Comment Info: =================

General Comment:My name is Kent Brooks, MS, PLMHP.  I am a Licensed Mental Health Professional specializing in Substance Abuse and Dependence.  I also own and operate a small eLiquid manufacuring business, NICOTICKET LLC, which is based in Omaha, NE.

I would respectfully request an extension of the comment period to 180 days to allow for sufficient time for the vaping industry comment on the proposed deeming regulations.


RFP AND SOW FOR VENDORS Evaluation of Mercury Waste Stabilization Technologies January 26, 2001 Prepared by:

UT Battelle, LLC Acting Under Contract with the U. S. Department of Energy for Management and Operation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY MANAGED BY UT BATTELLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY P. O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 6192 ( 865) 576 1431 Fax: ( 865) 241 2426 e mail bradleykc@ ornl. gov January 26, 2001 CLOSING DATE: February 26, 2001 Request for Proposal ( RFP) No. 3400007805 UT Battelle, LLC, acting under its contract DE AC05 00OR22725 with the U. S. Department of Energy for management and operation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, invites you to submit a fixed price proposal for testing program to evaluate stabilization technologies to treat > 260 ppm mercury waste sludges. The work is described more fully in the Statement of Work of the attached draft subcontract. The resulting subcontract will be a fixed price subcontract.

Address your proposal and all questions concerning this request to:

UT Battelle, LLC Bethel Valley Road Post Office Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 6192 Attention: Karen Bradley Telephone: 865 576 1431 The closing time and date for receipt of proposals are 4: 00 p. m. at Oak Ridge on February 26, 2001.

Please let me know if you do not intend to submit a proposal.

NOTE: Standard government forms ( SF) mentioned in this RFP are available at http:// www. gsa. gov/ forms. Other forms and clauses are available at our web site. http:// www. ornl. gov/ Procurement.

The Company may award multiple, firm fixed price subcontracts upon initial proposals received.

Offeror's will participate in this demonstration at their expense except for the analytical costs incurred from the use of an outside laboratory to perform the surrogate waste characterization, TCLP testing on the treated waste forms, and the cost of shipping the treated waste forms to the University of Cincinnati and Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL). 1. EVALUATION CRITERIA The following evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance. A. Technical Approach to the Treatment Process Methodology of the proposed treatment process. What is the likelihood of success using the Offeror's proposed plan and equipment? Is the proposed treatment process scientifically sound, complete, and well thought out?

B. Cost Factors The Company will be concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between expected performance and overall price to the Company. Cost factors will be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals, the Company is willing to pay a higher price for higher technical merit, but only to the extent of comparative worth among the competing proposals. The Company may solicit, from available sources, relevant information concerning the Offeror's record of performance and use this information in evaluation and selection.

C. Past Performance Offeror's experience and past performance of the process in treating similar types of wastes. Background qualifications, specific experience, and expertise of key personnel to be assigned to this demonstration in the development and operation of this process or similar process. The Company may solicit, from available sources, relevant information concerning the Offeror's record of performance and use this information in evaluation and selection.

D. Schedule Is the Offeror's proposed schedule credible, realistic and reasonable for completion of all deliverables and all phases of the work? Has the vendor demonstrated, via his schedule, a thorough understanding of what steps are required to demonstrate the proposed process?

In evaluating proposals, the Company will be concerned with finding the most advantageous balance between expected performance and overall price to the Company. Offeror's must therefore be persuasive in describing the merit and value of methods, characteristics, and/ or features that enhance potential performance/ application or otherwise contribute to achieving the Company's objectives. The Company will select the firm whose proposal contains the combination of price and technical factors offering the best overall value to the Company.

2. PROPOSAL AUTHORIZATION The proposal must be signed by an official authorized to bind your organization and must be accompanied by a statement to the effect the proposal is firm for a period of not less than 60 calendar days after closing date for receipt of proposals.

To aid in our evaluation, you proposal shall be in two parts: Part I   Technical Proposal; and Part II   Business Proposal. Format instructions for submission of the separate proposals described below: 3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL The technical proposal will indicate your capability to provide a testing program to evaluate stabilization technologies to treat > 260 ppm mercury waste sludges as described in this Request for Proposal, it shall be specific and complete in every detail. The Proposal should not merely offer to perform the project in accordance with the Statement of Work, but shall outline the technical and implementation approach as specifically as possible.

Part I   Technical Proposal should not exceed five ( 5) 8 l/ 2 x 11 inch, single spaced pages with text of no more than 14 characters per inch, exclusive of other required enclosures or attachments per the statement of work.

The technical proposal should generally follow the attached evaluation criteria outline and should contain the following:

A. Table of Contents Provide table of contents with page numbers for each chapter or section and subsections.

B. Regulatory Permits The Offeror's shall be responsible for and obtain all necessary regulatory ( local, state and federal) permits and licenses as appropriate to perform this study. Offeror's will be required to supply copies of all permits.

C. Short Introduction and Summary Provide a concise summary of your proposal addressing all evaluation criteria as follows:

1. Technical Approach to the Treatment Process This section shall include a detailed presentation of the proposed treatment process and the equipment to be used in the tests. Statements made by the Offeror regarding the efficiency of the treatment process, waste loadings, and scaling factors must be supported by sound engineering calculations or results of past experience treating similar types of waste. Address the issues of how reliability and maintainability of the process will be demonstrated for the testing.

2. Past Performance This section shall include a description of the Offeror's past accomplishments and experience in the waste treatment area, specifically elemental mercury and mercury contaminated wastes. Focus shall be placed on past experience ( including experimental results) in utilizing the proposed process in treating wastes similar to that described in the SOW.

3. Schedule This section shall include the proposed schedule adequately detailing and identifying work elements from subcontract receipt through completion of all tasks in the SOW. The requested completion schedules for the tasks are depicted in the SOW. The performance requirements, as outlined in the SOW, must be strictly adhered to and positive proof of the ability to perform to the standards must be submitted with the proposal.

4. BUSINESS PROPOSAL A. Cost or Pricing Data You must include in this section a completed " Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet ( Standard Form 1411) and Contract Pricing Proposal ( Form UCN 4638A)" or your own cost pricing proposal form with supporting cost. The form must contain a complete breakdown of the cost to perform the work proposed; including, at a minimum, the number of hours and total cost for each separate direct labor category proposed. Direct materials, travel and subsistence, and other direct costs also must be detailed, together with all indirect costs.

B. Other Information This section of your proposal shall contain all information as listed below. Information should appear in the order as it appears below:

1. Any exceptions that you take to the provisions of the attached draft subcontract. 2. A completed, signed copy of the form entitled " Representations and Certifications. 3. A completed, signed copy of the form entitled " Exhibit 2   Representations of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software. 4. If applicable, completed copy of Exhibit 2D, " Refund of Royalties", ( 3/ 95)

5. RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DATA If your proposal contains data that you do not want disclosed to the public or used by the Company or the Government except for evaluation purposes, you must   ( 1) Mark the title page with the following legend:

The proposal contains data that shall not be disclosed outside the Company or the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed   in whole or in part   for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a subcontract is awarded as a result of or in connection with the submission of these data, the Company and the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting subcontract. This restriction does not limit the Company's or the Government's right to use data obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to the restriction are contained in pages [ insert numbers or other identification of pages];

( 2) Mark each page containing data that you wish to restrict with the following legend: Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

A. The Government may need to acquire unlimited rights in technical data ( but not commercial or financial information) in a proposal upon which a subcontract award is based. However, before such unlimited rights are acquired, the proposer will be afforded the opportunity either   ( 1) To advise that the technical data, or identified portions thereof, are covered by any restrictive notice regarding the disclosure and use of proposal information authorized by FAR subparts 15.2 or 15.6 ( or any agency supplement thereto), and request that such protection be maintained by excluding the data from the Government's rights; or ( 2) To establish that identified portions of the technical data do not relate directly to or will not be used in the work to be performed under the subcontract and request that such portions be excluded from the Government's rights.

A. Unlimited rights to clause in ( D) below. Technical data in successful proposals are acquired by use of the Excluded technical data are identified by inserting appropriate proposal page numbers in the clause.

B. The following clause ( Ref.: FAR 52.227 23) shall be included in any subcontract awarded based on consideration of a technical proposal:

Rights to Proposal Data ( Technical)

Except for data contained on pages _____, it is agreed that as a condition of the award of this subcontract and notwithstanding the conditions of any notice appearing thereon, the Government shall have unlimited rights ( as defined in the Technical Data clause contained in this subcontract) in and to the technical data contained in the proposal dated ______, upon which this subcontract is based.

6. PROPOSAL EXPENSES AND PRECONTRACT COSTS This RFP does not commit us to pay for any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred before the execution of a subcontract.

7. CLAUSES The following clauses shall be included in any resulting subcontract:

INDEMNIFICATION Seller agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend the Company, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, penalties, forfeitures, suits and the costs and expenses incident thereto ( including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which it may hereafter incur, become responsible for or pay out as a result of death or bodily injuries to any person, destruction or damage to any property, contamination of or adverse effects on the environment, or any violation of governmental laws, regulations or orders, caused, in whole or in part, by ( i) Seller's breach of any term or provision of this Agreement or ( ii) any negligent or willful act or omission of the Seller, its employees or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement.

Seller further agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend the Company from and against any and all liabilities, claims, penalties, forfeitures, suits, and the costs and expenses incident thereto ( including costs of defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney's fees)[ hereinafter collectively referred to as " liabilities"] which it may incur, become responsible for or pay out as a result of releases or threatened release of hazardous substances, contaminants and pollutants ( as defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended), which occur at a facility owned or operated by the Seller or a subcontractor of the Seller or during transportation or disposal arranged by the Seller or a subcontractor. This agreement applies to all liabilities arising under any federal or state law relating to the management and remediation of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, including but not limited to, liabilities for remediation, personal injury, property damage, or natural resources damages, which are predicated upon fault or upon strict liability.

INSURANCE 1. Seller will be responsible for, and assumes all liability for, loss or destruction, of or physical Evaluation criteria and technical proposal instructions for this RFP are attached. Damage to, all vehicles, equipment, and containers owned or leased by Seller or any subcontractor and all personal property of employees of Seller or of any subcontractor unless such loss or damage was caused by the negligence of the Company or any of its employees or agents.

2. Seller will insure, or cause to be insured, each and every workman employed in the performance of the work, the compensation provided for in and by each and every statute applicable thereto with respect to Workers' Compensation and Employers' liability, and will procure and maintain until termination of this subcontract the following insurance in not less than the following amounts with reputable and financially responsible insurance companies:

a. Seller's public liability insurance properly safeguarding Seller against liability for injuries to persons, including injuries resulting in death and damage to or destruction of property, in no less than the following amounts: $ 500,000 for injuries to one person and $ 1,000,000 for injuries to two or more persons in any one accident; and $ 500,000 for damage to or destruction of property in any one accident.

b. Contractual liability insurance properly safeguarding Seller against liability assumed by Seller for injuries to persons including injuries resulting in death, in amounts of not less than $ 500,000 for injuries to one person and $ 1,000,000 for injuries to two or more persons, in any one accident; and $ 500,000 for damage to or destruction of property in any accident.

c. Automobile liability insurance properly safeguarding Seller against liability for injuries to persons, including injuries resulting in death and damage to or destruction of property, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of automobiles in not less than the following amounts:

$ 500,000 for injuries to one person and $ 1,000,000 for injuries to two or more persons, in any one accident; and $ 500,000 for damage to or destruction of property in any one accident.

d. If any portion of the work is subcontracted, Seller's protective liability insurance properly safeguarding Seller against claims for injuries to persons, including injuries resulting in death, and damage to or destruction of property, in not less than the following amounts: $ 500,000 for injuries to one person and $ 1,000,000 for injuries to two or more persons, in any one accident; and $ 500,000 for damage to or destruction of property in any one accident.

e. Before commencing work under this Subcontract, the Seller shall certify to the Company, in writing, that the required insurance has been obtained. The policies evidencing required insurance shall contain an endorsement to the effect that any cancellation or any material change adversely affecting the Government's interest shall not be effective: ( 1) for such period as the laws of the State in which this Subcontract is to be performed prescribe, or ( 2) until 30 days after the insurer or the Seller gives written notice to the Company, whichever period is longer.

f. The Seller shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph ( f), in subcontracts under this Subcontract that require work on a Government installation and shall require subcontractors to provide and maintain the insurance required in paragraph ( a d) above. At lease five ( 5) days before entry of each subcontractor's personnel on the Government installation, the Seller shall furnish ( or ensure that there has been furnished) to the Company a current certificate of insurance, meeting the requirements of paragraph ( b) above, for each such subcontractor. 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS If we amend this RFP, you must acknowledge receipt of the amendments ( by number and date) in your proposal.

Very truly yours,

Karen Bradley Subcontract Administrator ORNL Procurement DRAFT SUBCONTRACT NO.

DRAFT SUBCONTRACT between UT BATTELLE, LLC ( the " Company") and ___________ ( the " Seller").

This Subcontract is entered into by the Company acting under its Prime Contract No. DE AC05 00or22725 with the United States Department of Energy ( DOE).

ARTICLE I. SCHEDULE A. Statement of Work The Seller hereby undertakes and agrees to furnish personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, supplies, and services ( except such as are furnished by the Company) necessary to provide support as described in the Statement of Work dated January 16, 2001, as follows:

DEMONSTRATION OF THE STABILIZATION PROCESS FOR TREATMENT OF MERCURY SLUDGE WASTES CONTAINING > 260 PPM MERCURY INTRODUCTION The Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) program currently has technology specific treatment standards for hazardous wastes containing greater than or equal to 260 ppm total mercury ( Hg) ( i. e. high Hg subcategory wastes). The treatment standards specify RMERC for high Hg subcategory wastes and IMERC if the high Hg subcategory wastes contain organics. RMERC requires retorting or roasting in a thermal processing unit, while IMERC specifies incineration. Both of these standards are based on the premise of recovering the Hg for recycle. In the case of radioactivelycontaminated Hg, when the Hg is recovered, it is typically still radioactive and therefore can not be recycled. EPA requires that this recovered radioactively contaminated Hg undergo additional treatment, specifically amalgamation, prior to disposal. The Department of Energy ( DOE) TRU and Mixed Waste Focus Area ( TMFA) and the Mercury Working Group ( HgWG) chartered under the TMFA are working with EPA to validate technologies that can directly treat radioactively contaminated high Hg subcategory wastes without removing the mercury from the waste.

To date under this program a waste soil from Brookhaven National Laboratory ( BNL) containing approximately 4,800 ppm of Hg and radioactive contaminants has been successfully treated by several different vendors to meet a Hg Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP) treatment goal of 0.025 mg/ l or less. These treated waste forms are now undergoing additional evaluations using new analytical protocols, developed by Dr. David Kosson of Vanderbilt University. The data generated will be compared to the standard TCLP results. These new protocols provide another methodology to determine how the treated waste form will behave in a variety of disposal environments.

To supplement the data on treatment of soils EPA needs additional data for stabilization of high Hg subcategory waste sludges. The data gathered from the demonstration of treatment of this sludge should then provide EPA with enough information to support a revision to allow stabilization of all high Hg subcategory wastes. 12 As in the demonstration on the BNL soils referenced above, this effort will also have two major objectives. The first objective is to evaluate alternative processes to RMERC and IMERC for DOE's legacy mixed waste. To that end, the processes will treat a high Hg subcategory surrogate waste to meet a TCLP treatment goal of 0.025 mg/ l or less. A non radioactive surrogate waste sludge has been selected to eliminate the added cost and requirements for handling, treatment, and disposal of an actual radioactive mixed waste. The surrogate sludge will contain five different forms of mercury including elemental. The second objective is to provide EPA with the treated waste forms which EPA will test to again compare proposed new analytical protocols to the standard TCLP results. These comparisons will be used by EPA in their efforts to revise the LDR treatment standards for Hg bearing hazardous wastes. Technology vendors will participate in this demonstration at their expense except for the analytical costs incurred from the use of an outside laboratory to perform the surrogate waste characterization, TCLP testing on the treated waste forms and the costs of shipping the treated waste forms to the University of Cincinnati ( UC) where the new protocol testing will be performed and to Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL) where vapor pressure testing will occur. UC will provide the raw materials and the protocols to make up the surrogate waste. All testing data from the study will be shared with the vendors.

For the demonstration the seller will make up and process two 100 lb batches of the same formulation surrogate waste. The seller shall perform all chemical, physical, and engineering analyses, as well as any preliminary treatability studies in addition to the final demonstration on each batch that the seller deems necessary to ensure the successful demonstration of the seller's stabilization process to achieve the performance targets established. Upon completion of the testing the seller shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of this work.

Multiple contracts will be awarded up to the available funding. The available funding will pay for the raw materials, shipment of the raw materials to the various treatment vendors, analytical costs for waste characterization and the final waste forms at an outside laboratory, and shipment of these treated waste forms from the treatment facilities to UC and ORNL.

WASTE DESCRIPTION The surrogate waste to be tested, as described by this SOW, is a surrogate sludge containing approximately 5,000 ppm of various mercury species. The composition of the mercury surrogate is:

PARAMETER Weight Percentage % Mercury Concentration ppm Mercury Chloride 0.1 1,000 Mercury Nitrate 0.1 1,000 Mercury Oxide 0.1 1,000 Mercury Elemental 0.15 1,500 Phenyl Mercury ( organic) 0.05 500 Diatomaceous Earth 20 Aluminum Hydroxide 10 Ferric Chloride 10 Sodium Chloride 10 13 Motor Oil 1 Water 48.5 Total 100 5000 FINAL WASTE FORM SAMPLING & ANALYSIS FOR WASTE FORM EVALUATION In a cooperative effort with the EPA, several additional analytical protocols are to be run on the untreated and treated surrogate waste. These protocols will be run by the University of Cincinnati on both the untreated and treated surrogate waste. The seller will be required to take the samples from the treated waste for each run, package them, and ship them to the University of Cincinnati. The data generated will then provide EPA with a comparison of the TCLP results to these protocols to help in their efforts to rewrite the mercury related RCRA regulations to make them more environmentally sound. The analyses to be run on the untreated and treated wastes are to help EPA develop a framework for evaluation of contaminant leaching that should: C provide a conservative but more realistic estimate of mercury leaching. C use testing approaches that can be carried out using standard laboratory practices in a reasonable time frame. C provide release limits and estimates that consider site specific conditions; C encourage improvements in waste management practices ( assuming that the TCLP results are, at times, misleading); and, C provide flexibility to allow level of evaluation ( and, hence, degree of over conservatism) to be based on the user's requirements.

The following intrinsic waste characteristics will be used to estimate the mercury release for the scenario outlined above:

Samples of successfully stabilized surrogate ( TCLP < .025 ppm) will be characterized and leached by ALTER Corporation at the University of Cincinnati's ALTER facility. The following testing will provide information on the characteristics and stability of the stabilized surrogate.

Characterization testing will consist of bulk density, moisture content, percent organic matter, cation exchange capacity and particle size distribution.

Leach testing will consist of multiple TCLP extractions followed by pH based leaching. The pH based leaching will provide data on the leachability of the stabilized surrogate at pH 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. Acidity/ alkalinity will also be determined.

Only the TCLP data will be assessed as deviation from a standard value (. 025 ppm), all other data will be reported with the intent of providing information on the applicability of stabilization as a treatment for mercury wastes.

Mercury vapor pressure testing will also be performed on the seller's final treated waste. Therefore the seller will be required to take the samples from the treated waste for all runs on each waste stream, package and then ship them to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for this testing. 14 PERFORMANCE GOAL The performance goal for treatment by stabilization for both batches of the surrogate waste sludge is to meet the Universal Treatment Standards ( UTS) for the category of " Mercury All Other" wastes and the Land Disposal Restriction ( LDR). That mercury standard is 0.025 mg/ L TCLP. Mercury analysis is defined in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II. The detection limit for this analysis should be a minimum of 0.0002 mg/ l Hg. The vendors' waste form must meet the performance goal in order to have that waste form tested and evaluated at the University of Cincinnati using the new protocols and at ORNL for the vapor pressure.

OTHER FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The seller process must also be able to perform to the following standards:

1. The mercury stabilization process shall stabilize mercury containing wastes without removing the mercury from the waste matrix; processes that involve separating the mercury from the waste matrix followed by amalgamation are not within the scope of the demonstration.

2 The mercury stabilization process must stabilize all forms of mercury including organic and halogenated mercury compounds, elemental mercury, mercury oxides, and mercury nitrates.

3 The mercury stabilization process should minimize secondary wastes. The waste volume increase of the final waste form due to the stabilization process should also be minimized .

4 During the stabilization process demonstration, a chemical reaction may result that increases the temperature and releases undesired off gases. If this is the case, the demonstration must include control technology to ensure waste integrity and contain both mercury and organic emissions.

5 The stabilization process is to accomplish mercury stabilization within the boundaries of worker and public exposure limits as required by OSHA and local radiation control requirements. The process shall be developed to ensure worker exposure to mercury vapors is below 0.05 g/ m3 QUALITY ASSURANCE ( QA)

Before beginning any work, the seller will submit to the company a QA Plan for approval that complies with the intent of DOE order 414.1A ( can be seen or downloaded at website www. explorer. doe. gov). The plan shall represent the seller's approach to ensuring that quality data are generated from all analyzes, performed. The plan shall contain the following provisions as a minimum; however, they may be presented in any order that the seller desires:

1. Organization and Personnel. The roles, responsibilities, and authorities of key laboratory personnel are described. All management personnel responsible for performing analytical work will be listed, along with their job assignments and years of experience in performing applicable work.

2. Personnel Training. The plan will address how personnel are trained in laboratory analytical methods, quality control/ QA procedures, and safety policies. Frequency of training and training records will be addressed.

3. Sample Practices. This section will include procedures for the tracking of samples through the laboratory, receipt of samples, verification of preservation, log in of samples, and chain of custody documentation. Sample storage and disposal will also be included, along with preparation of sample bottles and glassware cleaning. 15 4. Material Procurement and Control. This section will include a description of procedures for purchasing materials, quality inspection before use in sample analysis, chemical standard inventory procedures, solvent storage policies, and laboratory waste disposal.

5. Facilities and Equipment. This section will include a list of basic types of equipment, and general description of the facility to ensure that the laboratory is large enough to handle the sample load expected and that the equipment is capable of performing the required analyses.

6. Analytical Procedures. This section will contain a list of procedures the laboratory offers ( by method number and matrix), and will ensure that controlled copies of analytical procedures and Standard Operating Procedures are available to the analysts. This will also address approvals and changes to the procedures.

7. Calibration. This section will include calibration procedures by instrument type. Calibration frequency, reference standards, calibration acceptance criteria, and calibration documentation procedures must be addressed. Procedures must be defined for ensuring that balances, refrigerators, and ovens are accurate and that their performances are monitored and documented.

8. Limits of Detection. This section will delineate procedures for determining limits of detection, and the frequency of detection limit verification will be outlined.

9. Analysis of Samples and Documentation. This section will summarize procedures and documentation to be used in the day to day operation. Emphasis shall be on the following:

° Analysis of field, method, and reagent blanks. ° Analysis of duplicates, spiked samples, spiked laboratory blanks, and reference or control standards, such as EPA check standards. ° Criteria used to establish warning and action limits for the above types of samples. ° Documentation and examples of control data and control charts. ° Frequency of blanks and other samples, including laboratory control sample. ° How data from samples are reported and reviewed. ° How requirements of the minimum control program will be met. ° Verification of calibration.

10. Corrective Action. This section will define types of nonconforming occurrences, how these occurrences are documented, and who is responsible for correction and documentation.

11. Documents and QA Records Control. This section will provide the controls necessary for all data packages, calibration records, and other QA related records until transmittal to the Company. Procedures will provide instructions for recording, storage, and document control to include tracking and retrieval.

12. Data Evaluation. This section provides instructions for data evaluation for each analytical method, as well as for an entire data set. The process for data review and approval will be outlined. Data qualification and flagging procedures will be implemented. 13. Holding Times and Preservatives. This section will include instructions for holding times and for ensuring sample analysis procedures are met.

14. Internal Audits. The frequency and method of documentation for self assessments by the seller will be provided in this section. 16 15. Independent Assessment. The seller shall afford access to the company at all tiers to the seller's facilities and records for inspection or audit by the company, a designated representative, or other parties authorized by the company.

SELLER'S RESPONSIBILITIES:

The Seller is responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

Task 1. Plans and Permits The seller shall be responsible for and obtain all necessary regulatory ( local, state, and federal) permits and licenses as appropriate to perform this study. The seller shall furnish copies of all permits to the Company to demonstrate compliance. The seller shall also prepare or have already existing plans for addressing the following:

1. Project work 2. Health and safety 3. Waste management 4. QA 5. Sampling and analysis 6. Compliance with 40 CFR 260 etal.

All of these plans may be incorporated into one overall test plan that addresses each of these topics.

All these plans must be submitted to the company and approved in writing by the company before initiation of the following tasks.

The waste management plan must include the name and address of the site where the seller plans to dispose of the material if it does not meet the treatment standard.

The safety and health plan must demonstrate the methods used to ensure the safety and health of vendor employees, ensure employee understanding of hazards and controls, and methods to ensure compliance with occupational safety and health requirements. At a minimum, safety and health plans should provide information regarding:

1. The vendor safety and health policy statement 2. Safety and health training requirements for personnel engaged in hazardous operations 3. Hazard identification and communication methods 4. Appropriate controls for hazardous operations, including monitoring, engineering controls and use of personal protective equipment The project work plan must delineate how the seller will address the issues surrounding the stabilization of sludges containing > 260 ppm of mercury. These include, but may not be limited to:

1. Required pretreatment mechanisms, times, throughput, waste loadings, costs, and wastes generated during the process( es).

2. A thorough description of the processes to be used and the range of variables considered by the seller to be important to the successful operation of the process. These could include the waste loading, the amounts of treatment agents and other necessary ingredients, and the speeds and residence times for each step in the process.

3. In addition to the operational parameters mentioned in No. 2 above, the seller shall identify the 17 specific processing limits, if any, associated with possible co contaminants. The seller shall provide the test results to support these limits.

All work performed by the seller, within the scope of the contract for this demonstration, shall be performed in accordance with these approved plans and appropriate permits and licenses.

Approval of Plans The Company will review the plans. If these are found to be acceptable, the seller will be given written instruction by the Company to proceed.

Task 2. Surrogate Waste Preparation The seller shall prepare the surrogate waste by mixing the individual constituents as provided by the Company. UC will provide and ship all needed raw materials to the seller's specified facility for makeup of the surrogate. The seller shall provide the mixing procedure as part of their project plan which must be approved by the Company prior to the seller making up of the surrogate.

Task 3. Waste Characterization The seller shall characterize the waste surrogate to establish/ confirm the baseline for assessing treatment performance. The seller shall do any other characterization deemed necessary to facilitate the determination of their operating conditions and to optimize their process. The seller shall include in their proposal a table that describes all the analyses to be performed by an outside laboratory, the corresponding reference procedure for each analysis it is proposing, and the cost. The seller shall also take samples of the raw surrogate and ship them to the University of Cincinnati. The Company is responsible for all analytical costs by an outside laboratory and the shipping costs incurred under this task.

Task 4. Equipment Cleanliness Before conducting any testing, the seller shall survey the equipment to be used for the study to ensure that it is not contaminated with any radioactive or hazardous materials such that the proposed equipment would not contaminate the mercury waste as the demonstration is conducted. The seller will document to the Company that the equipment is free of any contamination.

Task 5. Pilot Scale and/ or Full Scale Experiments The seller shall conduct pilot scale and/ or full scale experiments using its stabilization process equipment including all unit operations required on the full scale system to meet regulatory requirements and to produce a waste form that meets the treatment goals. The seller shall determine the significant process variables and their ranges and shall determine the optimum set of conditions for achieving the treatment goals.

Task 6. Analysis of the Final Waste Forms After completion of task 5, the seller shall send samples of the waste forms from both batches of the final test runs to an outside laboratory that complies with EPA's current edition standard SW846 for TCLP analysis. The Company is also responsible for all analytical costs by an outside laboratory incurred under this task. 18 Task 7. Sampling, Packaging and Shipment of Final Waste Form Samples If the final test run treated waste forms have met the treatment goal based on the results under task 6, the Seller will package and ship the entire volume of treated waste for both batches as follows:

Sample Volume Ship to Approximately 1liter Oak Ridge National laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Remainder* University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio * If desired, the seller may keep an archive sample The Company is responsible for the shipment costs.

If the waste forms do not meet the treatment standard, it will be the responsibility of the seller to dispose of the material. Seller must include in their waste management plan the name and address where they plan to dispose of the material.

Task 8. Final Report The seller shall prepare and submit to the company 5 copies and an electronic file of a detailed report including a description of the materials and methods, a discussion of results and recommendations for application of the technology/ process for full scale operation. The report shall address, at a minimum, the following:

1. Process description and history.

2. Pre experimentation computations and analysis.

3. Experimental materials and methods, including:

° Description of the apparatus and procedures. ° The statistical design for the experiment. ° The number of test runs conducted and the conditions for each run. ° The number of samples taken in each run and the size of the samples. ° Sampling and analytical procedures, including the QA procedures to ensure validity of the results. ° Statistical approach to data analysis.

4. Experimental results, including:

° All individual data and summaries thereof. ° Statistical analysis of the data. ° All QA data and documentation. ° Waste loading and the conditions for which that waste loading should be valid. 19 C Change in volume of the treated waste. ° Types and amounts of secondary wastes generated during the studies and the anticipated generation rates for full scale. ° The mass balance on the system. ° The anticipated operating conditions and throughput. ° The duty cycle, reliability, and maintainability of the integrated system as well as the individual components.

I. Discussion of the results.

7. A life cycle cost analysis of the proposed full scale treatment facility. The analysis should include, at a minimum:

° operating costs ° capital costs ° disposal costs ° transportation costs ° material costs 8. Conclusions and recommendations. Regarding the design basis for scale up to a full scale system if the system is not already at full scale, a flow sheet of the system, including all unit operations such as sizing, process conditions, material balances, and projected capital and operating costs to treat the waste, must be provided.

Task 9. Disposal of the materials and waste After completing the testing, the seller will be responsible for disposal of all materials and waste remaining from the demonstration.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE The following schedule will be completed by the seller:

Company contract award 0 Weeks Seller submittal of all plans and evidence of permits ( if any needed) to the company Company approval of plans 3 weeksa Company shipment of raw materials for surrogate preparation Within 3 weeks after plan approvala Seller Initiate testing Completion of seller demonstration testing Seller submittal of the draft final report to the company Company comments on draft report 3 weeks after submittala Seller submittal of final report 20 aThe company must complete these tasks within the specified time, or the schedule will be adjusted accordingly.

B. Progress Reports/ Deliverables The Seller shall submit status reports and deliverables to the Company's Technical Project Officer as specified in the Statement of Work.

C. Period of Performance The period of performance under this Subcontract shall commence on and expire on .

D. Key Personnel The following are identified as " Key Personnel" and are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder:

[ Insert Name/ Title]

Prior to diverting any of the specified person( s) to other programs, the Seller shall notify the Company reasonably in advance and shall submit justification ( including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No diversion shall be made without the consent of the Company; provided, that the Company may ratify in writing such diversion and such ratification shall constitute the consent of the Company required by this article. The list of key personnel may be amended from time to time during the course of this subcontract to either add or delete personnel, as appropriate.

ARTICLE II. CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT A. Consideration In consideration of the work to be performed under Article I. A., Statement of Work, the Seller shall be paid the fixed price amount of .

B. Terms of Payment Terms of payment are net 30 days from receipt of invoice. 21 C. Invoicing An original invoice shall be submitted to:

UT Battelle, LLC Accounts Payable Post Office Box 2308 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 6436 D. Payment Payment shall be made upon submission and approval of proper invoice after completion and acceptance by the Company's Technical Project Officer and in accordance with the following Milestone Schedule:

Date Milestone Amount TDB TBD TBD ARTICLE III. CONTENTS OF SUBCONTRACT The provisions of the following attached articles and documents are made a part of this Subcontract:

A.. General Terms and Conditions Fixed Price ( Sep 2000)

B. Exhibit 1B, Patent Rights Acquisition by the Government ( 9 97)

C. Exhibit 1C, Patent Rights  Retention by the Seller ( Short Form), ( 3 95)

D. Exhibit 4, Authorization & Consent ( 4/ 84)

D. Exhibit 9, Technical Data ( 7 99)

E. Exhibit 17, Rights to Proposal Data ( Technical) ( 10 91)

THE PARTIES, INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, have executed this Subcontract as of the dates set forth below.

THE SELLER UT BATTELLE, LLC 22 BY: BY:

TITLE: TITLE:

DATE: DATE:


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0183]

RIN 1218-AC64

Revising Standards Referenced in the Acetylene Standard

AGENCY:  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION:  Direct final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:  In this direct final rule, the Agency is revising its
Acetylene Standard for general industry by updating a reference to a
standard published by a standards-developing organization (“SDO
standards”).  This rulemaking is a continuation of OSHA’s ongoing
effort to update references to SDO standards used throughout its rules.

DATES:  This direct final rule will become effective on [INSERT DATE 90
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
unless OSHA receives significant adverse comment by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  If
OSHA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the rule in the Federal Register.  Submit comments to this direct final
rule (including comments to the information-collection (paperwork)
determination described under the section titled PROCEDURAL
DETERMINATIONS), hearing requests, and other information by [INSERT DATE
30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].  All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other
evidence of the submission date.  (The following section titled
ADDRESSES describes methods available for making submissions.)

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of specific publications listed in this direct final rule as
of [insert date 90 days after DATE OF publication OF THIS NOTICE in the
FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  Submit comments, hearing requests, and other information as
follows:

	•  Electronic:  Submit comments electronically to  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov , which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal.  Follow the instructions online for
submitting comments.

•  Facsimile:  OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments).  Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents.  Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit
these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.  These attachments must clearly identify the
sender’s name, date, subject, and docket number (OSHA-2011-0183) so
that the Agency can attach them to the appropriate document.

•  Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service:  Submit comments and any additional material (e.g.,
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2011-0183 or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1218-AC08,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:  (202)
693-2350.  (OSHA’s TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.)  Note that
security-related procedures may result in significant delays in
receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.  Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures
concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and
messenger service.  The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.

•  Instructions:  All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0183).  OSHA will place comments and other
material, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov .
Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about submitting statements
they do not want made available to the public, or submitting comments
that contain personal information (either about themselves or others)
such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.

•  Docket:  The electronic docket for this direct final rule
established at  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov   lists most of the documents in the docket.
However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through this website.  All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying
at the OSHA Docket Office.  Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Press inquiries:  Contact Frank
Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
<PHONE_NUMBER>.

General and technical information:  Contact Ted Twardowski, Office of
Safety Systems, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Copies of this Federal Register notice:  Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information,
also are available at OSHA’s webpage at http://www.osha.gov.

Availability of Incorporated Standards:  OSHA is incorporating by
reference into this section the standard published by the Compressed Gas
Association required in § 1910.102(a) with the approval of the Director
of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.  To
enforce any edition other than the editions specified in § 1910.102(a),
OSHA must publish a notice of change in the Federal Register, and the
material must be available to the public.  All approved material is
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).  For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http:/www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_
locations.html.  Also, the material is available for inspection at any
OSHA Regional Office or the OSHA Docket Office (U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number:<PHONE_NUMBER>)).

Table of Contents

I.	Background

II.	Direct Final Rulemaking

General

Relationship Between this Direct Final Rule and the Companion Proposed
Rule

Request for Comment

III.	Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Acetylene Standard

IV.	Procedural Determinations

	A.  Legal Considerations

	B.  Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification

	C.  OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

	D.  Federalism

	E.  State Plan States

	F.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

	G.  Public Participation

V.	Authority and Signature

I.  Background

This action is part of a rulemaking project instituted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or “the
Agency”) to update OSHA standards that reference or include language
from outdated standards published by standards developing organizations
(“SDO standards”) (69 FR 68283).  A SDO standard referenced in
OSHA’s Acetylene Standard (29 CFR 1910.102) is among the SDO standards
that the Agency identified for revision.

OSHA adopted the original Acetylene Standard in 1974 pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29
U.S.C. 651, 655).  This section allowed OSHA, during the first two years
after passage of the OSH Act, to adopt existing Federal and national
consensus standards as OSHA safety and health standards, including the
Acetylene Standard.

On August 11, 2009, OSHA published a direct final rule (DFR) and
accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking that updated references to
recognize the latest edition of the Compressed Gas Association standard,
CGA G-1-2003, in the Acetylene Standard.  See 74 FR 40442 and 74 FR
40450, respectively.  OSHA received no adverse comments on the DFR, and
it became effective on November 9, 2009.  See 74 FR 57883.

The Compressed Gas Association published a new edition of CGA G-1 in
June 2009.  OSHA did not include CGA G-1-2009 in the DFR because that
edition was not available to OSHA prior to publication of the DFR.
However, three of the eight comments received on the DFR (Exs.
OSHA-2008-0034-0017, -0010, and -0022) recommended that the Agency
reference CGA G-1-2009 instead.  OSHA did not include the 2009 edition
of CGA G-1 in the DFR because that edition was not available to OSHA
prior to publication of the DFR.  This rulemaking is removing CGA
G-1-2003 from the existing Acetylene Standard and replacing it with CGA
G-1-2009.

II. Direct Final Rulemaking

A.  General

In a direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a DFR in the Federal
Register along with a statement that the rule will become effective
unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a
specified period.  An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it
anticipates the rule will be non-controversial.  The agency concurrently
publishes a proposed rule that is essentially identical to the DFR.  If,
however, the agency receives significant adverse comment within the
specified period, the agency withdraws the DFR and treats the comments
as submissions on the proposed rule.

	OSHA is using a DFR for this rulemaking because it expects the rule to:
 be noncontroversial; provide protection to employees that is at least
equivalent to the protection afforded to them by the outdated standard;
and impose no significant new compliance costs on employers (69 FR
68283, 68285).  OSHA used DFRs previously to update or, when
appropriate, revoke references to outdated national SDO standards in
OSHA rules (see, e.g., 69 FR 68283, 70 FR 76979, and 71 FR 80843).

	For purposes of this direct final rulemaking, a significant adverse
comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule’s underlying premise or approach.  In
determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of the DFR, OSHA
will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to
warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process.  OSHA
will not consider a comment recommending an addition to the rule to be a
significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the DFR would
be ineffective without the addition.  If OSHA receives a timely
significant adverse comment, the Agency will publish a Federal Register
notice withdrawing the DFR no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

OSHA determined that updating and replacing the SDO standard in the
Acetylene Standard is appropriate for direct final rulemaking.  First,
the revision made to the Acetylene Standard by this DFR does not
compromise the safety of employees, and instead enhances employee
protection.  As described below, the revision will make the requirements
of OSHA’s Acetylene Standard consistent with current industry
practices, thereby eliminating confusion and clarifying employer
obligations, which will increase employee safety by encouraging
compliance.  Furthermore, bringing the Acetylene Standard in line with
industry practice will not produce additional costs for employers, and
may reduce compliance costs.  Finally, the revision is non-controversial
because it merely updates the SDO standard referenced in the rule to the
most current version of that standard.

B.  Relationship Between this Direct Final Rule and the Companion
Proposed Rule

This direct final rule is the companion document to a notice of proposed
rulemaking also published in the “Proposed Rules” section of
today’s Federal Register.  If OSHA receives no significant adverse
comment on this direct final rule, it will publish a Federal Register
document confirming the effective date of this direct final rule and
withdrawing the companion proposed rule.  The confirmation may include
minor stylistic or technical corrections to the document.  For the
purpose of judicial review, OSHA considers the date that it confirms the
effective date of the direct final rule to be the date of issuance.
However, if OSHA receives significant adverse comment on the direct
final rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final
rule and proceed with the proposed rule, which addresses the same
revisions to the Acetylene Standard.

C.  Request for Comment

OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this direct final
rulemaking, including economic or other regulatory impacts of this
action on the regulated community.  OSHA will consider all of the
comments, and the comments will become part of the record.

III. Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Acetylene Standard

This DFR updates the SDO standard referenced in paragraph 1910.102(a) of
the Acetylene Standard.  To ensure that employers have access to the
latest safety requirements for managing acetylene, this rulemaking is
adopting the requirements specified in the most recent, 2009, edition of
the SDO standard, CGA G-1-2009.  The following discussion provides a
summary of the revisions OSHA is making to paragraph (a) of the
Acetylene Standard.

For paragraph (a) of § 1910.102 (Cylinders), this DFR is replacing the
reference to the 2003 edition of CGA Pamphlet G-1 (“Acetylene”) (Ex.
OSHA-2008-0034-0006) with the most recent (i.e., 2009) edition of that
standard, also entitled “Acetylene” (Ex. OSHA-2011-0183-0003).  In
reviewing CGA G1-2009, the Agency prepared a side-by-side comparison of
the 2009 and 2003 editions (Ex. OSHA-2011-0183-0004).  OSHA found minor
changes to the titles of CGA reports referenced in paragraph 4 of
section 3.2 (Physical and chemical properties) and section 4.2 (Valves);
these changes are not substantive.  In section 4.5 (Marking and
labeling), CGA also provides additional guidance clarifying Department
of Transportation labeling regulations, and labeling requirements for
transporting acetylene in Canada.  The Agency determined that this
information provides guidance only, and, therefore, imposes no
additional burden on employers.  Finally, OSHA identified an addition to
the note in section 5.2 (Rules for storing acetylene) that designates as
“in service” single cylinders of acetylene and oxygen located at a
work station (e.g., chained to a wall or building column, secured on a
cylinder cart).  The Agency determined that this change is consistent
with current industry practice, and, consequently, does not increase
employers’ burden.

OSHA believes that the provisions of CGA G-1-2009 are consistent with
the usual and customary practice of employers in the industry, and
determined that incorporating CGA G-1-2009 into paragraph (a) of §
1910.102 does not add compliance burden for employers.  OSHA invites the
public to comment on whether the revisions made to the Acetylene
Standard represent current industry practice.

IV. Procedural Determinations

A.  Legal Considerations

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.), is "to assure so far as possible every working man and
woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources."  29 U.S.C.
ftp://ftp.gpo.gov/Acetylene/Acetylene-DFR-08-02-11MEV.doc651(b).  To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards.  29
U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b).  A safety or health standard is a standard "which
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or places of
employment."  29 U.S.C. 652(8).  A standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk
of material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would
substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk.

This DFR will not reduce the employee protections put into place by the
standard OSHA is updating under this rulemaking.  Instead, this
rulemaking likely will enhance employee safety by clarifying employer
obligations.  Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine significant
risk, or the extent to which this rule would reduce that risk, as
typically is required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v.
American Petroleum Institute (448 U.S. 607 (1980)).

B.  Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

This DFR is not “economically significant” as specified by Executive
Order 12866, or a "major rule" under Section 804 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”; 5 U.S.C.
804).  The DFR does not impose significant additional costs on any
private-sector or public-sector entity, and does not meet any of the
criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by
Executive Order 12866 and the relevant statutes.  OSHA developed the
rule with attention to the approaches to rulemaking outlined in
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

This DFR simply updates a reference to an outdated SDO standard in
OSHA’s Acetylene Standard.  The Agency concludes that the revisions
will not impose any additional costs on employers because it believes
that the updated SDO standard represents the usual and customary
practice of employers in the industry.  Consequently, the DFR imposes no
costs on employers.  Therefore, OSHA certifies that this rulemaking will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Accordingly, the Agency is not preparing a regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).

C.  OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Neither the existing nor updated SDO standard addressed by this DFR
contain collection of information requirements.  Therefore, this DFR
does not impose or remove any information-collection requirements for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and 5 CFR 1320.  Accordingly, the Agency does not have to prepare an
Information Collection Request in association with this rulemaking.

Members of the public may respond to this paperwork determination by
sending their written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn:  OSHA Desk Officer (RIN 1218-AC08), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.  The Agency encourages commenters to submit these comments to the
rulemaking docket, along with their comments on other parts of the DFR.
For instructions on submitting these comments and accessing the docket,
see the sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and
ADDRESSES.  However, OSHA will not consider any comment received on this
paperwork determination to be a “significant adverse comment” as
specified under Section II (“Direct Final Rulemaking”) of this
notice.

	To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd
Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

D.  Federalism

OSHA reviewed this DFR in accordance with the Executive Order on
Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope.

Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(“OSH Act”; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that
States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; OSHA refers to
States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan as “State Plan
States.”  29 U.S.C. 667.  Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards.  Subject to these requirements, State Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.  While OSHA drafted this DFR to protect
employees in every State, Section 18(c)(2) of the Act permits State Plan
States and Territories to develop and enforce their own standards for
acetylene operations provided these requirements are at least as
effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of
employment as the requirements specified in this DFR.

	In summary, this DFR complies with Executive Order 13132.  In States
without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from this DFR
would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard
promulgated by OSHA.  In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this
rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy options.

E.  State Plan States

When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States or U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans
(“State Plan States”) must amend their standards to reflect the new
standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary
(e.g., if an existing State standard covering this area is already “at
least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment).  29 CFR
1953.5(a).  The State standard must be “at least as effective” as
the final Federal rule, and must be completed within six months of the
publication date of the final Federal rule.  29 CFR 1953.5(a).  When
OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose
additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard,
State Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although
OSHA may encourage them to do so.

While this DFR does not impose any additional or more stringent
requirements on employers than the existing Acetylene Standard, OSHA
believes that the provisions of this DFR will provide employers with
critical, updated information and methods that will help protect their
employees from the hazards found in workplaces engaged in acetylene
operations.  Therefore, OSHA encourages the State Plan States to adopt
provisions comparable to the provisions in this DFR within six months
after the promulgation date of the rule.  The 27 States and territories
with OSHA-approved State Plans are:  Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.  Connecticut,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have
OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and local government
employees only.

F.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

	OSHA reviewed this DFR in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (“UMRA”; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order
12875 (56 FR 58093).  As discussed above in Section IV.B (“Final
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification”) of
this notice, the Agency determined that this DFR will not impose
additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity.
Accordingly, this DFR requires no additional expenditures by either
public or private employers.

As noted above under Section IV.E (“State Plan States”) of this
notice, the Agency’s standards do not apply to State and local
governments except in States that have elected voluntarily to adopt a
State Plan approved by the Agency.  Consequently, this DFR does not meet
the definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see Section
421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)).  Therefore, for the purposes of
the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this DFR does not mandate that
State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory
obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than
$100 million in any year.

G.  Public Participation

	OSHA requests comments on all issues concerning this DFR.  The Agency
also welcomes comments on its determination that this DFR has no
negative economic impacts on employers, and will increase employee
protection.  If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment, it will
publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of
this direct final rule and withdrawing the companion proposed rule.
Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical corrections
to the document.  For a full discussion of what constitutes a
significant adverse comment, see Section II (“Direct Final
Rulemaking”) of this notice.

 	The Agency will withdraw this DFR if it receives significant adverse
comment on the amendments contained in it, and proceed with the
companion proposed rule by addressing the comment(s) and publishing a
new final rule.  The comment period for this DFR runs concurrently with
that of the companion proposed rule.  Therefore, OSHA will treat any
comments received under this DFR as comments regarding the companion
proposed rule.  Similarly, OSHA will consider a significant adverse
comment submitted to this DFR as a comment to the companion proposed
rule; the Agency will consider such a comment in developing a subsequent
final rule.

	OSHA will post comments received without revision to  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov" http://www.regulations.gov , including any
personal information provided.  Accordingly, OSHA cautions commenters
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birth dates.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Acetylene, General industry, Incorporation by reference, Occupational
safety and health, Safety.

V.  Authority and Signature

David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
The Agency is issuing this notice under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
Secretary of Labor’s Order 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 CFR part 1911.

	Signed at Washington, DC on November 22, 2011.

____________________________________________________

David Michaels, PhD, MPH

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to the Standard

	For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration is amending 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below:

PART 1910-OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A—[Amended]

1.  The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority:   Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736),
1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017),
5–2002 (67 FR 65008), 5–2007 (72 FR 31159), and 4–2010 (75 FR
55355), as applicable.

Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 1910.9 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a,
5 U.S.C. 553; Pub. L. 106–113 (113 Stat. 1501A–222); Pub. L. 111–8
and 111–317; and OMB Circular A–25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR
38142, July 15, 1993).

2.  Amend § 1910.6 by revising paragraph (k)(3) to read as follows:

§ 1910.6  Incorporation by reference.

*	*	*	*	*

(k)  	*	*	*

(3)  CGA G-1-2009 Acetylene, Twelfth Edition, IBR approved for §
1910.102(a).  Copies of CGA Pamphlet G-1-2009 are available for purchase
from the:  Compressed Gas Association, Inc., 4221 Walney Road, 5th
Floor, Chantilly, VA 20151; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
703-961-1831; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
*	*	*	*	*

Subpart H—[Amended]

3.  Revise the authority citation for subpart H to read as follows:

   Authority:  29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor’s Orders
Nos. 12-71(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55
FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), as applicable; and 29 CFR
part 11.

   	Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119,
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 1910.126 also issued under 29 CFR part
1911.

   	Section 1910.119 also issued under Section 304, Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 Note.

   	Section 1910.120 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 Note, and 5 U.S.C.
553.

4.  Amend § 1910.102 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1910.102  Acetylene.

(a)  Cylinders.  Employers must ensure that the in-plant transfer,
handling, storage, and use of acetylene in cylinders comply with the
provisions of CGA Pamphlet G-1-2009 (“Acetylene”) (incorporated by
reference, see § 1910.6).

*	*	*	*	*

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

In its comments to the 2009 DFR revising OSHA’s Acetylene Standard,
CGA made the following statement regarding the addition to this note:
“CGA does not envision a hardship or economic burden on the industry
nor any reduction in industrial safety as a result of this change,“

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12810]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7489; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-20]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, OK; Enid
Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK; and Enid, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 19, 2016, amending Class
E surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension,
and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface,
in the Enid, OK, area to allow additional time for charting. This
correction adds the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) language
inadvertently removed from the Class E surface area description for
Vance AFB, and Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK. Adjustment of the
geographic coordinates are also made to the Vance VHF Omnidirectional
Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) listed in the Class E airspace
area designated as an extension to the Class D surface area.

DATES: This correction is effective 0901 UTC, July 21, 2016, and the
effective date of the rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on
February 19, 2016 (81 FR 8389), is delayed to 0901 UTC July 21, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E
surface area airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at
Vance AFB, Enid, OK; and Woodring Municipal Airport, Enid, OK (81 FR
8389, February 19, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-7489. Subsequent to
publication, the FAA determined that the part-time NOTAM language in
the Class E surface area description was inadvertently removed in
error. Potential safety concerns were identified due to the possibility
for confusion in determining the operating rules and equipment
requirements in the Vance AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport terminal
areas. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D
surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to
be active at the same time.
    To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM
language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-
time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area
airspace at Vance AFB and Woodring Municipal Airport. The regulatory
text is rewritten for clarity. A minor adjustment is also made to the
geographic coordinates of the Vance VORTAC listed in Class E airspace
area designated as an extension to Class D. These are administrative
corrections and do not affect the controlled airspace boundaries or
operating requirements supporting operations in the Vance AFB and
Woodring Municipal Airport terminal areas.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Federal Register of February 19, 2016 (81 FR 8389) FR Doc. 2016-03365,
Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Enid Vance AFB, Ok; Enid Woodring
Municipal Airport, Enid, OK; and Enid, OK, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

ASW OK E2 Enid, OK [Corrected]

0
On page 8390, column 3, beginning on line 42, remove the following
text:
    ``Within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and within a 4.1-mile
radius of Woodring Municipal Airport.'', and add in its place:
    ``Within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and within a 4.1-mile
radius of Woodring Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.''

ASW OK E4 Enid Vance AFB, OK [Corrected]

0
On page 8390, column 3, line 54, remove ``(lat. 36[deg]20'42'' N.,
long. 97[deg]55'07'' W.)'' and add in its place ``(lat. 36[deg]20'42''
N., long. 97[deg]55'06'' W.)''

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 1, 2016.
Vonnie Royal
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-05395 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 55057]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 9, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-977-
8000.
    Contact Person: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express
delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093) Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-
7001, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>) in the
Washington DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line
for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal
Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/
phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: On December 9, 2009, the committee will discuss endpoints
and other clinical trial design issues in the development of
antibacterial products for the treatment of community-acquired
bacterial pneumonia.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 24, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those desiring to make
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before November 16, 2009. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by November 17, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Minh Doan at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 20, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25628 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4319-4320]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-471-000]

Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Bluewater Compression Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Bluewater Compression Project (Project), proposed by Bluewater Gas

Storage, LLC (Bluewater) in the above-referenced docket. Bluewater
requests authorization to construct, install, own, operate, and
maintain a compressor station in Ray Township, Macomb County, Michigan.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The Project would consist of the following:
     A new 11,150 horsepower natural gas compressor station and
ancillary facilities in Macomb County, Michigan;
     Two 105-foot-long, 20-inch-diameter pipeline sections that
would tie-in the proposed compressor station to Bluewater's existing
20-inch-diameter pipeline; and
     Abandonment in place of approximately 420 feet of existing
20-inch-diameter pipeline.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the
eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP19-471). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 18,
2020.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19- 471-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: January 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01182 Filed 1-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P