[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 59027]
[DOCID:fr16no09-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

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

TIME AND DATE: December 10, 2009, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive the
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings
by telephone.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: November 10, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-27565 Filed 11-12-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8720]
[DOCID:fr27fe07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-200-018]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Negotiated Rate

February 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 14, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
(REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective February 15,
2007:

Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 22
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 24

    REX stated that a copy of this filing has been served upon all
parties to this proceeding, REX's customers, the Colorado Public
Utilities Commission and the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    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. E7-3350 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40609-40610]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18074]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form 24F-2; SEC File No. 270-399, OMB Control No. 3235-0456

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 24f-2 (17 CFR 270.24f-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) requires any open-end management companies
(``mutual funds''), unit investment trusts (``UITs'') or face-amount
certificate companies

(collectively, ``funds'') deemed to have registered an indefinite
amount of securities to file, not later than 90 days after the end of
any fiscal year in which it has publicly offered such securities, Form
24F-2 (17 CFR 274.24) with the Commission. Form 24F-2 is the annual
notice of securities sold by funds that accompanies the payment of
registration fees with respect to the securities sold during the fiscal
year.
    The Commission estimates that 7,284 funds file Form 24F-2 on the
required annual basis. The average annual burden per respondent for
Form 24F-2 is estimated to be two hours. The total annual burden for
all respondents to Form 24F-2 is estimated to be 14,568 hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules.
    Compliance with the collection of information required by Form 24F-
2 is mandatory. The Form 24F-2 filing that must be made to the
Commission is available to the public. 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 control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18074 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55480-55481]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0755]

Draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.150 on Labeling and
Marketing of Nutritional Products Intended for Use To Diagnose, Cure,
Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft compliance policy guide (CPG) entitled
``Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.150 Labeling and Marketing of
Nutritional Products Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate,
Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats.'' This draft CPG is
intended to provide guidance to FDA staff and industry on how FDA
intends to use its enforcement discretion with regard to the labeling
and marketing of dog and cat food products that are labeled and/or
marketed as intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent
diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the animal's
total daily nutrient requirements.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft CPG before it begins work on the final version of the CPG, submit
either electronic or written comments on the draft CPG by November 9,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft CPG
to the Director, Division of Compliance Policy, Office of Enforcement,
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., rm.
4044, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to
301-827-0482. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft CPG. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Submit written comments on the draft CPG to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Burkholder, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft CPG entitled
``Labeling and Marketing of Nutritional Products Intended for Use to
Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats.''
The purpose of this CPG is to communicate FDA's strategy for enforcing
the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act) with respect to dog and cat food products that make
labeling or marketing claims to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or
prevent disease. Since 1988, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
has observed an increase in the number of dog and cat food products
making such claims that are sold with, or without, the direction of a
licensed veterinarian. Because of this increase, and to help ensure
animal safety, CVM is issuing this draft CPG to set out its current
thinking with respect to factors it will consider before determining
whether to take regulatory action against dog and cat food products
intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease.
    FDA does not generally intend to recommend or initiate regulatory
actions against dog and cat food products that are labeled and/or
marketed as intended for use to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or
prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the
animal's total daily nutrient requirements when all the following
factors are present. Specifically: (1) Manufacturers make the products
available to the public only through licensed veterinarians or through
retail or Internet sales to individuals purchasing the product under
the direction of a veterinarian; (2) manufacturers do not market such
products as alternatives to approved new animal drugs; (3) the
manufacturer is registered under section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
350(d)); (4) manufacturers comply with all food labeling requirements
for such products (see 21 CFR part 501); (5) manufacturers do not
include indications for a disease claim (e.g., obesity, renal failure)
on the label of such products; (6) manufacturers limit distribution of
material with any disease claims for such products only to veterinary
professionals; (7) manufacturers secure electronic resources for the
dissemination of labeling information and promotional materials such
that they are available only to veterinary professionals; (8)
manufacturers include only ingredients that are general regarded as
safe (GRAS) ingredients, approved food additives, or feed ingredients
defined in the 2012 Official Publication of the Association of American
Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) for the intended uses in such products;
\1\ and (9) the label and labeling for such products are not false and
misleading in other respects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although food containing these unapproved food additives is
adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(c)(i), FDA is
unlikely to initiate enforcement action solely on this basis if the
food additive in question is included in the 2012 edition of the
Official Publication of AAFCO. As part of its efforts to work with
State partners, FDA has reviewed safety information related to many
of these listed products, and those listed in the 2012 Official
Publication generally do not fall within our current enforcement
priorities.
    \2\ A therapeutic claim that is not scientifically substantiated
would be considered false or misleading, thus making the product
misbranded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft CPG is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft CPG, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic.
It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be
used if such approach satisfies the

requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes Agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a
60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed
collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for
approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing a notice
of the proposed collection of information set forth below.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy
of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
    Title: Draft Compliance Policy Guide on Labeling and Marketing of
Nutritional Products Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate,
Treat, or Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats.
    Description: The purpose of this CPG is to communicate FDA's
strategy with respect to dog and cat food products that are labeled
and/or marketed as intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or
prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of meeting the
animal's total daily nutrient requirements.
    Description of Respondents: Manufacturers of dog and cat foods that
are labeled and/or marketed as intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate,
treat, or prevent diseases and to provide nutrients in support of
meeting the animal's total daily nutrient requirements.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 402 and 403 of the FD&C               5              75             375             .25              94
 Act............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating costs or maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    CVM estimates from its experience that approximately 5
manufacturers will be affected by the draft CPG, times 75 products
produced annually equals 375 total annual responses. The hours per
response are based on approximately .25 hour per response for
respondents to look up the ingredient names in the AFFCO Official
Publication.
    This draft CPG also refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 571 (Food Additive Petitions
and FAP Labeling) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0546. The collection of information in 21 CFR 570.35 (GRAS) has been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0342. The requirement for food
facility registration has been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0502.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments regarding this document.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Received comments may
be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

V. Electronic Access

    Copies of the CPG may be downloaded to a personal computer with
access to the Internet. The Office of Regulatory Affairs home pages
include this draft CPG and may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/ under ``Compliance Policy Guides.''

    Dated: August 24, 2012.
Dara A. Corrigan,
Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-22231 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16851-16852]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

April 6, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP96-272-090.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 66B.01a et al. of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to
be effective 4/2/09.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-206.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co submits an
amended negotiated rate agreement with Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-207.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Macquarie Cook Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-200-208.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
negotiated rate agreement with Cross Timbers Energy Service Inc et al.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-234.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co submits Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated
rate agreement with Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-426-044.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission. LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No. 51 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-283-002.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits
Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 92 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 04/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090403-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-466-001.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits First
Revised Ninth Revised Sheet 71 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-495-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Petition of Northern Gas Company for a limited waiver
of tariff provisions.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-496-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC submits Interim
Negotiated Rate Agreements.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-497-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Co of America LLC submits the
Penalty Revenue Crediting Report.
    Filed Date: 04/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090402-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-498-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP submits Fifth Revised
Sheet No 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 04/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090403-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 14, 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. E9-8258 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 20955-20956]
[DOCID:fr06my09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0487] (formerly Docket No. 2007D-0260)

Compliance Policy Guide; ``Sec. 110.310 Prior Notice of Imported
Food Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002;'' Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) entitled ``Sec. 110.310
Prior Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.'' The CPG provides
written guidance to FDA's and

Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) staff on enforcement of the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) and the agency's implementing
regulations, which require prior notice for food imported or offered
for import into the United States.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments concerning the CPG at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the CPG to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the CPG.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the CPG to the
Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Office of Enforcement, Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Draski, Office of Regulatory
Affairs (HFC-100), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 7, 2008 (73 FR 66411), FDA
announced the availability of a draft CPG entitled ``Sec. 110.310 Prior
Notice of Imported Food Under the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.'' After considering
the one comment received, FDA revised the CPG, with CBP concurrence,
where appropriate. The revised CPG provides written guidance to FDA's
and CBP's staff on enforcement of section 307 of the Bioterrorism Act
and the agency's implementing regulations, which require prior notice
for food imported or offered for import into the United States.
    FDA is issuing this CPG as level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The CPG represents
the agency's current thinking on its enforcement policy concerning
prior notice. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA, or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic copies or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. The CPG and received comments may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of the CPG is available on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/ora under ``Compliance References.''

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
Michael A. Chappell,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-10556 Filed 5-4-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58589-58593]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2884; Special Conditions No. 25-595-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer Model EMB-545 Airplanes; Seats With
Inflatable Lap Belts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Embraer Model EMB-545
airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with seats with inflatable lap belts. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is September 30,
2015. We must receive your comments by November 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2884
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations 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: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for, prior public comment on these special conditions are
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On October 14, 2010, Embraer S.A. applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate No. TC00062IB to include the new Embraer Model EMB-545
airplane. These special conditions allow installation of inflatable lap
belts for head-injury protection on certain seats in Embraer Model EMB-
545 airplanes.
    The Embraer Model EMB-545 airplane is a derivative of the Model
EMB-550 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No.
TC00062IB.

As compared to the Model EMB-550, the Model EMB-545 fuselage is one
meter shorter; the section ahead of the wing is 0.65 meters shorter;
and the section aft of the wing is 0.40 meters shorter.
    The fuselage length difference is in the pressurized section. The
Model EMB-545 airplane is designed for an eight-passenger configuration
and a maximum of nine passengers (including lavatory seat). Like the
Model EMB-550, the Model EMB-545 airplane primary structure is
aluminum. Materials other than aluminum will be used in areas with
unique structural requirements. Advanced composites will be largely
employed on the high-lift devices (two flaps), spoilers (three panels),
and control surfaces (aileron). A winglet will be attached to each wing
tip to further increase airplane aerodynamic efficiency. The empennage
will be a swept T-tail composed of advanced composite material with
metallic attachment fittings. The rudder and elevators also will be
composed of composite material.
    Two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium-bypass-ratio turbofan engines,
mounted on aft-fuselage pylons, will power the Model EMB-545 airplane.
Each engine will produce approximately 6,540 lbs. of thrust for normal
takeoff. However, because the Model EMB-545 is smaller and lighter,
software will regulate the thrust. The primary flight-control systems
(elevators, ailerons, rudder, and multi-function spoilers) will be
electronically controlled and powered by electrohydraulic
servoactuators using digital fly-by-wire (FBW) technology. The FBW
flight controls will receive commands directly from the cockpit dual
sidesticks and conventional rudder pedals.
    Occupants must be protected from head injury, as required by Sec.
25.785, either by eliminating any injurious object within the striking
radius of the head, or by installing padding. Traditionally, this has
required either a setback of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid
interior feature or, where not practical, the installation of specified
types of padding. The relative effectiveness of these established means
of injury protection was not quantified. With the adoption of Amendment
25-64 to part 25, specifically Sec.  25.562, a new standard was created
that quantifies required head-injury protection.
    Each seat-type design approved for crew or passenger occupancy
during takeoff and landing, as required by Sec.  25.562, must
successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational
analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat. In particular,
the regulations require that persons not suffer serious head injury
under the conditions specified in the tests, and that protection must
be provided, or the seat be designed, so that head impact does not
exceed a HIC value of 1,000 units. While the test conditions described
for HIC are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the requirement
that an adequate level of head-injury protection be provided for
passengers in a severe crash.
    Because Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not
adequately address seats with inflatable lap belts, the FAA recognizes
that appropriate pass/fail criteria need to be developed that fully
address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Embraer must show that the
Model EMB-545 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. TC00062IB, or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations
listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the
``original type certification basis.'' The regulations incorporated by
reference in Type Certificate No. TC00062IB are as follows:
    14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments
25-1 through 25-129, in their entirety. In addition, the certification
basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended
sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special
conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes must comply with the fuel-
vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature: seats with inflatable lap belts.

Discussion

    The inflatable lap belt has two potential advantages over other
means of head-impact protection. First, it can provide significantly
greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads,
and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for
occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a
safety standpoint, because such devices will likely provide a level of
safety that exceeds the minimum standards of part 25. Conversely,
inflatable lap belts in general are active systems and must be relied
upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-
absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive and always
available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against
this and other potential disadvantages to develop standards for this
design feature.
    The FAA has considered the installation of inflatable lap belts to
have two primary safety concerns: first, that they perform properly
under foreseeable operating conditions; and second, that they do not
perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to
the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be
the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of
the system.
    The inflatable lap belt will rely on electronic sensors for
signaling, and will employ an automatic inflation mechanism for
activation, so that it is available when needed. These same devices
could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a
potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of such deployment must be
considered in establishing the reliability of the system. Embraer must
substantiate that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight
are either not a hazard to the airplane, or that such deployment is an
extremely improbable occurrence (less than 10-9 per flight
hour). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a

passenger or crewmember that might be positioned close to the
inflatable lap belt should also be considered. The person could be
either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level will have to be
established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the
effect on the airplane is negligible.
    The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a
result of conditions in service. The installation must take into
account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent
deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context,
an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are
considered necessary. Other outside influences are lightning and high-
intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Existing regulations regarding
lightning, Sec.  25.1316, and HIRF, Sec.  25.1317, are applicable. For
compliance with those conditions, if inadvertent deployment could cause
a hazard to the airplane, the inflatable lap belt is considered a
critical system; if inadvertent deployment could cause injuries to
persons, the inflatable lap belt should be considered an essential
system. Finally, the inflatable lap-belt installation should be
protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not
created by, for example, a rupture of a pyrotechnic squib.
    To function as an effective safety system, the inflatable lap belt
must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to
occupants as a result of its functioning. The inflatable lap belt
differs variously from traditional occupant-protection systems and
requires special conditions to ensure adequate performance.
    Because the inflatable lap belt is essentially a single-use device,
it could potentially deploy under crash conditions that are not
sufficiently severe as to require head-injury protection from the
inflatable lap belt. And because an actual crash is frequently composed
of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could
render the inflatable lap belt useless if a larger impact follows the
initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy-absorbing
pads or upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous
protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash
event. Therefore, the inflatable lap-belt installation should be such
that the inflatable lap belt will provide protection when it is
required, by not expending its protection during a less-severe impact.
Also, it is possible to have several large impact events during the
course of a crash, but there will be no requirement for the inflatable
lap belt to provide protection for multiple impacts.
    Given that each occupant's restraint system provides protection for
that occupant only, the installation must address unoccupied seats. It
will be necessary to show that the required protection is provided for
each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, and that
unoccupied seats may have lap belts that are active.
    The inflatable lap belt should be effective for a wide range of
occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the 5th
percentile female to the 95th percentile male as the range of occupants
that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing
consideration of a broader range of occupants due to the nature of the
lap-belt installation and its close proximity to the occupant. In a
similar vein, these persons could have assumed the brace position for
those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that
occupants in the brace position do not require supplemental protection,
so it would not be necessary to show that the inflatable lap belt will
enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable lap belt must not
introduce a hazard when it is deployed into a seated, braced occupant.
    Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped by
children, whether they are lap-held, sitting in approved child-safety
seats, or occupying the seat directly. Although specifically prohibited
by FAA operating regulations, the use of the supplementary loop belt
(``belly belt'') may be required by other civil aviation authorities,
and should also be considered with the end goal of meeting those
regulations. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman,
the installation needs to address such usage, either by demonstrating
that it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on
usage.
    The inflatable lap belt will be electrically powered. Likewise, the
system could possibly fail due to a separation in the fuselage. Because
this system is intended as crash/post-crash protection means, failure
due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency
lighting, the restraint system should function properly if such a
separation occurs at any point in the fuselage.
    Because the inflatable lap belt is likely to have a large volume
displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of
passengers. However, the lap-belt bag deflates to absorb energy, so it
is likely that an inflatable lap belt would be deflated by the time
passengers begin to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is appropriate
to specify a time interval after which the inflatable lap belt may not
impede rapid egress. The maximum time allowed for an exit to open fully
after actuation is 10 seconds, according to Sec.  25.809(b)(2).
Therefore, the FAA has established 10 seconds as the time interval that
the inflatable lap belt must not impede rapid egress from the seat
after it is deployed. In actuality, it is unlikely that a flight
attendant would prepare an exit this quickly in an accident severe
enough to warrant deployment of the inflatable lap belt. The inflatable
lap belt will likely deflate much more quickly than 10 seconds.
    This potential impediment to rapid egress is even more critical at
the seats installed in the emergency-exit rows. Installation of
inflatable restraints at the Type III exit rows presents different
egress concerns as compared with front-row seats. However, the need to
address egress is already part of the special conditions, so there is
no change to the special conditions at this time. As noted below, the
method of compliance with the special conditions may involve specific
considerations when an inflatable restraint is installed at Type III
exits. Section 25.813 clearly requires access to the exit from the main
aisle in the form of an unobstructed passageway, and no interference in
opening the exit. The restraint system must not create an impediment to
the access to, and the opening of, the exit. These lap belts should be
evaluated in the exit row under existing regulations (Sec. Sec.  25.809
and 25.813) and guidance material. The inflatable lap belts must also
be evaluated in post-crash conditions, and should be evaluated using
representative restraint systems in the bag-deployed condition.
    This evaluation would include reviewing the access to, and opening
of, the exit, specifically for obstructions in the egress path; and any
interferences in opening the exit. Each unique interior configuration
must be considered, e.g., passageway width, single or dual passageways
with outboard seat removed, etc. If the restraint creates any
obstruction or interference, it is likely that it could impede rapid
egress from the airplane. In some cases, the passenger is the one who
will open the exit, such as a Type III over-wing hatch. Project-
specific means-of-compliance guidance is likely necessary if these
restraint systems are installed at the Type III exit rows.
    Note that the special conditions are applicable to the inflatable
lap-belt system as installed. The special conditions are not an
installation approval. Therefore, while the special

conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall
installation approval is separate, and must consider the combined
effects of all such systems installed.
    Embraer will install inflatable lap belts, a novel design feature,
on certain seats of Model EMB-545 airplanes, to reduce the potential
for head injury if an accident occurs. The inflatable lap belt works
similar to an automotive inflatable air bag, except that the air bag in
the Embraer design is integrated into the lap belt of the restraint
system.
    The performance criteria for head-injury protection in objective
terms is stated in Sec.  25.562. However, none of these criteria are
adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning seats with
inflatable lap belts. The FAA has therefore determined that, in
addition to the requirements of part 25, special conditions are needed
to address requirements particular to the installation of seats with
inflatable lap belts.
    Accordingly, in addition to the passenger-injury criteria specified
in Sec.  25.785, these special conditions are proposed for Embraer
Model EMB-545 airplanes equipped with inflatable lap belts. Other
conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and
discussions with the manufacturer and civil-aviation authorities.
    For a passenger-safety system, the inflatable lap belt is unique in
that it is both an active and entirely autonomous device. While the
automotive industry has good experience with inflatable air bags, the
conditions of use and reliance on the inflatable lap belt as the sole
means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile
installations, the air bag is a supplemental system and works in
conjunction with an upper-torso restraint. In addition, the crash event
is more definable and typically of shorter duration, which can simplify
the activation logic. The airplane-operating environment is also quite
different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear
and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading,
passenger baggage, etc.). Airplanes also operate where exposure to HIRF
could affect the lap-belt activation system.
    Part I of Appendix F to part 25 specifies the flammability
requirements for interior materials and components. There is no
reference to inflatable restraint systems in Appendix F, because such
devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were
written. The existing requirements are based on material types as well
as use, and have been specified in light of state-of-the-art materials
available to perform a given function. Without a specific reference,
the default requirement would apply to the type of material used in
making the inflatable restraint, which is a fabric in this case.
However, in writing special conditions, the FAA must also consider the
use of the material, and whether the default requirement is
appropriate. In this case, the specialized function of the inflatable
restraint means that highly specialized materials are needed. The
standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second vertical ignition
test. However, materials that meet this standard do not perform
adequately as inflatable restraints. Because the safety benefit of the
inflatable restraint is significant, the flammability standard
appropriate for these devices should not screen out suitable materials
and thereby effectively eliminate the use of inflatable restraints. The
FAA must establish a balance between the safety benefit of the
inflatable restraint and its flammability performance. Presently, the
2.5-inch-per-minute horizontal test is considered to provide that
balance. As the state-of-the-art in materials progresses (which is
expected), the FAA may change this standard in subsequent special
conditions to account for improved materials.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to Embraer Model EMB-545
airplanes. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificates to include another model that incorporates the same
novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already
included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
apply to the other model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability, and it affects only Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes
listed on amended Type Certificate No. TC00062IB.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Embraer Model EMB-545 airplanes with
inflatable lap belts installed.
    1. The inflatable lap belt must be shown to deploy and provide
protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent
serious head injury. The means of protection must take into
consideration a range of stature from a two-year-old child to a 95th
percentile male. The inflatable lap belt must provide a consistent
approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. In
addition, the following situations must be considered.
    The seat occupant is:

     holding an infant
     a child in a child-restraint device
     a child not using a child-restraint device
     a pregnant woman

    2. The inflatable lap belt must provide adequate protection for
each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat
assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag
system in the lap belt.
    3. The design must prevent the inflatable lap belt from being
either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed such that the
inflatable lap belt would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must
be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant, and
will provide the required head-injury protection.
    4. The inflatable lap-belt system must be shown not to be
susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or
inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including
gusts and hard landings), likely to be experienced in service.
    5. Deployment of the inflatable lap belt must not introduce injury
mechanisms to the seated occupant, nor result in injuries that could
impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant who is
in the brace position when it deploys, and an occupant whose inflatable
lap belt is loosely fastened.
    6. An inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing
or sitting person must be shown to be improbable.
    7. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the airbag
system in the lap belt, during the most critical part of the flight,
either will not cause a hazard

to the airplane or its occupants, or meets the requirement of Sec.
25.1309(b).
    8. The inflatable lap belt must be shown to not impede rapid egress
of occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.
    9. The inflatable lap-belt system must be protected from lightning
and HIRF. The threats specified in existing regulations regarding
lightning, Sec.  25.1316, and HIRF, Sec.  25.1317, are incorporated by
reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.
For the purposes of complying with HIRF requirements, the inflatable
lap-belt system is considered a ``critical system'' if its deployment
could have a hazardous effect on the airplane; otherwise it is
considered an ``essential'' system.
    10. The inflatable lap belt must function properly after loss of
normal airplane electrical power, and after a transverse separation of
the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the
location of the lap belt does not have to be considered.
    11. The inflatable lap belt must be shown to not release hazardous
quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
    12. The inflatable lap-belt installation must be protected from the
effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    13. A means must be available for a crewmember to verify the
integrity of the inflatable-lap-belt-activation system prior to each
flight, or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between
inspection intervals.
    14. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of
greater than 2.5 inches per minute when tested using the horizontal-
flammability test as defined in 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, Part
I(b)(5).
    15. The airbag system in the lap belt, once deployed, must not
adversely affect the emergency-lighting system (i.e., block floor-
proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their
intended function).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 2, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24726 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 1 NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE NOMINATION FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE FOR STRAWBERRIES GROWN FOR FRUIT IN OPEN FIELDS ON PLASTIC TARPS DOCUMENT NUMBER CUN 2003/ 059, USc6N11 DATE August 12, 2004 TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND SPECIFIC REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN ORNAMENTALS REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE NEEDED California Diseases: Black root rot ( Rhizoctinia and Pythium spp.), crown rot ( Phytophthora cactorum), Nematodes: root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.) Sting nematode ( Belonolaimus spp.) Weeds: Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus), purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus), ryegrass, and winter annual weeds. At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests found in California, specifically in areas where hilly terrain would provide less efficacy from the alternatives. Uses of alternatives are limited by regulatory restrictions such as the township caps on the amount of 1,3 dichloropropene that can be used. MB applications in strawberries are typically made using 67: 33 or, where feasible, 57: 43 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates of 196 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management.

Eastern U. S. Diseases: Black Root Rot ( Pythium, Rhizoctonia), Crown rot ( Phytopthora cactorum), Nematodes: Root knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.) Weeds: Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus escultentus), Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) Ryegrass ( Lolium spp.) At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests found in the Eastern United States. In addition, buffer zones associated with the use of alternatives prevents their use in some situations. Related dosage rates of 151 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management.

Florida Diseases: Phytophthora, Crown Rot ( P. citricola, P. cactorum)

Nematodes: Sting ( Belonolaimus longicaudatus), Root knot ( Meloidogyne spp.)

Weeds: Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus), Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus), Carolina Geranium ( G. carolinianum), Cutleaf Evening Primrose ( Onoethera laciniata) At moderate to severe pest pressure only MB can effectively control the target pests found in Florida. In addition, the use of alternatives are limited in some areas because the soil overlays a vulnerable water table ( karst topography). MB applications in strawberries are typically made using 67: 33 or, where feasible, 50: 50 mixtures with chloropicrin under plastic mulch. Related dosage rates of 185 kg/ ha are below the threshold in the MBTOC 2002 Report, making further reduction difficult to achieve without compromising pest management. USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 2 AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 2. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED BY THE U. S. IN 2005* AND 2006. 2005* ( KG) 2006 ( KG) DESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YEARS 2,187,535 1,918,400 The amount of methyl bromide nominated for California was reduced for 2006 because of increased use of alternatives. The estimates of key pest pressure in Florida and eastern U. S. were adjusted upwards based on new survey data. The U. S. imposed a reduction in use rate on California and Florida. * 2005 Nomination includes 2005 Supplemental Requested nomination amount.

FIGURE 1. U. S. TOTAL, REQUESTED, AND NOMINATED HECTARES OF STRAWBERRY FRUIT 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Strawberry Fruit Total Requested by applicants Nominated by U. S.

Footnote: Total hectares, based on United States Department of Agriculture Statistics, are national acreage in production for this sector. The requested hectares are sum total of all areas in the CUE applications. The nominated hectares reflect reductions of the requested hectares to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used. Total pounds of methyl bromide nominated by the United States government for this sector are based on these nominated hectares. See the accompanying spreadsheet 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index or " BUNI" ( Filename: USA 2006 BUNI   Refined Nomination Package. xls) for more detailed information on how the nominated amount was determined.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impacts were assessed using four economic parameters: 1. loss per hectare, 2. loss per kilogram of methyl bromide, 3. loss as a percentage of gross revenue, and 4. loss as a percentage of net revenue. This assessment compares methyl bromide to the best available alternative to determine the economic feasibility of using that alternative. A range of alternatives were examined to determine the best available alternative scenario taking into account yield loss estimates and cost increase estimates. The result of the economic impact analysis is presented in the BUNI analysis. In this sector, no alternatives were found to be both technically and economically feasible for the particular circumstances nominated for the CUE. USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 3 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS In general, there are a variety of alternatives to MB for production of strawberry fruit. The application is based on the technical grounds that no alternatives are available for moderate to severe pest pressure for root rot ( e. g. Phytophthora) and nutsedge in certain areas, and that certain topographies and regulatory issues prevent the use of possible alternatives in several areas.

MBTOC considers several alternatives are technically feasible for the spectrum of target pests. This is recognized in the CUN. It accepts that use of 1,3 D and its mixtures with chloropicrin are presently restricted by local air quality regulations and certain topographies. MBTOC considers that other alternatives ( e. g. Pic EC, metham sodium in combination with PIC) are technically suitable in at least some areas where regulatory issues, karst topography or slopes affect the use of 1,3 D.

MBTOC Question 1  Further detail is requested on the dosage rates of MB used in the various regions covered by this CUN, with particular reference to scope for reduction in MB usage through adoption of mixtures of MB and chloropicrin containing high proportions of chloropicrin and use of tarping of low MB permeability. Clarification is also requested on proportion of the CUN that can use strip fumigation, with consequent dosage reductions, and the proportion of uptake of strip fumigation affected by State regulations.

U. S. Response  The 2001 and 2002 average dosage ( use) rate information and 2006 CUE nomination information for the regions covered by this CUN are presented in Table 3. All of the regions in the U. S. are using rates below 200 kg/ ha of methyl bromide. MBTOC has asked for the scope for potential reductions using higher proportions of chloropicrin and tarping with low methyl bromide permeable film. Research on fumigant combinations with higher concentrations of chloropicrin are being conducted in several locations throughout the U. S. However, to date these alternative combinations have not always been as effective as methyl bromide. Table 4 shows an evaluation of combination fumigant studies comparing their yield to methyl bromide. In those studies only 44% of the fumigant combinations had yields equal to at least 95% of the methyl bromide treatment. This suggests that switching to combinations of fumigants and using higher levels of chloropicrin may not provide yields similar to methyl bromide, in particular with respect to the areas nominated by the U. S. because pest pressure is moderate to severe in these areas. Low permeability tarping has not been widely adopted in the U. S. for a number of reasons. Tarps are currently used on 93% of the California and 100% of the Florida soil applications. Regulations restrict low permeability film in California which accounts for approximately 76% of the total U. S. strawberry soil use. Under U. S. conditions VIF has poor application characteristics: it must be unrolled slower to prevent tearing, photodegradation is a problem when used for multiple crops, and there are problems with disposal in many localities. In addition, to date field trials testing strip treatments using equivalent amounts of methyl USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 4 bromide have not provided clear evidence that lower permeability films reduce emissions relative to other films. MBTOC asked about the proportion of the CUN where strip treatments are used. Currently strip treatments are used in the Southeast U. S. and Florida which account for ~ 24% of the U. S. CUN ( see Table 3). The use of strip fumigation is limited in California by air quality standards because strip treatments can lead to higher rates of methyl bromide emissions.

Recent research in California has indicated that strip treatments may increase overall methyl bromide emissions compared to equivalent flat fumigations. Therefore, while strip treatments might reduce the total amount of methyl bromide used, it may increase overall air emissions. The U. S. is reviewing the air emissions information for a number of soil fumigants and hopes to make those findings available later this year. In addition to the emission of methyl bromide to the atmosphere, is the practical issue of the reduction in weed populations on a whole field scale. The control of perennial weed species in strip fumigation will allow the weeds to increase in the untreated portions of the field. While herbicides are available ( see Table 7) for this use they posse additional costs, phytotoxicity concerns, and management challenges for the growers.

TABLE 3. METHYL BROMIDE 2001 AND 2002 TWO YEAR AVERAGE USE INFORMATION AND 2006 NOMINATION. 2001 & 2002 Average 2006 Nomination Applicant Kilograms Hectares Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms Hectares Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

CA Strawberry Commission 1,601,966 8,184 196 1,452,732 7,422 196 SouthEast Strawberry Consortium 278,957 1,851 151 152,294 1,010 151 Florida, FFVA   Strawberry 501,446 2,711 185 310,997 1,682 185 Footnote: Information taken from 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) tables.

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES ON U. S. STRAWBERRY.

Alternatives Total Number of Studies Number of Studies with Yield at Least 95% of Methyl Bromide Basamid ( Dazomet) and combinations 27 12 Chloropicrin and combinations 58 36 Metam sodium ( Vapam) and combinations 73 24 Solarization and Combinations 22 6 Telone ( 1,3 dichloropropene) and combinations 93 41 Average Number of Studies Showing Yield At Least 95% of Methyl Bromide 119/ 273 = 44%

MBTOC Question 2  The part of the CUN relating to Californian production was based on a 1X township cap for 1,3 D. An estimate is requested for scope for further reduction in nominated quantity if a 2X cap is allowed. USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 5 U. S. Response  Out of environmental concerns regarding the quality of the ambient air, California regulates the amount of Telone   that can be used in each township within the state. Specifically, Telone   has been found by the State of California to be a carcinogen and regulations have been put in place to limit the cumulative lifetime exposure to bystanders. There are over four thousand townships ( 36 square miles or 9,300 ha each) represented in the California township assessment. The information used to develop the estimate of area impacted by township caps in California was from papers by Carpenter, Lynch, and Trout, cited below, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for.

The current rule in effect for California Telone   use was used for the 2006 U. S. CUE nomination. This is based on Telone   usage being allowed at the baseline amount ( 1X level), not the short term exemption limits ( 2X). The California Department of Pesticide Regulations ( Cal DPR) was contacted for clarification on the Telone   township cap question. Cal DPR explained the use of Telone   starting in 2005 and beyond would be based on: current and historic use patterns in each individual township, future enhancements to the air concentration model and health impact models, and assumptions on the use of adjacent land in the models. Because of the uncertainties in all of these parameters they are currently unable to speculate what the future Telone   township caps will be in California. Accordingly, we believe that the CUE must cover the level of MeBr needed to meet the existing 1X regulatory limit.

MBTOC Question 3  Application of some alternatives through drip irrigation systems may be less successful than MB treatment on steeply sloping ground. As MB injection equipment can be used on slopes at present, are there any reasons why injection equipment cannot also be used for alternative fumigants, including 1,3 D mixtures.

U. S. Response   Shank injection of alternatives such as 1,3 D or 1,3 D with chloropicrin are feasible on hilly terrain. However, research results from California have suggested that this type of application is less effective than when applied through drip irrigation equipment. The technical and economic assessment for the eastern U. S. and Florida indicted a 14% yield loss and $ 47 and $ 62 loss per kilogram of methyl bromide respectively with the best 1,3 D and chloropicrin application techniques. Because of the lower efficacy, the California strawberry growers would need to use flat fumigation for effective pest control which would require 40% more material to be used than in a typical drip irrigation application to the beds. Growers with weed control problems would need to factor in the additional cost of a companion herbicide. In addition, the township cap issue would need to be evaluated again since more 1,3 D injected uses a different township cap multiplier than 1,3 D applied through drip irrigation equipment.

Question 4  The Party is requested to supply data on MB usage in this sector for 2003 for the areas for which a CUE is sought and to provide information on changes to that consumption as reflected in the nomination for 2006. USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 6 U. S. Response   Available methyl bromide usage information is presented in Table 3 above. Unfortunately 2003 data is not yet available. The total hectares of strawberries for fruit in the U. S. were 19,486 in 2002. Estimates of future plantings suggest that the total will increase to 21,900 hectares or 3% per year ( the historical average increase from 1997 to 2002. Therefore, while the U. S. strawberry area is estimated to increase by a total of 13% between 2002 and 2006 the CUE requested is 20% lower than the amount used in 2001 and 2002. Between 1997 and 2000 the U. S. had already reduced the use of methyl bromide in strawberries grown for fruit production by 24%.

MBTOC Question 5  For the part of the CUN relating to Florida and SE USA the Party is requested to describe the technical basis for the estimate that moderate/ severe nutsedge affects 40% and 30% CUN area in Florida and SE respectively.

US Response  A critical use of MB in this region is to control yellow and purple nutsedge. While it is generally accepted by scientific experts that the incidence of these weeds in the southern USA is very high, exact figures have been difficult to obtain. The U. S. estimate of moderate to severe nutsedge distribution is estimated to be between 30 to 40% of the area for both Florida and the eastern U. S.

Earlier this year, Dr. Stanley Culpepper of the University of Georgia submitted to EPA the results of a survey intended to characterize the incidence of nutsedge in vegetable operations. In this survey, extension agents in 34 Georgia vegetable producing counties were polled to better understand the level of nutsedge infestation in eggplants and peppers, among other vegetable crops. Their responses are based on their extensive interactions with vegetable growers in their jurisdictions. The portion of the survey data related to eggplants and peppers, used as a surrogate for strawberries, is summarized below ( see Table 5 & 6).

TABLE 5. PERCENT CURRENT NUTSEDGE INFESTATION IN GEORGIA COUNTIES WHILE METHYL BROMIDE IS AVAILABLE ( CULPEPPER, 2003).*

Crop No Infestation Light Infestation Moderate Infestation Severe Infestation Pepper 1.3 18.9 65.6 14.2 Eggplant 1.0 40.6 39.0 19.4 * Footnote: No infestation = no nutsedge infesting production area. Light infestation = < 5 nutsedge plants per square yard. Moderate infestation = 5 to 30 nutsedge plants per square yard. Severe infestations = > 30 nutsedge plants per square yard. In the BUNI " High Key Pest Distribution" was calculated by added the moderate plus severe infestation. Low Key Pest Distribution was calculated by adding the severe infestation plus one half the moderate infestation.

TABLE 6. PERCENT ANTICIPATED NUTSEDGE INFESTATION THE YEAR AFTER THE INABILITY TO USE METHYL BROMIDE ( CULPEPPER, 2003). *

Crop No Infestation Light Infestation Moderate Infestation Severe Infestation Pepper 0.0 9.1 31.6 59.3 Eggplant 0.2 11.9 50.3 37.6 USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 7 * Footnote: No infestation = no nutsedge infesting production area. Light infestation = < 5 nutsedge plants per square yard. Moderate infestation = 5 to 30 nutsedge plants per square yard. Severe infestations = > 30 nutsedge plants per square yard. In the BUNI " High Key Pest Distribution" was calculated by added the moderate plus severe infestation. Low Key Pest Distribution was calculated by adding the severe infestation plus one half the moderate infestation.

While this survey focused on Georgia, the US believes it is reasonable to expect that the levels of nutsedge infestations reported for these crops is likely to be representative of other areas of the southern USA.

MBTOC Question 6  In Florida, according to the CUN, karst topography prevents use of 1,3 D on 40% of the MB using area. The Party is requested to describe the technical basis of this estimate or provide survey data to substantiate this area is impacted and to clarify the actual proportion of current strawberry crop CUN that cannot use 1,3 D due to restrictions relating to karst topography. Further detail is sought why other effective alternatives ( e. g. Pic formulations, metham sodium in combination with Pic), assisted by specific herbicides if necessary, cannot be used to manage pests in these areas. Are there barriers to adoption of the combinations, with and without herbicides?

US Response   The estimates of the area impacted by karst geology in Florida, restricting the use of 1,3 D, were developed and mapped by the Florida Department of Agriculture ( 1984). The estimates of karst geology for Georgia and the southeast U. S. were developed from applicant and university survey information. In addition see the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for 1,3 D ( U. S. EPA, 1998). A map of the karst geology in the U. S. is available online at http:// www2. nature. nps. gov/ nckri/ map/ maps/ engineering_ aspects/ davies_ map_ PDF. pdf . The proportion of the current Florida strawberry crop that cannot use 1,3 D because of karst geology is 40% ( see BUNI, 2006).

The comparative performance of additional alternatives such as 1,3 D plus chloropicrin, metam sodium with chloropicrin are presented below in Table 7. Based on these studies under moderate to severe pest pressure the alternatives would lead to an overall yield loss of 25%. Chloropicrin alone was not specifically evaluated because it does not provide adequate control of nematodes or weeds. Table 8 below lists the herbicides currently registered in the U. S. for strawberries. Of the registered herbicides only s metolachlor will provide suppression of yellow nutsedge, but will provide no control of purple nutsedge at current label rates. One of the key barriers to adoption of a fumigant and herbicide combination is the lack of selective herbicides for strawberry weed control.

TABLE 7 ALTERNATIVES YIELD LOSS DATA SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE LIST TYPE OF PEST RANGE OF YIELD LOSS BEST ESTIMATE OF YIELD LOSS USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 8 1,3 Dichloropropene/ Chloropicrin Weeds, nematodes and diseases 1% gain to 14% loss 14.4% ( Shaw and Larson, 1999) Chloropicrin/ Metam sodium Multiple pests 6.6 47% 27% Locascio, 1999 Metam sodium Weeds, nematodes and diseases 16% 29.8% 29.8% ( Shaw and Larson, 1999)

OVERALL LOSS ESTIMATE FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES TO PESTS 25%

TABLE 8: HERBICIDES LABELED AND IR 4 DESIGNATED IN THE US TO CONTROL NUTSEDGE IN STRAWBERRIES HERBICIDE REGISTERED MAJOR COMMENTS Glyphosate YES Non selective, will not control nutsedge in the plant rows, no residual control S metolachlor YES 24( c) Florida. & California, suppression of yellow nutsedge at label rates, does not control purple nutsedge, high water solubility, low Koc Paraquat YES Non selective, will not control nutsedge in the plant rows, no residual control Terbacil YES Only suppresses nutsedge, crop rotation restrictions, Organic Matter restrictions, not for use in Calf., used in Canada Acifluorfen NO* Potential injury in strawberry, yellow nutsedge control only Halosulfuron methyl NO Potential crop injury, crop rotation restrictions, variable cultivar tolerances Rimsulfuron NO Only suppresses nutsedge, crop rotation restrictions Thiazopyr NO* " Nutsedge" suppression, can be used in low Organic Matter soils Footnote: * IR 4 listed chemical MBTOC Question 7  In SE USA, in the area growing strawberries according to the CUN, buffer zones restrict use of 1,3 D on 90% of CUN area. The Party is requested to describe the technical basis of this estimate or provide survey data to substantiate this area is impacted and to clarify the actual proportion of current strawberry crop CUN that cannot use 1,3 D due to these restrictions. Further detail is sought why other effective alternatives ( e. g. Pic formulations, metham sodium/ Pic, dazomet/ Pic), assisted by specific herbicides if necessary cannot be used to manage pests in these areas.

US Response   The U. S. estimates of the area impacted by 100 foot ( 30.5 m) buffer zones are 40% for the eastern U. S. and 1% for Florida. The 2006 CUN request used an estimate of 90% regulatory impacts in the eastern U. S. because the regulations required a 300 foot ( 91.4 m) buffer which has since been reduced to 100 feet on the alternative 1,3 dichloropropene. The current estimates used information from applicants and alternatives manufacturers including: average field size, the density of habitable structures near strawberry fields, population distributions, and surveys of extension agents. That information was used to make a professional judgment on the impact of buffers. For example, the eastern U. S. has many small pick your own strawberry farms ( less than 4 hectares) where the impact of a 100 foot buffer is more pronounced than on the larger farms in California or Florida. Because of the significant impact that these estimates have on the overall request for methyl bromide, the U. S. EPA is evaluating additional methods to further substantiate and quantify the impacts of buffer zones.

One of the key barriers to adoption of a fumigant and herbicide combination ( using fumigants such as chloropicrin, metam sodium with chloropicrin) is the lack of selective herbicides for USA, Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 9 strawberry weed control. Table 8 above lists the herbicides currently registered in the U. S. for strawberries. Of the registered herbicides only s metolachlor will provide suppression of yellow nutsedge, but will provide no control of purple nutsedge at current label rates. An additional constraint is that under moderate to severe pest pressure there is an average of 25% yield loss with the alternatives ( Table 7).

REFERENCES 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)   Refined Nomination Package. Attached to U. S. Response to Questions as an Excel Spreadsheet.

Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 DC will Impact Adjustment to Methyl bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3.

Carpenter, Janet and Lori Lynch. 1999. Impact of 1,3 D Restrictions in California after a Ban on Methyl Bromide. Presentation at the 1999 Annual International Conference of Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Culpepper, S. 2004. Infestations of Nutsedge in Georgia Vegetable Crops. Supporting survey information. University of Georgia supporting survey information. Email of January 23, 2004.

Florida Department of Agriculture. May 1984. Summary of soil hydrogeological and other environmental conditions in the state of Florida related to the use of pesticides.

Karst Gelogy Map. 2004. Available online at http:// www2. nature. nps. gov/ nckri/ map/ maps/ engineering_ aspects/ davies_ map_ PDF. pdf Locascio S. J., Olson S. M., Chase C. A., Sinclair T. R., Dickson D. W., Mitchell D. J. and Chellemi D. O. 1999. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Shaw V. S., and Larson K. D., 1999. A meta analysis of Strawberry Yield Response to Pre plant Soil Fumigation with Combinations of Methyl Bromide chloropicrin and Four Alternative Systems. HortScience 34: 839 845.

U. S. EPA. 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED), 1,3 Dichlorpropene http:// www. epa. gov/ REDs/ 0328red. pdf


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 50655]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2837-033]

Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2837-033.
    c. Date filed: March 29, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie).
    e. Name of Project: Granby Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Oswego River in the town of Fulton in Oswego
County, New York. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven P. Murphy, Director, U.S. Licensing,
Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, NY
13069;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Allyson Conner,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: 30 days from the issuance
date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2837-033.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
l. Project Description
    The existing Granby Hydroelectric Project (Granby Project) consists
of: (1) An 88-foot-wide reinforced concrete intake structure that
includes two bays containing trashracks and fixed-roller, vertical-lift
type gates; (2) a 17-foot-wide sluice opening adjacent to the intake
structure; (3) a 112-foot-long, 88-foot-wide powerhouse containing two
5.04-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator units, with a total capacity of
10.08 MW; (4) a 3,000-foot-long, 100-foot-wide tailrace; (5) two 4.16-
kilovolt, 120-foot-long underground generator leads; (6) a 60-foot-long
by 48-foot-wide electrical switchyard; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
    The Granby Project is operated in a modified run-of-river mode. The
Granby Project and the Fulton Development at Erie's Oswego River
Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2474) are located at opposite
ends of the same dam and share a single bypassed reach and reservoir.
The flow and impoundment elevation requirements in the Oswego Project
license,\1\ which were based on a 2004 Offer of Settlement, affect the
Granby Project. The average annual generation at the Granby Project is
estimated to be 44,181 megawatt-hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 109 FERC ] 62, 141 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    m. 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 website 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. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
o. Scoping Process
    The Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the Granby Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-
specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document 1 (SD1)
issued on September 28, 2018.
    Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA
were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list.
Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21776 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P