[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2360]
[FR Doc No: 2011-543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12715-001]

Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

January 6, 2011.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12715-001.
    c. Date Filed: December 23, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Jennings Randolph Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be at the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Jennings Randolph dam located on the North Branch Potomac
River in Garrett County, Maryland and Mineral County, West Virginia.
The project would occupy 5.0 acres of federal land managed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.
791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Clifford Phillips, Fairlawn Hydroelectric
Company LLC, 150 North Miller Road, Suite 450 C, Fairlawn, OH 44333;
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The proposed Jennings Randolph Project
would use the existing Corps of Engineers' Jennings Randolph dam and
reservoir and consist of the following proposed features: (1) A 10-
foot-diameter, 530-foot-long underwater multi-level intake structure
with 24 intake ports to be built on the upstream face of the dam; (2) a
10-foot-diameter, 1,400-foot-long lined tunnel through the dam; (3) a
10-foot-diameter, 1,100-foot-long penstock; (4) the penstock would
bifurcate into 96-inch-diameter and 66-inch-diameter penstocks at the
entrance to the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse approximately 54 feet
long, 54 feet wide, and 40 feet high that would contain two generating
units with a total capacity of 14.0 megawatts; (6) a 40-foot-long
tailrace; (7) a 0.7-mile-long, 25-kilovolt partially buried
transmission line; (8) a substation; and (9) new compacted gravel
access roads to be constructed to the powerhouse and along the
transmission line to the project's substation. The proposed project
would have an estimated average annual generation of 56,000 megawatt-
hours and would bypass 150 feet of the North Branch Potomac River.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of     February 21, 2011.
 Ready for Environmental Analysis
 (when FERC approved studies are
 complete).
Filing of recommendations,         April 22, 2011.
 preliminary terms and
 conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Non-Draft EA...  August 20, 2011.
Comments on EA...................  October 4, 2011.
Modified terms and conditions....  December 5, 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-543 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22445-22446]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-17]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-
0001 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Staples,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Keira
Jones,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Tyneka Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-0001.
    Petitioner: Richmor Aviation, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 135.225(f)
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests an exemption
to allow Richmor Aviation airplanes to make IFR takeoffs with less than
1 mile visibility and instrument approaches and landings with less than
\1/2\ mile visibility at military and foreign airports.

[FR Doc. 2011-9521 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15757-15758]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61764; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options

March 23, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 18, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to add the
Norwegian Krone (``XDV'') to the U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency
Options fees.\3\ While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative on March 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FCOs are currently traded on the Exchange under the name
PHLX World Currency Options[supreg] (``WCOs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to add XDV to the list of securities currently subject to the
U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options fees. The Exchange
proposes to add this currency to increase its offering of products.
    Currently, the following U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency
Options are subject to the U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options
fees: XDB (British Pound), XDE (Euro), XDN (Japanese Yen), XDS (Swiss
Franc), XDA (Australian Dollar), XDM (Mexican Peso), XEH (Swedish
Krona), XEV (South African Rand), XDZ (New Zealand Dollar) and XDC
(Canadian Dollar).
    The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend its rules to
enable it to list and trade options on the Norwegian Krone.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Release Act No. 60169 (July 2,
2009), 74 FR 31782 (June 24, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-40). [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this proposal to be
operative on March 22, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees

is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members. The fees assessed for XDV are the same fees
assessed on members and member organizations for other U.S. Dollar-
Settled Foreign Currency Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2010-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-46 and should be
submitted on or before April 20, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6994 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52677-52681]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2019-0182]
RIN 2105-ZA18

Guidance Regarding Interpretation of Unfair and Deceptive
Practices

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Guidance regarding interpretation of unfair and deceptive
practices.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department)
is issuing a guidance document to inform the public and regulated
entities about DOT's interpretation of the terms unfair, deceptive, and
practices as it relates to its statutory authority to prohibit unfair
or deceptive practices. The Department is taking this action to better
define the terms unfair and deceptive in response to an Executive order
issued by President Biden on July 9, 2021, on promoting competition in
the American economy.

DATES: This final guidance document is effective August 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: This guidance will appear on the Department's aviation
consumer protection website at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/guidance-aviation-rules-and-statutes. The Department's
final rule regarding unfair and deceptive practices and related
documents are available on the docket at https://www.regulations.gov;
follow the online instructions for accessing DOT-OST-2019-0182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Gorman, Kimberly Graber, or
Blane Workie, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-9342,<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax); [email protected];
[email protected]; or [email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive
practices in air transportation or the sale of air transportation is
found at 49 U.S.C. 41712 (``section 41712'').\1\ Section 41712(a) gives
the Department the authority to investigate and decide whether an air
carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent is engaged in an unfair
or deceptive practice in air transportation or the sale of air
transportation. In addition to this general provision, Congress has
also defined two specific practices as being unfair or deceptive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to section 41712, the Department's authority to
regulate unfair and deceptive practices is based in the Department's
rulemaking authority under 49 U.S.C. 40113, which states that the
Department may take action that it considers necessary to carry out
this part, including prescribing regulations.
    \2\ See 49 U.S.C. 41712(b) (failing to notify the purchaser of
such an electronic ticket of its expiration date, if any, is unfair
or deceptive within the meaning of section 41712(a)); 49 U.S.C.
41712(c) (failing to disclose the name of the air carrier providing
the air transportation, as required by statute, is unfair or
deceptive within the meaning of section 41712(a)).

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

    The Department also has general authority to issue regulations
necessary to carry out section 41712. Many of the Department's existing
aviation consumer protection rules were issued under the authority of
section 41712, including but not limited to the tarmac delay rule,\3\
the full-fare advertising rule,\4\ the prohibition on post-purchase
price increases,\5\ and the rules on oversales and denied boarding
compensation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 14 CFR 259.4.
    \4\ 14 CFR 399.84(a).
    \5\ 14 CFR 399.88(a).
    \6\ 14 CFR part 250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 41712 does not define ``unfair,'' ``deceptive,'' or
``practice.'' On December 7, 2020, the Department issued a final rule
titled ``Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices'' (``UDP Final
Rule'').\7\ In this rule, the Department noted that section 41712 was
modeled on section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.\8\ The
Department explained that while section 5 vests FTC with broad
authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in most industries,
Congress granted the Department the exclusive authority to prohibit
unfair or deceptive practices of air carriers and foreign air carriers.
The Department noted that DOT and FTC share the authority to prohibit
unfair or deceptive practices by ticket agents in the sale of air
transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 85 FR 78707 (December 7, 2020); available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/07/2020-26416/defining-unfair-or-deceptive-practices.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DOT determined that it was appropriate to define the
terms ``unfair'' and ``deceptive'' in ways that reflect both FTC
precedent and DOT's own long-standing interpretation of those terms.
Specifically, DOT defined a practice as being unfair to consumers if
``it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, which is not
reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition.'' \9\ DOT defined a practice as being
deceptive to consumers ``if it is likely to mislead a consumer, acting
reasonably under the circumstances, with respect to a material matter.
A matter is material if it is likely to have affected the consumer's
conduct or decision with respect to a product or service.'' \10\ Like
FTC, the Department stated that proof of intent is not necessary to
establish either unfairness or deception.\11\ The Department found it
unnecessary to define ``practice.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 14 CFR 399.79(b)(1).
    \10\ 14 CFR 399.79(b)(2).
    \11\ 14 CFR 399.79(c).
    \12\ 85 FR 78710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among its major provisions, the UDP Final Rule requires DOT to
employ its definitions of ``unfair'' and ``deceptive'' when issuing
future rulemakings or taking future enforcement action.\13\ The rule
provided, however, that if Congress directs DOT by statute to issue
regulations specifically declaring a practice to be unfair or
deceptive, then DOT may do so without reference to the general
definitions.\14\ The rule also clarified that if a specific regulation
already applies to the conduct at issue, then the Department may rely
on the terms of that regulation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 14 CFR 399.75(a)(rulemaking); 399.75(b)(enforcement).
    \14\ 14 CFR 399.75(a).
    \15\ 14 CFR 399.79(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 9, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14036,
``Promoting Competition in the American Economy.'' \16\ That Order
directed the Department to take a number of actions to protect aviation
consumers, including that the Department start development of proposed
amendments to its definitions of the terms ``unfair'' and ``deceptive''
in section 41712. Pursuant to the Executive Order, DOT stated that it
would fulfill the requirements of the Executive Order by issuing an
interpretive rule (i.e., this guidance document) that would clearly
apprise the public of the Department's interpretation of the
definitions of the terms ``unfair'' and ``deceptive.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/.
    \17\ ``Procedures in Regulating Unfair or Deceptive Practices,''
87 FR 5655 (Feb. 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guidance Regarding Interpretation of Unfair and Deceptive Practices

    The purpose of this guidance document is to provide the public and
regulated entities with greater transparency with respect to DOT's
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP)'s interpretation of the
terms that are found in section 41712 and defined in the Department's
regulations at 14 CFR 399.79. This guidance document does not have the
force and effect of law, is not legally binding in its own right, and
will not be relied on by the Department as a separate basis for
enforcement or other administrative penalty beyond the underlying
authorities in statute and regulation.

Elements of Unfairness

    In the Department's final rule titled ``Defining Unfair or
Deceptive Practices'' (``UDP Final Rule''), DOT defined a practice as
``unfair'' if it ``causes or is likely to cause substantial injury,
which is not reasonably avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by
benefits to consumers or competition.'' \18\ We will address each
element in turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 14 CFR 399.79(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ``Causes or Is Likely To Cause''
    In keeping with FTC precedent, DOT is of the view that a practice
may ``cause'' harm even if it is not the only cause of the harm, and
even if it is not the most proximate cause of the harm.\19\ Moreover,
the Department is not required to wait for substantial injury to take
place before taking action against an unfair practice. The Department
may take action against practices which are ``likely to cause''
substantial injury as well.\20\ When making such determinations, DOT
examines not only the probability of the harm occurring, but also the
magnitude of the injury if it does occur. As FTC has observed, ``a
practice may be unfair if the magnitude of the potential injury is
large, even if the likelihood of the injury occurring is low.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Opinion of the Commission, In the Matter of LabMD, Inc.
(July 19, 2016) at 10, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160729labmd-opinion.pdf (``LabMD'').
    \20\ FTC has similar authority to declare a practice unfair if
it is likely to cause substantial injury. See 15 U.S.C. 45(n).
    \21\ LabMD at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``Substantial'' Injury
    The UDP Final Rule uses the terms ``harm'' and ``injury''
interchangeably.\22\ The Department did not define ``substantial
injury'' in the UDP Final Rule, other than observing that the term
``would necessarily exclude trivial or speculative'' harm.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 14 CFR 399.79(b).
    \23\ 85 FR 78710 n. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Substantial injury would be determined by the totality of the
circumstances. As FTC has written, ``it is well established that
substantial injury may be demonstrated by a showing of a small amount
of harm to a large number of people, as well as a large amount of harm
to a small number of people.'' \24\ Substantial harm is typically of an
economic nature. For example, the Department has found that delay in
providing refunds to consumers constitutes substantial harm to
consumers who did not receive the service they paid for and did not
have

access to their money for a significant time.\25\ However, it is well
established that harm need not be financial in order to be substantial.
For example, the Department found that delaying passengers on the
tarmac for a substantial length of time without the opportunity to
deplane or without adequate food, water, lavatory facilities, and
medical attention imposes substantial harm.\26\ Substantial harm may
also be found in intangible injury, such as to an individual's privacy
or reputation.\27\ Extended delays in obtaining relief, and the time
and expense of pursuing a claim, can also constitute substantial
harm.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ LabMD at 9.
    \25\ See Order and Settlement Agreement, Nov. 23, 2021
(available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-11/Air%20Canada%20-%20Order%20And%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf)
(``Air Canada Order'') at 5.
    \26\ See ``Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,'' 74 FR
68983 (Dec. 30, 2009); available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/12/30/E9-30615/enhancing-airline-passenger-protections (also noting that the rule was also premised on an
airline's statutory duty to provide ``safe and adequate'' interstate
air transportation).
    \27\ Mishandling the private information of consumers may be
considered an unfair or deceptive practice within the meaning of
section 41712. See https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/privacy; see also LabMD at 19 (``the
privacy harm resulting from the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive
health or medical information is in and of itself a substantial
injury under section 5(n),'' even without further evidence that the
information was used to cause further harm); Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robbins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) ``intangible injuries may nevertheless
be concrete'' for purposes of satisfying the case or controversy
requirement of standing in Article III courts).
    \28\ Air Canada Order at 5; see also DOT Order 2009-9-8 (2009)
at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Not Reasonably Avoidable
    For a practice to be unfair, the harm must not have been reasonably
avoidable by the consumer.\29\ For example, a lengthy tarmac delay
imposes unavoidable harm because the passenger lacks the opportunity to
deplane. It has also been the longstanding view of OACP that it would
be an unfair practice for a carrier to fail to provide a refund, on
request, for flights to or from the United States that were canceled or
significantly changed by the carrier, in part because the harm was not
reasonably avoidable by the traveler. We came to this conclusion even
if the passenger purchased a ``non-refundable'' ticket. We concluded
that a consumer acting reasonably would believe that he or she was
entitled to a refund under U.S. law if the carrier cancelled or
significantly changed the flight, regardless of the reason for the
cancellation or significant change. We further concluded that a
reasonable consumer would not believe that it is necessary to purchase
a more expensive refundable ticket in order to be able to recoup the
ticket price when the airline fails to provide the service paid for
through no action or fault of the consumer, because reasonable
consumers understand that ``refundable'' tickets are valuable because
they ensure a refund if the passenger cancels the flight.\30\ The
Department has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would
propose to codify OACP's interpretation that section 41712 requires
airlines to provide prompt refunds when a carrier cancels or makes a
significant change and the passenger does not take an alternative
flight offered by the airline, including when the original ticket
purchased is non-refundable.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1980/12/ftc-policy-statement-unfairness (FTC generally does not intend to second-guess the wisdom
of consumer decisions, but it does intend to halt seller behavior
that ``unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the
free exercise of consumer decisionmaking.'')
    \30\ Air Canada Order at 5.
    \31\ 87 FR 51550 (August 22, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/22/2022-16853/airline-ticket-refunds-and-consumer-protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department looks at this element from the perspective of an
ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the totality of the
circumstances. For example, we have found that a passenger who
triggered an airline's fraud-detection system and lost frequent flyer
miles could have reasonably avoided that harm by not repeatedly
entering fictitious information into the airline's reservation
system.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ DOT Order 2016-12-11, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Harm Not Outweighed by Benefits to Consumers or Competition
    Finally, the harm must not be outweighed by benefits to consumers
or to competition. Like FTC, the Department recognizes that some
practices may be harmful to consumers in some respects, but beneficial
to consumers in other respects. For example, offsetting benefits may
include lower prices or a wider availability of products and services
resulting from competition. The Department seeks to regulate practices
that are harmful to consumers in their net effects.\33\ Importantly,
the Department does not compare the harm to the consumer against the
benefits that the airline or ticket agent may obtain from the
practice.\34\ The Department's determination to regulate an unfair and
deceptive practice would also be informed by a regulatory impact
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Air Canada Order at 5; see also the Department's oversales
rule, 14 CFR part 250, which also reflects this balance. The rule is
carefully crafted to allow airlines to oversell flights in order to
fill seats that would have otherwise gone empty due to ``no-shows.''
In exchange for this ability to overbook flights (which would
otherwise be unfair or deceptive), the Department requires airlines
to compensate and provide protections to passengers who were
involuntarily denied boarding in accordance with the rule. See DOT
Order 2020-6-5.
    \34\ See Air Canada Order at 6 (finding that the practice of
retaining passenger funds for canceled flights beyond the time
frames allowed by law conveyed no benefit to consumers, even if the
practice may have benefited the airline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Public Policy Considerations
    As we noted in the UDP Final Rule, DOT has a broad statutory
responsibility to consider a wide variety of public policies enumerated
by Congress.\35\ In fact, Congress has directed the Department in
carrying out its aviation economic programs such as regulations under
section 41712 to consider certain enumerated factors as being in the
public interest. These factors include ``the availability of a variety
of adequate, economic, efficient, and low-priced services without
unreasonable discrimination or unfair or deceptive practices'' and
``preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive practices
in air transportation.'' \36\ DOT considers public policy as
established by both the Executive branch (e.g., regulation, Executive
Order \37\) and the Legislative branch (e.g., statute, sense of
Congress) of the Federal Government as appropriate, when determining
whether a practice is unfair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 85 FR 78710.
    \36\ 49 U.S.C. 40101(a).
    \37\ E.g., Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries
and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-order-on-catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/; Biden Administration Advances the Future of
Sustainable Fuels in American Aviation, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/09/fact-sheet-biden-administration-advances-the-future-of-sustainable-fuels-in-american-aviation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a public policy matter, the Department has found that
discriminatory conduct in and of itself constitutes an unfair practice.
In this regard, orders of the Department and its predecessor Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) support the position that violations of
statutes that prohibit discrimination constitute unfair and deceptive
practices. For example, the CAB determined that unlawful disparate
treatment of consumers by a carrier in its ticket-by-mail procedures
based on the consumer's ZIP code, which had the effect of
discriminating against African-Americans in New York City, is an

unfair practice.\38\ The Department has also consistently found that
violation of the Air Carrier Access Act, which prohibits U.S. and
foreign air carriers from discriminating against passengers with
disabilities, is an unfair practice.\39\ Similarly, the Department has
found that discrimination against individuals based on their race,
color, national origin, religion, ancestry or sex is an unfair
practice.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Miscellaneous Economic Orders, 78 C.A.B. 860 (1978): Docket
33219, Enforcement re Ticket-by-Mail, order 78-8-101, available via
HeinOnline.
    \39\ See, e.g., DOT Order 2018-11-8.
    \40\ See, e.g., DOT Order 2012-5-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elements of Deception

    In the UDP Final Rule, DOT defined a practice as ``deceptive'' if
it ``is likely to mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the
circumstances, with respect to a material matter. A matter is material
if it is likely to have affected the consumer's conduct or decision
with respect to a product or service.'' \41\ We will address these
elements in turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 14 CFR 399.79(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Likely To Mislead a Consumer
    First, the practice must be likely to mislead the consumer. As FTC
has explained, express misrepresentations, implied representations, and
omissions are all potentially actionable.\42\ A failure to provide
services as promised (whether by contract or otherwise) can also be
deceptive.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ FTC 1983 Policy Statement on Deception, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception.
    \43\ Id.; see also DOT Order 2013-3-12 (airline acted
deceptively when it stated on its website that certain conditions of
carriage, including EU-mandated compensation for cancelled flights,
would apply to international travel to and from the U.S., but then
refused to abide by those conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's full-fare advertising rule is based on its
authority to prohibit deceptive practices.\44\ Put simply, this rule
requires advertised prices for air transportation to be the entire
price to be paid by the customer to the carrier, or agent, for such air
transportation. The Department based its rule on evidence that
consumers believed that they were going to pay a particular advertised
price for air transportation, only to find that the price was
substantially higher due to additional taxes and fees.\45\ The rule
also requires any charges that are listed as components of the entire
price (e.g., taxes) not to be false or misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 14 CFR 399.84(a).
    \45\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/04/25/2011-9736/enhancing-airline-passenger-protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also found that advertising a fare that is no longer
available, or failing to have a reasonable number of seats available at
the advertised fare, is deceptive.\46\ The Department has also found
that an airline's failure to comply with its publicly posted Customer
Service Plan is deceptive, because the carrier failed to abide by its
commitment to provide services as promised.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ DOT Order 2022-2-6. While this practice is deceptive even
in the absence of a specific regulation, we have also found that
this practice violates the full-fare advertising rule, 14 CFR
399.84(a).
    \47\ DOT Order 2018-5-27; DOT Order 2016-8-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Acting Reasonably Under the Circumstances
    Like FTC, the Department views deception from the perspective of an
ordinary consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.\48\ FTC has
noted that entities are not responsible for the unreasonable
interpretations of a handful of individuals, or for broad statements of
feeling or opinion.\49\ Likewise, in the preamble to the UDP Final
Rule, we noted that willful, intentional, or reckless consumer behavior
that leads to self-imposed harm would likely not be covered.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ On occasion, the Department receives complaints from
sophisticated consumers who were not personally deceived by a
practice because they are unusually knowledgeable. We have rejected
airlines' claims that such complaints must be dismissed because the
individual complainants themselves were not deceived. We reasoned
that we must view the practice from the perspective of the ordinary
consumer who may be unaware of the deception and are therefore less
likely to file complaints. See, e.g., DOT Order 2016-12-12.
    \49\ See DOT Order 92-5-60 (1992) (finding that the terms of an
airline's frequent flyer programs were not deceptive simply because
consumers may have assumed that airlines could not make such changes
to the program, or were surprised that miles could not be sold, when
the terms of the plan themselves were clear); DOT Order 2012-12-11
(airline did not commit a deceptive practice by failing to warn a
passenger that his actions would trigger its fraud-detection system
when the passenger acted unreasonably in accessing the airline's
reservation system).
    \50\ We have issued specific guidance regarding cases where
passengers intentionally purchase fares that they know or should
have reason to know are mistaken. See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/mistaken-fare-policy-statement-050815. Mistaken fares are also governed by the rule relating to
post-purchase price increases, 14 CFR 399.88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, if a representation may be interpreted in two different
but reasonable ways, one of which is false, the entity may be liable
for the misleading interpretation. Like FTC, the Department will look
to all of the factors surrounding the statement to determine
reasonableness, including how clear, conspicuous, and significant the
representation is, the familiarity of the public with the product, and
the availability of alternate sources for the information.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ FTC Policy Statement on Deception, section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Material Matter
    The Department has adopted FTC's standard that the deception must
regard a ``material'' matter, which is a matter that is likely to have
affected the consumer's conduct or decision with regard to a product or
service. In such a case, ``consumer injury is likely, because consumers
are likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ FTC Policy Statement on Deception, section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Department has found that the practice of
mischaracterizing a carrier-imposed fee as a ``tax'' is deceptive.\53\
We concluded that a reasonable consumer may choose to pay a ``tax''
under the reasonable belief that a tax is unavoidable, but that same
consumer may choose to shop elsewhere in order to avoid a carrier-
imposed fee. We have also found that an airline acted deceptively when
it promised a universally available discount for prepaid baggage fees,
when that discount was not available if the customer purchased the
ticket through a third-party website.\54\ In contrast, we have found
that errors that appear only in post-purchase receipts are misleading,
but not deceptive for purposes of section 41712, because there was no
evidence in that case that an error in a post-purchase receipt
influenced the consumer's pre-purchase decision.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ DOT Order 2018-5-32.
    \54\ DOT Order 2013-7-11.
    \55\ DOT Order 2018-5-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the ``product or service'' is not
limited to the initial purchase, however. For example, we have found
that an airline acted deceptively when it responded to consumer
complaints about denied boarding compensation by stating that it
complied with ``DOT and FAA regulations,'' when no such regulations
existed. We found that such misrepresentations could have dissuaded
consumers from pursuing valid complaints with the Department.\56\ We
have also found that misrepresentations relating to cancellation fees
were deceptive within the meaning of section 41712.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ DOT Order 2009-9-8.
    \57\ DOT Order 2022-2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Practice

    FTC has the statutory authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive
``acts or practices'' in or affecting commerce.\58\

Section 41712, however, refers only to ``practices.'' \59\ In the UDP
Final Rule, we explained that our aviation consumer protection
regulations are always directed to practices of an airline or ticket
agent, rather than isolated acts of individual employees. We also
explained that our enforcement efforts include a determination that the
conduct in question reflects a practice or policy affecting multiple
consumers, rather than an isolated incident.\60\ We concluded that ``in
general, the Department is of the view that proof of a practice in the
aviation consumer protection context requires more than a single
isolated incident. On the other hand, even a single incident may be
indicative of a practice if it reflects company policy, practice,
training, or lack of training.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). The FTC Act prohibits FTC from
exercising jurisdiction over ``air carriers and foreign air carriers
subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49.'' 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2).
That authority lies exclusively with the Department. As noted above,
FTC and DOT both have authority over the unfair and deceptive
practices of ticket agents selling air transportation.
    \59\ 49 U.S.C. 41712(a) (``the Secretary may investigate and
decide whether an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent
has been or is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or an
unfair method of competition in air transportation or the sale of
air transportation.'')
    \60\ See, e.g., DOT Order 2018-2-7 (finding that an airline's
failure to respond timely to a single complaint did not warrant
enforcement action in the absence of evidence of a pattern or
practice).
    \61\ 85 FR 78711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date

    This guidance is effective August 29, 2022.

    Issued on or about this 15th day of August, 2022, in Washington,
DC.
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2022-18170 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


MEMORANDUM Jan 20,, 2006 SUBECT; Dietary Risk Assessment for Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride ( ADBAC) for Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Process From: A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D, Chemist Regulatory Management Brnach II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

To: Jacqueline Campbell McFarlane, CRM for ADBAC RED Regulatory Management Branch I Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

Thru: Mark Hartman, Chief Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C) Page of 11 2 Executive Summary Alkyl benzyl ammonium chloride ( ADBAC) can be used as a disinfectant or sanitizer on counter tops, utensils, appliances, tables, refrigerators, on animal premises and/ or farms, and in mushroom premises. The use of antimicrobial on food or feed contact surfaces, agricultural commodities, in animal premises and poultry premises including hatcheries and application to food grade eggs may result in pesticide residues in human food. Residues from treated surfaces, such as food utensils, countertops, equipment, and appliances can migrate to food coming into contact with the treated and rinsed surfaces and can be ingested by humans.

In the absence of data for residues of ADBAC on treated food contact surfaces, the Agency estimated residue levels that may occur in food from the application rates on food contact surfaces. Dietary exposures from general agricultural premise use, poultry hatcheries, mushroom houses and hydroponic uses are expected to be much lower than the dietary exposures resulting from the surface disinfectant and sanitizing uses; therefore, these uses were not assessed.

To estimate the Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) to treated surfaces, an FDA ( FDA, 2003) model was used in lieu of residue data. The maximum application rate for ADBAC in food handling establishments from the various labeled ready to use products is 0.0017 a. i pounds per gallon of treatment solution. The EDI calculations presented in this assessment assumes that food can contact 2,000 cm2 or 4,000 cm2 ( 50% and 100% of the FDA worst case scenario) of treated surfaces, and that 10% of the pesticide migrate to food, based on the Agency Residential SOPs. The use of the 10% transfer rate, instead of the use of a 100% transfer rate that is used in the FDA Sanitizer Solution Guidelines, requires the submission of confirmatory data to establish the reliability of the use of the10% transfer rate. These daily estimates were conservatively used to assess both acute and chronic dietary risks. None of the calculated % aPad or % cPad values exceeded 100%.

The maximum application rate for ADBAC for bottling/ packing of food is 0.0103 lbs a. i per gallons of treatment solution. EDI values were calculated using an approach similar to that used for treated food contact surfaces and food utensils. Exposure was assumed to occur through the ingestion of three food products that might be packaged with treated material: milk, egg products, and beverages ( alcoholic and non alcoholic). None of the calculated % aPad or % cPad values exceeded 100%. Page of 11 3 1. Dietary Toxicity The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD or cPAD) is presented in Table 1. The cPAD is 0.44 mg/ kg/ day ( Antimicrobials ADTC ( End Point Selection Committee )) Memo by Tim McMahon Table 1: ADBAC Dietary Toxicity Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE/ UF, Special FQPA SF for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 ( 10x interspecies extrapolation, 10x intra species variation) Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity  Rat MRID 41947501 LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on clinical sign and decreased body weight gain Chronic Dietary NOAEL = 44 mg/ kg/ day ( See Incidental Oral, Short term dose and endpoint selection)

cPAD = 0.44 mg/ kg/ day a. cPAD or aPAD= the RfD/ FQPA SF ( acute RFD and FQPA for aPAD and chronic RFD and FQPA SF for the cPAD)

2. Use Information Twelve ADBAC products were identified that have uses that could lead to incidental ingestion. These uses/ products are presented in Table 2. The labels with the maximum listed application rate for each use are presented in bold. Page of 11 4 Table 2: Use Site Categories and Application Rates Use Site Product Label ( Registration No.) Method of Application Application Rates ( lb a. i./ gal) Egg handling equipment and rooms: Incubator and hatchers 10324 108 10324 111 10324 117 10324 80 10324 81 1839 155 1839 173 1839 81 1839 86 Fogger 0.0005 0.0938 Hatchery: hatchery, settlers, trays, racks, carts, sexing tables, delivery trucks, and other hard surfaces 10324 108 10324 111 10324 117 10324 140 10324 80 10324 81 1839 155 1839 173 1839 81 1839 86 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, or low pressure coarse sprayer 0.0009 0.0065 Egg packing plants: food grade eggs 1839 86 1839 173 1839 155 10324 81 10324 117 10324 111 Immersion, low pressure coarse sprayer, or swabs 0.0005 0.0016 Food handling establishments: utensils and equipment 1839 81 1839 173 10324 81 10324 117 10324 111 Immersion, low pressure coarse sprayer, or swabs 0.0013 0.0017 Food handling establishments: countertops, appliances, and tables 1839 86 1839 81 1839 155 10324 81 10324 140 10324 117 10324 108 1839 173 10324 80 10324 111 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, or low pressure coarse sprayer 0.0013 0.0071 Page of 11 5 Use Site Product Label ( Registration No.) Method of Application Application Rates ( lb a. i./ gal) Food processing plants: ( poultry, meat, fish, tobacco etc.): hard surfaces and equipment, including utensils, dishes, silverware, glasses, sink tops, countertops, refrigerated storage, display equipment, storage shelves, appliances, conveyers ( fruits/ vegetables or meat/ poultry) etc. 10324 81 10324 117 10324 108 10324 140 10324 80 1839 173 1839 86 1839 155 1839 81 1839 51 10324 80 10324 111 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, or low pressure coarse sprayer 0.0013 0.0065 Food Bottling/ Packaging: food contact surface sanitizer ( i. e. bottle sanitizing, beer storage tanks, and beverage dispensing unit) 1839 173 10324 81 10324 117 10324 108 10324 80 1839 86 1839 155 10324 111 1839 81 10324 140 Fogger, mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, low pressure coarse sprayer, liquid pour   mechanical/ automated systems, or circulation 0.0009 0.0103 Mushroom facilities 10324 81 10324 117 10324 108 1839 86 1839 155 10324 80 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand trigger sprayer, or coarse spray device 0.0015 0.0057 Farm ( poultry, swine, dairy) premises and cows ( utters, flanks, and teats) 1839 173 10324 81 10324 117 1839 86 1839 155 10324 111 10324 140 10324 108 10324 80 1839 81 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, low pressure coarse sprayer, or towels 0.0005 0.0063 Potato Storage: potato rinse and humidification 10324 117 1839 86 1839 155 10324 111 Mop, cloth, sponge, hand pump trigger sprayer, or low pressure coarse sprayer 0.0009 0.0065 Page of 11 6 3. Quantitative Dietary assessment 3.1 Egg handling equipment, Agricultural Premise Use, and Poultry Hatcheries ADBAC products may be used on egg shells in both poultry hatcheries and food gradeeggs Although it is possible that some of sanitizer/ disinfectant chemicals may penetrate the egg shells, at this time the Agency believes that the amount of the chemical transferred into food is likely to be minimal. Dietary exposures from general agricultural premise use, poultry hatcheries, mushroom houses and hydroponic uses are expected to be much lower than the dietary exposures resulting from the surface disinfectant and sanitizing uses; therefore, these uses were not assessed.

3.2 Food Handling Establishments and Food Processing Plants To calculate the EDI associated with use of an ADBAC product as a food utensil sanitizer in food handling establishments, a number of assumptions have been made based on the FDA guidelines ( FDA, 2003).

1. When a surface is treated with a disinfectant, a quantity of the disinfectant remains on the surface ( Residual Solution). The FDA recommended worst case concentration for this quantity is 1 mg of solution per square centimeter of treated surface area. In the absence of any other data, this value has been used.

2. The FDA suggests that, as a worst case scenario, all food that an individual consumes will come into contact with 4,000 cm2 of sanitized non porous food contact surfaces. This contact area represents all the surface area from silverware, china, and glass used by a person who regularly eats three meals per day at an institutional or public facility.

3. It is assumed that 10% of the active material present on food contact surfaces will migrate.

4. The body weights used for this assessment are: adult man = 70 kg; adult woman = 60 kg, and 3 yr old toddler = 15 kg ( USEPA, 1997).

For use of an ADBAC product as a counter top disinfectant in food handling establishments, the same assumptions as listed above were used, and one additional assumption was added:

1. The amount of counter top surface area that comes in contact with food should be much smaller than the amount of food utensil area that comes into contact with food. As a conservative estimate, it is assumed that 50% of the FDA value, or 2,000 cm2 of treated counter top surface area, comes into contact with an individual's food per day.

The above assumptions and the following equations were used to calculate EDI and Dietary Daily Dose ( DDD):

EDI ( mg/ p/ day) = AR x RS x SA x F x 10 6 ( 1) Page of 11 7 DDD ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR x RS x SA x F x 10 6/ BW ( 2)

Where: AR = Application rate ( ppm) RS = Residual solution ( mg/ cm2) SA = Surface area of the treated surface which comes into contact with food ( cm2) F = Fraction of the pesticide transferred or migrated to food ( unitless) BW = Body weight ( kg)

The input parameters listed in Table 4 and equations 1 and 2 were used to calculate the output parameters listed in Table 5.

Table 3: Input Parameters for Food Handling Establishments and Food Processing Plants Hard Surface Sanitizer Parameter Value Rationale Food Utensil Countertop Residual Solution on Surface 1 mg/ cm2 FDA worst case assumption Area of Treated Surface 4,000 cm2 2,000 cm2 100% and 50% of FDA worstcase assumption for food utensils ADBAC concentration in diluted Solutiona 0.0017 lb a. i./ gal or 200 ppm 0.0071 lb a. i./ gal or 850 ppm Diluted Solution concentration, based on maximum concentration.

Fraction Transferred 10% EPA Assumption Body Weight ( kg) Adult man = Adult woman = Child = 70 60 15 EPA, 1997 a. Maximum application rates for food utensils were from product label 1839 81for Utensils and product label 10324 80 for counter tops. Page of 11 8 Table 4: Calculated EDIs, aPAD, and cPAD for Utensils and Countertops Utensils Countertops Aggregate Exposure Group EDI ( mg/ p/ d) DDD ( mg/ kg/ d) % cPADa EDI ( mg/ p/ d) DDD ( mg/ kg/ d) % cPADa EDI ( mg/ p/ d) DDD ( mg/ kg/ d) % cPADa Adult males 0.0815 0.00116 0.265 0.170 0.00243 0.552 0.252 0.00359 0.817 Adult females 0.0815 0.00136 0.309 0.170 0.00284 0.645 0.252 0.00419 0.953 Children 0.0815 0.00543 1.23 0.170 0.0113 2.58 0.252 0.0168 3.81 a. % PAD = exposure ( DDD) /( aPAD or cPAD) x 100.

For ADBAC treatments of food processing plants, the application rates are similar to food handling establishments presented above, and hence the exposure, EDIs, DDDs, and % aPAD and cPADs are also similar.

3.4. Food Bottling/ Packaging ADBAC may also be used as a sanitizer or disinfectant in processing equipments, utensils in dairies, breweries, canning operations, meat and vegetable processing plants. In assessing this use, the following assumptions were made, based on USEPA ( 2005):

1. The ADBAC concentration in the treatment solution is 0.0103 lb a. i./ gal, or 123 ppm ( 0.000123 wt/ wt)

2. When a surface is treated with a disinfectant, a quantity of the disinfectant remains on the surface ( Residual Solution). The FDA recommended worst case concentration for this quantity is 1 mg of solution per square centimeter of treated surface area. In the absence of any other data, this value has been used.

3. For the fraction of pesticide that migrates from the residue to the food ( F in equations 3 and 4), a transfer rate of 100% was used instead of 10% because the food is in contact with the treated surfaces for potentially very long periods of time.

4. For a given person, the grams of food per surface area of container were as follows ( g/ cm2): a. Milk ( dairy): 6.6 b. Egg/ mayonnaise: 64.0 c. Beer, beverages: 150 5. The daily intake rates for an adult ( g/ person/ day) were as follows:

a. Beverages, alcoholic/ beer: 182 b. Beverages, non alcoholic: 240 c. Egg products: 9.0 Page of 11 9 d. Milk: 124 6. A child will consume a smaller quantity of calories in a given day. To account for differences between intake values among children and adults a calorie intake modification factor of 0.64 was applied to the EDI for a child. Recommended energy allowances measured in kilocalories per body weight for different age groups and genders were taken from the National Research Council's Recommended Energy Allowances. The values are based on the resting energy expenditure and the energy required for light to moderate levels of activity, as determined by the World Health Organization ( USAID, 2005). The calculation of the factor is presented in Table 6 below.

The above assumptions and the following equations were used to calculate EDI and Dietary Daily Dose ( DDD):

EDI ( mg/ p/ day) = AR x RS x DIR x MSA 1 x F x 10 6 x CMF ( 3)

DDD ( mg/ kg/ day) = AR x RS x DIR x MSA 1 x F x 10 6 x CMF/ BW ( 4)

Where: AR = Application rate ( ppm) RS = Residual solution ( mg/ cm2) MSA = Mass surface area ratio ( the treated surface that comes into contact with food) ( g/ cm2) DIR = Daily intake rate of food in a given day ( g/ p/ day) F = Fraction of the pesticide transferred or migrated to food ( unitless) BW = Body weight ( kg) CMF = Calorie intake modification factor ( 100% adults; 64.4% Children)

Assumptions 1 4, inputs from Table 6 and 7, and equations 3 and 4 were used to calculate the dietary rates and doses presented in Table 8.

Table 5: Toddler ( 3 yr old) and Adult Calorie Intake Comparison Group ( Age) Body Weight ( kg) Kilocalories per kga Kilocaloriesb Child ( 1 3) 15.0 102 1,530 Female ( 25 50) 60.0 36.0 2,160 Male ( 25 50) 70.0 37.0 2,590 Output Child Modification Factor ( CMF) c 0.644 a. USAID, 2005 b. Kilocalories = Kcal/ Kg x BW c. CMF = Kcal child ÷ [( Kcal female + Kcal male)/ 2] Page of 11 10 Table 6: Input Parameters for Food Bottling/ Packaging Hard Surface Sanitizer Parameter Input Rational Milk 6.6 Egg/ Mayonnaise 64 Food mass/ surface ( g/ cm2) Beer, beverages 150 USEPA, 2005 Milk 124 Egg products 9 Beer, beverages 182 Intake rates ( g/ p/ d) Beverages/ nonalcoholic 240 USEPA, 2005 Fraction Transferred 100% FDA worst case assumption Residual Solution on Surface 1 mg/ cm2 FDA worst case assumption Quantity ADBAC 0.0103 lb ai or 1234 ppm Diluted solution concentration, based on maximum concentration. Body Weight ( kg) Adult man = Adult woman = Child = 70 60 15 USEPA, 1997 a. Maximum application rates for food utensils were from product labels 1839 173, 10324 81, and 10324 117.

Table 7: Calculated EDIs, aPAD, and cPAD for Representative Dairy and Beverage Consumption Food Type Exposure Group EDI ( mg/ p/ d) DDD ( mg/ kg/ d) % cPAD Adult Male 3.31x10 4 0.0753 Adult Female 0.0232 3.86x10 4 0.0878 Milk Childa 0.0149 9.96x10 4 0.226 Adult Male 3.06x10 9 7.00x10 7 Adult Female 2.14x10 7 3.57x10 9 8.00x10 7 Egg product Child a 1.38x10 7 9.20x10 9 2.00x10 6 Adult Male 0.00169 0.385 Adult Female 0.118 0.00197 0.449 Beverages, nonalcoholic Childa 0.0763 0.00509 1.16 Adult Male 2.14x10 5 0.00490 Beverages, alcoholic, beer Adult Female 0.00150 2.50x10 5 0.00570 a. Child EDI values are multiplied by a modification factor of 0.64 Page of 11 11 4.0 References FDA. 2003. " Sanitizing Solutions: Chemistry Guidelines for Food Additive Petitions." http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ opa cg3a. html. Last accessed June 9, 2003.

USAID. 2005. " ANNEX III: Recommended Energy Allowance Tables." November 2005. http:// www. usaid. gov/ our_ work/ humanitarian_ assistance/ ffp/ crg/ annex 3. htm. Last viewed January 23, 2006.

USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I II. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D. C. EPA/ 600/ P 95/ 002Fa. August 1997.

USEPA. 2005. Dietary Assessment of Chlorine Dioxide, Sodium Chlorite From Their Use As Indirect Food Contact Sanitizers/ Disinfectants ( Hard Surface Sanitizers). Memorandum from Najm Shamim, USEPA to Melba Morrow and Jennifer Slotnick, USEPA. Dates August 15, 2005.

Versar. 2006. ADBAC Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment. Memorandum from Adria Diaz/ Karie Riley/ Kelly McAloon, Versar, Inc., to Laura Bailey, USEPA dated January 16, 2006.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43083-43084]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1 Take Notice That the Commission
Received the Following Electric Corporate Filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-168-000.
    Applicants: Blue Cube Operations LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Blue Cube
Operations LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150714-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-169-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc., Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC,
Ace Wind LLC.
    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc., et al. for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for
Disposition of Jurisdiction Facilities and Request for Expedited
Consideration and Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 7/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150714-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG15-102-000.
    Applicants: Grant Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Grant Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150714-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-103-000.
    Applicants: McCoy Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of McCoy Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150714-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-104-000.
    Applicants: Javelina Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Javelina Wind Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150714-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2138-002.
    Applicants: Limon Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 8, 2015 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Limon Wind III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20150710-5256.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-511-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--NAESB v003 WEQ
Business Practice Standards to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-533-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Order No. 676-
H Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1400-001.
    Applicants: Erie Power, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Erie Power Market Based Rate Tariff
Supplement to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/22/15.
    Accession Number: 20150622-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1706-001.
    Applicants: Newark Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter to be
effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1831-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: TCC-TNC-Brazos Electric Power
Cooperative Amend & Restated TSA Amd to be effective 5/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1832-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: TCC-TNC-Brazos Electric Cooperative
Amend & Restated TSA Concurrence Amd to be effective 5/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2205-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Application to be effective 9/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2205-001.
    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Market-Based Rate
Application to be effective 9/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2206-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 3336; Queue No. X2-059 to be effective 7/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20150715-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/15.

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

    Dated: July 15, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17798 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13962-13963]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Youth Access to American Jobs in Aviation Task Force; Notice of
Public Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Youth Access to
American Jobs in Aviation Task Force (YIATF).

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 31, 2021, 9:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
EST.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by March 22, 2021.
    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
March 22, 2021.
    If you wish to speak during the meeting, you must submit a written
copy of your remarks to FAA by March 22, 2021.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Due to circumstances outside of the Federal Aviation
Administration's control, the meeting will be conducted as a webinar.
You can visit the YIATF internet website at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/advisory_committees/youth_aviation/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Aliah Duckett, Federal Aviation
Administration, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any committee-
related request should be sent to the person listed in this section or
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    YIATF was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
in accordance with Section 602 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(Pub. L. 115-254), to provide strategies and recommendations
encouraging youth to pursue a career in the field of aviation and to
promote organizations and programs that provide education, training,
mentorship, outreach, and recruitment of youth in the aviation
industry.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will include the following topics:

 Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer
 Welcome/Opening Remarks
 Update from Subcommittee Chairs
 Review of Action Items
 Closing Remarks

    A detailed agenda will be posted on the YIATF internet website
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least 15 days in advance of
the meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes will also be available on
the YIATF internet website.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public and members of the public
who wish to attend must RSVP to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section with your name and affiliation. Anyone who
has registered to attend will be notified in a timely manner prior to
the meeting.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because

of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other
ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by March 22, 2021.
    There will be a total of 15 minutes allotted for oral comments from
members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many
speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited.
Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must
submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name,
address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the
number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can
be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the Federal Aviation
Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared
remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the
YIATF members. All prepared remarks submitted on time will be accepted
and considered as part of the record. Any member of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.
    The public may present written statements to YIATF by emailing the
Designated Federal Officer's address listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Angela O. Anderson,
Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Rulemaking, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-05054 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P