[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68588-68589]
[DOCID:fr27no06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-36-022]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Negotiated Rate

November 17, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 14, 2006, Dauphin Island Gathering
Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-Eighth Revised Tariff Sheet
No. 9 to become effective December 15, 2006.
    Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served
contemporaneously on its customers and other interested parties.

    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19951 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10483-10484]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Amprolium

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug
application (ANADA) filed by IVX Animal Health, Inc. The ANADA provides
for the use of generic amprolium concentrate solution to make medicated
drinking water for chickens and turkeys for the treatment of
coccidiosis.

DATES:  This rule is effective March 11, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th

Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 200-463 that provides
for the use of Amprolium 9.6% Oral Solution to make medicated drinking
water for chickens and turkeys for the treatment of coccidiosis. IVX
Animal Health, Inc.'s Amprolium 9.6% Oral Solution is approved as a
generic copy of Huvepharma, AD's AMPROVINE 9.6% Solution, approved
under NADA 13-149. The ANADA is approved as of February 12, 2009, and
the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.100 to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  520.100, revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  520.100  Amprolium.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) No. 059130 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section as in paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 27, 2009.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-5131 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: September 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 45632]
[DOCID:fr03se09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

August 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-925-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Second
Revised Twentieth Revised Sheet 5 et al. FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 1 effective 10/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090825-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-926-000.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company submits First
Revised Sheet 52 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1
effective 7/1/09.
    Filed Date: 08/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090825-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21252 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


      	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                              OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
                                                           AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
DATE:	February 22, 2010
SUBJECT:	Tetrachlorovinphos, PC Code 083701, DP Barcode 346880: Summary of Pet Collar Risk Estimates
PC Code:  083701
DP Barcode:   374168
Decision No.: 386529
Registration No.: 2596 (49, 50, 62, 63, 83, 84, 139) & 61483 (53, 54)
Petition No.: NA
Regulatory Action: NA
Risk Assessment Type:  N/A
Case No.:  N/A
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.:  22248-79-9
MRID No.:  NA
40 CFR: NA
	              									Ver.Apr.08
FROM:		Jeffrey L. Dawson, Chemist/Risk Assessor
			Registration Action Branch VII
            Health Effects Division (7509P)
THROUGH:		Michael Metzger, Chief
      Registration Action Branch VII
            Health Effects Division (7509P)
TO:			James Parker
			Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P)

The purpose of this document is to summarize the risks associated with the use of pet collars containing tetrachlorovinphos (TCVP) as the active ingredient and to describe the methods used in comparison to the current practices for calculating risks associated with these types of products.  TCVP is also available in other forms used to treat pets such as dusts, sprays, and dip solutions.  TCVP collars contain 14.55 percent active ingredient with an active stated useful effective duration of 90 to 180 days depending upon which specific collar is considered.

An interim reregistration eligibility decision (IRED) was completed for TCVP in September 2002 and is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/tcvp_red.pdf .  A series of analyses were completed to support the aspects of this document focused on the potential risks which could occur after contact with a pet wearing a TCVP containing collar.  The critical documents can be identified by the following information:

 Tetrachlorovinphos:  Addendum for Residential Exposures Using Updated Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure. PC Code 083701; Submission S559765; DP Barcode 274891 (Author: S. Hanley, 6/8/01)

 Addendum To The Tetrachlorovinphos Occupational and Residential Exposure Risk Revision For The Reregistration Evaluation Decision. PC Code 083701, DP Barcode 280716 (Author: S. Hanley, 2/4/02)

 Tetrachlorovinphos (Chemical ID No. 083701/List A Reregistration Case No. 0321).  Addendum To The HED Human Health Risk Assessment For The Interim Reregistration Eligiblity Decision (IRED). No MRID #.  DP Barcode 281763 (Author: C. Swartz, 4/5/02)

In D274891 exposures and risks from collars were calculated using several different approaches including:

 Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (1999 Version);

 Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (2001 Version);

 Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (2001 Version) coupled with maximum transfer rate from a TCVP non-collar study; and

 Standard Operating Procedures For Residential Exposure Assessment (2001 Version) coupled with mean transfer rate from a TCVP non-collar study.

The risk estimates which were included in D274891 are excerpted and presented as Table 1 below.  The column titled "Only 2001 ResSOPs" would be the recommended choice for considering risks from TCVP products because the other columns are based on outdated methods (i.e., "October 1999 RED Chapter results") or they are based on fur transferable residue measurements from non-collar products which were normalized using an inappropriate basis (i.e., only sampled area of dog instead of total surface area which is current premise for estimating these values was used for normalization purposes).  The MOE (Margin of exposure) for the collar using the recommended method was 95 and the level of concern is 100 so the resulting risks were of concern but just below the target level.  The endpoint which served as the basis for these calculations was plasma/RBC cholinesterase inhibition from a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats with a point of departure of 4.23 mg/kg/day.  A dermal absorption factor of 9.57 percent was also used.  It is important, however, to consider these results in the context of how current changes in methods might impact them as well as other applicable changes.  A discussion of current methods and other changes compared to the D274891 assessment is provided below.

      Table 1:  Revised Toddler Aggregate MOEs compared with October 1999 Estimates (Table 5 excerpted from D274891)

                                   Application
                                     Scenario

                        October 1999 RED chapter Results*

                                Only 2001 ResSOPs

                        2001 ResSOPs with Maximum Study TR

                        2001 ResSOPs with Average Study TR

                                Dip (1800 mg use)

                                    444 to717

                                        18

                                       190

                                       440

                                       Dust

                                     45 to 61

                                        9

                                        18

                                        24

                                     Aerosol

                                     42 to 99

                                        16

                                       5.1

                                        11

                                      Collar

                                        NA

                                        95

                                        22

                                        30

The methods used to estimate exposure in D274891 are identical to those used currently to estimate exposure from collars with two notable changes. [Note:  Current methods for calculating exposures from pet products are described in D350531 included as Appendix A of this document.  Please refer to that document for further information.]   Exposure occurs from pet collars in a 2 step process. First, a mass of TCVP is emitted from the collar which is then distributed across the animal where some is absorbed and other residues become available for transfer with those who contact the animal.  In D274891 the amount of TCVP emissions from a collar was assumed to be at an even rate until the mass of TCVP is exhausted over the recommended use period of the collar (i.e., 6 months) and 20 percent of this daily emission was considered to be transferable which can be thought of as the amount of the TCVP emitted daily that could rub off on the skin by contact with a treated pet.  However, the assumption about the daily emission rates from collars has become circumspect as available data indicate this type of even daily emission rate over the life of a collar might not generally applicable as described in the recent FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel meeting on further updates to the SOPs For Residential Exposure Assessment (see http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2009/100609meeting.html for further information).  Currently, it is assumed that the entire TCVP content of a collar would be emitted in a single day rather than assuming a daily even TCVP emission rate over the life of a collar which would dramatically increase risks compared to those calculated in D274891.  [Note:  Transferability of 20 percent is retained in the current method.]  However, it should be noted that this premise clearly leads to conservative estimates of exposure because it ignores the intent of collars to be efficacious over extended periods and also available data for other ingredients which indicate emissions persist for extended periods even though the patterns of such emissions are difficult to generically predict.   It should be noted that the current method used by the Agency is purposely intended to be conservative for screening purposes and that product specific transferable residue dissipation data can be developed to update this input with product specific information as needed.

The other notable change in approach from that used in D274891 compared to current practice, conversely, would dramatically reduce risks compared to those calculated in D274891.  This change involved modifying the inputs used to estimate exposures from mouthing behaviors in children.  Transferable residue sampling methods from treated animals use an intensive petting simulation activity which involves multiple contacts over several minutes.  In D274891 the mouthing behaviors for children were calculated using a frequency value of 20 events per hour for 2 hours.  In the current method only a single mouthing event is considered because the manner in which transferable residues are collected involves extensive contact with the treated animal thereby already accounting for the multiple contact mouthing behavior that the assessment method used in D274891 was intended to simulate (i.e., the transferable residue sampling method is based on multiple vigorous petting events to obtain a single sample, thus the single result reflects the amount of residues which would be anticipated on the skin from the many contacts considered for mouthing behaviors).

In addition to the changes in exposure assessment methodology the point of departure was subsequently increased, based on the same endpoint, from 4.3 mg/kg/day to 6.7 mg/kg/day which would further reduce the calculated risks (see D281763 for further information).

Along with the impacts changes in methods and the point of departure have on the risks calculated in D274891 additional factors need to be considered relative to the conservative nature of the transferable residues used as the basis for the assessment.  A transferability factor of 20 percent was used to derive the recommended MOE value of 95. This means that of the TCVP emitted from a collar on a daily basis that 20 percent of it would be the direct source of exposure through contact with the treated pet.  This value would also be used in the current methodology in lieu of data and was used in the assessment completed in D274891.  However, research has been done on the transferability of TCVP with products other than collars (i.e., dusts, aerosols, trigger sprayers) which indicate much lower levels of transferability ranging from approximately 0.2 to 1.1 percent depending upon the type of TCVP product (D280716). These are much lower values than the 20 percent used in the assessment of collar risks.

Additionally, as part of the analyses used to develop updates to the Agency's Standard Operating Procedures For Exposure Assessment described above the transferable residue data available for all pet products, including TCVP, was analyzed in an attempt to develop a comprehensive understanding of the transferability of pet products.  The data for solid formulations was far outnumbered by data for liquid products so the analysis focused on liquids but it should be noted that observed transferability rates for solids tended to be lower than for liquids.  The data for liquid products across several active ingredients were combined (N = 91) and the percent transferability values were calculated (Table 2 and Figure 1).  [Note:  In the document percent transferability is referred to as "Dermal Exposure Fraction of Application Rate or FAR.]  The results indicate percent transferability for all available products even at the highest percentiles is much less lower than the 20 percent value used as the basis for the TCVP assessment.  Based on this information it is highly likely that the 20 percent transferability value used to develop the TCVP pet collar assessment is conservative in nature because multiple chemicals and types of products were considered with relatively consistent results.

   Table 2 (Excerpt From Agency SAP Paper For Updated Residential SOPs  -
        Table C-1:  Dermal Exposure Fraction of Application Rate (FAR))
                                   Statistic
                 Dermal Exposure Fraction of Application Rate
50[th] Percentile
                                    0.0045
75[th] Percentile
                                    0.0069
95[th] Percentile
                                     0.012
99[th] Percentile
                                     0.022
99.9[th] Percentile
                                     0.030
Arithmetic Mean
                                    0.0054
SD
                                    0.0043
Range
                               0.0006  -  0.0312

In summary, the pet collar risks calculated in D274891 indicate that risks were barely of concern given the information used to develop that assessment (i.e., MOE=95 with target of 100).  When coupled with the change in the point of departure risks from collar exposure are no longer of concern (i.e., MOE~150 with target of 100).  However, the methods used to evaluate risks from pet products have evolved since that time including how collar emissions are considered and how mouthing behaviors are addressed given the contact vigor associated with transferable residue sampling methodologies.  Clearly, the current assumption that all TCVP is emitted from a collar on a single day is likely to be conservative and should be considered a screening method.  This should also be considered in context with what is known about the transferability of TCVP from pet fur for other types of products and in general which indicates that the percent of transferability is likely to be much lower than the 20 percent used to develop D274891.  When all of these factors are considered in total, it is unlikely that there is a risk concern over the use of TCVP collars but there are significant uncertainties associated with these conclusions.  A TCVP pet collar specific transferable residue study would likely refine many of these uncertainties and would be recommended if a need existed further understand them.

   Figure 1: Lognormal Probability Plots for Fraction of Application Rate Transferred from Separate Petting Data Sets

Appendix A:  D350531, Current Guidance for Residential Exposure Risk Assessment for Pet Insecticide Treatments

                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                                  OFFICE OF
                                                            PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND
                                                             TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM
DATE:  1/14/2009

        SUBJECT:	Current Guidance for Residential Exposure Risk Assessment for Pet Insecticide Treatments

PC Code:  NA
DP Barcode:  350531
MRID No.:  NA
Registration No.: NA
Petition No.:  NA
Regulatory Action: General Correspondence
Assessment Type:  NA
Reregistration Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.: NA

FROM:		Wade Britton, Industrial Hygienist
			Risk Assessment Branch V
			Health Effects Division (7509P)
			Office of Pesticide Programs

THROUGH:		William Donovan, Acting Branch Chief
			Risk Assessment Branch V
			Health Effects Division (7509P)
			Office of Pesticide Programs

TO:		Venus Eagle, Product Manager (01)
			Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch
			Registration Division (7505P)
	   		Office of Pesticide Programs

The purpose of this document is to respond to a request for guidance on the risk assessment of residential exposure from pet insecticidal spot-on formulations.  The attached memorandum, "Draft Interim Guidance for the Assessment of Human Health Exposure and Risk from Pet Insecticide Treatments" represents current, established algorithms and assumptions for the assessment of pet products.  The memo does not address the SOP revisions which are currently under development for residential pet exposure assessment.  Furthermore, this document will remain in draft format until all revised residential SOPs are finalized.  When finalized, the pet risk assessment SOP will supersede this draft guidance.

                     Science Advisory Council for Exposure

Draft Interim Guidance for the Assessment of Human Health Exposure and Risk
from Pet Insecticide Treatments

The purpose of this draft memorandum is to provide interim guidance for risk assessors when estimating human health risk from exposure to pet insecticides.  The residential SOP concerning exposure to treated pets is currently under revision.  Until the completion of this process, the following assumptions and algorithms regarding exposure to treated pets should be used for risk assessment purposes.  Deterministic and probabilistic methods of assessing risk from pet exposure are described and either has been deemed appropriate for use during the period of transition.

Unless chemical-specific data is available, please refrain from the use/reference of any previously performed pet exposure assessment or any pet study data which does not coincide with the following directive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deterministic Risk Assessment Method

Handler Inhalation and Dermal Dose from Treating Pets

Data and Assumptions for Residential Handler (Applicator) Exposure Scenarios

The series of assumptions and exposure factors which serve as the basis for estimating the dermal and inhalation exposures from all product formulations are derived from the "HED Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (December 19, 1997)."

 Daily dose is based upon the amount of active ingredient handled on the day of treatment (i.e., a single pet treatment).  The Agency always considers the maximum application rates allowed by product labeling.  The maximum rate for a single pet treatment is determined using a representative (average) animal, or a medium-sized (30 lb) dog.  Estimated risks are based on an even loading of residues across the entire surface of a 30 lb dog, where Surface Area (cm[2]) = ((12.3*((BW (lb)*454)^0.65)) from HED's 1993 Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.  Treatments intended for cats are defined separately, using product labels to determine a representative weight and the above algorithm to estimate surface area.

 Ten percent (0.1) of the active ingredient applied to the pet is assumed to be the amount the homeowner is exposed to during dipping, dusting, and shampooing. This assumption is based on the professional judgment of the OPP/HED staff and assumed to be an upper-percentile value.

 One percent (0.01) of the active ingredient applied to the pet is assumed to be available for dermal and inhalation exposure from handling flea collars. This assumption is based on the professional judgment of the OPP/HED staff and assumed to be an upper-percentile value.

 If the product is a spray formulation, it is assumed that the handler is applying one-half can of spray.  Unit exposure values for the application of a typical pesticide product from an aerosol can are similar to that of a pet spray and will be used for this formulation.  These can be obtained from the "Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Surrogate Exposure Guideline, V1.1.  Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs (August 1998)."

 HED assumes handler contact during application with a spot-on product to be negligible.  These products are designed to be self-contained, as it is applied directly from the tube to the pet with the tip of the applicator used to part the pet's hair.

 Adults are assumed to weigh 70 kg (use 60 kg for females when the selected endpoint is from a reproductive or developmental study). A body weight of 70 kg represents the mean body weight for all adults (i.e., male and female, ages 18 years and older) and is the value recommended in U.S. EPA (1996).  A body weight of 60 kg represents the average body weight for females between ages 13 and 54 years (U.S. EPA, 1996).

The algorithms used to assess exposure/risk from residential handler dermal and inhalation pet exposure is presented below.

Spray Formulations:

Where:

      D (mg/kg/day) = (UE * AR * DA)/ BW

D	   =	          daily dermal/inhalation dose (mg/kg/day)
UE	   =	          unit exposure (mg/lb ai)
AR	   =	          application rate or amount applied to animal (lb ai/ treatment)
DA		=	 dermal and/or inhalation absorption factor (%)
BW 		=	 adult body weight (kg)

All Other Formulations:

Where:

	D (mg/kg/day) =	 (AR * DA * F)/ BW

D		=	daily dermal/inhalation dose (mg/kg/day)
AR		= 	application rate or amount applied to animal (mg ai/ treatment)
DA		=	dermal and/or inhalation absorption factor (%)
F		=	fraction of active ingredient applied which is assumed to be available for dermal 				or inhalation exposure
BW 		=	adult body weight (kg)

Dermal (adult/toddler) and Hand-to-Mouth (toddler only) Postapplication Exposure to Treated Pets

Data and Assumptions for Residential Postapplication Exposure Scenarios

The series of assumptions and exposure factors which serve as the basis for estimating the dermal and incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposures from all formulations are derived from the "HED Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments (December 19, 1997)" and the 1999 Draft Policy 13, "Postapplication Exposure Assessment for Children from Treated Pets."

General assumptions and factors used in the risk calculations include:

 Daily dose is based upon the amount of active ingredient handled on the day of treatment (i.e., a single pet treatment).  The Agency always considers the maximum application rates allowed by product labeling.  The maximum rate for a single pet treatment is determined using a representative (average) animal, or a medium-sized (30 lb) dog.  Estimated risks are based on an even loading of residues across the entire surface of a 30 lb dog, where Surface Area (cm[2]) = ((12.3*((BW (lb)*454)^0.65)) from HED's 1993 Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.  Treatments intended for cats are defined separately, using product labels to determine a representative weight and the above algorithm to estimate surface area.

 On the day of application, it may be assumed that 20 percent (0.20) of the maximum application rate is available on the pet's body and transferred to the adult/toddler as a dislodgeable residue. This value is based on the professional judgment and experience of the OPP/HED staff from the review of company-submitted data and is believed to be an upper-percentile assumption (US EPA, 1999 SAP).

 If chemical-/use-specific data have been submitted to the Agency (i.e., a petting/stroking study), this data can be used as a surrogate for the fraction of transferable residue.  Results from the day of application (Day 0) should be used in place of the default transferable residue fraction assumption.

 Postapplication activities must be assessed on the same day that the pesticide is applied because it is assumed that individuals could handle/touch their pets immediately after application.  For subsequent days after application, it may be assumed that residues do not dissipate because it is frequently desirable to maintain a specific level of pesticide on the pet (e.g., flea collars).

 It is assumed that one pet is contacted per day.

 Adults are assumed to weigh 70 kg (use 60 kg for females when the selected endpoint is from a reproductive or developmental study). A body weight of 70 kg represents the mean body weight for all adults (i.e., male and female, ages 18 years and older) and is the value recommended in U.S. EPA (1996).  A body weight of 60 kg represents the average body weight for females between ages 13 and 54 years (U.S. EPA, 1996).

 3 year old toddlers are expected to weigh 15 kilograms (representing an average weight from years one to six).

 The dermal absorption factor is [insert] % as determined by HED.  If a dermal toxicity endpoint is not based on a dermal toxicity study, then a default dermal absorption value must be used.  If no chemical-specific dermal absorption data are available, then a default of 100% should be used in the dermal dose calculation.

 HED default for the surface area of an adult hug is 5625 cm[2], a toddler hug is 1875 cm2 (US EPA, 1999 SAP).

 Saliva extraction efficiency is 50 percent (i.e., every time the hand goes in the mouth approximately half of the residues on the hand are removed).

 The approach used to address the hand-to-mouth exposure pathway has been modified since 1999 Draft Policy 13, "Postapplication Exposure Assessment for Children from Treated Pets."  In the draft policy, contact with dogs is based on 40 events per day (20 mouthing events/day for 2 hours). For each event, the palmar surface of the hands (i.e., 20cm[2]/event) is placed in the mouth of the child contributing to non-dietary ingestion exposure.  In the revised approach, the frequency term has been modified to an equilibrium approach analogous to the dermal exposure component (i.e., the frequency = 1 event/day).  The approach was revised since the data from which the transferable residue concentrations were determined rely on a continuous contact (grooming) technique that would lead to concentrations on the hands which are anticipated to be significantly higher than would result from petting/hugging.

The algorithms used for residential postapplication dermal and incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) pet exposure scenarios are presented below.

Adult and toddler exposure from dermal activity (hug) to treated companion animal:

The following demonstrates the method used to calculate dermal exposures that are attributable to a child touching a treated companion pet.

Where:

	 D (mg/kg/day)  	= [((AR * FAR) / (SA pet)) * (SA hug) * (DA)]
					                 BW (kg)

      D		=	daily dose from dermal pet contact (mg/kg/day)
      AR		= 	application rate or amount applied to animal (mg ai/ treatment)
      FAR		=	fraction of the application rate available as transferable residue (0.20), or fraction determined from a chemical-specific petting study
      SA pet		=	surface area of a treated dog (5986 cm[2]/ animal)
      SA hug		=	surface area of a child hug (5625 cm[2] (adult), 1875 cm[2] (toddlers))
      DA		=	dermal absorption factor (%)
      BW		=	body weight (70 kg (adult), 15 kg (toddler))

Toddler exposure from hand-to-mouth activity to treated companion animal:

The following demonstrates the method used to calculate hand-to-mouth exposures that are attributable to a child touching a treated companion pet and then placing their hands in their mouth.

Where:

	 D (mg/kg/day)     = [((AR * FAR) / SApet)) * (SAL) * SAhands * Freq)]
                                           BW (kg)

      D		=	daily nondietary ingestion dose from treated pets (mg/kg/day)
      AR		= 	application rate or amount applied to animal (mg ai/ treatment)
      FAR		=	fraction of the application rate available as transferable residue (0.20), or fraction determined from a chemical-specific petting study
      SA pet		=	surface area of a treated dog (5986 cm[2]/ animal)
      SA hands		=	surface area of a child's hands (20 cm[2])
      SAL		=	saliva extraction factor (50%)
      Freq		=	frequency of hand-to-mouth events (1 event/day)
      BW		=	toddler body weight (15 kg)

Probablistic Risk Assessment Method

In addition to the deterministic risk assessment method described above, a probabilistic risk assessment method is also appropriate for the assessment of human health risk from exposure to pet insecticides.  Until revision of the pet SOP is complete, the assumptions and algorithms as described for the deterministic risk assessment method (handler and postapplication exposure to treated pets) should be used to perform probabilistic risk assessment.  In the probabilistic model, the risk assessor should establish, characterize and validate the distributions used for the deterministic data inputs.  Current, publicly available models include CARES (Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System), Calendex(TM), and SHEDS (Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation Model for Pesticides).  The Agency will consider probabilistic assessments submitted by registrants under chemical review for use in risk characterization.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7423-7425]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0619; Product Identifier 2016-SW-093-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
AgustaWestland S.p.A. (AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. This
proposed AD would require inspecting the tail gearbox (TGB) fitting for
a crack. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of a crack on a TGB
fitting that was found during a scheduled inspection. The actions of
this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-
0619; 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Leonardo

S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0177, dated September 8,
2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo Helicopters (formerly
Finmeccanica S.p.A. and AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters with a
tail assembly part number (P/N) 8G5350A00131.
    EASA advises that a crack was detected on the TGB fitting P/N
4F5350A04152 during a scheduled inspection of an AW189 helicopter. EASA
advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead
to crack propagation up to a critical length. This condition could
reduce the assembly's ability to sustain loads from the TGB and tail
rotor, possibly resulting to reduced helicopter control. The EASA AD
consequently requires repetitive inspections of the fitting and
replacing the fitting, depending on the inspections' outcome. EASA
considers these actions to be interim and that further AD action may
follow.
    The FAA is in the process of updating AgustaWestland's name changes
to Finmeccanica S.p.A., and then to Leonardo Helicopters, on its FAA
type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this
AD specifies AgustaWestland.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Leonardo Helicopters has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-114,
dated September 6, 2016 (BT), which specifies inspecting the TGB
fitting within 30 flight hours or 1 month from the receipt of the BT,
whichever comes first, and then at intervals not to exceed 150 flight
hours. If a crack is found, the BT requires replacing the TGB fitting.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 30 hours time-in-service
(TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, cleaning
the areas around the Hi-lok holes and inspecting the TGB fitting for a
crack. If a crack exists, this proposed AD would require replacing the
part before the next flight.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires you to provide a compliance record and return
parts to Leonardo Helicopters if a crack is found on the fitting. This
proposed AD would require no such actions.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. The design
approval holder is expected to develop a modification that will address
the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry and
that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates,
we expect the following costs:
     Inspecting the TGB fitting would require 4 work-hours and
no parts for a cost per helicopter of $340 and $1,360 for the U.S.
fleet each inspection cycle.
     Replacing the TGB fitting would require 48 work-hours and
parts would cost $30,000 for a cost of $34,080 per helicopter.
    According to Leonardo Helicopters' service information, some of the
costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, 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 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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

AgustaWestland S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0619; Product Identifier
2016-SW-093-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AW189
helicopters, certificated in any category, with tail assembly part
number 8G5350A00131 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on a tail
gearbox fitting. This condition could reduce the tail assembly's
ability to sustain loads from the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) and the
tail rotor and result in loss of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 23, 2018.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, clean and inspect the TGB
fitting for a crack in the areas depicted in Figure 1 of Leonardo
Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-114, dated September 6, 2016.
If there is a crack, replace the TGB fitting before further flight.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0177, dated September 8, 2016. You may
view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0619.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor
Gearbox. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 12, 2018.

Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-03494 Filed 2-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Household Rostering Script NCS Herald Cohort Study Instrument # 1 Household Rostering Script Eligibility: All contacted households Mode of Administration: Interviewer, home visit 8/ 4/ 2005 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Dr. Pauline Mendola, US EPA, MD 58A, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. E mail: mendola. pauline@ epa. gov. Household Rostering Script HOUSEHOLD ROSTERING SCRIPT FOR IPAQ 1. Hello, my name is ______ with RTI International in North Carolina. We are conducting a study of children's health sponsored by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. You should have received a letter explaining the study. ( HAND R COPY OF LETTER )

2. First, just let me verify: do you live here? IF NOT OBVIOUS: And are you 18 or older? IF NO TO EITHER, ASK FOR AN ADULT RESIDENT AND BEGIN AGAIN.

ADULT RESPONDENT AVAILABLE ( CONTINUE) ADULT RESPONDENT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ( GO TO RECORD OF CALLS)

3. I just need to verify   is this [ READ COMPLETE ADDRESS INCLUDING CITY, STATE, AND ZIP]?

ADDRESS IS CORRECT   CONTINUE TO STATEMENT BEFORE Q4. NEED TO EDIT ADDRESS THEN CONTINUE TO STATEMENT BEFORE Q4. FI AT WRONG ADDRESS

I'm sorry, I must be at the wrong address. I was looking for [ READ ADDRESS]. Thank you for your end [ END ROSTERING]

GIVE PERSON STUDY DESCRIPTION AND SAY: Please read this statement. It describes the survey and the legislation that assures the confidentiality of any information that you provide, and it states that your participation is voluntary.

4. [ FOR REGULAR HOUSING UNITS ( HUs) SUCH AS INDIVIDUAL HOUSES, TOWNHOUSES, DUPLEXES, TRAILERS, COTTAGES]: Are there any other living quarters within this structure or on this property, such as a separate apartment with a separate entrance?

YES ( GO TO MISSED DU ADDRESS SCREEN) NO ( CONTINUE)

[ FOR APARTMENT/ CONDO HUs: DON'T ASK, JUST TAP " APT/ CONDO" TO CONTINUE]

5. ( Will/ Have) you or anyone else in this household ( live/ lived) here for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS]?

6. ( Including yourself), how many people in this household, age 18 and older ( will live/ lived) here for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS]? ( Do not include anyone who ( will live/ lived) at school or somewhere else for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS])

IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD, CONTINUE. IF ONLY 1 PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TO Q8.

7. Next I'll ask a few questions about the people who live here. Let's start with the person or one of the persons living here who owns or rents this home. We'll refer to this person as the householder.

IF MORE THAN 1 PERSON, FI WILL RECORD: IS THIS PERSON THE SCREENING RESPONDENT? TAP YES TO CONTINUE.

8. Please tell me the age of this person on his or her last birthday. IF RESPONDENT IS HOUSEHOLDER: Please tell me your age on your last birthday. Household Rostering Script 9. ASK ONLY IF NOT OBVIOUS: Is this person male or female?

10. ASKED ONLY IF PERSON LISTED IS 18 TO 65 YEARS OLD: ( Are you/ Is ( he/ she)) currently on active duty in the military? [ iPAQ AUTOMATICALLY RECORDS NO FOR ANYONE 66+]

[ IPAQ SCRIPT WILL CONFIRM ROSTER INFORMATION]

11. Now I need some general information about ( the other person/ all of the other people) in this household who ( is/ are) 18 years old or older and who ( will live/ lived) here for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS]. IF MORE THAN 2 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS: ( Let's start with the oldest and work down to the youngest person 18 years or over.) Please give me their full name.

REPEAT SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AGE 18 AND OLDER:

Please tell me the age of ( this/ the oldest/ the next oldest) person on his or her last birthday.

ASK ONLY IF NOT OBVIOUS: Is this person male or female?

12. ASKED ONLY IF PERSON LISTED IS 18 TO 65 YEARS OLD: Is ( he/ she) currently on active duty in the military? [ iPAQ AUTOMATICALLY RECORDS NO FOR ANYONE 66+]

[ IPAQ SCRIPT WILL CONFIRM ROSTER INFORMATION]

13. I need to make sure this list is accurate. I have listed... [ READ AGES AND ROSTERED]. TAP ANY LINE TO MAKE A CORRECTION. WHEN ALL CORRECT, TAP THE ` CONTINUE ARROW.'

14. ( Have/ Will) ( all/ both of these people/ this person) ( lived/ live) here for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS]? ( Please let me know if I have included anyone who ( will live/ lived) at school or somewhere else for most of the time during [ SCREENING MONTHS].) FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SELECTION, TAP THE LINE WITH HIS/ HER DATA AND CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY FIELD TO INELIGIBLE.

15. Did we miss anyone who is 18 or older and who ( will live/ was living) here for most of the time during the months of [ SCREENING MONTHS]? ( Do not include anyone who ( will live/ lived) at school or somewhere else for most of the time during [ SCREENING MONTHS].) TAP THE ` YES' BUTTON TO ADD EACH ELIGIBLE MEMBER NOT PREVIOUSLY LISTED.

TAP THE ` NO' BUTTON TO GET A POP UP CONFIRMING THAT YOU ARE READY TO START THE SELECTION PROCESS. THE IPAQ WILL SHOW THE RESPONDENT SELECTION SCREEN.

I F NO ONE IS SELECTED, IPAQ GOES TO VERIFICATION SCREEN. Thank you for your time but no on in this household is eligible to participate in this study. So that my supervisor may check the quality of my work, may I please have your first name and telephone number?

IF ANYONE IS SELECTED, IT WILL SHOW INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS SELECTED FOR INTERVIEW( S). Household Rostering Script Based on this information, ( RESPONDENT NAME( S)/ YOU) maybe eligible to participate in this study. Is/ are ( RESPONDENT NAME( S/ YOU) available to answer a few questions?

IF NO: I would like to schedule a time to come back and talk with ( RESPONDENT NAMES( s)), let's go ahead and set a time for me to come back.

FI SET APPT Thank you for your help.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76323-76325]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2938]

Reference Amount Customarily Consumed for Flavored Nut Butter
Spreads and Products That Can Be Used To Fill Cupcakes and Other
Desserts, in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for
Information and Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
establishment of a docket to receive comments, particularly data and
other information, on the appropriate reference amount customarily
consumed (RACC) and product category for flavored nut butter spreads
(e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored), and products that can be
used to fill cupcakes and other desserts, such as cakes and pastries.
We are taking this action in part because we have recently issued a
final rule updating certain RACCs, and we have also received a citizen
petition asking that we either issue a guidance recognizing that ``nut
cocoa-based spreads'' fall within the ``Honey, jams, jellies, fruit
butter, molasses'' category for purposes of RACC determination; or
amend the regulation to establish a new RACC category for ``nut cocoa-
based spreads'' with an RACC of 1 tablespoon (tbsp.). We also are
taking this action in response to a request to amend our serving size
regulations to establish an RACC and product category for cupcake
filling.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, 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-2016-N-2938 for ``Reference Amount Customarily Consumed for
Flavored Nut Butter Spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored),
and Products That Can Be Used To Fill Cupcakes and Other Desserts, in
the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and
Comments.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     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.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
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 http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both

copies to the Division of Dockets Management. 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:
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cherisa Henderson, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Flavored Nut Butter Spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee
flavored)

    Under section 403(q)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(1)(A)(i)), food that is
intended for human consumption and offered for sale must bear nutrition
information that provides a serving size that reflects the amount of
food customarily consumed (i.e., the RACC) and is expressed in a common
household measure that is appropriate to the food (unless an exception
applies). We established RACCs for specific product categories in a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on January 6, 1993,
entitled ``Food Labeling; Serving Sizes'' (58 FR 2229, ``1993 final
rule''). In the 1993 final rule, FDA provided nine general principles
and factors for establishing RACCs in 21 CFR 101.12(a) to ensure that
foods that have similar dietary usage, product characteristics, and
customarily consumed amounts have a uniform reference amount.
    The 1993 final rule included a reference (Ref. 1) to a memorandum
to the file entitled ``List of products for each product category,''
which listed ``Nutella'' as an example of a product in the product
category ``Other dessert toppings, e.g., fruits, syrups, spreads,
marshmallow cream, nuts, dairy and non-dairy whipped toppings'' (see 58
FR 2229 at 2268). The conclusion that ``Nutella'' belongs in the
``Other dessert toppings, e.g., fruits, syrups, spreads, marshmallow
cream, nuts, dairy and non-dairy whipped toppings'' category with an
RACC of two tbsp. was based on a consumer survey conducted in 1991 that
showed a significant number of respondents used ``Nutella'' as a
dessert topping, particularly for ice cream.
    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2014, we published a proposed
rule entitled, ``Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can
Reasonably Be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling;
Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts
Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical
Amendments'' (79 FR 11990, ``2014 proposed rule''). The 2014 proposed
rule proposed to update and modify certain RACCs for previously
established product categories and establish RACCs for new products and
product categories. The 2014 proposed rule provided no specific
discussion with respect to ``Nutella.'' After publication of the
proposed rule, on March 4, 2014, we received a citizen petition that
requested we either: (1) Issue guidance recognizing that ``nut cocoa-
based spreads'' fall within the ``Honey, jams, jellies, fruit butter,
molasses'' category for purposes of RACC determination or (2) amend
Sec.  101.12 to establish a new product category for ``nut cocoa-based
spreads'' with an RACC of one tbsp. (Docket No. FDA-2014-P-0263.) Based
on the information provided, which included data pertaining
specifically to ``Nutella,'' we understand that the petition intended
``Nutella'' to be incorporated into a category described as ``nut
cocoa-based spreads.'' The petitioner submitted results of a consumer
usage survey that the petitioner had commissioned through a marketing
research firm. The survey included 722 mothers who purchased
``Nutella'' in the past 3 months. The survey found that, on average, 74
percent of ``Nutella'' use was associated with spreading the product on
bread, including toast and in making sandwiches, and that two percent
of use was as a topping for ice cream. The petition also included the
results of an analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES) 2003-2010 consumption data for individuals aged 4 years
or older (n = 43). The reported mean, median, and mode consumption
amounts from this analysis for ``Nutella,'' including similar products
used as chocolate-flavored hazelnut spreads, were 22.6 grams (g) (about
1 tbsp.), 18 g (1 tbsp.), and 18 g (1 tbsp.), respectively.
    On March 10, 2016, we received a comment in response to the 2014
proposed rule in which a report prepared by a scientific consulting
firm analyzed the NHANES data from 2003 through 2012 among participants
aged 1 year and older for ``Nutella'' and other similar products used
as chocolate-flavored hazelnut spreads (n = 92) (Ref. 2). The comment
stated that the results showed that the mean, median, and mode
consumption amounts were 28.6 g, 18 g (about 1 tbsp.), and 12 g,
respectively. The comment included a report of an online survey
designed to estimate the amount of ``Nutella'' typically consumed in an
eating occasion. The comment asserted that the survey was administered
to a representative sample of the U.S. population aged 18 to 80 years,
with an average age of 27.3 years. Four hundred and thirty respondents
consumed ``Nutella'' in the year before the survey was administered,
and these respondents reported 824 eating occasions. Based on the
categorical consumption amount selections weighted by the frequency of
such amount consumed, the comment concluded that median consumption per
eating occasion was 18.5 g (about 1 tbsp.), that the mean consumption
per eating occasion was 32.6 g, and that almost half of the eating
occasions (46.9 percent) involved using the product as a spread with
bread or toast, as compared to use with crackers or cookies (17.2
percent), use by itself (13.9 percent), use as a spread for fruit (10.8
percent), use as a spread over pancakes or waffles (8.2 percent), and
other uses (3 percent). The report concluded that the median
consumption amount from both analyses was one tbsp., consistent with
the RACC of one tbsp. that we had established for sweet spreads for
bread such as honey, jams, and jellies.
    Following the receipt of the citizen petition and comment, in the
Federal Register of May 27, 2016, we published a final rule entitled,
``Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed
At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and
Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving
Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments'' (81 FR 34000) (``2016
final rule''). The 2016 final rule updated and modified certain

RACCs for previously established product categories and established
RACCs for new products and product categories. The preamble to the 2016
final rule explained in the response to the comment on nut cocoa-based
spreads that the primary usage of hazelnut spread, which was a
reference to nut cocoa-based spreads such as ``Nutella'' discussed in
the comment, is as a spread for bread instead of as a dessert topping
(81 FR 34000 at 34029 to 34030). However, with respect to specific
assertions raised in the March 10, 2016, comment, we responded that,
while we recognize a need for an RACC for hazelnut spread outside of
the dessert product category,'' and agreed that the primary usage of
hazelnut spread is as a spread for bread instead of as a dessert
topping because the proposed rule was silent about an RACC for hazelnut
spread, and because we intended to provide the opportunity for public
comment on this specific issue, we intended to consider whether to move
hazelnut spread to a different appropriate product category in a future
rulemaking'' (81 FR 34000 at 34029). This notification of request for
comments represents the first step of our evaluation of the appropriate
RACC and product category for flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa,
cookie, and coffee flavored), which we consider to include ``nut cocoa-
based spread'' as described in the citizen petition and comment to the
2014 proposed rule.

B. Products Used as a Filling for Cupcakes and Other Desserts

    In response to the 2014 proposed rule, one comment requested that
we establish an RACC for icing intended for use as cupcake filling. In
the preamble to the 2016 final rule, we said that we recognize a need
for an RACC for this specific food product as well as for other types
of cake or pastry fillings,'' but we further explained that, because
the proposed rule was silent about an RACC for cupcake filling, and
because we intended to provide the opportunity for public comment on
this specific issue, we intend to establish an RACC for this product
category in future rulemaking'' (81 FR 34000 at 34029). This
notification of request for comments represents the first step of our
evaluation of the appropriate RACC and product category for products
used as a filling for cupcakes and other desserts.

II. Other Issues for Consideration

    We invite interested persons to comment on the appropriate RACC and
product category for flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie,
and coffee flavored), and products used as fillings for cupcakes and
other desserts, such as cakes and pastries. In responding to the
specific questions identified in this notice, please provide additional
data and information that you believe we should consider. Please
thoroughly explain your reasoning and provide data and other
information to support your comments and responses to these questions.
If you submit data, please also provide information regarding the type
of survey or study conducted, research methodology, sampling frame,
results of statistical analyses, and any other information needed to
interpret the data.
    We are particularly interested in responses to the following
questions:
     What additional data and information are available to
determine the customary consumption amounts of and appropriate product
category for flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and
coffee flavored)?
     What is the major intended use of flavored nut butter
spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored)?
     What other products on the market, if any, are similar to
flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored)?
What product characteristics make these products similar? What dietary
usage makes these products similar? Which product categories do
flavored nut butter spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored)
compete with or take market share and volume from? What data and
information are available regarding the customary consumption amounts
and product category for these similar products?
     What additional data and information are available
regarding the customary consumption amounts and product category of
products used as fillings for cupcakes and other desserts, such as
cakes and pastries?
     What is the major intended use of fillings for cupcakes
and other desserts, such as cakes and pastries?
     What other products on the market, if any, are similar to
cupcake filling, such as cakes and pastries fillings? What product
characteristics make these products similar? What dietary usage makes
these products similar? Which product categories do fillings for
cupcakes and other desserts, such as cakes and pastries, compete with
or take market share and volume from? What data and information are
available regarding the customary consumption amounts and product
category for these similar products?

III. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. Park, Y., Memorandum to the File, List of Products for Each
Product Category, October 8, 1992.
    2. Ferrero Inc., Comment to the Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of
Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual
Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain
Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Proposed Rule. August 1,
2014.

    Dated: October 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26407 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 3130]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01018]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9941-45-OARM]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public
Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 10 and Thursday,
February 11, 2016 in Brownsville, TX. The meeting is open to the
public.

DATES: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board will hold an open meeting
on Wednesday, February 10 from 9:00 a.m. (registration at 8:30 a.m.) to
5:30 p.m. The following day, Thursday, February 11, the Board will meet
from 8:30 a.m. (registration at 8:00 a.m.) until 2:00 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (Board) is a
federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, PL 92463. By statute, the Board is required to submit an
annual report to the President and Congress on environmental and
infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to begin
discussion on the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's Seventeenth
Report. The report will focus on climate change resiliency in the U.S.-
Mexico border region.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ringgold Civic Pavilion, 501
E Ringgold St., Brownsville, TX 78520. The number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-
come, first-serve basis.
    General Information: The agenda will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/gneb. General information about the Board can be
found on its Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/gneb. If you wish to
make oral comments or submit written comments to the Board, please
contact Ann-Marie Gantner at least five days prior to the meeting.
Written comments should be submitted Ann-Marie Gantner at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at
(202) 564-4330 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request
accommodation of a disability, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at
least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible
to process your request.

    Dated: January 11, 2016.
Ann-Marie Gantner,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01018 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44057-44058]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0181; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-7]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI.
This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mineral
Point non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB
approach. This action enhances the safety and management of standard
instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Support Specialist, Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward 700 feet above the
surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 17158, April 10,
2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0181 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 7.2-
mile radius) of Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. The 5.2-mile
wide segment from the Mineral Point NDB extending from the 7.2-mile
radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northeast is removed, due to the
decommissioning and cancellation of the Mineral Point NDB, and NDB
approaches. This action enhances the safety and management of the
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the
airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3,
2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Mineral Point, WI [Amended]

Iowa County Airport, WI
    (Lat. 42[deg]53'13'' N., long. 90[deg]14'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Iowa County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on September 13, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-20055 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 47242-47243]
[DOCID:fr15se09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-72-000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Filing

September 8, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, and an
accompanying Declaration, requesting that the Commission declare that
PG&E can recover in electric transmission rates its costs to develop a
Regional Synchrophasor Project in conjunction with the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council to develop wide area monitoring,
advance warning systems, adaptive protection and controls in alignment
with neighboring systems and the California Independent System Operator
Corporation, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the Commission, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2).
    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. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22088 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84138-84139]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG24-39-000.
    Applicants: NMRD Data Center II, LLC.
    Description: NMRD Data Center II, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG24-40-000.
    Applicants: NMRD Data Center III, LLC.
    Description: NMRD Data Center III, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG24-41-000.
    Applicants: True North Solar, LLC.
    Description: True North Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-101-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC.
    Description: Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC submits
Supplement to September 21, 2023, Petition for Declaratory Order,
Request for Shortened Comment Period and Request for Expedited
Consideration.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/23.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2708-010.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Potomac-Appalachian
Highline Transmission, LLC.
    Description: ALJ Settlement: Potomac-Appalachian Highline
Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 385.602:

PATH Companies Offer of Settlement in ER09-1256 and ER12-2708 to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/23.
    Accession Number: 20231117-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/23.
    Reply Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2929-000.
    Applicants: Amcor Storage LLC.
    Description: Supplement to September 26, 2023, Amcor Storage LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 11/16/23.
    Accession Number: 20231116-5226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-113-000; ER24-114-000.
    Applicants: BCD 2024 Fund 1 Lessee, LLC, Salt Creek Township Solar,
LLC.
    Description: Supplement to October 16, 2023, Salt Creek Township
Solar, LLC, et. al. tariff filing under ER24-113, et. al.
    Filed Date: 11/21/23.
    Accession Number: 20231121-5232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-439-000; ER19-1553-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company, Southern California
Edison Company.
    Description: Informational Filing of 2024 Transmission Formula Rate
Annual Update of Southern California Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 11/17/23.
    Accession Number: 20231117-5257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-441-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Informational Filing of 2024 Formula Rate Annual
Update of Southern California Edison Company's West of Devers.
    Filed Date: 11/17/23.
    Accession Number: 20231117-5259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-478-000.
    Applicants: GSRP Pipeline Acquisition I LLC, Galt Power, Inc.
    Description: GSRP Pipeline Acquisition I LLC and Galt Power, Inc.
submit a Limited, Prospective Waiver of ISO New England's Operating
Procedure and Transmission, Markets, and Services Tariff.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-485-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Dove Run Solar
Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/31/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20231127-5186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-486-000.
    Applicants: Shenandoah Hills Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Request for Prospective Tariff Waiver, et al. of
Shenandoah Hills Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/27/23.
    Accession Number: 20231127-5210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-487-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to 11 Service
Agreements re: FirstEnergy Reorganization to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-488-000.
    Applicants: Dow Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession and
Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 11/29/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-489-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3396R3 Otter Tail Power
Company NITSA and NOA to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-490-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Otter Tail Power Company
Network Customer Transmission Credits to be effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-491-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Whirlwind Energy 1st
A&R Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective 11/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20231128-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 28, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26540 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 26681-26682]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Board of
Directors Meeting

May 27, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meeting of the Southwest Power Pool
(SPP) Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of
the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

SPP Board of Directors--Educational Meeting

    June 8, 2009 (12 p.m.-5:30 p.m.).
    June 9, 2009 (8 a.m.-5 p.m.).

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Bailey Center, 2801 South
University Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER07-319 and EL07-73, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-371, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-1255, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-923, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1307, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1308, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1357, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1516, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-80, Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission LLC.
Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission LLC.
Docket No. ER09-149, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Docket No. ER09-262, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-336, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-342, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-443, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-659, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-748, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-883, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1039, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1042, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1055, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1056, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1057, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1068, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1080, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1130, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1140, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1152, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1172, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1177, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1192, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-5 and EL09-40, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-61, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-104, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12867 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P