[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77615-77618]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1029; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-177-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-13-
04, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. AD 2010-13-04 requires modifying the nose landing gear (NLG)
trailing arm. Since we issued AD 2010-13-04, we received a report of
several missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts. This proposed AD
would require installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. This
proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. We are
proposing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt,
which could result in a

loss of directional control or loss of a NLG tire during take-off or
landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 7,
2014.

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 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 Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the MCAI, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2013-1029;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-177-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 based on 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

    On June 10, 2010, we issued AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75
FR 35622, June 23, 2010). AD 2010-13-04 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622,
June 23, 2010), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the
aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness
Directive CF-2009-29R1, dated August 14, 2013 (referred to after this
as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400
aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin
retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident
involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off.
Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to
repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device
including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the
retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal
position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The
loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm
and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of
nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of
directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take
off or landing.
    To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention
bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which
includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the
retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity
sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention
bolt.
    Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD [which
corresponds to AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June
23, 2010)], there have been several reports of pivot pin retention
bolts found missing or damaged. Additional investigation determined
that the failures were caused by high contact stresses on the
retention bolt due to excessive frictional torque on the pivot pin
and an adverse tolerance condition at the retention bolt.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a
new pivot pin retention mechanism.

    This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. AD
2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), affected
Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004,
4006, and 4008 through 4238 inclusive. This proposed AD would affect
serial numbers 4001 through 4435 inclusive. You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1029.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A,
dated April 8, 2013. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 383 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of the NLG trailing arm    3 work-hours x $85 per              $100            $355         $22,365
 [retained actions from AD               hour = $255.
 2010[dash]13[dash]04, Amendment
 39[dash]16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23,
 2010)].
Installation of new pivot pin           2 work-hours x $85 per              None             170          65,110
 retention mechanism [new proposed       hour = $170.
 action].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate

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 proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), and adding
the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-1029; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-177-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 7, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR
35622, June 23, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4435 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several missing or damaged
pivot pin retention bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of
directional control or a NLG tire during take-off or landing.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Retained Actions and Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of
AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), with
no changes. For airplanes having serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004,
4006, and 4008 through 4238 inclusive: Within 2,000 flight hours
after July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04), modify
the NLG trailing arm by incorporating Bombardier Modification
Summary 4-113599, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A, dated March 2,
2009.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Installing a New Pivot Pin Retention
Mechanism

    For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4435 inclusive:
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, install a new pivot pin retention
mechanism by incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary 4-113749,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013.

(i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-
16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)), using the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, dated December
17, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
110, dated December 21, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANE-
170, New York Aircraft Certification Office (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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the DAH with a State of Design Authority's
design organization approval). For a repair method to be approved,
the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are
required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to
service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R1, dated August
14, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1029.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 2013.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30468 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:  SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:01:57 PM To:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M Subject:  Air Permits for Suncoke Haverhill

Hello,

As requested in the Coke Ovens ICR, please see the attached current air permits for SunCoke Energy's Haverhill facility in Franklin Furnace, OH.  Included  is a copy of the 11/10/08 Administrative Modification permit (most recent permit for source F003, P001 and P002), a copy of the 12-26-08 PTI modification permit (most recent permit for source F001) and a copy of the 2015 Administrative Modification permit (most recent permit for sources F002, F004, P901 and P902).  Please let us know if you have questions or problems with the files. Thanks,

Kris

Kris Singleton Corporate Environmental Engineer

SunCoke Energy office:<PHONE_NUMBER> cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< Haverhill.zip >>       << 2008-11-10 PTI.docx >>       << Haverhill 2008-12-26 PTI.pdf >>       << Haverhill 2015-2-19 PTI.pdf >>


[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24580-24581]
[DOCID:fr05my08-458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12557-001]

SBER Royal Mills, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing;
Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests; Ready for Environmental
Analysis; Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations,
and Prescriptions; Establishing an Expedited Schedule; and Waiving
Scoping

April 25, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption From Licensing.
    b. Project No.: P-12557-001.
    c. Date Filed: December 12, 2007.
    d. Applicant: SBER Royal Mills, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Royal Mills Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the South Branch Pawtuxet River, in the town of
West Warwick, Kent County, Rhode Island. This project does not occupy
federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Quentin Chafee, Development Director,
Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse, Inc., 166 Valley Street, Building 6M,
Suite 103, Providence, RI 02909,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6131.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the
Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The Royal Mills Hydroelectric Project would
consist of the following facilities: (1) An existing 110-foot-long by
21-foot-high granite block dam; (2) an existing 3.8-acre reservoir; (3)
an existing 150-foot-long by 40-foot-wide power canal; (4) an existing
powerhouse containing one single new cross-flow turbine generating unit
with total installed generating capacity of 225 kilowatts (kW); and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The restored project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours. The dam and
existing project facilities are owned by the applicant.
    m. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the
web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the documents. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport @ferc.gov or toll free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule and final amendments: We intend to
substitute the pre-filing and post-filing consultation that has
occurred on this project for our standard National Environmental Policy
Act scoping process. Commission staff propose to issue a single
environmental assessment rather than issue a draft and final EA. Staff
intend to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and
will consider all comments received on the EA before final action is
taken on the exemption application.
    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9779 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45901-45902]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10152-04-R10]

Proposed Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Federal Aquaculture Facilities and
Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian Country in Washington
(WAG130000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reissuance of NPDES General Permit and
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2022, EPA Region 10 proposed to reissue a
general

permit for Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities
Located in Indian Country in Washington. In response to requests from
the regulated community, EPA extended the end of the public comment
period from November 7 to December 22, 2022. With this document, EPA is
initiating a second public comment period focused exclusively on four
changes made to the General Permit.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests regarding the draft general permit
must be submitted to [email protected] with the subject line:
Public Comments on WAG130000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Permit documents may be found on the
EPA Region 10 website at: https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/npdes-general-permit-federal-aquaculture-facilities-and-aquaculture-facilities-located.
    Copies of the draft general permit and fact sheet are also
available upon request. Requests may be made to Audrey Washington at
(206) 553-0523. Requests may also be electronically mailed to:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comment period for the notice of
proposed reissuance of NPDES General Permit published September 7, 2022
(87 FR 54688), was extended to December 22, 2022 (November 2, 2022, 87
FR 66178). EPA is initiating a second public comment period focused
exclusively on four changes made to the General Permit:
    1. Inclusion of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) effluent limits
for the White River Hatchery (existing) and the proposed Coal Creek
Springs Fish Facility (planned) based on the Lower White River pH Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), approved by EPA on January 13, 2023.
    2. Changes to temperature monitoring requirements for facilities
discharging to temperature impaired rivers.
    3. The frequency and timing of PCB monitoring for facilities on the
Spokane Reservation based on the Spokane Tribe of Indians 401
certification.
    4. Adjustment of the Temperature Compliance Schedule Length and
Milestones for Skookum Creek Hatchery.

Michael J. Szerlog,
Acting Director, Water Division, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2023-15193 Filed 7-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68118-68119]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 50, 56, and 812

[Docket Nos. FDA-2021-N-0286 and FDA-2019-N-2175]
RIN 0910-AI07 and 0910-AI08

Protection of Human Subjects and Institutional Review Boards, and
Institutional Review Boards; Cooperative Research; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Proposed rules; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for two proposed rules that appeared in
the Federal Register of September 28, 2022. In the proposed rule
entitled ``Protection of Human Subjects and Institutional Review
Boards,'' FDA requested comments on proposed changes to its regulations
regarding obtaining and documenting informed consent from research
participants, and institutional review board membership and functions,
including continuing review (Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0286). In the
proposed rule entitled ``Institutional Review Boards; Cooperative
Research,'' FDA requested comment on a change to its regulations that
would require any institution located in the United States
participating in FDA-regulated cooperative research to rely on approval
by a single institutional review board (IRB) for that portion of the
research that is conducted in the United States, with some exceptions
(Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2175). The Agency is taking this action in
response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons
additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rules
published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2022 (87 FR 58733
and 87 FR 58752). Either electronic or written comments must be
submitted by December 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of December 28, 2022. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0286 for ``Protection of Human Subjects and Institutional
Review Boards'' and/or Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2175 for ``Institutional
Review Boards; Cooperative Research.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For

more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: With regard to Docket No. FDA-2021-N-
0286: Sheila Brown, Office of Clinical Policy, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
301-796-6563. With regard to Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2175: David Markert,
Office of Clinical Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 28,
2022, FDA published two proposed rules with a 60-day comment period to
request comments on proposed changes to its regulations regarding
obtaining and documenting informed consent from research participants,
and institutional review board membership and functions, including
continuing review, as well as a change to its regulations that would
require any institution located in the United States participating in
FDA-regulated cooperative research to rely on approval by a single IRB
for that portion of the research that is conducted in the United
States, with some exceptions. Comments on the proposed rules will
inform FDA's rulemaking to establish regulations for Protection of
Human Subjects and Institutional Review Boards.
    The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the
comment period for both proposed rules. The requests conveyed concern
that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time
to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rules.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment
periods for the proposed rules for 30 days. The Agency believes that a
30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit
comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important
issues.

    Dated: November 8, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-24689 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 169 (Friday, September 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49531]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19063]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9058-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed August 23, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through August 30, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210128, Draft, NOAA, CT, Connecticut National Estuarine
Research Reserve, Comment Period Ends: 10/18/2021, Contact: Erica
Seiden<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210129, Draft, USPS, DC, Next Generation Delivery Vehicle
Acquisitions, Comment Period Ends: 10/18/2021, Contact: Davon M.
Collins<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210130, Draft, USACE, NY, Nassau County Back Bays Coastal
Storm Risk Management Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 10/18/2021, Contact: Scott
Sanderson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210131, Final, USACE, LA, South Central Coast Louisiana Final
Integrated Feasibility Study with Environmental Impact Statement,
Review Period Ends: 10/04/2021, Contact: Joe Jordan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Amended Notice:
EIS No. 20210095, Draft, FHWA, NY, Interstate 81 Viaduct Project,
Comment Period Ends: 10/14/2021, Contact: Richard J. Marquis 518-431-
4127. Revision to FR Notice Published 07/16/2021; Extending the Comment
Period from 09/14/2021 to 10/14/2021.
EIS No. 20210103, Draft, FTA, CA, West Santa Ana Branch Transit
Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report, Comment Period Ends: 09/28/2021, Contact: Rusty Whisman
213-202-3956. Revision to FR Notice Published 07/30/2021; Extending the
Comment Period from 09/13/2021 to 09/28/2021.

    Dated: August 30, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-19063 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69407-69408]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC14-24-000.
    Applicants: Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC, Tuscola Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Steele Flats Wind
Project, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20131106-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC14-25-000.
    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: CPV Shore, LLC's Section 203 Application for
Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities.
    Filed Date: 11/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20131107-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1818-004; ER10-1819-005; ER10-1820-007; ER10-
1817-005.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado submits additional
information related to the Updated Market Power Analysis for the
Northwest Region.
    Filed Date: 11/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20131107-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2274-003.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Public Service Electric and Gas Company submits PSE&G
submits compliance filing per 8/30/2013 Order in ER12-2274 to be
effective 9/17/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20131106-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-340-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: 11-6-13--RS117 SPS-RCEC Op Proc 1 to be effective 11/
4/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20131106-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-341-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits Queue Position Y2-
003; Original Service Agreement No. 3654 to be effective 10/8/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20131107-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-342-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Amendment
to Extend Terms of Eldorado Co-Tenancy and Communication Agreement to
be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20131107-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF12-267-000.
    Applicants: Holyoke Solar, LLC.
    Description: Holyoke Solar, LLC resubmits February 20, 2013 Refund
Report as non-privileged document.
    Filed Date: 11/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20131106-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

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

    Dated: November 7, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27574 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86336-86337]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-5022]

Data Standards; Support and Requirement Begins for the Clinical
Data Interchange Standards Consortium Version 2.0 of the Study Data
Tabulation Model, Version 3.4 of the Study Data Tabulation Model
Implementation Guide, and Version 1.0 of the Standard for Exchange of
Nonclinical Data Implementation Guide--Genetox; Requirement Ends for
the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Version 3.2 of the Study Data
Tabulation Model Implementation Guide

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (CDER) are announcing that support begins for version 2.0
of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Study
Data Tabulation Model (SDTMv2.0), version 3.4 of the CDISC Study Data
Tabulation Model Implementation Guide (SDTMIGv3.4), and version 1.0 of
the Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data Implementation Guide--
Genetox (SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0) and announcing the date that these version
updates are required in certain submissions. CBER and CDER are also
announcing the date that requirement ends for version 3.2 of the CDISC
SDTMIG (SDTMIGv3.2). The Agency will update the FDA Data Standards
Catalog (Catalog) to reflect these changes. The Agency will publish in
the technical specifications document entitled ``Study Data Technical
Conformance Guide'' additional details on how to implement new
variables.

DATES: Support for version CDISC SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-
Genetoxv1.0 begins December 13, 2023.
    The requirement for electronic submissions to be submitted using
CDISC SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0 begins March 15,
2025, for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs), certain biologics license applications (BLAs),
and certain investigational new drug applications (INDs). The
requirement for electronic submissions to be submitted using version
CDISC SDTMIGv3.2 ends December 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-5022 for ``Data Standards; Requirement Begins for the
Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Version 2.0 of the Study
Data Tabulation Model and Version 3.4 of the Study Data Tabulation
Model Implementation Guide; Requirement Ends for the Clinical Data
Interchange Standards Version 3.2 of the Study Data Tabulation Model
Implementation Guide.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the

heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDER: Helena Sviglin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1117, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-6511, [email protected].
    CBER: Lisa Lin and Anne Taylor, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA's CBER and CDER are issuing this Federal
Register notice to announce the date that support begins for CDISC
SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0 and requirement ends for
version 3.2 of the CDISC SDTMIG. The guidance for industry entitled
``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Standardized
Study Data,'' published June 2021 (eStudy Data guidance) (available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/82716/download), implements the electronic
submission requirements of section 745A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379k-1(a)) for study data contained in
NDAs, ANDAs, certain BLAs, and certain INDs submitted to CBER or CDER
by specifying the format for electronic submissions. The eStudy Data
guidance states that a Federal Register notice will specify any new
standards and version updates to FDA-supported study data standards
that will be added to the Catalog, when the support for such standards
and version updates begins or ends, and when the requirement to use
such standards and version updates in submissions begins or ends.
    Support for CDISC SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0
begins December 13, 2023. The transition date for these version updates
is March 15, 2024. The requirement for electronic submissions to be
submitted using CDISC SDTMv2.0, SDTMIGv3.4, and SENDIG-Genetoxv1.0 is
March 15, 2025, for NDAs, ANDAs, certain BLAs, and certain INDs. The
requirement for electronic submissions to be submitted using version
3.2 of the CDISC SDTMIG ends December 13, 2023.

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27310 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CALHOUN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

PAULINE TEDFORD, TOMMY TEDFORD

LORA SMITH, JUDY HAIRE,

HAROLD E. HAIRE, SAMANTHA MIXON,

JOSHUA MIXON, JAMES R. CLARK AND

SANDRA DARLENE
CLARK
                             PLAINTIFFS

VS.

                              CIVIL ACTION
NO. ___________

FRANKLIN CORPORATION,

MID-SOUTH ADHESIVES, INC.,

HASSELL H. FRANKLIN, JOHN LYLES,

DON LIVINGSTON, JEFF CLEMENTS,

JIMMY PUMPHREY,  AND JOHN DOES
1-10
         DEFENDANTS

      III.  FACTS

A.                 Defendant Franklin Corp. is a furniture
manufacturer.  As part of the manufacturing process, Defendant Franklin
Corp. utilized an adhesive known as Soft Seam Adhesive.

B.                 Defendant Mid-South Adhesives manufactured, placed
into the stream of commerce and sold Soft Seam Adhesive to Franklin
Corp.  The product code for Soft Seam Adhesive sold by Mid-South
Adhesives and utilized by Franklin Corp. included, but is not limited
to, Product Code 6466MSDS.

C.                 Soft Seam Adhesive contains an extremely hazardous
chemical known as propyl bromide (1-bromopropane).  Propyl bromide is a
toxic chemical subject to federal reporting requirements.  Exposure
through inhalation of propyl bromide is known to be an irritant to the
respiratory system.  Adverse health effects through skin and eye
exposure include irritation, rashes, defatting of skin and dermatitis.
Absorption through the skin is possible, resulting in systemic
effects.  Ingestion of propyl bromide is acutely toxic, and if vomiting
occurs, propyl bromide can be aspirated into the lungs, which can cause
pneumonia and systemic effects.  Prolonged exposure to propyl bromide
can cause adverse effects in the liver, kidney, central nervous system,
reproductive system and respiratory system.

D.                 At all relevant times stated herein, Plaintiffs were
employed by Defendant Franklin Corp. as workers on the glue line, in the
Poly Plant at Franklin Corp.

E.                  Plaintiffs were placed in enclosed spray booths
without ventilation, respiratory protection, eye or skin protection, and
were directed by employees and/or agents of Defendant Franklin Corp. to
use Soft Seam Adhesive through a pressurized spray system to apply Soft
Seam Adhesive to foam used in the manufacture of furniture produced and
sold by Franklin Corp.

F.                  On average, Plaintiffs were directly exposed to the
Soft Seam Adhesive in enclosed booths without ventilation, respiratory
protection, eye or skin protection, through the pressurized spray system
for ten (10) to twelve (12) hours per day.

G.                 Plaintiff Tedford was employed at Franklin Corp. in
the glue area from approximately 1999 to April 22, 2004, at which time
she was placed on medical leave.

H.                 Plaintiff Smith was employed at Franklin Corp. in the
glue area from approximately October 2003 to January 27, 2004, at which
time she was placed on medical leave.

I.                    Plaintiff Haire was employed at Franklin Corp. in
the glue area from approximately September 2002 to February 9, 2004, at
which time she was placed on medical leave.

J.                   Plaintiff Mixon was employed at Franklin Corp. in
the glue area from approximately September 2003 to February 14, 2004, at
which time she was placed on medical leave.

K.                Plaintiff Clark was initially employed at Franklin
Corp. in 1980, and was employed as a Superintendent at Franklin Corp. of
the Poly Department in 1997 through November 2003.

L.                  Defendant Franklin was the President and principal
shareholder of Franklin Corp. at all relevant times stated herein.

M.               Defendant Lyles was the Vice-President of Manufacturing
at Franklin Corp. at all relevant times stated herein.

N.                Defendant Livingston was the Executive Vice-President
and Purchasing Manager at Franklin Corp. at all relevant times stated
herein.

O.                Defendant Clements was a Manager in the Poly
Department, and an employee and/or agent of Defendant Franklin Corp. at
all relevant times stated herein.

P.                  Defendant Pumphrey was a Supervisor in the Poly
Department, and an employee and/or agent of Defendant Franklin Corp. at
all relevant times stated herein.

Q.                Upon information and belief, Defendant Franklin Corp.
was, in 1999, utilizing a latex based spray adhesive on the glue line.

R.                 Upon information and belief, Defendant Franklin Corp.
was approached by an employee and/or agent for Defendant Mid-South
Adhesives in 1999 for the purpose of selling to Defendant Franklin Corp.
its product, Soft Seam Adhesive.

S.                  Upon information and belief, Defendant Mid-South
Adhesive represented to Defendant Franklin Corp. that the use of its
product, Soft Seam Adhesive, instead of the latex based adhesive, would
reduce the work force required on the glue line by two-thirds (2/3),
resulting in substantial cost savings to Defendant Franklin Corp.

T.                  Upon information and belief, Defendant Mid-South
Adhesive was fully aware and had actual knowledge of the hazardous
nature of Propyl bromide and of the numerous side effects of exposure to
humans at the time it marketed Soft Seam Adhesive to Defendant Franklin
Corp.

U.                 Upon information and belief, Defendant Mid-South
Adhesive conveyed to Defendant Franklin Corp. and its management,
including but not limited to Defendant Franklin, Lyles, Livingston,
Clements and Pumphrey, of the hazardous nature of Propyl bromide at the
time Defendant Mid-South Adhesives marketed Soft Seam Adhesive to
Defendant Franklin Corp.

V.                 Upon information and belief, Defendant Mid-South
Adhesive conveyed to Defendant Franklin Corp. and its management,
including but not limited to Defendant Franklin, Lyles, Livingston,
Clements, and Pumphrey, the requirement that if used, Soft Seam Adhesive
had to be in an area with adequate ventilation and full respiratory,
skin and eye protection for the persons utilizing it in the
manufacturing process, or exposed to it by proximity to the area where
it was to be utilized.

W.               Upon information and belief, Defendant Franklin Corp.
agreed in 1999 to utilize and did utilize Soft Seam Adhesive purchased
from Mid-South Adhesive for a trial period to determine if the use of
Soft Seam Adhesive could result in a  substantial amount of cost
savings to the company in the production and manufacture of furniture.

X.                 A cost benefit analysis was performed by Engineer
Tracey Smithey for Defendant Franklin Corp. in 1999 during its trial use
of Soft Seam Adhesive on the glue line.  This analysis confirmed that
the Soft Seam Adhesive, containing propyl bromide, and sold by Defendant
Mid-South Adhesive, did in fact result in a huge decrease in labor
required on the glue line which allowed Defendant Franklin Corp. to cut
its work force on the glue line by 2/3 when using the Soft Seam
Adhesive.  The results of this cost benefit analysis were published and
known to all Defendants named herein.

Y.                 During the trial, Defendant Franklin Corp. failed to
provide any ventilation on the glue line, or to provide respiratory,
skin and eye protection to the workers using the Soft Seam Adhesive.

Z.                  During the trial, Defendants failed to warn and
train the workers on the glue line of the dangers associated with propyl
bromide or of the need for adequate ventilation and respiratory, skin
and eye protection.

AA.           During the trial, Defendants failed to provide adequate
protective equipment to the workers on the glue line against  the
dangers associated with propyl bromide, including adequate ventilation
and respiratory, skin and eye protection.

BB.            Thereafter, Defendant Franklin Corp. began purchasing
Soft Seam Adhesive from Defendant Mid-South Adhesive.  A representative
employed by Mid-South Adhesive maintained contact at all relevant times
stated herein with Defendant Franklin Corp., Defendant Franklin, Lyles
and Livingston, providing information on the mechanical requirements for
the pressurized spray system used to apply the Soft Seam Adhesive, its
use and method of application to the foam as an adhesive, as well as
handling and the continued sale and transport of Soft Seam Adhesive from
Defendant Mid-South Adhesive to Defendant Franklin Corp.

CC.           Defendant Franklin Corp. began using the Soft Seam
Adhesive marketed, sold, and placed into the stream of commerce by
Defendant Mid-South Adhesive in the Franklin glue line in 1999.  At
that time, all Defendants named herein were aware of the ventilation,
respiratory, skin and eye protection requirements for the use of Soft
Seam Adhesive, as well as the known harmful effects to humans from
prolonged, unprotected exposure to propyl bromide.

DD.           At the time Defendant Franklin Corp. began using Soft Seam
Adhesive on the glue line, Defendants Franklin Corp., Franklin, Lyles,
Livingston, Clements, Pumphrey and John Does made a conscious,
intentional decision not to provide adequate ventilation, respiratory,
skin and eye protection to the employees of Defendant Franklin Corp.
that were working on the glue line or those employees working near the
glue line, including but not limited to Clark.  This conscious,
intentional decision by these Defendants continued for a period of
approximately five (5) years.

EE.             In 2000, Defendant Livingston was provided with a safety
advisory from Defendant Mid-South Adhesive that the Soft Seam Adhesive
should be ventilated out of the building from the glue line.  Defendant
Livingston consulted with Defendant Franklin about the advisory, and was
instructed by Defendant Franklin that no ventilation system would be
installed due to the cost and expense of installing such a ventilation
system.

FF.             At the time Defendant Franklin Corp. began using Soft
Seam Adhesive on the glue line in 1999, through 2004, Defendant
Mid-South Adhesive had full knowledge that Defendant Franklin Corp. was
using the Soft Seam Adhesive in its manufacturing process without
adequate ventilation, respiratory, skin and eye protection for extreme
periods of exposure to the workers placed on the glue line by Defendant
Franklin Corp.

GG.           Defendant Mid-South Adhesive, through its agents,
employees and representatives, from the date of the initial sale of Soft
Seam Adhesive in 1999 through 2004, personally observed that Defendant
Franklin Corp. was putting its workers on the glue line for work shifts
of ten (10) to twelve (12) hours using the Soft Seam Adhesive without
ventilation, respiratory, skin or eye protection.

HH.           Defendant Mid-South Adhesive, from 1999 to 2004, had
actual knowledge that Defendant Franklin Corp. was putting workers on
the glue line using Soft Seam Adhesive and directly exposing them and
other employees to propyl bromide without ventilation, respiratory, skin
or eye protection for extreme periods of exposure.  Despite this
knowledge, Defendant Mid-South Adhesive continued to sell Soft Seam
Adhesive to Defendant Franklin Corp., knowingly participating in its
intentional and tortious acts.

II.                 From the initial use of Soft Seam Adhesive in 1999
until 2004, Defendants intentionally concealed and failed to warn the
Plaintiffs on the glue line, and other employees exposed to the Soft
Seam Adhesive, of the dangers associated with the use of propyl bromide
in the Soft Seam Adhesive.

JJ.                From the initial use of Soft Seam Adhesive in 1999
until 2004, Defendant Franklin Corp., Franklin, Lyles, Livingston,
Clements, and Pumphrey directed Plaintiffs on the glue line to use the
Soft Seam Adhesive with full knowledge of the dangers of prolonged,
unprotected exposure to humans from propyl bromide, but intentionally
failed to make any attempt to ventilate the glue line, or to provide
proper respiratory, skin or eye protection to Plaintiffs.

KK.          In September 2000, a large spill of approximately 330
gallons of Soft Seam Adhesive occurred in the Poly Department at
Franklin Furniture.  Plaintiff Clark was instructed by Defendant Lyles
to clean up the spill, without informing him of the known dangers
associated with exposure to Soft Seam Adhesive containing propyl
bromide.  Further, Clark was directed to clean up the spill with no
ventilation, protective clothing or protective respiratory
equipment.   When asked by Clark about the dizziness and nausea caused
by the fumes during the clean up process, Defendant Lyles told Clark to
go outside and take a break, but to do whatever it took to get it
cleaned up.   Clark was directly exposed, without ventilation,
protective clothing or respiratory equipment for an extreme period of
exposure, to the Soft Seam Adhesive during this clean up process for
approximately ten (10) days.

LL.             Clark was continually exposed to the Soft Seam Adhesive
through his employment due to the proximity of his office to the glue
line, as well as his work as Superintendent and his responsibilities of
maintaining the spray system on the glue line.  This exposure occurred
between 1999 until the time of his termination from Franklin Corp. in
November 2003.  During this exposure, he suffered from continuous
headaches, nausea, dizziness, burns on his arms, right leg and feet, as
well as mental and emotional distress.

MM.        In 2003, Plaintiff Tedford, in response to suffering from
numerous adverse side effects from working on the glue line and being
directly exposed to the Soft Seam Adhesive without ventilation,
respiratory, skin or eye protection for extreme periods of exposure,
obtained a Material Safety Data Sheet for Soft Seam Adhesive.  The
Material Safety Data Sheet stated the Soft Seam Adhesive contained
Propyl Bromide, that its vapors were harmful, that it was only to be
used with adequate ventilation, directions not to get it on skin or
eyes, that its symptoms from exposure included  coughing, headaches,
nausea, dizziness, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath and
vomiting, defatting of skin, dermatitis, and that prolonged exposure may
cause adverse effects in the liver, kidney, central nervous system, and
respiratory system.

NN.          Plaintiff Tedford brought the Material Safety Data Sheet to
her supervisor, Jim Clark.  She asked him if the problems she was
suffering from were caused by the Soft Seam Adhesive.  Clark took the
Material Safety Data Sheet to Defendants Livingston and Lyles and
confronted them with Plaintiff Tedford’s complaints.  Defendant Lyles
thereafter directed Defendant Pumphrey to make sure that all Material
Safety Data Sheets were to be kept away from the employees so that no
employee would be able to have access to the Material Safety Data
Sheets.  In accordance with these instructions, all Material Safety
Data Sheets were thereafter removed from the Soft Seam Adhesive
containers by Defendant Pumphrey, at the direction of Defendant Lyles,
acting on behalf of Defendant Franklin Corp.

OO.          Plaintiffs continued to complain of adverse physical
effects they were suffering to their supervisor, Jim Clark.  Clark
brought these complaints to the attention of Defendants Franklin, Lyles
and Livingston.  He specifically told Defendants Franklin, Lyles and
Livingston of these complaints from Plaintiffs.  Clark was verbally
reprimanded by Defendant Lyles in the Administrative Building, stating
that Clark was not doing a good enough job of convincing the Plaintiffs
that their complaints were “all in their heads” and that he had to
be a “better salesman” to convince the Plaintiffs that their
complaints were not real and that they were not related to their
continued exposure to the Soft Seam Adhesive.

PP.             Thereafter, Jim Clark prepared a written request for
ventilation on the glue line area from management at Defendant Franklin
Corp.  At a meeting attended by Defendant Franklin, Lyles and
Livingston, Clark was told by Defendant Franklin that no ventilation
system would be installed, as the company was not going to spend money
on a glue line ventilation system for an adhesive that was probably not
going to be allowed much longer anyway, and that it would be a waste of
money for the company to spend any money for the installation of the
requested ventilation system, regardless of any complaints from the
workers on the glue line.

QQ.          In January 2004, Plaintiff Smith was admitted to the
hospital due to, among other adverse physical conditions,  her
inability to walk as a result of central nervous system damage caused by
her prolonged exposure to propyl bromide.

RR.            In January 2004, Plaintiff Haire was admitted to the
hospital due to, among other adverse physical conditions, her inability
to walk as a result of central nervous system damage caused by her
prolonged exposure to propyl bromide.

SS.             In February 2004, Plaintiff Mixon was admitted to the
hospital due to, among other adverse physical conditions, her inability
to walk as a result of central nervous system damage caused by her
prolonged exposure to propyl bromide.

TT.             In April 2004, Plaintiff Tedford was diagnosed with,
among other adverse physical conditions, brain damage caused by her
prolonged exposure to propyl bromide.

UU.           In February 2004, OSHA made an inspection of the Franklin
Corp. furniture plant.  At that time, OSHA tested the air quality on
the glue line, and tested the amount of propyl bromide in the air during
a time period of five and one half (5 ½) hours.  This test was
utilized to determine the amount of hazardous chemical the workers on
the glue line were exposed to during this time period.  It samples the
air molecules, and measures the amount of propyl bromide in a
measurement of parts per million (“ppm”).  This test was performed
on the glue line and the air quality when the Soft Seam Adhesive was
being used by the workers, just as it had existed since 1999 at
Defendant Franklin Corp. when Soft Seam Adhesive first was put into the
glue line for use in the manufacturing process at the plant.

VV.           The recommended maximum human exposure limit for propyl
bromide, as determined by OSHA and in place since at least 2002, was 25
ppm of propyl bromide over an eight (8) hour work shift.  The air
tested at Defendant Franklin Corp., on the glue line under the same
conditions Plaintiffs had been subjected to since 1999, resulted in a
measurement of over 219 ppm over a period of  five and one half (5 ½)
hours, which when extrapolated to a normal work shift results in an
exposure of more than 12 times the recommended maximum human exposure
limit set by OSHA for propyl bromide.

WW.       OSHA issued two separate safety violation citations to
Defendant Franklin Corp. for failure to abide by federal workplace
safety laws and regulations and ordered that a ventilation system be
installed, respiratory, skin and eye protection be provided to the
workers, and a fine be paid by Defendant Franklin Corp.

XX.           Defendant Franklin Corp. entered into an Agreed Order with
OSHA, admitting the violations resulting from the inspection which
occurred in February 2004.