[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27005-27010]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0845; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-013-AD;
Amendment 39-17431; AD 2013-08-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Revo, Incorporated Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Revo, Incorporated Models COLONIAL C-1, COLONIAL C-2, LAKE
LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, LAKE LA-4P, and LAKE LA-4-200 airplanes. That AD
currently requires a one-time, dye-penetrant inspection of the
horizontal stabilizer attachment fitting and repetitive visual
inspections of the fitting for any evidence of fretting, cracking, or
corrosion (with necessary replacement and modification); replacement of
the fitting upon reaching the 850-hours time-in-service (TIS) safe
life; and reporting to the FAA the results of the initial inspection
and any cracks found on repetitive inspections. This new AD requires
the same actions of AD 2005-12-02 except using revised service
documents and procedures, adds Model COLONIAL C-1 airplanes to the
Applicability, and adds an optional terminating action for the
requirements. This AD was prompted by a report from Revo, Incorporated
that, while the drawing numbers are different, the attachment fittings
on the Model COLONIAL C-1 airplanes are identical in every other
respect to those installed on the airplanes referenced in AD 2005-12-
02. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 13, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 13, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in the AD as of July 8,
2005 (70 FR 33820, June 10, 2005).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Revo,
Incorporated, 1396 Grandview Boulevard, Kissimmee, FL 34744; telephone:
(407) 847-8080; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lake Central Air Services,
Muskoka Airport, R. R. 1, Gravenhurst, Ontario, Canada P1P
1R1; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
www.lakecentral.com; and Robert L. Copeland (XLS Co., LLC), 418B Bartow
Municipal Airport, Bartow, FL 33830; FAA Aerospace Engineer (Hal
Horsburgh), telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust St., Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Horsburgh, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2005-12-02, amendment 39-14118 (70 FR 33820,
June 10, 2005). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2012 (77 FR 49389).
That NPRM proposed to require the same actions of AD 2005-12-02, add
Model COLONIAL C-1 airplanes to the Applicability, and add an optional
terminating action for the requirements.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 49389, August 16,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
    We did notice that the date for XLS Company's instructions for
continued airworthiness was incorrect. We also identified the need to
clarify giving credit for work done following previous service
documents and procedures so the actions would not be unnecessarily
duplicated.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for a
typographical error in the date for XLS Company's instructions for
continued airworthiness, clarification of credit allowed for work done
following previous service documents and procedures, and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (August 16, 2012, 77 FR 49389) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already

proposed in the NPRM (August 16, 2012, 77 FR 49389).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 253 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost              Parts cost               product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the horizontal           24 work-hours x    Not Applicable..............          $2,040        $516,120
 stabilizer attachment fitting.   $85 per hour =
                                  $2,040.
Measure the gap between the      1 work-hour x $85  Not Applicable..............              85          21,505
 horizontal skin and the          per hour = $85.
 horizontal stabilizer
 attachment fitting; trim the
 skin to provide gap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment    24 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $761          $2,801
 fitting.                                        $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    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.

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2005-12-02, Amendment 39-10524 (70 FR 33820, June 10, 2005), and adding
the following new AD:

2013-08-14 Revo, Incorporated: Amendment 39-17431; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0845; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 13, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2005-12-02, Amendment 39-10524 (70 FR
33820, June 10, 2005).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Revo, Incorporated Models
COLONIAL C-1, COLONIAL C-2, LAKE LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, LAKE LA-4P, and
LAKE LA-4-200 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated
in any category, and have horizontal stabilizer attachment fittings
part number (P/N) 1-2200-14, 2200-14, or 2-2200-21 installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by information from Revo, Incorporated that
while the drawing numbers are different, the attachment fittings on
the Model COLONIAL C-1 airplanes are identical in every other
respect to those installed on the airplanes referenced in AD 2005-
12-02 (70 FR 33820, June 10, 2005). We are issuing this AD to
require the same actions of AD 2005-12-02, add the Model COLONIAL C-
1 airplanes to the Applicability, and add an optional terminating
action for the requirements. We are adopting this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Credit for Actions Done Following Previous Service Information

    (1) This AD provides credit for the actions in paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD, if the dye penetrant inspection was done before the
effective date of this AD, following Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78
R2, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2011; Revo Inc. Service Bulletin
B-78 R1, Revision 1, dated July 26, 2005; or Revo Inc. Service
Bulletin B-78, dated April 3, 1998. However; the horizontal
stabilizer attachment fitting must have been removed from the
airplane during the inspection.
    (2) This AD provides credit for the actions in paragraphs (h)(2)
and (j)(1) of this AD, if the horizontal stabilizer attachment
fitting has been replaced before the effective date of this AD,
following Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R2, Revision 2, dated
October 26, 2011; Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R1, Revision 1,
dated July 26, 2005; or Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78, dated April
3, 1998.

(h) Dye Penetrant Inspection on the Horizontal Stabilizer Attachment
Fitting

    (1) For airplanes with less than 825 hours time-in-service (TIS)
on any horizontal stabilizer attachment fitting: Remove the
horizontal stabilizer attachment (P/N 1-2200-14, 2200-14, or 2-2200-
21) from the airplane and do a one-time dye-penetrant inspection for
cracks, fretting, or corrosion using the applicable compliance times
and service information stated below.
    (i) For COLONIAL C-2, LAKE LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, LAKE LA-4P, and
LAKE LA-4-200 airplanes: Within the next 25 hours TIS after July 8,
2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-02 (70 FR 33820, June 10,
2005)). Follow Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated
January 10, 2012; Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R2, Revision 2,
dated October 26, 2011; Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R1, Revision
1, dated July 26, 2005; or Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78, dated
April 3, 1998 (which was incorporated by reference in AD 2005-12-02
and is retained in this AD).
    (ii) For COLONIAL C-1 airplanes: Within the next 25 hours TIS
after June 13, 2013 (the effective date of this AD). Follow Revo
Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated January 10, 2012.
    (2) If cracks, fretting, or corrosion is found during the
inspection required in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment with an
airworthy P/N 2-2200-21, P/N 1-2200-14, or 2200-14 following Revo
Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated January 10, 2012.
After replacement with an airworthy part, the repetitive inspections
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD and the repetitive
replacements specified in paragraph (j) of this AD are still
required.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, an airworthy part is defined as
a new part or a used part that has less than 850 hours TIS and has
been inspected following paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and found free
of cracks, fretting, or corrosion before installation.

(i) Repetitive Inspections of the Horizontal Stabilizer Attachment
Fitting

    (1) Within 50 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first,
after the dye-penetrant inspection required in paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD or after replacement of the fitting required in paragraphs
(h)(2), (i)(2), or (j) of this AD and repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs
first, visually inspect the horizontal stabilizer attachment fitting
using the following procedures:
    (i) Move the elevator as required to see the fitting, ensuring
that the aft face of the fitting is visible.
    (ii) Clean the fitting. Pay special attention to the radius
edges of the fitting just outboard of the fitting ear.
    (iii) Visually inspect the fitting for cracks using a flashlight
(a small magnifying glass or borescope is recommended). Pay special
attention again to the radius edges just outboard of the fitting
ear. Also, inspect as far forward on the edge that is possible
because some cracks progress along the forward face of the fitting
that is mostly hidden by the horizontal stabilizer rear beam.
    (iv) Reference the sketch on page 1 of Revo Inc. Service
Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated January 10, 2012, to see where
the crack is likely to begin.
    (2) If any cracks are found during any of the inspections
required in paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, replace
the fitting with an airworthy part following Revo Inc. Service
Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated January 10, 2012.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, an airworthy part is defined as
a new part or a used part that has less than 850 hours TIS and has
been inspected following paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and found free
of cracks, fretting, or corrosion before installation.

(j) Replace the Horizontal Stabilizer Attachment Fitting

    (1) For COLONIAL C-2, LAKE LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, LAKE LA-4P, and
LAKE LA-4-200 airplanes: Before or when the horizontal stabilizer
attachment fitting accumulates 850 hours TIS or within 25 hours TIS
after July 8, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-02 (70 FR
33820, June 10, 2005)), whichever occurs later, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 850 hours TIS replace the
horizontal stabilizer attachment fitting P/N 1-2200-14, 2200-14, or
2-2200-21 with an airworthy part. Follow Revo Inc. Service Bulletin
B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated January 10, 2012; Revo Inc. Service
Bulletin B-78 R2, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2011; Revo Inc.
Service Bulletin B-78 R1, Revision 1, dated July 26, 2005; or Revo
Inc. Service Bulletin B-78, dated April 3, 1998 (which was
incorporated by reference in AD 2005-12-02 and is retained in this
AD).
    (2) For COLONIAL C-1 airplanes: Before or when the horizontal
stabilizer attachment fitting accumulates 850 hours TIS or within 25
hours TIS after June 13, 2013 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 850 hours TIS replace the horizontal stabilizer attachment
fitting P/N 1-2200-14, 2200-14, or 2-2200-21 with an airworthy part
following Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated
January 10, 2012.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, an airworthy part is defined as
a new part or a used part that has less than 850 hours TIS and has
been inspected following paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and found free
of cracks, fretting, or corrosion before installation.

(k) Optional Terminating Action

    You may at any time install the following supplemental type
certificates (STC) to terminate the requirements of this AD;
however, the actions required by the limitations section in the
instructions for continued airworthiness for the STCs still apply:
    (1) Lake Central Aircraft Services Lake Amphibian stabilizer
fitting (STC SA02153NY) (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--
Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/1dae07f8e33da91486257093004f73b8/
$FILE/SA02153NY.pdf) following Lake Central Aircraft Services Lake
Amphibian Stabilizer Fitting LC-2200-21 Installation Instructions,
Rev B, dated August 26, 2005; and Lake Central Air Services
Stabilizer Fitting LC-2200-21 Maintenance Manual Supplement Document
MS-LC-2200-21, Rev B, dated August 26, 2005; or
    (2) Robert L. Copeland (XLS Co., LLC) horizontal stabilizer
support fitting system (STC SA03217AT) (http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
93cfc6dba1fdeadb862571080056c0c2/$FILE/SA03217AT.pdf) following XLS
Company, LLC Report XLS-2-2200-21-500, Installation Instructions for
XLS Co., LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting System for
Colonial C-1, Colonial C-2, Lake LA-4, Lake LA-4A, Lake-4P, and Lake
LA-4-200 Aircraft, Revision B, dated November 18, 2005; and XLS
Company, LLC Report XLS-2-2200-21-ICA, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness for XLS Co., LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting
System for Colonial C-1, Colonial C-2, Lake LA-4, Lake LA-4A, Lake-
4P, and Lake LA-4-200 Aircraft, dated October 15, 2005.
    Note 1 to paragraph (k)(2) of this AD: New parts are not
currently available for STC SA03217AT (http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
93cfc6dba1fdeadb862571080056c0c2/$FILE/SA03217AT.pdf); however, the
STC number has been included here if the parts become available
later.

(l) Measure the Gap Between the Horizontal Skin and the Horizontal
Stabilizer Attachment Fitting; Trim the Skin to Provide Gap

    (1) Measure the gap between the horizontal skin and the
horizontal stabilizer attachment fitting (P/N 1-2200-14, 2200-14, or
2-2200-21). If gap is less than \1/16\ inch, trim the skin to
provide at least \1/16\ inch gap.
    (2) After any replacement of the fitting required by paragraphs
(h)(2), (i)(2), or (j) of this AD, before further flight, do the
actions in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(m) Report the Results of the Initial Inspection

    Using the form in Appendix 1 of this AD, report the results of
the inspections required in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. Send
the results to the FAA using the following contact information: Hal
Horsburgh, FAA Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Send the results within the following
compliance times:
    (1) Within 30 days after the inspection required in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD even if no damage is found.
    (2) Within 30 days after any inspection required by paragraph
(i) of this AD if cracks are found.

(n) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are allowed for this AD with these
limitations:
    (1) Vne reduced to 121 m.p.h. (105 knots); and
    (2) No flight into known turbulence.

(o) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    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.

(p) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-12-02 (70 FR 33820, June 10,
2005) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(q) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hal Horsburgh,
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(r) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 13, 2013.
    (i) Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R3, Revision 3, dated
January 10, 2012;
    (ii) Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R2, Revision 2, dated
October 26, 2011;
    (iii) Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78 R1, Revision 1, dated July
26, 2005;
    (iv) Lake Central Aircraft Services Lake Amphibian Stabilizer
Fitting LC-2200-21 Installation Instructions, Document CI-LC-2200-
21, Rev B, dated August 26, 2005;
    (v) Lake Central Air Services Stabilizer Fitting LC-2200-21
Maintenance Manual Supplement, Document MS-LC-2200-21, Rev B, dated
August 26, 2005;
    (vi) XLS Company, LLC Report XLS-2-2200-21-500, Installation
Instructions for XLS Co., LLC Horizontal Stabilizer Support Fitting
System for Colonial C-1, Colonial C-2, Lake LA-4, Lake LA-4A, Lake-
4P, and Lake LA-4-200 Aircraft, Revision B, dated November 18, 2005;
and
    (vii) XLS Company, LLC Report XLS-2-2200-21-ICA, Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness for XLS Co., LLC Horizontal Stabilizer
Support Fitting System for Colonial C-1, Colonial C-2, Lake LA-4,
Lake LA-4A, Lake-4P, and Lake LA-4-200 Aircraft, dated October 15,
2005.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 8, 2005 (70 FR 33820, June 10, 2005):
    (i) Revo Inc. Service Bulletin B-78, dated April 3, 1998.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Revo, Incorporated service information identified in
this AD, contact Revo, Incorporated, 1396 Grandview Boulevard,
Kissimmee, FL 34744; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: none.
    (6) For Lake Central Air Services service information identified
in this AD, contact Lake Central Air Services, Muskoka Airport, R.R.
1, Gravenhurst, Ontario, Canada P1P 1R1; telephone: (705)
687-4343; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.lakecentral.com.
    (7) For XLS Co. service information identified in this AD,
contact Robert L. Copeland, 418B Bartow Municipal Airport, Bartow,
FL 33830; FAA Aerospace Engineer (Hal Horsburgh), telephone: (404)
474-5553.
    (8) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust St., Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (9) 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.

Appendix 1 to AD 2013-08-14

INSPECTION REPORT for Revo, Incorporated Models COLONIAL C-1, COLONIAL
C-2, LAKE LA-4, LAKE LA-4A, LAKE LA-4P, and LAKE LA-4-200 Airplanes

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY13.000

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 12, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-10758 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26619-26621]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2016-0002-N-12]

Renewal of Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks renewal of six currently-approved
information collection activities. Before submitting these information
collection requirements (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for renewed approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on
specific aspects of the activities identified in this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than July 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the information
activities described in this notice by mail to either: Mr. Robert
Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Regulatory Safety
Analysis Division, RRS-21, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17,
Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, FRA, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters
requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must
include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB
control number ____.'' Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via
facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email to Mr.
Brogan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Regulatory Safety Analysis Division, RRS-
21, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
FRA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone numbers are not toll-
free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part

1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public
for comment on information collection activities before seeking
approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A);
5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA
invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of
information collection activities regarding: (i) Whether the
information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the activities will have
practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden
of the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote
its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens
associated with the collection of information Federal regulations
mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance
three objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii) organize
information collection requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to
improve the use of such information; and (iii) accurately assess the
resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See
44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below are brief summaries of six currently-approved information
collection activities that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as
required under the PRA:
    Title: Filing of Dedicated Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0502.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 215 contains standards for freight car
safety and prescribes certain conditions to be followed for the
movement of freight cars in dedicated service. Dedicated service means
the exclusive assignment of railroad cars to the transportation of
freight between specified points under the conditions defined in Sec.
215.5(d), including stenciling, or otherwise displaying, in clear
legible letters on each side of the car body the words ``Dedicated
Service.'' A railroad must identify those cars in a written report to
FRA before the railroad assigns the cars to dedicated service. The
railroad must file that report with FRA not less than 30 days before
the cars operate in dedicated service. FRA uses the information
collected under Sec.  215.5(d) to determine the number of railroads
affected, the number and type of cars involved, the commodities being
carried, and the territorial and speed limits within which the cars
will be operated. FRA reviews these reports to determine if the
equipment is safe to operate and if the operation qualifies for
dedicated service. The information collected indicates to FRA and State
inspectors that the particular or ``dedicated'' cars are in special
service and that certain restrictions apply to their movement under
part 215. Cars not in compliance may be cited for violations by FRA
inspectors. Railroads also use the information collected to provide
identification and control so that dedicated cars remain in the
prescribed service.
    Total Annual Estimated Responses: 4.
    Total Annual Estimated Burden: 4 hours.
    Status: Regular review.

    Title: Special Notice for Repairs.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0504.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.8; FRA F 6180.8A.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 216, FRA and State inspectors may issue
a Special Notice for Repairs to notify railroads in writing of an
unsafe condition involving a locomotive, car, or track. The railroad
must notify FRA in writing when the equipment is returned to service or
the track restored to a condition permitting operations at speeds
authorized for a higher class, specifying the repairs completed. FRA
and State inspectors use this information to remove from service
freight cars, passenger cars, and locomotives until they can be
restored to a serviceable condition. They also use this information to
reduce the maximum authorized speed on a section of track until repairs
can be made.
    Total Annual Estimated Responses: 72.
    Total Annual Estimated Burden: 20 hours.
    Status: Regular review.

    Title: Rear-End Marking Devices.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0523.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 221 contains requirements for rear end
marking devices and railroads must give FRA a detailed description of
the type of marking devices used for any locomotive operating singly or
for cars or locomotives operating at the end of a train (trailing end)
to ensure they meet minimum standards for visibility and display.
Specifically, part 221 requires railroads to furnish a certification
that each device has been tested in accordance with current
``Guidelines for Testing of Rear End Marking Devices.'' Additionally,
part 221 requires railroads to furnish detailed test records, which
include the testing organizations, description of tests, number of
samples tested, and the test results, to demonstrate compliance with
the performance standard.
    Respondent Universe: 728 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Responses: 4.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 39 hours.
    Status: Regular review.

    Title: Locomotive Certification (Railroad Noise Compliance
Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0527.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 210 pertains to FRA's noise enforcement
procedures, which encompass rail yard noise source standards published
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has the authority to
set these standards under the Noise Control Act of 1972. Information
FRA collects under part 210 is necessary to ensure compliance with EPA
noise standards for new locomotives.
    Respondent Universe: 2 Locomotive manufacturers.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total annual        Average time per     Total annual
           CFR section            Respondent universe       responses             response         burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210.27--New Loco. Certification-- 2 Locomotive         2 requests........  30 minutes...........               1
 Requests for Information.         Manufacturers.

    --Identification of           2 Locomotive         790 badges/plates.  30 minutes...........             395
     Locomotives.                  Manufacturers.
210.31--Operation Standards--     2 Locomotive         790 recorded        3 hours..............           2,370
 Measurement of Loco. Noise        Manufacturers.       measurements.
 Emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Responses: 1,582.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 2,766 hours.
    Status: Regular review.

    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads and States.
    Form(s): None.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 207 requires railroads to notify states
of all designated police officers who perform their duties outside of
their respective jurisdictions. This requirement is necessary to verify
proper police authority.
    Total Estimated Responses: 70.
    Total Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 181 hours.
    Status: Regular review.

    Title: Foreign Railroads' Foreign-Based (FRFB) Employees Who
Perform Train or Dispatching Service in the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0555.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved collection.
    Abstract: For foreign-based railroads with an FRA-approved foreign
workplace alcohol and drug testing program equivalent to subparts B, E,
F, and G of 49 CFR part 219, this FRA regulation requires removal from
service of FRFB train and dispatching service employees testing
positive for unauthorized use of alcohol and drugs. Part 219 testing
enhances safety and serves as a deterrent to other FRFB train and
dispatching service employees who might be tempted to engage in the
unauthorized use of drugs or alcohol. FRA uses this collection of
information to determine the compliance of FRFB train and dispatching
service employees and their employers with the prohibitions against the
abuse of alcohol and controlled substances as spelled out in part 219.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Respondent Universe: 2 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Affected Public: Foreign-based railroads and their employees.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total annual       Average time per     Total annual
           CFR section            Respondent universe       responses             response         burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
219.4--Recognition of Foreign     2 railroads........  1 petition.........  10 hours............              10
 Railroads' Workplace Testing
 Programs: Petitions to Agency.
    --Comments on Petition......  2 railroads/public.  2 comments + 2       2 hours.............               4
                                                        comment copies.
219.401/403/3/405--Voluntary      2 railroads........  1 self-referral....  2 hours.............               2
 Referral.
219.4032/405 -Evaluation by       2 railroads........  4 reports/referrals  2 hours.............               8
 Substance Abuse Professional.
219.405(c)(1)--Report by a Co-    2 railroads........  1 report...........  5 minutes...........             .08
 worker.
219.609--Notice by Employee       311 employees......  3 documented         30 minutes..........               2
 Asking to be Excused from                              excuses.
 Random Alcohol Testing.
219.903--Retention of Urine Drug  2 railroads........  80 records.........  5 minutes...........               7
 Testing Records.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Responses: 94.
    Total Estimated Total Annual Burden: 33 hours.
    Status: Regular review.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2016.
Corey Hill,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-10317 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11268-11274]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL18-1-000]

Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks new information and additional
stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore whether it
should revise its approach under the currently effective policy
statement on the certification of new natural gas transportation
facilities to determine whether a proposed natural gas project is or
will be required by the public convenience and necessity, as that
standard is established in section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

DATES: Comments are due April 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered comments or comments sent via any
other carrier should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Chandler (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Paige Espy (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Brandon Cherry (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry
(2018 NOI) \1\ seeking information and stakeholder perspectives to help
the Commission explore whether, and if so how, it should revise its
approach under the currently effective policy statement on the
certification of new interstate natural gas transportation facilities
(Policy Statement).\2\ The 2018 NOI included an extensive background
section discussing how the legal standards and historical context
informed the creation of the Policy Statement in 1999, how the
Commission's evaluations under the Policy Statement and, relatedly,
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) have
evolved, and how changed circumstances since 1999 have invited the
present review.\3\ Specifically, the Commission sought input on
whether, and if so how, the Commission should adjust: (1) Its
methodology for determining whether there is a need for a proposed
project, including the Commission's consideration of precedent
agreements and contracts for service as evidence of such need; (2) its
consideration of the potential exercise of eminent domain and of
landowner interests related to a proposed project; and (3) its
evaluation of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. The
Commission also sought input on whether there are specific changes the
Commission could consider implementing to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of its certificate processes including pre-filing, post-
filing, and post-order issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities, 163
FERC ] 61,042 (2018) (2018 NOI).
    \2\ Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline
Facilities, 88 FERC ] 61,227 (1999), clarified, 90 FERC ] 61,128,
further clarified, 92 FERC ] 61,094 (2000) (Policy Statement). The
Commission must determine whether a proposed natural gas project is
or will be required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity, as that standard is established in section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA). 15 U.S.C. 717f.
    \3\ 2018 NOI, 163 FERC ] 61,042, at PP 5-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission established a public comment period for the 2018
NOI that closed on July 25, 2018. In response to the 2018 NOI, the
Commission received more than 3,000 comments from diverse stakeholders
including landowners; tribal, federal, state, and local government
officials; non-governmental organizations; consultants, academic
institutions, and think tanks; natural gas producers, Commission-
regulated companies, local distribution companies (LDCs), and industry
trade organizations; electricity generators and utilities; and others.
The Commission has, to date, not taken any further action in this
proceeding.

Renewed Request for Comments

    3. We note that there have been a range of changes since the
Commission issued the 2018 NOI. These changes include the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) promulgation of updated NEPA regulations
for implementation by all federal agencies \4\ and Executive Order
14008.\5\ Accordingly, we are providing an opportunity for stakeholders
to refresh the record and provide updated information and additional
viewpoints to help the Commission assess its policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43,304
(2020). CEQ's final rule directs agencies to propose revisions to
their NEPA procedures consistent with the final rule by September
14, 2021. Further, the Commission's regulations provide that ``[t]he
Commission will comply with the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality except where those regulations are
inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the Commission.'' 18
CFR 380.1.
    \5\ Exec. Order No. 14008, Sec.  219, 86 FR 7619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. We seek comments that reflect additional information developed
and insights gained during the interim period. We emphasize that we
seek to build upon the existing record in this proceeding and will
consider the previously submitted comments in this proceeding, as well
as any additional comments received in response to this NOI, to inform
the Commission's decision-making. We strongly urge stakeholders to not
resubmit previously filed comments, which remain in the record of this
proceeding. Additionally, we urge stakeholders to submit new or
modified comments that clearly explain why the Commission should or
should not take a specific course of action, as discussed in the
questions posed below, and, more importantly, provide precise
recommendations for how the Commission could implement such changes.
    5. The Commission identified four general areas of examination in
the 2018 NOI: (1) The reliance on precedent agreements to demonstrate
need for a proposed project; (2) the potential exercise of eminent
domain and landowner interests; (3) the Commission's evaluation of
alternatives and environmental effects under NEPA and the Natural Gas
Act (NGA); and (4) the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission's
certificate processes. These four general issue areas identified in the
2018 NOI remain relevant to the Commission's considerations, and we
seek comments on several new questions in some of these areas that
modify or add to the 2018 NOI.
    6. In addition, in this NOI we identify and pose new questions on a
fifth broad issue area of examination: The Commission's identification
and addressing of any disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
environmental justice communities and the mitigation of those adverse
impacts and burdens.\6\ As noted above, in responding to these
questions, we ask stakeholders to build upon the record developed
through previously filed comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exec. Order No. 12898, Sec. Sec.  1-101, 6-604, 59 FR 7629,
at 7629, 7632 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We seek comment on the questions set forth below, organized
according to these five broad categories. Commenters need not answer
every question enumerated below.

A. Potential Adjustments to the Commission's Determination of Need

    8. The questions posed in the 2018 NOI remain relevant to the
Commission's consideration of potential adjustments to its
determination regarding whether there is a need for new projects.
Questions A1 through A9 are identical to the questions posed in this
section in the 2018 NOI. Stakeholders need not resubmit their previous
comments in response to these questions. We ask that stakeholders
respond to these questions only if they have updated information to
provide. Questions A10 through A12 include revised or new questions. In
providing an opportunity for stakeholders to submit additional
information or new viewpoints, we encourage commenters to identify with
specificity how any potential adjustments could be implemented by the
Commission.
    9. Accordingly, comments are requested on the following questions.

    A1. Should the Commission consider changes in how it determines
whether there is a public need for a proposed project?
    A2. In determining whether there is a public need for a proposed
project, what benefits should the Commission consider? For example,
should the Commission examine whether the proposed project meets
market demand, enhances resilience or reliability, promotes
competition among natural gas companies, or enhances the functioning
of gas markets?
    A3. Currently, the Commission considers precedent agreements,
whereby entities intending to be shippers on the contemplated
pipeline commit contractually to such shipments, to be strong
evidence that there is a public need for a proposed project. If the
Commission were to look beyond precedent agreements, what types of
additional or alternative evidence should the Commission examine to
determine project need? What would such evidence provide that cannot
be determined with precedent agreements alone? How should the
Commission assess such evidence? Is there any heightened litigation
risk or other risk that could result from any broadening of the
scope of evidence the Commission considers during a certificate
proceeding? If so, how should the Commission safeguard against or
otherwise address such risks?
    A4. Should the Commission consider distinguishing between
precedent agreements with affiliates and non-affiliates in
considering the need for a proposed project? If so, how?
    A5. Should the Commission consider whether there are specific
provisions or characteristics of the precedent agreements that the
Commission should more closely review in considering the need for a
proposed project? For example, should the term of the precedent
agreement have any bearing on the Commission's consideration of need
or should the Commission consider whether the contracts are subject
to state review?
    A6. In its determinations regarding project need, should the
Commission consider the intended or expected end use of the natural
gas? Would consideration of end uses better inform the Commission's
determination regarding whether there is a need for the project?
What are the challenges to determining the ultimate end use of the
new capacity a shipper is contracting for? How could such challenges
be overcome?
    A7. Should the Commission consider requiring additional or
alternative evidence of need for different end uses? What would be
the effect on pipeline companies, consumers, gas prices, and
competition? Examples of end uses could include: LDC contracts to
serve domestic use; contracts with marketers to move gas from a
production area to a liquid trading point; contracts for
transporting gas to an export facility; projects for reliability
and/or resilience; and contracts for electric generating resources.
    A8. How should the Commission take into account that end uses
for gas may not be permanent and may change over time?
    A9. Should the Commission assess need differently if multiple
pipeline applications to provide service in the same geographic area
are pending before the Commission? For example, should the
Commission consider a regional approach to a needs determination if
there are multiple pipeline applications pending for the same
geographic area? Should the Commission change the way it considers
the impact of a new project on competing existing pipeline systems
or their captive shippers? If so, what would that analysis look like
in practice?
    A10. Should the Commission consider adjusting its assessment of
need to examine (1) if existing infrastructure can accommodate a
proposed project (beyond the system alternatives analysis examined
in the Commission's environmental review); \7\ (2) if demand in a
new project's markets will materialize; or (3) if reliance on other
energy sources to meet future demand for electricity generation
would impact gas projects designed to supply gas-fired generators?
If so, how?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that the Commission has previously declined to
substitute its judgment for a company's business decision. See,
e.g., Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. LLC, 171 FERC ] 61,157, at P 50 &
n.117, reh'g denied, 172 FERC ] 61,084, at P 23 & n.42 (2020)
(finding that the acquisition and use of a retired liquids pipeline
was neither a feasible nor a practical alternative to the proposed
project) (citing Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, 133
FERC ] 61,044, at P 25 (2010) (stating that the Commission will
neither substitute its business judgment for that of the applicants
nor require the applicant to acquire facilities that a party asserts
is an alternative to the proposed project). Cf. Gulf South Pipeline
Co., LP, 132 FERC ] 61,199, at P 63 (2010) (``the Commission gives
deference to pipelines' operational experience and provides
pipelines with reasonable discretion to manage their own systems'')
(citations omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A11. In its determination of need, should the Commission
consider the economic, energy security and social attributes of
domestic production and use of natural gas as detailed in the letter
dated February 11, 2021 from the Chairman of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Senator Joe Manchin III, to President
Biden? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ February 11, 2021 Letter from Senator Joe Manchin III,
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to
President Joseph R. Biden, https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/5AB138AA-9FE9-4E8A-BA84-C87F101E9B51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A12. In its general public interest considerations under the NGA
or other federal statutes, should the Commission consider the
interests of low to middle-income communities in which the
production or transportation of natural gas is a significant source
of jobs and/or tax revenues that fund public services?

B. The Exercise of Eminent Domain and Landowner Interests

    10. Under the Policy Statement, the Commission considers impacts to
landowners and the extent to which an applicant expects to acquire
property rights by relying on eminent domain. As explained in the 2018
NOI, although, by statute, Commission authorization of a project
through the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and
necessity entitles a certificate holder to acquire property through
eminent domain, the Commission itself does not grant the use of eminent
domain across specific properties. Only after the Commission authorizes
a project can the project sponsor assert the right of eminent domain
for outstanding lands for which it could not negotiate an easement.
    11. Since the issuance of the 2018 NOI, the Commission has taken
steps to protect landowner interests. First, the Commission updated its
web resources for landowners and its notice documents (e.g., Notice of
Application) to more clearly explain the Commission's role in
considering applications for natural gas infrastructure, how and when
interested entities can participate in Commission proceedings, and how
to resolve disputes that may arise during construction. Second, the
Commission established a new group within the Rehearings Section of the
Office of the General Counsel: The Landowner Rehearings Group. The
Landowner Rehearings Group gives first priority to landowner rehearing
requests and targets to issue rehearing orders involving landowner
issues within 30 days. And third, the Commission issued a final rule
that precludes the issuance of authorizations to proceed with
construction activities with respect to an NGA section 3 authorization
or section 7(c) certificate order until either the Commission acts on
the merits of any timely-filed request for rehearing or the time for
filing such a request has passed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Limiting Authorizations to Proceed with Construction
Activities Pending Rehearing, Order No. 871, 171 FERC ] 61,201
(2020), 85 FR 40113 (July 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. We also note that Congress recently directed the Commission to
develop a report detailing how it will establish and operate an Office
of Public Participation.\10\ Such an office could ultimately help
facilitate landowner participation in Commission proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. 116-260,
Explanatory Statement for Division D (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In natural gas infrastructure proceedings, the Commission
continues to receive comments on applicants' proposed use of eminent
domain and the Commission's use of conditional certificates--issuing a
certificate before a pipeline receives all of its federal permits.
Commenters have argued that the Commission should not issue conditional
certificates and allow the exercise of eminent domain in cases where it
is unlikely that a pipeline may

receive the necessary permits.\11\ The Commission precedent is that it
lacks the authority to restrict a certificate holder's use of eminent
domain once a certificate of public convenience and necessity is
received.\12\ In addition, the Commission has justified its policy for
issuing conditional certificates on the basis that it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P., 170 FERC ]
61,202, at P 191 (2020).
    \12\ See, e.g., PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, 174 FERC ] 61,056,
at P 10 & n.17 (2021) (collecting cases); Midcoast Interstate
Transmission, Inc. v. FERC, 198 F.3d 960, 973 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
(``Once a certificate has been granted, the statute allows the
certificate holder to obtain needed private property by eminent
domain. . . . The Commission does not have the discretion to deny a
certificate holder the power of eminent domain.'' (citations
omitted)); Atl. Coast Pipeline, 161 FERC ] 61,042 at P 78 (``[O]nce
a natural gas company obtains a certificate of public convenience
and necessity, it may exercise the right of eminent domain in a U.S.
District Court or a state court.'').

is a practical response to the reality that, in spite of the best
efforts of those involved, it may be impossible for an applicant to
obtain all approvals necessary to construct and operate a natural
gas project in advance of the Commission's issuance of its
certificate without unduly delaying the project. To rule otherwise
could place the Commission's administrative process indefinitely on
hold until states with delegated federal authority choose to act.
Such an approach, which would preclude companies from engaging in
what are sometimes lengthy pre-construction activities while
awaiting state or federal agency action, would likely delay the in-
service date of natural gas infrastructure projects to the detriment
of consumers and the public in general.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Northwest Pipeline, GP, 145 FERC ] 61,013, at P 16 (2013).
See, e.g., Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P., 171 FERC ] 61,136, at P
81 (2020); PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, 164 FERC ] 61,098, (2018);
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 161 FERC ] 61,255, at P 22 (2017);
Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 154 FERC ] 61,191, at P 34 (2016);
Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C., 133 FERC ] 61,015, at P 20 (2013); AES
Sparrows Point LNG, LLC, 129 FERC ] 61,245, at P 60 (2009); Crown
Landing, LLC, 117 FERC ] 61,209, at P 26 (2006).

    14. The Commission's policy on issuing conditional certificates has
been affirmed by the courts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 857 F.3d 388
(D.C. Cir. 2017); Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v.
FERC, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Therefore, we invite new or revised comments on the following
questions regarding whether, and if so how, the Commission should
consider adjusting its consideration of the potential exercise of
eminent domain and its consideration of landowner interests. Questions
B1 through B5 are identical to the questions posed in this section in
the 2018 NOI. Stakeholders need not resubmit their previous comments in
response to these questions. We ask that stakeholders respond to these
questions only if they have updated information to provide. Question B6
is a new question not included in the 2018 NOI.

    B1. Should the Commission consider adjusting its consideration
of the potential exercise of eminent domain in reviewing project
applications? If so, how should the Commission adjust its approach?
    B2. Should applicants take additional measures to minimize the
use of eminent domain? If so, what should such measures be? How
would that affect a project's overall costs? How could such a
requirement affect an applicant's ability to adjust a proposed route
based on public input received during the Commission's project
review?
    B3. For proposed projects that will potentially require the
exercise of eminent domain, should the Commission consider changing
how it balances the potential use of eminent domain against the
showing of need for the project? Since the amount of eminent domain
used cannot be established with certainty until after a Commission
order is issued, is it possible for the Commission to reliably
estimate the amount of eminent domain a proposed project may use
such that the Commission could use that information during the
consideration of an application?
    B4. Does the Commission's current certificate process adequately
take landowner interests into account? Are there steps that
applicants and the Commission should implement to better take
landowner interests into account and encourage landowner
participation in the process? If so, what should the steps be?
    B5. Should the Commission reconsider how it addresses
applications where the applicant is unable to access portions of the
right-of-way? Should the Commission consider changes in how it
considers environmental information gathered after an order
authorizing a project is issued?
    B6. Under the NGA, does the Commission have authority to
condition a certificate holder's exercise of eminent domain? Should
the Commission defer issuing a section 7 certificate until an
applicant has all other authorizations needed to commence
construction? If so, can the Commission reconcile such inaction with
section 7(e) of the NGA, which provides that the Commission shall
issue a certificate to any qualified applicant upon finding that the
proposed construction and operation of the project ``is or will be
required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity''? \15\ Are there circumstances when an applicant may need
a certificate of public convenience and necessity prior to receiving
certain permits or authorizations, making it difficult for an
applicant to obtain all other authorizations needed to commence
construction prior to the Commission's issuance of a section 7
certificate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(e) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Commission's Consideration of Environmental Impacts

    16. As explained in the 2018 NOI, the Commission performs an
environmental review under NEPA and considers a proposed project's
environmental impacts when determining whether a project is required by
the public convenience and necessity. There continues to be stakeholder
interest regarding the alternatives that the Commission evaluates in
its environmental review and how the Commission addresses climate
change, including the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In
addition, is it appropriate for the Commission to review how it
implements NEPA, including its consideration of categorical exclusions?
    17. Therefore, the Commission invites new or revised comments
regarding whether and if so how, the Commission should consider
adjusting its environmental evaluations. Questions C1 through C11
include revised or new questions.

    C1. NEPA and its implementing regulations require an agency to
consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Currently
the Commission considers the no-action alternative, system
alternatives, design alternatives, and route alternatives. Should
the Commission consider broadening its environmental analysis to
consider alternatives beyond those that are currently included? If
so, how does the Commission reconcile broadening its environmental
analysis to consider alternatives beyond those currently included
with Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey? \16\ The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d
190, 199 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [i]n commanding agencies to discuss ``alternatives to the
proposed action,'' . . . NEPA plainly refers to alternatives to the
``major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment,'' and not to alternatives to the applicant's
proposal. NEPA Sec.  102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) (emphasis
added). An agency cannot redefine the goals of the proposal that
arouses the call for action; it must evaluate alternative ways of
achieving its goals, shaped by the application at issue and by the
function that the agency plays in the decisional process. Congress
did expect agencies to consider an applicant's wants when the agency
formulates the goals of its own proposed action. Congress did not
expect agencies to determine for the applicant what the goals of the
applicant's proposal should be.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What specific types of additional alternatives should the
Commission consider and how would such additional alternatives be
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's guidance in Citizens Against
Burlington, Inc. v. Busey? \18\ How would the Commission obtain
reliable information to perform an analysis of these alternatives?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2. Are there any environmental impacts that the Commission does
not currently

consider in its cumulative impact analysis that could be captured
with a broader regional evaluation? If so, how broadly should
regions be defined (e.g., which states or geographic boundaries best
define different regions), and which environmental resources
considered in NEPA would be affected on a larger, regional scale?
Does the text of NGA section 7 permit the Commission to do this? If
this is contemplated by the NGA, would one applicant's section 7
application prejudice another applicant's section 7 application?
    C3. In conducting an analysis of a project, how could the
Commission consider upstream impacts (e.g., from the drilling of
natural gas wells) and downstream end-use impacts? Should applicants
be required to provide information on the origin and end use of the
gas? How would the Commission determine end-use impacts if the gas
is sent to a pooling point or a mid-stream shipper? If the end use
is electric generation or an LDC, how would the Commission determine
the GHG emissions of existing and anticipated gas usage attributed
to a project? How would additional information related to upstream
or downstream impacts of a proposed project inform the Commission's
decision on an application? Should shippers who have subscribed
capacity on a project (or potentially, the shippers' customers) be
encouraged to provide the type of information contemplated above? If
so, how might this be done? How could such a policy be squared with
CEQ's final rule? \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43,304-01
(``CEQ proposed to simplify the definition of effects by striking
the specific references to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
and providing clarity on the bounds of effects consistent with the
Supreme Court's holding in Public Citizen, 541 U.S. at 767-68.'');
40 CFR 1508.1 (2020) (``Effects or impacts means changes to the
human environment from the proposed action or alternatives that are
reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal
relationship to the proposed action or alternatives, including those
effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed action
or alternatives and may include effects that are later in time or
farther removed in distance from the proposed action or
alternatives.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C4. In conducting an analysis of the impact of a project's GHG
emissions, how could the Commission determine the significance of
these emissions' contribution to climate change? Should significance
criteria be based on a specific fraction of existing carbon budgets
in international agreements; state or regional targets; a specific
fraction of natural carbon sinks; or other metrics? If so, how and
why would that basis be appropriate? Alternatively, should the
Commission focus its analysis on GHG emission impacts on global
climate metrics (e.g., CO2 levels, ocean acidification,
sea level rise) or regional impacts (e.g., snowpack, storm events,
local temperature changes)? If so, how and why would that basis be
appropriate? What would be an appropriate GHG climate model for use
on a project-level basis? Is there any level of GHG emissions that
would constitute a de minimis impact? If so, how much and why would
such number be appropriate? How would such analysis meaningfully
inform the Commission's decision making?
    C5. As part of the Commission's public interest determination,
how would the Commission weigh a proposed project's adverse impacts
against favorable impacts to determine whether the proposed project
is required by the public convenience and necessity and still
provide regulatory certainty to stakeholders?
    C6. Does the NGA, NEPA, or other federal statute authorize or
mandate the use of Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) analysis by the
Commission in its consideration of certificate applications? If so,
how does the statute direct or authorize the Commission to use SCC?
Does the statute set forth specific metrics or quantitative analyses
that the Commission must or may use and/or specific findings of fact
the Commission must or may make with regard to SCC analysis of a
certificate application? Does the statute set forth specific
remedies the Commission must or may implement based on specific SCC
findings of fact?
    C7. If the Commission chooses to use the SCC tool, how could it
be used to determine whether a proposed project is required by the
public convenience and necessity? \20\ How would the Commission
determine the appropriate discount rate to use? Should the
Commission consider multiple discount rates or one discount rate?
Please provide support for each option. How could the Commission use
the SCC tool in the weighing of the costs versus benefits of a
proposed project? How could the Commission acquire complete
information to appropriately quantify all of the monetized costs/
negative impacts and monetized benefits of a proposed project?
Should the Commission use the tool to determine whether a project
has significant effects on climate? If so, how could the Commission
connect the SCC estimate with the actual effects of the project?
What level of cost would be significant and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC, 828 F.3d 949, 956
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (finding that ``petitioners provide no reason to
doubt the reasonableness of the Commission's conclusion'' that ``
`it would not be appropriate or informative to use for this project'
for three reasons: the lack of consensus on the appropriate discount
rate leads to `significant variation in output[,]' the tool `does
not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the
environment[,]' and `there are no established criteria identifying
the monetized values that are to be considered significant for NEPA
purposes.' '') (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C8. Are there alternatives to the SCC tool that the Commission
should consider using? If so, how could the Commission use those
tools?
    C9. How could the Commission determine whether a proposed
project's GHG emissions are offset by reduced GHG emissions
resulting from the project's operations (e.g., displacing a more
carbon-intensive fuel source such as coal or fuel oil)?
    C10. How could the Commission impose GHG emission limits or
mitigation to reduce the significance of impacts from a proposed
project on climate change? Can the Commission interpret its
authority under NGA section 7(e) to permit it to mitigate GHG
emissions? \21\ If the Commission decides to impose GHG emission
limits, how would the Commission determine what limit, if any, is
appropriate? Should GHG mitigation be considered only for direct
project GHG emissions or should downstream end-use, or upstream
emissions also be evaluated? What are the options or methods
applicants could propose to mitigate GHG emissions through offsets
or other means?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See American Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S.
410, 428 (``It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an
expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary
regulator of greenhouse gas emissions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C11. What categorical exclusions established by other agencies
should the Commission consider adopting? \22\ Why is it appropriate
for the Commission to adopt those categorical exclusions? Should the
Commission consider establishing new categorical exclusions that
modify the existing categorical exclusions of other agencies? Should
the Commission consider adding new categorical exclusions for
actions where there is no construction or restoration activities and
the environment is not involved? Those actions could include, but
are not limited to, modifications to certificated capacity that
involve no construction or ground disturbance, modifications to
export/import volumes at border crossing facilities if there are no
changes to the facilities, rate amendments, NGA section 7(f) service
area determinations, conversion of NGA section 7 facilities to
section 3 authorizations, limited jurisdiction certificates, etc.
Are there other actions that could benefit from a categorical
exclusion and would be consistent with the Commission's obligations
under NEPA?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., National Environmental Policy Act--Categorical
Exclusions, 74 FR 33,204 (July 10, 2009) (Department of Commerce);
National Park Service, Department of the Interior Departmental
Manual, Series 31, Part 516, Chapter 12, at 12.5(B)(1) (May 27,
2004); Department of Transportation, Order No. 5610.1C, at 4.c(3)
(Sept. 18, 1979, subsequently amended on July 13, 1982 and July 30,
1985); 43 CFR 46.210(i) (Department of the Interior); 10 CFR part
1021, subpart D, Appendix A, A 5 (Department of Energy). See also
Staff Presentation on Categorical Exclusions under the National
Environmental Policy Act (RM21-10-000), FERC (Jan. 19, 2021),
https://cms.ferc.gov/news-events/news/staff-presentation-categorical-exclusions-under-national-environmental-policy-act
(listing examples of other agencies' categorical exclusions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Improvements to the Efficiency of the Commission's Review Process

    18. As explained in the 2018 NOI, the Commission desires to improve
the transparency, efficiency, and predictability of the Commission's
certification process.\23\ Inefficiencies in project decision-making
can delay infrastructure investments, increase project costs, and block
infrastructure that would benefit the economy. Since issuance of the
2018 NOI, there have been several administrative (e.g., Executive
Orders), regulatory, and statutory changes that impact the Commission's
review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ E.g., Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 162 FERC ] 61,167, at
PP 49-51 (2018) (order addressing timely intervention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The Commission invites new or revised comments on the following

questions regarding its certificate application review process.
Questions D2 and D3 are identical to the questions posed in this
section in the 2018 NOI. Stakeholders need not resubmit their previous
comments in response to these questions. We ask that stakeholders
respond to these questions only if they have updated information to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
provide. Questions D1 and D4 include revised questions.

    D1. Should certain aspects of the Commission's application
review process (i.e., pre-filing, post-filing, and post-order-
issuance) be condensed, performed concurrently with other
activities, or eliminated, to make the overall process more
efficient? If so, what specific changes could the Commission
consider implementing?
    D2. Should the Commission consider changes to the pre-filing
process? How can the Commission ensure the most effective
participation by interested stakeholders during the pre-filing
process and how would any such changes affect the implementation and
duration of the pre-filing process?
    D3. Are there ways for the Commission to work more efficiently
and effectively with other agencies, federal and state, that have a
role in the certificate review process? If so, how?
    D4. Are there classes of projects that should appropriately be
subject to a more efficient process? What would the more efficient
process entail?

E. The Commission's Consideration of Effects on Environmental Justice
Communities

    20. The term ``environmental justice community'' could encompass
(i) populations of color; (ii) communities of color; (iii) Native
communities; and (iv) and low-income rural and urban communities, who
are exposed to a disproportionate burden of the negative human health
and environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental
hazards.\24\ While not mandatory, Executive Order 12898 encourages
independent agencies to identify and address, as part of their NEPA
review, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects'' of their actions on minority and low-income
populations.\25\ The order does not explain how an agency should
satisfy this goal, instead the specific implementation has been
developed in guidance documents.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Cf. Exec. Order No. 14008, Sec.  219, 86 FR 7619, at 7629
(2021); see also EPA, EJ 2020 Glossary (Aug. 2, 2019), https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-2020-glossary.
    \25\ Exec. Order No. 12898, Sec. Sec.  1-101, 6-604, 59 FR 7629,
at 7629, 7632.
    \26\ E.g., CEQ, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the
National Environmental Policy Act (1997); Federal Interagency
Working Group for Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee,
Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Executive Order 14008, issued by President Biden on January 27,
2021, directs federal agencies to develop ``programs, policies, and
activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human
health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on
disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic
challenges of such impacts.'' \27\ Among other things, the order also
creates a government-wide Justice40 Initiative with the goal of
delivering 40% of the overall benefits of relevant federal investments
to disadvantaged communities and tracks agency performance toward that
goal through the establishment of an Environmental Justice
Scorecard.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Exec. Order No. 14008, Sec.  219, 86 FR 7619, 7629; see
also The White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Takes Executive
Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create
Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government
(2021).
    \28\ Exec. Order No. 14008, Sec.  223, 86 FR 7619, 7631-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The Commission conducts its environmental justice analyses in
several steps. First, when evaluating proposed projects, the Commission
has used the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool (EJSCREEN) to inform its assessment of the
potential presence of environmental justice communities in the chosen
areas of analysis.\29\ The Commission also identifies any potentially
affected environmental justice communities based on annual statistical
information from the U.S. Census Bureau. Next, the Commission
determines which, if any, of the project's impacts could affect the
identified communities. Then the Commission determines whether the
impacts on these environmental justice communities would be
disproportionately high and adverse. This analysis involves comparing
the impacts on these communities to the impacts on a reference group.
The analysis also varies based on the project scope and based on
population-specific factors that could amplify the population's
experienced effect of a given project impact on the affected
environment. Concerns raised in certificate proceedings regarding
environmental justice in addition to the recent issuance of Executive
Order 14008 have prompted the Commission to examine whether and if so
how, the Commission should consider adjusting its approach to analyzing
the impacts of a proposed project on environmental justice communities.
The Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P., 171 FERC ]
61,136, at P 128 (2020).

    E1. Should the Commission change how it identifies potentially
affected environmental justice communities? Why and if so, how?
Specifically, what criteria should the Commission consider?
    E2. Are there concerns regarding environmental justice
communities' participation in past Commission proceedings? If so,
what are the concerns? Please provide concrete examples.
    E3. What measures can the Commission take to ensure effective
participation by environmental justice communities in the
certificate review process?
    E3. When evaluating disproportionately high and adverse effects
on environmental justice communities, should the Commission change
how it considers the location or distribution of a project's
impacts? If so, how?
    E4. When evaluating disproportionately high and adverse effects
on environmental justice communities, should the Commission change
how it considers population-specific factors that can amplify the
experienced effect, such as ecological, visual, historical,
cultural, economic, social, or health factors? If so, how? Should
the Commission change how it considers multiple or cumulative
adverse exposures and historical patterns of exposure to pollution
or other environmental hazards? If so, how? How can the Commission
obtain high-quality information about cumulative impacts (e.g., data
on cancer clusters and asthma rates)?
    E5. Does the NGA, NEPA, or other federal statute set forth
specific duties for the Commission to fulfill regarding
environmental justice analyses in certificate proceedings under the
NGA?
    E6. Should the Commission establish a method for evaluating
mitigation for impacts on environmental justice communities (e.g.,
development projects in the local area)? If so, how should it
mitigate to ensure the least disproportionate impact or eliminate
the disproportionate burden on environmental justice communities?
Would such mitigation be consistent with NGA section 7(e), which
provides that ``[t]he Commission shall have the power to attach to
the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights
granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the
public convenience and necessity may require''? \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E7. Does the NGA, NEPA, or other federal statute set forth
specific remedies for the Commission to implement based on factual
findings of environmental justice metrics or defined impacts? Do
these statutory remedies include rejection of a proposed project
otherwise found to be needed to serve the public interest? Which
other remedies are authorized by statute?
Comment Procedures
    23. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related
matters or

alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are
due April 26, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No. PL18-1-000, and
must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their comments.
    24. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    25. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other
carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852. The first page of any filing should include docket number PL18-
1-000.
    26. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
Document Availability
    27. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020.
    28. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    29. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
the Commission's Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-
208-3676) or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: Issued February 18, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03808 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71195]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices 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: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of
the Medical Devices 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 April 5, 2013 from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Ballroom, 2 Montgomery Village Ave.,
Gaithersburg, MD 20879. The hotel phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Jamie Waterhouse, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1611, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-3063, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). 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 at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On April 5, 2013, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the possible reclassification of Shortwave
Diathermy devices. On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39953), FDA issued a proposed
rule which, if made final, would make Shortwave Diathermy devices Class
III, requiring premarket approval. In response to the proposed rule,
FDA received petitions under section 515(b)(2)(B) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act requesting a change in classification. The
reclassification petitions are available for public review and comment
at www.regulations.gov under docket number FDA-2012-N-0378.
    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 meeting
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
March 1, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making 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 February 21, 2013. 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 February 25, 2013.
    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 AnnMarie Williams,
Committee Management Staff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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: November 23, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28855 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P