Phone Conversation with Dave Grulke, Cabinet Makers Association on
11/2/10.

Number of “Fabricators”

Roughly what percentage of all U.S. custom cabinet manufacturing firms
are members of your association?  Are there any characteristics that may
be typical of firms not represented by your organization? For example, a
specific area of the country, or a type of kitchen cabinet or cabinet
construction. About 1% of all cabinet makers. Mainly 10 person or less
shops.

Of manufacturers of wood kitchen cabinets, what percentage would you
estimate use composite wood products (hardwood plywood, particleboard,
or medium density fiberboard) in their cabinets? 100%

Of these manufacturers using composite wood products, what percentage
would you estimate produce at least some product lines that are CARB
compliant because they use CARB certified panels or component parts and
follow the CARB recordkeeping and labeling requirements? Markets are
mainly within 100 miles of home base.  Guess between 50% to 70% of
established professional cabinet shops would be compliant.  These
account for 2/3’s to 3/4’s of the custom cabinet market. Shops
in/near California would be compliant.

Do the manufacturers that are producing CARB compliant product lines
also carry product lines for sale outside of California that are not
CARB compliant?  If, so what percentage of production volume would you
estimate are product lines that are not compliant with CARB because they
do not use CARB certified panels or component parts or do not follow the
CARB recordkeeping and labeling requirements? Don’t know.

Impact of Labeling Requirements

A national regulation of composite wood products could potentially
require manufacturers that use composite wood materials to put a label
on every separate item that gets produced and shipped out.  Given this,
could you estimate the average number of labels that would be needed
annually for each manufacturer that uses composite wood materials? Not
sure.  Raised issue that 50% of the work involves assembling components
on site. How would labeling requirements handle that?

If labels were required for each shipment of products instead of each
individual item, about how may items would be included in a typical
shipment? Don’t know.

Number of Wood Veneer “Laminator Product”  Manufacturers

The recent federal legislation uses the term laminated product to mean a
finished good (such as a custom panel, cabinet, window, door, or piece
of furniture) that is produced by affixing a wood veneer to a purchased
platform.  How many of your members would you say produce such laminated
products by affixing wood veneer themselves?  Please do not include
other types of laminates (such as high pressure laminates, thermally
fused papers, vinyl films, decorative foils, or polypropylene films) in
your answer. Very, very few would do this. This is outsourced. If
someone did this, it might be a very small custom piece that they did.

For those manufacturers that would be classified as wood veneer
laminators, how common is it for these manufacturers to also fabricate
products using purchased panels that were already finished with a wood
veneer or other decorative finish?

What percentage of the production of wood veneer laminated products are
produced using formaldehyde-based resins to affix wood veneers to
purchased platforms?

If wood veneer laminators using UF resins were to switch to a lower
emission resin, what would be the likely resin choice?

Of those wood veneer laminators that use no-added formaldehyde resins,
what are the most common adhesives used?

If wood veneer laminators were subject to the same third party testing
requirements as CARB, about how many different product types would need
to be third party certified for a typical manufacturer?

General Comments:

CMA recommends delaying rule until economic conditions improve.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 20631]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-53-000]

Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. as Agent for Consumers Energy
Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on April 1, 2016, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206 (2015), Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. (MISO or Respondent) requesting a refund
effective date of April 1, 2016, as a protective measure in case
refunds of certain Michigan Joint Zone revenues are necessary for
charges assessed by the MISO in the latter's capacity as agent for
Consumers Energy Company, as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for MISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 21, 2016.

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08073 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Measuring Program Progress Work Group Update January 7 8, 2003 2 Purpose ° Summarize work group activities conducted since September 2002 ° Propose future activities, tasks, deliverables,

and schedules ° Get feedback from the Subcommittee, and revise future activities based on input 3 MPP Work Group: Major Tasks ° Comments on EPA's progress measure White Papers (" consultative comments")

  Population risk reduction indicator ( done)

  Ecological risk reduction indicator   Land use performance indicator ° Develop/ propose additional progress measures for Superfund 4 MPP Work Group Presentation and Discussion ° Comments on the Population Risk Reduction White Paper ( David Cooper/ EPA)

° Work group activities since September meeting ° Performance measures developed by the work group ° Subcommittee discussion 5 Population Risk Reduction Measure:

Proposed Methodology ° Primary components of proposed methodology ° Summary of comments from MPP work group ° Next steps for this measure ° Other new measures under development 6 Population Risk Reduction Measure:

Primary Components ° Measure the population benefiting from Superfund actions.

° Two components:

  Identification of populations that may be exposed at Superfund Sites via relevant pathways based on proximity   Identification of risk reduction category achieved by response actions ° Risk Reduction Categories:

  No risk reduction ( no action yet taken)

  Partial risk reduction ( some action taken)

  Current Risks controlled ( human exposures controlled)

  Current and 7 Population Risk Reduction Measure:

Work Group Comments ° Indicator must be comprehensible at site level and national level ° Population aspect is misleading ° Accurate measure of populations beyond the scope of what can be accomplished ° Progress measure is on target, and could be enhanced with additional detail 8 Other New Measures Under Development ° Ecological Risk Indicator: to work group by end of the month ° Land Reuse: to work group this spring ° Implementation: first time reporting in FY2004 9 MPP Work Group Activities

September 02 January 03 ° Reviewed/ commented on Population Risk Reduction indicator ° Developed work group work plan ° Reduced and consolidated initial list of measures ° Work group met on November 21 10 MPP Work Group Work Plan °" Screening criteria" for selecting progress measures for development:

  Can the concept be quantified ( measured)?

  Does it align with a desired program outcome?

  Are measurement data available?

  Is the effort to score worth the potential benefit?

  Is it duplicative?

° Develop a program " report card" that combines several measures 11 MPP Work Group Activities

September 02 January 03 ° Drafted introduction to performance measure paper ° Drafted progress measures:

  Alternate framework for a human health protection   Remedy failure effectiveness measure   Institutional coordination measure 12 Introduction to Performance Measures  Key Points ° Describes various kinds of measures ° National vssite specific performance measures ° Program progress vsprogram merit ° MPP work group focus is on program progress ° Other important performance areas to consider:

  Budget transparency   General program tracking   Tracking performance of institutional controls 13 Introduction to Performance Measures ° Topics of discussion and debate   Cost benefit measures   Measures related to protection " mandate"

  Performance of institutional controls 14 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Framework principles:

  A population exposed to contaminants is at greater risk than a population that is not exposed   More contamination, or more toxic contaminants at a site represent an increased residual risk to the population   Stronger exposure controls afford greater protection than weak controls 15 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Framework principles:

  Measurement framework should reflect progress in public health protection through actions that precede construction complete   Measurement has to work at the national and site specific levels 16 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Components:

  Control of exposure   Residual contamination   Effectiveness and reliability of controls 17 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ComponentScoring Phase 1 Control of exposureY/ N Phase 2 Residual contamination 5 category scale from 2 10 Effectiveness and reliability of controls 10 category scale from 5  50 18 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Two phases of scoring:

  Phase 1: Based solely on " Control of Exposure" ( Y/ N)

  Phase 2:

° Applied only to sites that score " Yes" in Phase 1 ° Calculate a " Human Health Protection Indicator"

HHPI = ( Residual Contamination) * ( Effectiveness and Reliability of Controls) 19 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Program scoring and evaluation   Phase 1:

° Number of sites with exposure controlled ° Program ratio Exposure controlled : Not controlled   Phase 2:

° Initial site evaluation score normalized to " baseline" score of 1.0 ° Site specific progress in human health protection reflected in changes in baseline ° Program evaluation/ progress reflected in change in the total program score: (   Site specific scores) 20 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Topics of discussion and debate:

  Need for an ecological risk indicator   Potential for misinterpretation that a site is " clean"

  Weighting toward use of interim measures   Link measure to the pace of cleanup   Simplicity of Phase 1 score ( Y/ N) is deceptive   Difficulty in quantifying mass of hazardous substances   What's the appropriate/ most important indicator of " extent" 21 Framework for Human Health Protection Measure ° Topics of discussion and debate:

  Insufficient weighting of highly contaminated materials   Application of the " toxicity" subcomponent   Subjectivity of the " Effectiveness and reliability of controls ( E& RC)" component   Proposed number of E& RC categories   Potential to score only selected sites to make the program look good   Application at the site, OU, or pathway level 22 Remedy Effectiveness Measure ° Diverging opinions on what constitutes " remedy failure" and how to measure it:

  Remedies aren't allowed to fail:

° Problems with remedy effectiveness trigger additional obligations ° Once triggered, " contingency obligations" require corrective responses   The program record doesn't conform to the " no failures" model, and failures can be measured 23 Remedy Effectiveness Measure ° Options for tracking ( measuring) remedy effectiveness/ failure:

  Significant changes in response actions ° Would scoring " changes" be a disincentive for improving remedies?

  Results of Five Year Reviews ( track/ score results of " protectiveness determination") 24 Remedy Effectiveness Measure ° Options for tracking ( measuring) remedy effectiveness/ failure:

  Track/ score sites where ROD is reopened ° Need to distinguish reasons for reopening   Track/ score sites that are re listed   Track/ score effectiveness/ failure of institutional controls 25 Institutional Coordination Measure ° Three measures:

  State coordination   Tribal consultation   Community measure ° Each measure has narrative and specific measurable components 26 Institutional Coordination Measure

States ° Governor's concurrence ° ROD concurrence ° Agency lead agreements ° State NRD trustee communication process ° Agreed approach to cleaning up sites outside of NPL ° MOU for State's VCP ° Routine State EPA Region meetings ° Performance partnership agreements 27 Institutional Coordination Measure

Tribal Consultation ° Tribal concurrence on listing ( how many sites have it/ don't have it)

° Concurrence on lead agency designation ° MOU with EPA ° Proximity of tribal lands to NPL sites ° Consultation meetings between Tribe and EPA ° Existence of Tribal Environmental Agreements ( TEA)

° Inclusion of Superfund in TEA ° Technical/ financial environmental assistance to the Tribe ( several measures) 28 Institutional Coordination Measure

Tribal Consultation ° Tribal NRD trustee coordination ° Formal agreements between Tribe and State ° Tribal concurrence with ROD 29 Institutional Coordination Measure

Community ° Underlying premise:

  Right to participate in policy process is equal across all groups, including individual community members   Develop firm rules for communication and decision making 30 Community Coordination: Objective Measures ° Presence of CAG ° Application for/ granting of TAG ° Public notices for meetings ° Public comments on key documents ° Written responses to public comments ° Formal outreach to seek community input ° Evaluation of applicability of environmental justice guidelines 31 Community Coordination:

Consultation and Outreach Measures ° Local medical professionals ° Natural scientists with local knowledge ° Social scientists ° Indigenous and environmental justice groups ° Social service professionals ° Local media ° CAG ° Community acceptance of proposed remedy ° Reports/ deliverables to the community 32 Measuring Program Progress Work Group Update Subcommittee Discussion


assumed by AGRET based on other weights These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 Page 30 of 37 5 2351  species. growth04 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 A B C D E F G tautog age16 19 2572.66 NA NA NA tautog age17 20 2694.44 NA NA NA tautog age18 21 2806.74 NA NA NA tautog age19 22 2910.03 NA NA NA tautog age20 23 3004.84 NA NA NA tautog age21 24 3091.7 NA NA NA tautog age22 25 3171.17 NA NA NA tautog age23 26 3243.79 NA NA NA tautog age24 27 4551.09 NA NA NA hogchoker egg 1 0.000220893 0.00022089 NA NA hogchoker larvae 2 0.5 NA NA NA hogchoker juv 3 0.94 NA NA NA hogchoker age01 4 5.13 NA NA NA hogchoker age02 5 14.18 NA NA NA hogchoker age03 6 27.68 NA NA NA hogchoker age04 7 44.25 NA NA NA hogchoker age05 8 62.39 NA NA NA hogchoker age06 9 80.82 NA NA NA white. perch egg 1 0.000381704 0.0003817 NA NA white. perch larvae 2 0.5 0.5 NA NA white. perch juv1 3 1.37 1.37 NA NA white. perch age01 4 23.38 23.38 NA NA white. perch age02 5 70.63 70.63 NA NA white. perch age03 6 112.38 112.38 NA NA white. perch age04 7 150.27 150.27 NA NA white. perch age05 8 192.05 192.05 NA NA white. perch age06 9 237.39 237.39 NA NA white. perch age07 10 277.84 277.84 NA NA white. perch age08 11 298.45 298.45 NA NA white. perch age09 12 360.17 360.17 NA NA threespine. stickleback egg 1 0.002572441 0.00257244 NA NA threespine. stickleback larvae 2 0.5 NA NA NA threespine. stickleback juv 3 1.71 NA NA NA threespine. stickleback age01 4 4.16 NA NA NA threespine. stickleback age02 5 5.07 NA NA NA threespine. stickleback age03 6 5.24 NA NA NA windowpane egg 1 0.00069691 0.00069691 NA NA windowpane larvae 2 0.75 0.75 NA NA windowpane juv 3 1.01 1.01 NA NA windowpane age01 4 14.75 14.75 NA NA windowpane age02 5 55.31 55.31 NA NA windowpane age03 6 119.97 119.97 NA NA windowpane age04 7 196.3 196.3 NA NA windowpane age05 8 273.54 273.54 NA NA windowpane age06 9 345.02 345.02 NA NA windowpane age07 10 407.5 407.5 NA NA windowpane age08 11 460.11 460.11 NA NA windowpane age09 12 503.24 503.24 NA NA windowpane age10 13 537.96 537.96 NA NA bay. anchovy egg 1 0.000234414 0.00023441 NA NA bay. anchovy larvae 2 0.1 0.1 NA NA bay. anchovy juv 3 0.47 0.47 NA NA bay. anchovy age01 4 1.68 1.68 NA NA bay. anchovy age02 5 3.47 3.47 NA NA bay. anchovy age03 6 5.71 5.71 NA [ 28558]

atlantic. silverside egg 1 0.002144661 0.00214466 NA NA atlantic. silverside larvae 2 0.1 0.1 NA NA atlantic. silverside juv 3 2.22 2.22 NA NA atlantic. silverside age01 4 9.31 9.31 NA NA atlantic. silverside age02 5 15.82 15.82 NA [ 28558]

menhaden. atlantic egg 1 0.002185125 0.00218512 NA NA menhaden. atlantic larvae 2 0.1 0.1 NA NA menhaden. atlantic juv 3 0.31 0.31 NA NA Page 31 of 37 5 2351  species. growth04 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 H I J These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 13 Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'.

assumed by AGRET based on other ages These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 7 Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'.

assumed by AGRET based on other ages These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 These are not lenghts but weights [ 28558]; Table F1 16 Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'.

assumed by AGRET based on other ages These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 14 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 14 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 14 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 14 Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'.

assumed by AGRET based on other ages These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 17 Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'. assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'. assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'. assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr assumed these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558] Page 32 of 37 5 2351  species. growth04 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 A B C D E F G menhaden. atlantic age01 4 11.4 11.4 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age02 5 106.42 106.42 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age03 6 182.09 182.09 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age04 7 265.63 265.63 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age05 8 391.19 391.19 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age06 9 490.73 490.73 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age07 10 577.07 577.07 NA NA menhaden. atlantic age08 11 649.25 649.25 NA [ 28558]

seaboard. goby egg 1 0.007420697 0.0074207 NA NA seaboard. goby larvae 2 0.1 0.1 NA NA seaboard. goby juv 3 0.22 0.22 NA NA seaboard. goby age01 4 0.93 0.93 NA [ 28558]

scup egg 1 0.00035077 0.00035077 NA NA scup larvae 2 0.5 0.5 NA NA scup juv 3 12.7 12.7 NA NA scup age01 4 59.66 59.66 NA NA scup age02 5 146.11 146.11 NA NA scup age03 6 259.35 259.35 NA NA scup age04 7 383.41 383.41 NA NA scup age05 8 505.93 505.93 NA NA scup age06 9 619.25 619.25 NA NA scup age07 10 719.55 719.55 NA NA scup age08 11 805.66 805.66 NA NA scup age09 12 877.99 877.99 NA NA scup age10 13 937.77 937.77 NA NA scup age11 14 1011.43 1011.43 NA [ 28558]

Page 33 of 37 5 2351  species. growth04 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 H I J these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

these are not lengths, but weights; because model needs lenghts to implement into the formula found in Sheet3 lbs. fr [ 28558]

Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'. assumed These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 10 assumed These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 10 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 10 [ 28558]

Represents virtual. length as calculated in worksheet ' lbs. from. mm03'. assumed These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 assumed These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558]

These are not lengths but weights. [ 28558]; Table F1 9 [ 28558] Page 34 of 37 5 2351  species. growth04 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 A B C D E F G H species stage fraction. mature mean. fecundity notes. fraction. mature notes. mean. fecundity lifetime. fecundity notes. lifetime windowpane age01 0 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 100000 windowpane age02 0 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age03 0.5 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age04 1 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age05 1 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age06 1 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age07 1 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA windowpane age08 1 NA NA Scott and Scott, p. 539 NA # 25906 ( Brayt hogchoker egg 0 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker larvae 0 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age01 0.5 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age02 1 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age03 1 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age04 1 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age05 1 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA NA hogchoker age06 1 NA [ 25906], p. I. 34 NA 33465 New England threespine. stickleback age01 0.5 600 Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001 Scott and Scott, p. 339 NA threespine. stickleback age02 1 600 Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001 Bigelow and Schroeder ( 1953); [ 26616]; p. 309 NA threespine. stickleback age03 1 600 Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001 Bigelow and Schroeder ( 1953); [ 26616]; p. 309 NA threespine. stickleback age04 1.00 600 Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001 Bigelow and Schroeder ( 1953); [ 26616]; p. 309 NA silver. hake age01 0 156637 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age02 0.5 249325 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age03 1 326692 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age04 1 462133 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age05 1 732992 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age06 1 912603 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age07 1 877988 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age08 1 1449275 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age09 1 1654144 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age10 1 2293885 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age11 1 2578819 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA silver. hake age12 1 3021598 Scott and Scott, 1988[ 26762], p. 279, red. hake. Saila et al., 1997; # 23746 Table3/ Northeast stock assessNA atlantic. silverside age01 0.5 NA p. 3 http:// www. nwrc. usgs. gov/ wdb/ pub/ 0117. pdf NA NA atlantic. silverside age02 1 NA p. 3 http:// www. nwrc. usgs. gov/ wdb/ pubNA 9125 4725 13525 p butterfish age01 0.00 NA NA Scott and Scott ( 1988); # 26762; p. 475/ gulf of Mexico NA butterfish age02 1.00 NA NA Scott and Scott ( 1988); # 26762; p. 475/ gulf of Mexico NA butterfish age03 1.00 NA NA Scott and Scott ( 1988); # 26762; p. 475/ gulf of Mexico 150000 Australian ruff striped. killifish age01 0.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age02 0.50 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age03 1.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age04 1.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age05 1.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age06 1.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA striped. killifish age07 1.00 600 Abraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: LAbraham, B. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and  Environ NA winter. flounder age01 0 NA NA NA 140708 [ 23746], Table winter. flounder age02 0 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age03 0.5 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age04 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age05 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age06 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age07 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age08 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age09 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age10 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age11 1 NA NA NA NA winter. flounder age12 1 NA NA NA NA Page 35 of 37 5 2351  fecundity05 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z e. fecundity ton Annual Report, 1994) , p. I. 32 Power Company ( 1994); [ 25906] p. I. 34 .4 http:// www. nwrc. usgs. gov/ wdb/ pub/ 0117. pdf ( same family than butterfishes) max. 190,000: Froese and Pauly. 2001. Fishbase. Lenanton, R. C. J., 1978. Age, spawning time and fecundity of Australian herring ( Arripis georgianus C. & V.) ( Pisces: Arripidae) from the waters around Rottnest Island, Western Au e 1 Page 36 of 37 5 2351  fecundity05 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 AA AB AC AD ustralia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 29( 5): 599 612 Page 37 of 37 5 2351  fecundity05


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Project No.:  0<IP_ADDRESS>

DISTRIBUTION

Page 1 of  1

Project Name:

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

	  Outgoing Call

Date:   2/9/09

Time:  2:00 PM

Company Name:  Allegheny Energy

Contact Name:  Joe Lapcevic

Phone No.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Name:  Sarah Holman (ERG)

GENERAL SUBJECT :  FGD Wastewater Treatment Systems at Hatfield’s Ferry and Fort Martin Plants

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Wednesday, February 4, 2009, I left a voicemail message for Joe Lapcevic, Environmental Specialist, Allegheny Energy, inquiring about the confidentiality of the design flow rate information for the FGD wastewater treatment systems at the Hatfield’s Ferry and Fort Martin power plants that Allegheny Energy provided to EPA in 2008 along with confidential treatment system information.  Mr. Lapcevic left me a voicemail message on Monday, February 9, 2009 stating that the design flow rate information provided for the FGD wastewater treatment systems at the Hatfield’s Ferry and Fort Martin plants is NOT confidential business information (CBI) and that EPA does NOT need to treat it as CBI.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19983-19985]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08948]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2018 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0867; Product Identifier 2017-CE-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposal for all Viking Air Limited
Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. This
proposed airworthiness directive (AD) results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking
found in the wing rear spar web at the wing station where the flap
outboard hinge is attached. This action revises the proposal by issuing
an SNPRM that changes the compliance times to more closely match the
compliance times in the MCAI. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions may impose an
additional burden over those in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
opportunity to comment on these changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone: (North America) (800)
663-8444; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation
Division, 901 Locust, 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0867; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0867;
Product Identifier 2017-CE-021-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an NPRM for all Viking Air
Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes,
which was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2017 (82 FR
42489). The NPRM proposed to require actions intended to address the
unsafe condition for the products listed above and was based on MCAI
originated by another country.
    Since the NPRM was issued, we received a comment to change the
compliance time for the inspections in the NPRM to be in line with the
compliance times stated in Transport Canada, which is the aviation
authority for Canada, AD Number CF-2017-17, dated May 18, 2017
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI'').

Comments

    We have considered the following comment received on the NPRM.

Request To Change the Compliance Times for the Inspections

    Adam Geber stated that the compliance times in the NPRM for the
inspections specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) should be changed
to match the compliance times stated in the MCAI AD and the related
service information.
    Adam Geber requested including the 6-month compliance time from the
MCAI AD into the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenter. We have changed paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2) in this SNPRM from ``within the next 400 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD'' to ``within the next 400 hours TIS after
the effective date of this AD or within the next 6 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.''

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Viking Air Limited has issued DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number:
V2/0009, Revision A, dated February 10, 2017. The service information
describes procedures for inspecting the left-hand and right-hand wing
rear spars, the flap/aileron hinge brackets, and the exterior store
support bracket for cracks, damage, and discrepancies and specifies
repairing or replacing any cracked, damaged, or discrepant parts. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    The change described above expands the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
the proposed AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this SNPRM interim action. The inspection report
required by this SNPRM allows us to obtain better information into the
nature, cause, and extent of the damage to the wing rear spars and
flap/aileron hinge arm support brackets and to develop final action to
address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we
may consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM will affect 140 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic inspection requirements of this SNPRM.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the basic cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $130,900, or $935 per product.
    In addition, the following is an estimate of possible necessary
follow-on replacement actions. We have no way of determining the number
of products that may need these actions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Left-hand (LH) or
            Part No.                right-hand (RH)         Description          Number per  airplane          Parts cost         Number of  work-hours
                                         wing                                                                                to replace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2W123A.........................  Both (one per       Hinge bracket LH         2......................  $288 for both..........  12 for both.
                                   wing).              inboard (flap)/RH
                                                       outboard (aileron).
C2W124A.........................  Both (one per       Hinge bracket RH         2......................  $288 for both..........  12 for both.
                                   wing).              inboard (flap)/LH
                                                       outboard (aileron).
C2W143..........................  Both (four per      Hinge bracket, flap and  8......................  $271 for all eight.....  12 for all eight.
                                   wing).              aileron (common part--
                                                       multiple wing stations
                                                       (WS)).
C2W143A (Agricultural Option)...  Both (one per       Agricultural (optional   2 (if applies).........  $271 for both..........  12 for both.
                                   wing).              configuration)--hinge
                                                       bracket, support arm
                                                       (IPC PSM 1-2-4 Figure
                                                       128, Item 15).
C2W63...........................  LH................  Inboard spar, rear spar  .......................  $277...................  60.
C2W64...........................  RH................  Inboard spar, rear spar  .......................  $277...................  60.
C2W155..........................  Both (one per       Intermediate spar......  2......................  $563 for both..........  60 for both.
                                   wing).
C2W65A..........................  LH................  Spar WS 89.16 to WS      1*.....................  $835...................  60.
                                                       170.16.
C2W66A..........................  RH................  Spar WS 89.16 to WS      1*.....................  $835...................  60.
                                                       170.16.
C2W67A..........................  LH................  Outboard spar, WS        1*.....................  $835...................  60.
                                                       170.16 to WS 245.75.
C2W68A..........................  RH................  Outboard spar, WS        1*.....................  $835...................  60.
                                                       170.16 to WS 245.75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*To replace any wing spar section takes 60 work-hours.

    To replace all four wing spar sections per wing takes 240 work-
hours.
    There has been no change in the Cost of Compliance section in this
SNPRM.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 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 control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is 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.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs

applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic
business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the
Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Viking Air Limited: Docket No. FAA-2017-0867; Product Identifier
2017-CE-021-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 21, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2
Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking found
in the wing rear spar web at the wing station (WS) where the flap
outboard hinge is attached. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the wing rear spars and the flap/aileron hinge arm
support brackets, which could cause these parts to fail. Failure of
the wing rear spars and the flap/aileron hinge arm support brackets
could result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(5) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 400 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 6 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, visually inspect
the left-hand and right-hand wing rear spar and flap/aileron hinge
arm support brackets following the Accomplishment Instructions of
Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number: V2/0009, Revision A,
dated February 10, 2017 (SB V2/0009, Revision A).
    (2) For airplanes with agricultural configuration installed (SOO
Mod 2/984), within the next 400 hours TIS after the effective date
of this AD or within the next 6 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the exterior store support
arm bracket at wing station (WS) 101.24 following the Accomplishment
Instructions of SB V2/0009, Revision A.
    (3) If any discrepancies are found during the inspections
required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, before further
flight, repair or replace using a method approved by the Manager,
New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Viking Air
Limited's Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (4) Within 30 days after completing the inspections required in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, using the Operator Reply Form
on page 7 of SB V2/0009, Revision A, report the inspection results
to Viking Air Limited at the address specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a wing
on any airplane affected by this AD unless it has been inspected as
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD, as applicable, and is found free of any discrepancies.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's Transport
Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA,
the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD Number CF-2017-17, dated May
18, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0867. For service information related to this
AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland
Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone: (North
America)<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; internet: http://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the You may view this service information at
the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 20, 2018.
Melvin Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-08948 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88972-88974]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0041]

FM Approvals LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and
Modification to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for FM Approvals LLC, as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the
final decision to add fourteen test standards to the NRTL Program's
list of appropriate test standards.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
December 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:
(202) 693-1911; email: [email protected]. OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Applications for Expansion

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition for FM Approvals LLC (FM). FM's expansion covers the
addition of fourteen test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition,
following requirements in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including FM, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

    FM submitted two applications to OSHA to expand recognition as a
NRTL. The first application was submitted on September 20, 2019 (OSHA-
2007-0041-0021), to include ten test standards. The second application
requesting the addition of six standards was submitted on May 3, 2021
(OSHA-2007-0041-0022). The first application was amended on September
21, 2022 (OSHA-2007-0041-0023), to remove two standards from the
original submission. The expansion covered in this notice includes the
remaining fourteen standards across both applications. OSHA staff
performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews
in relation to these applications.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing FM's expansion
applications in the Federal Register on November 21, 2023 (88 FR
81105). The agency requested comments by December 6, 2023, but it
received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding
with this final notice to grant expansion of FM's NRTL scope of
recognition.
    To review copies of all public documents pertaining to FM's
expansion applications, go to https://www.regulations.gov or contact
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-20007-0041
contains all materials in the record concerning FM's recognition. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> for assistance in locating docket submissions.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined FM's expansion applications, their capability
to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that FM
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant FM's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of FM's recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards shown below in table 1.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in FM's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FM 1311.........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps Split-Case
                                     Type (Axial or Radial).
* FM 1312.........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Vertical
                                     Shaft, Turbine Type).
* FM 1313.........................  Positive Displacement Fire Pumps
                                     (Rotary Gear Type).
* FM 1319.........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal,
                                     End Suction Type).
* FM 1370.........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Vertical
                                     Shaft, Turbine Type, Barrel).
* FM 1371.........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (In-Line
                                     Type).
* FM 3132.........................  Pressure Actuated Waterflow
                                     Switches.
* FM 3150.........................  Audible Notification Appliances for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
* FM 3155.........................  Public Mode Visible Signaling
                                     Appliances for Automatic Fire Alarm
                                     Signaling.
* FM 3230.........................  Smoke Actuated Detectors for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
* FM 3232.........................  Video Image Fire Detectors for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
* FM 5320.........................  Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.
* FM 5420.........................  Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing
                                     Systems.
* FM 5600.........................  Clean Agent Extinguishing Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the standards that OSHA proposes to add to the NRTL
  Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

    In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add
fourteen new test standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate
Test Standards. Table 2 below lists the standards that are new to the
NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that these test standards are
appropriate test standards and will add them to the NRTL Program's List
of Appropriate Test Standards.

     Table 2--Standards OSHA Is Adding to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM 1311...........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps Split-Case
                                     Type (Axial or Radial).
FM 1312...........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Vertical
                                     Shaft, Turbine Type).
FM 1313...........................  Positive Displacement Fire Pumps
                                     (Rotary Gear Type).
FM 1319...........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal,
                                     End Suction Type).
FM1370............................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Vertical
                                     Shaft, Turbine Type, Barrel).
FM 1371...........................  Centrifugal Fire Pumps (In-Line
                                     Type).
FM 3132...........................  Pressure Actuated Waterflow
                                     Switches.
FM 3150...........................  Audible Notification Appliances for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
FM 3155...........................  Public Mode Visible Signaling
                                     Appliances for Automatic Fire Alarm
                                     Signaling.
FM 3230...........................  Smoke Actuated Detectors for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
FM 3232...........................  Video Image Fire Detectors for
                                     Automatic Fire Alarm Signaling.
FM 5320...........................  Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.
FM 5420...........................  Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing
                                     Systems.
FM 5600...........................  Clean Agent Extinguishing Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test

standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such
testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not
include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, the use of the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation may
occur. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-
004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), only standards determined to be
appropriate test standards may be approved for NRTL recognition. Any
NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the
proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that
standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is
currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
FM must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. FM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. FM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. FM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on FM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of FM, subject to the limitations and conditions
specified above. OSHA also adds fourteen standards to the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

III. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-28338 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34630]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-
2003-14504; FMCSA-2006-25246]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 19 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on June 3, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 19 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for William E. Beckley, Michael C. Boyne, Clifford D.
Carpenter, Timothy H. DuBois, Alf M. Gronstedt, Dennis K. Harris,
Donald E. Howell, Tommy T. Hudson, William D. Johnson, Phillip L.
Mangen, Tommy R. Masterson, Clarence M. Miles, Steven M. Montalbo,
Vincent Rubino, Randy G. Spilman, Wyatt W. Thayer, Jr., Thomas S.
Thompson, Mikiel J. Wagner, and Robert A. Wegner.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: July 7, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-16588 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 67600-67601]
[DOCID:fr29no07-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-72-004]

Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.; Notice of Filing

November 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 13, 2007, Dynegy Midwest Generation,
Inc. filed its Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation
Sources Service rate schedule in compliance of the Commission Order
issued October 12, 2007, Initial Decision, Dynegy Midwest Generation,
Inc., Opinion No. 498, 121 FERC ] 61,025 (2007).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the

Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 4, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23150 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35758-35759]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP22-461-000; PF22-1-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on May 23, 2022, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC (Transco), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77056-
6106, filed in the above referenced docket, an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations for its proposed Southside Reliability
Enhancement Project (Project). Specifically, Transco proposes to: (1)
construct the new 33,000 hp Compressor Station 168 in Mecklenburg
County, Virginia; (2) install one new 16,000 hp compressor and related
modifications at existing Compressor Station 166 in Pittsylvania
County, Virginia; and (3) make modifications to facilitate flow
reversal at the existing Compressor Station 155 in Davidson County,
North Carolina. Transco estimates the cost of the project to be
$212,535,894, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    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://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. 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. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Nick
Baumann, Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
LLC, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, by telephone at (713)
215-3383 or by email at [email protected].
    On October 19, 2021 the Commission granted the Applicant's request
to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing
Process and assigned Docket No. PF22-1-000 to staff activities involved
in the Project. Now, as of the filing of the May 23, 2022 application,
the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP22-461-000
as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec.  157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: you can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 28, 2022.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before June 28, 2022.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP22-461-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below.\2\ Your written comments must reference
the Project docket number (CP22-461-000). Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\3\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).

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

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 28, 2022. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP22-461-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.\6\
Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP22-
461-000. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email at: Nick Baumann, Regulatory Analyst,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, P.O. Box 1396, Houston,
Texas 77251-1396 or [email protected]. Any subsequent
submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all
other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be
downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.
Service can be via email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \7\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\8\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\9\ A person obtaining
party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \8\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking The Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the
projects will be available from the Commission's Office of External
Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 28, 2022.

    Dated: June 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12677 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P