3168]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0108; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-052-AD;
Amendment 39-18063; AD 2015-01-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36,
MU-2B-36A, and MU-2B-60 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as stress corrosion cracking in the flanges of the airframe
at stations 4610 and 5605. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 26, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 26,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0108; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc.,
4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 248-
3108, ext. 209; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth A. Cook, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (817)
222-5960; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. (MHI) Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A,
and MU-2B-60 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10710). The NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country.
    The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), which is the aviation
authority for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD-8231-2013, dated August 6,
2013 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36
airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0108-0002.
    The JCAB has informed us that as part of the MHI continuing aging
aircraft program, Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes
were subjected to detailed teardown inspections. During the
inspections, structural cracks in the flanges of some long body
airplane frames were found at frame station (STA) 4610 and STA 5605. It
has been determined that the structural cracks resulted from stress
corrosion.
    Japan is the State of Design for (MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35,
and MU-2B-36, which the MCAI applies to, and the United States is the
State of Design for MHI Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60 airplanes. Since
the Models MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60 airplanes are of similar type design,
the same structural cracks could exist.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Extend Comment Period

    Mike Ciholas and seven others stated that they need more time for
discussions at seminars and to obtain more information from MHI and
Turbine Aircraft Services.
    The commenters requested the comment period be extended to allow
for more time to gather and analyze data.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request
and have determined sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically
information recently from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119
airplanes in the U.S. fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked.
Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. Based on the
data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided
by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress
corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to
address the unsafe condition.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw Proposed AD

    Mike Ciholas and eight others stated that the unsafe condition
addressed in the proposed AD be handled as part of routine inspections.
The commenters stated that there has never been any incident, accident,
injury, or fatality attributed to this issue despite the millions of
flight hours the MU-2B airplane has accumulated, including those hours
that some airplanes have flown with a crack present. There has never
been any damage to any airplane from this issue. None of the subject
parts have failed to perform in service, cracked or otherwise.
    Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. and two others
stated that there have been no failures in the airframes.
    The commenters requested that the proposed AD be withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenters. While there have been no
failures to date, the stress corrosion cracking exhibited is in primary
load structure. Upon crack initiation, the frames will have diminished
load carrying capabilities, which will propagate over time, potentially
leading to failure. Although previous inspection requirements specify
visual inspection of all frames, no instruction was provided for
accessing the difficult to reach areas where the subject cracks have
been found. In addition, we are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition and prevent such failures of this airplane.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Delay Issuing the Final Rule AD Action

    David Klain and six others stated that they wanted the FAA to hold
the

proposed AD in abeyance and request additional data from the
manufacturer, service centers, and the owner/operator community. At the
very least, all inspections completed to date should be considered and
an evaluation made as to what specifically is causing these cracks,
other than the simple fact these are MU-2 long body airplanes.
Additional data can be collected from ongoing inspections conducted in
accordance with the maintenance manual as well. Once that data is
collected, an informed decision based on facts instead of speculation
can be made.
    The commenters requested that we delay issuing the final rule AD
action.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request
to delay issuing the final rule AD action and have determined that
sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically information recently
from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S.
fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of these eight,
four have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the
NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location
of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have
concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe
condition. Further delay of the final rule AD action would allow a
known unsafe condition to exist without AD action to address it.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Verify Cost of Compliance

    David Klain and three others stated that the Mitsubishi Service
Centers have indicated that the time and cost estimates detailed in the
proposed AD are not accurate and do not reflect the actual higher costs
and time necessary to complete the inspection based on the inspections
completed to date.
    The commenters requested a change to the Cost of Compliance
section.
    We do not agree with the commenters. The cost provided by the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is a rough order of magnitude
estimate based on available information and standardized cost
evaluation methods.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw Proposed AD

    David Klain and three others stated that the proposed AD is based
on non-representative airframes. The proposed AD was derived from a
service bulletin that originated from inspections of a limited, non-
representative sample of airframes that have been removed from service
and represent the worst possible scenario with regards to airframe
stress (freighters).
    The commenters stated that since Special Airworthiness Information
Bulletin (SAIB) No. CE-03-26, dated February 28, 2003 (which can be
found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/
(LookupSAIBs)/CE-03-26?OpenDocument), three additional airplanes with a
total airframe time and operational use (non-freighter) that is more
representative of the fleet have been inspected at several service
centers and not a single plane exhibited the cracks in question. The
commenters stated, based on these findings, there is a situation where
a very small sample size may give some indication there is a
correlation between total time and/or airplane utilization (freighters
with heavy takeoff/landing weights and many cycles) and the cracks in
question, but further empirical data is likely necessary to draw any
firm conclusions.
    The commenters also stated that the costly inspection goes against
the FAA's mandate to encourage and promote aviation by potentially
mandating a costly inspection that would result in the decommissioning
of perfectly safe and flyable airplanes for no reason other than the
high cost of an inspection mandated by the FAA without any engineering
data to support such inspections.
    We infer that the commenters believe that the final rule AD action
is unnecessary and want the proposed AD withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from
MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet
indicate that 8 of them were cracked of which 5 were used as
freighters. Out of these eight, four have been removed from service.
Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed
information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of
cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are
necessary to address the unsafe condition.
    The OEM has also provided the time and cost information presented
in this final rule AD action.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Include a Less Expensive Repair Option

    Richard Wheldon and one other commenter stated that there is a less
expensive repair available to the owners/operators of the affected
airplanes.
    The commenters stated that the repairs specified in the Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI Ltd.) MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated
July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 27, 1999, involve
doublers and are much less intrusive and less labor intensive. The
repairs in MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 242, dated July 10,
2013, and No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, involve large splices
and/or frame segment replacements, which are very costly. It is not
explained why the less expensive methods were not proposed. In
discussions with experienced sheet metal mechanics and structures
engineers, they expressed that other repair schemes are possible that
adequately address any safety concerns and are much less costly.
    Many of the cracks found at the lower sections of the bottom frame
segments might be repairable using doublers rather than replacing the
entire lower frame segments, which is the only solution allowed in the
proposed AD. Obviously, the replacement of an entire lower frame
segment is a huge, potentially unnecessary undertaking involving
considerable assembly and disassembly. Any conventional solution short
of frame segment replacement should be investigated.
    The commenters also stated that an operator is not allowed to
repair the side frame segments per MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No.
231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 27, 1999, and
still be in compliance with the proposed AD. The only solution to a
side frame crack allowed per MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 242,
dated July 10, 2013, and No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, is the
much more expensive replacing of the side frame segment.
    The commenters requested compliance based on MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service
Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April
27, 1999, at a minimum, be permitted in the final rule AD action.
    We do not agree with the commenters. MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service
Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April
27, 1999, require inspecting for cracks that are specifically located
around rivet holes. The service bulletins specified in this AD require
inspecting for cracks in a different area, specifically throughout the
frame flanges.
    If lower cost repair methods exist that meet the intent of the
proposed AD, you may propose an alternative method of compliance or a
change in the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of
safety using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Consider Other Causes of the Cracks

    David Klain and one other commenter stated that the proposed AD
does not accurately consider what the causal factors are that may have
caused the cracks in question (airframe age, cycles, total time,
utilization as freighters, etc.) due to lack of adequate representative
data.
    The commenters requested the FAA to further investigate the cause
of the cracks.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have evaluated the data
provided and have determined that the cause of cracking is stress
corrosion. We have determined that is sufficient evidence and data of
an unsafe condition and we should proceed with issuing the final rule
AD action.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Utilize Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB)
No. CE-03-26, Dated February 28, 2003

    Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. stated that the
inspections introduced and recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26, dated
February 28, 2003, which can be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/(LookupSAIBs)/CE-03-
26?OpenDocument, should be sufficient to cover inspections required
from this AD because the stresses are the same.
    The commenter stated that the inspection criteria in the proposed
AD require inspection of a different location of these same frames and
the fact is that the frame materials and stresses are the same.
    We infer that the commenter believes the inspections introduced and
recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26, dated February 28, 2003, are
sufficient in addressing the unsafe condition identified in this AD
wants the proposed AD withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenter. It is stated in the proposed AD
that stress corrosion cracking may be located throughout the area of
the frame flanges. The inspections recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26 are
more limited and only inspect for stress corrosion cracking at screw
holes in the flange.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Modify the Applicability Section

    An anonymous commenter stated that the statistical analysis and
evaluation performed in support of the proposed AD is flawed. The
commenter also stated that given the inconsistent data from a sample
size that is not representative of the fleet, there appears to be no
scientific or engineering basis for issuing the final rule AD action
and mandating it for the entire fleet
    The commenter stated that Mark James of Intercontinental Jet
Service Corp. also stated that the conclusions made by the FAA were not
based on an adequate representation of the fleet and that thus far the
only cracks found have been on two higher time airframes and not on the
many airplanes that have less than one-third of the flight time and
cycles
    The commenter requested the applicability of the final rule AD
action be changed to apply only to high time, high-cycle airplanes.
    We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from
MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet
indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of the 18 airplanes, 5 of
them are used as freighters and all 5 of these were among the 8 found
cracked. Four of the eight airplanes found cracked have been removed
from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more
detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the
cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the
inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014).

Relevant Service Information

    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has issued Service Bulletin No.
242, dated July 10, 2013, and Service Bulletin No. 104/53-003, dated
July 22, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The
service bulletin describes procedures to inspect and repair/replace the
side and lower frame at stations 4610 and 5605. You can find this
service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0108.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 119 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 100 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,011,500, or $8,500 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take up to 428 work-hours and require parts costing up to $14,400, for
a cost up to $50,780 per product. We have no way of determining the
number of products that may need such repair based on the results of
the inspection. The extent of damage will vary on each airplane.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0108; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2015-01-02 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Amendment 39-18063;
Docket No. FAA-2014-0108; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-052-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 26,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Models MU-
2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-2B-36 airplanes, serial numbers 502 through
651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696, and Models MU-2B-36A and
MU-2B-60 airplanes, serial numbers 661SA, 697SA through 799SA, and
1501SA through 1569SA, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion
cracking in the flanges of the airframes at stations 4610 and 5605.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct structural cracks in
the airframe flanges, which could reduce the structural integrity of
the airplane.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Within the next 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
February 26, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next
3 years after February 26, 2015 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first, inspect the side and lower frames at frame
station (STA) 4610 and STA 5605 for cracks and corrosion. Do the
inspection following paragraphs 3.0 through 3.3 of Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013,
or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 104/
53-003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.
    (2) If any crack is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions
in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD:
    (i) Repair the frame following paragraphs 4.0 and 5.0 of
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242,
dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2
Service Bulletin No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable;
or
    (ii) Replace the frame following paragraphs 4.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242,
dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2
Service Bulletin No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.
    (3) If any corrosion is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the
damage following the instructions in paragraph 3.2 of Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10,
2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 104/
53-003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Kenneth A. Cook, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort
Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    We are allowing special flight permits with the following
limitations:
    (1) Essential crew only;
    (2) Minimum weight;
    (3) Limit ``G'' loading to minimum; and
    (4) Most direct flight to repair center.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD No. TCD-
8231-2013, dated August 6, 2013, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0108-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No.
242, dated July 10, 2013.
    (ii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No.
104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013.
    (3) For Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information
identified in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America,
Inc. c/o Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle
Drive, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, ext.

209; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 30, 2014.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00007 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 23750]
[DOCID:fr20my09-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, May 21,
2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 21, 2009 will be: institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; and other matters related to enforcement
proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11702 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]


Preliminary Assessment of Comments Received on Industrial Boiler and Process Heater MACT OMB Briefing October 23, 2003 2 STATUS

Current Activities:

revising rule language

drafting promulgation preamble

Schedule

Draft responses completed   end of September 2003

Draft promulgation package   end of October 2003

FAR ( WG closure)  November 6, 2003

OMB review  late November 2003

Promulgation   February 28, 2004 3 Proposed Subcategories

Three main subcategories based on fuel type:

Solid fuel fired units

Liquid fuel fired units

Gaseous fuel fired units

Additional subcategories

based on size

Large ( Greater than 10 MM Btu/ hr heat input)

Small ( all firetubes and others less than 10 MM Btu/ hr heat input)

based on use

Limited use ( less than 10% capacity factor)

Total of 9 subcategories 4 Proposed MACT Levels   Existing Units

Existing large solid fuel fired units PM  0.07 lb/ million Btu HCl  0.09 lb/ million Btu (~ 90 ppm)

Hg   7 lb/ trillion Btu

technology basis  baghouse ( metals/ Hg)/ scrubber ( HCl)

Existing limited use solid fuel fired units PM  0.2 lb/ million Btu

technology basis  ESP ( metals)

No emissions standards for existing small solid fuel units or any existing liquid and gaseous fuel fired units 5 Proposed MACT Levels   New Units

New solid fuel fired units PM  0.026 lb/ million Btu HCl  0.02 lb/ million Btu ( 20 ppm)

Hg   3 lb/ trillion Btu CO   400 ppm @ 3% oxygen ( not for small units)

New liquid fuel fired units PM  0.03 lb/ million Btu HCl  0.0005 lb/ million Btu CO   400 ppm @ 3% oxygen ( not for small units)

New gaseous fuel fired units CO   400 ppm @ 3% oxygen ( not for small units) 6 Proposed Testing and Monitoring Requirements

Testing:

Initial compliance tests ( PM, HCl, mercury)

Annual performance tests

Monitoring

Process parameters ( opacity, pressure drop, CO,

sorbent injection rate, fuel, etc.)

Continuous Compliance

Demonstrated by maintaining operating limits ( process parameters)

Based on averages set during compliance test 7 Additional Proposal Provisions

Alternate metal standard

Solid fuel fired units subcategories only

minimize impacts on small businesses

sum of 8 selected metals: arsenic, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel,

and selenium

Proposed limit is 0.001 lb/ million Btu

Facility could elect to comply with either the PM limit or the alternate metal standard 8 Specific Comments Requested

Not in proposed rule but preamble requested comments on these provisions

Bubbling Compliance Alternative

Facility set limits for each unit such that the total emissions from all units are equal to or less than the MACT limit.

Risk Based Exemptions

Applicability cutoff ( subcategory delisting)

HCl applicability cutoff ( exempt only from the HCl MACT limit) 9 Public Comments

190 submitted

100 by industry companies

42 by trade associations

18 by State and local agencies

12 by municipalities

6 by universities

4 by environmental organizations

3 by federal agencies ( DOE, DOD, NASA) 10 Major Comments Received  Need minimum size threshold for applicability  Risk based exemptions  Will cause severe economic impacts on certain facilities ( municipalities, universities, furniture, textile) request exemption or separate subcategory  Extend the compliance period  Requested broad definition as in General Provision  Supported bubbling provision ( emission averaging)

 Mercury emission limit  CO limit and monitoring requirement  Fuel analysis testing requirements  Operating limits 11 Preliminary Assessments

Need minimum size threshold for applicability

No size cutoff, MACT covers all units at major source,

however will add provisions exempting all existing small units from all reporting requirements and require existing large gas and oil units only initial notification ( no SSM plan)

Risk based exemptions

Waiting decision   preliminary HCl assessment been conducted ( See next slide)

Will cause severe economic impacts on certain facilities ( municipalities, universities, furniture, textile) request exemption or separate subcategory

No technical justification for creating additional special subcategories ( similar to boilers in other industries).

Preliminary analysis indicates little benefit ( to the source) of creating these separate subcategories. 12 Preliminary HCl Modeling Results

Combined ( HCl, HF, Cl2) Hazard Index

Utility boilers   maximum HI

Large  0.046 ( acute) and 0.195 ( chronic)

Small  0.038 ( acute) and 0.160 ( chronic)

 Industrial boilers   maximum/ minimum HI

Coal   5.65  0.018 ( acute) and 179.2  0.581 ( chronic)

Wood  0.415   0.0002 ( acute) and 25.6  0.004( chronic)

Conclusions:

 Utility Boilers   Uncontrolled units unlikely to have adverse effects.

 Industrial Boilers   Maximum HI are above 1.0 for several HAP based on most conservative parameters. Minimum are well below 1.0 except for chronic CL from coal units. 13 Preliminary Assessments ( Cont.)

Extend the compliance period  Will extend compliance period from 3 to 4 years. Municipalities,

and others, requested extension to be more in line with utility MACT schedule since they will be competing with utilities for the limited manpower and their budgetary process.

Requested broad definition as in General Provisions  Will revise definition of affected source to the broad definition as in General Provisions.

Supported bubbling provision ( emission averaging)

 Will add emissions averaging provision ( modeled after Boat Manufacturing MACT)

Allowed only among existing sources in same subcategory

Mercury emission limit  No change in MACT floor approach. Have redone MACT floor analysis with new additional ( 3) emission data. Limit likely to go slightly higher ( approx. 9 lbs/ TBtu). 14 Preliminary Assessments ( Cont.)

CO limit and monitoring requirement  Will clarify that exceedance is not an emission violation but a deviation and a trigger for corrective action. Due to costs, will revise rule to require CO CEM for only larger units (> 100 MMBtu/ h), smaller units will be required to conduct annual CO test.

Fuel analysis testing requirements  Will revise to allow option of either fuel analysis or stack testing to demonstrate compliance.

 Will revise to require new fuel analysis only if add new fuel type or from a new supplier of certain fuel type ( treated/ painted wood)

 Will revise to require fuel analysis testing every 5 years.

Operating limits  Will revise to allow for effect of operating at low loads. For CO,

exempt data from < 50% load. For control device parameters, will allow range ( 90% of compliance test level, as in other MACTs) 15 ANY QUESTIONS?


[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30310-30313]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-26]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0380; A-1-FRL-9156-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard for
the Greater Connecticut Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the Greater
Connecticut, moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained
the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. This determination is based upon complete, quality-assured,
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring
period. If this proposed determination is made final, under the
provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule, the requirements for
this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning State
Implementation Plans related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that
this area has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of June 15, 2010, its
applicable attainment date, provided that the area continues to attain
the standard through June 15, 2010.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-0380 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0380,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2010-0380. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail,

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The
http://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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of these actions?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greater Connecticut,
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone. This determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2007-2009
monitoring period. In addition, under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA is proposing to determine that this area has
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date (June
15, 2010), provided that the area continues to attain the standard as
of June 15, 2010. EPA will not finalize this determination unless the
area continues to attain the standard through June 15, 2010.

II. What is the effect of these actions?

    If EPA's determination that the area is attaining the standard is
made final, under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule
(see 40 CFR 51.918), the requirements for the Greater Connecticut
moderate ozone nonattainment area to submit an attainment
demonstration, a reasonable further progress plan, section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures, and any other planning State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This proposed action, if finalized, would not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under the Clean Air Act (CAA) section
107(d)(3), because we would not yet have an approved maintenance plan
for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor a
determination that the area has met the other requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status of the area
would remain moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
until such time as EPA determines that the area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    If this determination of attainment is finalized and EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, the basis for the suspension of these requirements would no
longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address the
pertinent CAA requirements. It should be noted that Connecticut
submitted an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress plan
and contingency measures for this area on February 1, 2008. EPA has not
taken action on these submittals for the Greater Connecticut area.
    In addition, under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the
provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.902(a)),
EPA is proposing to determine that this area has attained the 1997
ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010,
provided that the area continues to attain the standard through June
15, 2010. The effect of a final determination of attainment by the
area's attainment date would be to discharge EPA's obligation under
section 181(b)(2)(A), and to establish that, in accordance with that
section, the area would not be reclassified for failure to attain by
its applicable attainment date.

III. What is the background for this action?

    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated as nonattainment
any area that was violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the
three most recent years (2001-2003) of air quality data. The Greater
Connecticut area was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area.
The Greater Connecticut area consists of the following Connecticut
counties: Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland and Windham. Recent
air quality data, however, indicate that the Greater Connecticut area
is now attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

    The EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone,
consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 50 and
recorded in the Air Quality Data System (AQS) database, for Greater
Connecticut, from 2007 through 2009. On the basis of that review, EPA
proposes to conclude that the area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard at the end of the 2009 ozone season, based on three years of
complete, quality-assured and state-certified 2007-2009 ozone data.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an
ozone monitor is

less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (i.e., 0.084 ppm,
based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I). This
3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design
value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm at each monitoring site within
the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. Also, the data
completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with
valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year
has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40
CFR part 50.
    Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area monitors
for the years 2007-2009, and the ozone design values for these same
monitors based on 2007-2009.

    Table 1--2007-2009 Fourth-High 8-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations and 2007-2009 Design Values (Parts per
                                    Million) in the Greater Connecticut Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Design
               Site ID                     Site location        4th High     4th High     4th High    value (07-
                                                                  2007         2008         2009         09)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
090050006...........................  Cornwall..............           89           77           70           78
090031003...........................  East Hartford.........           97           80           66           81
090110008...........................  Groton................           89  ...........  ...........  ...........
090110124...........................  Groton................       \1\ 92           80           73           81
090131001...........................  Stafford..............           87           84           74           81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Greater Connecticut
ozone nonattainment area has met the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on
2007-2009 data. EPA believes these data establish the likelihood that
the Greater CT area will also be attaining the standard as of its
applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010. Thus, in accordance with
CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is also proposing to determine that the
Greater CT area has attained the standard by its applicable attainment
date, provided that the area continues to be in attainment of the
standard as of that date. EPA will not finalize this proposed
determination of attainment by the area's attainment date unless the
area is in attainment as of June 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Groton site relocated in 2007. Data collected at both sites
for 2007. The site was relocated because site 090110008 was in
danger of not meeting EPA siting criteria due to nearby trees, which
could not be cut. Site 090110124 was chosen, in part since it is a
CT DEP owned site and can remain at this location for a long time.
The new site is less than three miles from the old site and measures
comparable air quality. Both sites meet data capture requirements
for 2007. EPA approved this relocation in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters pertaining to this rulemaking
action. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England
Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register.

V. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Greater Connecticut 1997 8-
hour ozone moderate nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, based on complete, quality-assured data from 2007
through 2009. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, if EPA finalizes this
determination, it would suspend the requirements for Connecticut to
submit planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for this area, for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard.\2\ In addition, under section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air
Act and the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR
Section 51.902(a)), EPA is proposing to determine that this area has
attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of June
15, 2010, provided that the area continues in attainment as of that
date. EPA will not finalize this determination unless the area
continues to attain through June 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Connecticut submitted an attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress plan and contingency measures for this
area on February 1, 2008. EPA has not taken action on these
submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions propose to make determinations of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized; result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, and would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 20, 2010.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2010-13083 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11883-11884]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0146]

Safety Zone; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks, Allegheny River,
Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY:  Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones for the Pittsburgh
Pirates Fireworks on the Allegheny River, extending the entire width of
the river, from mile 0.2 to 0.8 in Pittsburgh, PA. The safety zones are
necessary to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators
from the hazards associated with the Pittsburgh Pirates barge-based
firework displays following certain home games throughout the season.
During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in
the safety zones is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the
sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
(COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 1 will be
enforced from 8 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day on April 7, April 28,
May 18, June 22, July 28, August 18, and September 21, 2018, unless the
firework displays are postponed because of adverse weather, in which
case, this rule will be enforced within 48 hours of each scheduled
date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of

enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones for the annual Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks listed in 33 CFR
165.801, Table 1, line 1 from 8 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. each day on
April 7, April 28, May 18, June 22, July 28, August 18, and September
21, 2018. Should inclement weather require rescheduling, the safety
zone will be effective following games on a rain date to occur within
48 hours of the scheduled date. Entry into the safety zone is
prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and
vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated
representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via
Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
L. McClain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-05465 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51358-51360]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0294]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Food Contact Substance Notification Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
associated with the Food Contact Substance Notification Program.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by November 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before November 15, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 15, 2021. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2012-N-0294 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Food Contact Substance
Notification Program.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Food Contact Substance Notification Program--21 CFR 170.101, 170.106,
and 171.1

OMB Control Number 0910-0495--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA regulations regarding Food
Contact Substance Notification, as well as associated guidance and
accompanying forms. Section 409(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(h)) establishes a premarket
notification process for food contact substances. Section 409(h)(6) of
the FD&C Act defines a ``food contact substance'' as ``any substance
intended for use as a component of materials used in manufacturing,
packing, packaging, transporting, or holding food if such use is not
intended to have any technical effect in such food.'' Section 409(h)(3)
of the FD&C Act requires that the notification process be used for
authorizing the marketing of food contact substances except when: (1)
We determine that the submission and premarket review of a food
additive petition (FAP) under section 409(b) of the FD&C Act is
necessary to provide adequate assurance of safety or (2) we and the
manufacturer or supplier agree that an FAP should be submitted. Section
409(h)(1) of the FD&C Act requires that a notification include: (1)
Information on the identity and the intended use of the food contact
substance and (2) the basis for the manufacturer's or supplier's
determination that the food contact substance is safe under the
intended conditions of use.
    Sections 170.101 and 170.106 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 170.101
and 170.106) specify the information that a notification must contain
and require that: (1) A food contact substance notification (FCN)
includes Form FDA 3480 and (2) a notification for a food contact
substance formulation includes Form FDA 3479. These forms serve to
summarize pertinent information in the notification. The forms
facilitate both preparation and review of notifications because the
forms will serve to organize information necessary to support the
safety of the use of the food contact substance. The burden of filling
out the appropriate form has been included in the burden estimate for
the notification.
    Currently, interested persons transmit an FCN submission to the
Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition using Form FDA 3480 whether it is submitted in
electronic or paper format. We estimate that the amount of time for
respondents to complete Form FDA 3480 will continue to be the same.
    In addition to its required use with FCNs, Form FDA 3480 is
recommended to be used to organize information within a Pre-
notification Consultation or Master File submitted in support of an FCN
according to the items listed on the form. Master Files can be used as
repositories for information that can be referenced in multiple
submissions to FDA, thus minimizing paperwork burden for food contact
substance authorizations. We estimate that the amount of time for
respondents to complete the Form FDA 3480 for these types of
submissions is 0.5 hours.
    FDA recommends using Form FDA 3480A for each submission of
additional information (i.e., amendment) to an FCN submission of Pre-
notification Consultation currently under Agency review, as well as for
Master Files. Form FDA 3480A helps the respondent organize the
submission to focus on the information needed for FDA's safety review.
We estimate that the amount of time for respondents to complete the
Form FDA 3480A for these types of submissions is 0.5 hours.
    FDA's guidance documents entitled: (1) ``Preparation of Food
Contact Notifications: Administrative,'' (2) ``Preparation of Food
Contact Notifications and Food Additive Petitions for Food Contact
Substances: Chemistry Recommendations,'' and (3) ``Preparation of Food
Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology
Recommendations'' provide assistance to industry regarding the
preparation of an FCN and a petition for food contact substances
(FCSs). FDA also issued a guidance entitled, ``Preparation of Food
Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with
Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.'' The guidance provides assistance to
industry regarding the preparation of an FCN for FDA review and
evaluation of the safety of FCSs used in contact with infant formula
and/or human milk. These guidances are available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/default.htm.
    Section 171.1 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 171.1) specifies the
information that a petitioner must submit in order to: (1) Establish
that the proposed use of an indirect food additive is safe and (2)
secure the publication of an indirect food additive regulation in parts
175 through 178 (21 CFR parts 175 through 178). Parts 175 through 178
describe the conditions under which the additive may be safely used.
    In addition, FDA's guidance entitled ``Use of Recycled Plastics in
Food Packaging: Chemistry Considerations,'' provides assistance to
manufacturers of food packaging in evaluating processes for producing
packaging from post-consumer recycled plastic. The recommendations in
the guidance address the process by which manufacturers certify to FDA
that their plastic products are safe for food contact.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information
collection are manufacturers of food contact substances sold in the
United States. Respondents are from the private sector.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Number of
        21 CFR section; activity          Form FDA No.      Number of     responses per   Total annual     Average burden per response      Total hours
                                                           respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170.106 \2\ (Category A)...............            3479              10               2              20  2..............................              40
170.101 \3\ \7\ (Category B)...........            3480               6               1               6  25.............................             150
170.101 \4\ \7\ (Category C)...........            3480               6               2              12  120............................           1,440
170.101 \5\ \7\ (Category D)...........            3480              42               2              84  150............................          12,600
170.101 \6\ \7\ (Category E)...........            3480              38               1              38  150............................           5,700
Pre-notification Consultation or Master            3480             150               1             150  0.5 (30 minutes)...............              75
 File (concerning a food contact
 substance) \8\.

Amendment to an existing notification             3480A              80               1              80  0.5 (30 minutes)...............              40
 (170.101), amendment to a Pre-
 notification Consultation, or
 amendment to a Master File (concerning
 a food contact substance) \9\.
171.1; Indirect Food Additive Petitions             N/A               1               1               1  10,995.........................          10,995
Use of Recycled Plastics in Food                    N/A              65               1              65  25.............................           1,625
 Packaging: Chemistry Considerations.
Preparation of Food Contact              ..............               2               1               2  5..............................              10
 Notifications for Food Contact
 Substances in Contact with Infant
 Formula and/or Human Milk.
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...............................          32,675
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
\2\ Notifications for food contact substance formulations and food contact articles. These notifications require the submission of Form FDA 3479
  (``Notification for a Food Contact Substance Formulation'') only.
\3\ Duplicate notifications for uses of food contact substances.
\4\ Notifications for uses that are the subject of exemptions under 21 CFR 170.39 and very simple food additive petitions.
\5\ Notifications for uses that are the subject of moderately complex food additive petitions.
\6\ Notifications for uses that are the subject of very complex food additive petitions.
\7\ These notifications require the submission of Form FDA 3480.
\8\ These notifications recommend the submission of Form FDA 3480.
\9\ These notifications recommend the submission of Form FDA 3480A.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we made adjustments to our burden estimate.
The estimates are based on our current experience with the Food Contact
Substance Notification Program and informal communication with
industry.
    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an
overall increase of 1,345 hours and a corresponding decrease of 5
responses. We attribute this adjustment to a decrease in Pre-
Notification Consultations or Master Files by 40 responses, a
subsequent decrease of amendments to Pre-Notification Consultations or
Master Files by 20 responses, and an increase of 55 respondents using
the recommendations in the guidance document entitled, ``Use of
Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging: Chemistry Considerations.'' As the
average burden for preparing recycling submissions is higher than for
Pre-notification Consultations or Master Files, this results in an
overall increase in total burden even with an overall decrease in
responses.

    Dated: September 9, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19925 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2382-2383]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1107-002.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits updated
market power analysis for the Southwest Region.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2012.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2854-001.
    Applicants: ConocoPhillips Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of
ConocoPhillips Company.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3401-008.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.
    Description: Golden Spread Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC submit Updated
Market Power Analysis for Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Region.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4683-003; ER11-4684-003; ER11-2489-003; ER12-
726-002; ER12-2639-001; ER11-3620-004; ER11-2882-005; ER10-2432-004;
ER10-2435-004; ER10-2440-004; ER10-2442-004; ER10-2444-004; ER10-2446-
004; ER10-2449-004; ER12-1431-002; ER12-1434-002;

ER12-1432-002; ER12-1435-002; ER10-3139-004; ER12-2510-001; ER12-2511-
001; ER12-2512-001; ER12-2513-001.
    Applicants: Elizabethtown Energy, LLC, Lumberton Energy, LLC,
Hatchet Ridge Wind, LLC, Spring Valley Wind LLC, Ocotillo Express LLC,
Lyonsdale Biomass, LLC, ReEnergy Sterling CT Limited Partnership,
Bayonne Plant Holding, L.L.C., Camden Plant Holding, L.L.C., Dartmouth
Power Associates Limited Partnership, Elmwood Park Power, LLC, Newark
Bay Cogeneration Partnership, L.P, Pedricktown Cogeneration Company LP,
York Generation Company LLC, ReEnergy Ashland LLC, ReEnergy Fort
Fairfield LLC, ReEnergy Livermore Falls LLC, ReEnergy Stratton LLC,
Black River Generation, LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, H.A. Wagner LLC, Raven
Power Marketing LLC, Brandon Shores LLC.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of
Elizabethtown Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-672-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: 2012-12-27-NSP-Tran-to-Load-Agrmt-547 to be effective
1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-673-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: 2012 Annual RTEP Allocation Filing to be effective 1/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-674-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 12-31-2012 O, GG MM Clean-up Filing to be effective 1/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-675-000.
    Applicants: Catalina Solar, LLC.
    Description: Catalina Solar MBR Compliance Filing to Update
Citation to be effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-676-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Power America--CA, LLC.
    Description: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 1/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-677-000.
    Applicants: Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Shiloh IV Lessee MBR Compliance Filing to Update
Citation to be effective 12/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-678-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro Electric Company, ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Oakfield LGIA to be effective 3/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-679-000.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: NV Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: OATT Revisions to Attachment N--LGIA and Attachment
O--SGIA to be effective 3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-680-000.
    Applicants: Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Shiloh IV Lessee, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15:
Shiloh IV Wind Project FERC Electric Tariff Cancellation to be
effective 12/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12
    Accession Number: 20121231-5126
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-681-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: The Empire District Electric Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(i): Revised GFR Template Detail Attachment D to
be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-682-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: PJM NQ--Original SA Nos. 3461, 3462, 3463, 3464, 3465,
3466, 3467, 3468 to be effective 11/28/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/31/12.
    Accession Number: 20121231-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/22/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR13-1-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Petition for Approval of Amendments to the Regional Delegation
Agreement with ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/28/12.
    Accession Number: 20121228-5269.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 31, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00398 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P