[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54414-54415]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2006-23686]

Petition for Approval of Product Safety Plan

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on October 16, 2018, BNSF Railway
Company (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for
approval of a Product Safety Plan (PSP) Version 2.5, dated August 31,
2018, pursuant to 49 CFR 236.907(a). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2006-23686.
    BNSF requests FRA approval of a PSP for the Dual Radar Roadway
Vehicle Detector (VDR24). The VDR24, supplied by Island Radar, is used
as a vehicle detection subsystem for four-quadrant gate crossing
warning systems, with its intended application as an alternative to
inductive loop vehicle detectors. BNSF asserts that this PSP addresses
all requirements of 49 CFR 236.907(a). The petition states that Version
2.5 incorporates revisions required by the conditions of FRA's July 19,
2018 letter.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 13, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-23535 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Tony Kisch,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Nissan Chemical industries, Inc.

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Nissan Chemical Industries, Inc., 3-7-1, Kanda Nishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [3-[3-bromo-6-fluoro-2-methyl-H-indol-1-yl)sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-1H  -  1,2,4-triazole-1-sulfonamide (amisulbrom) in or on grapes at 0.4 ppm and on raisins at 1.0 ppm. The proposed tolerance will be a tolerance on treated grapes and its processed products treated in Western Europe and imported into the U.S. There will be no U.S registration. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

   1. Plant metabolism. Metabolism studies were conducted with Thompson seedless grapes using [14]C amisulbrom labeled in both the indole and the triazole ring.

      Studies were conducted in both 2004 and in 2005 in California.

      The 2004 study reflected application at the rate of 100 g a.i./ha or 0.089 lb a.i./A using a 20% SC formulation.

      Applications were made at 34, 24 and 14 days before harvest. Fruit were harvested at 0 and 7 days after the last application. Fruit and leaves were harvested at 14 days after last application. Additionally, some bunches of grapes were covered during amisulbrom application. The purpose of this was to assess translocation in the grape plant.

      The 2005 grape study reflected application at the rate of 75g a.i./ha or 0.067 lb a.i./A using a 20% SC formulation.

      Applications were made at 58, 48, 38 and 28 days before harvest. Fruit were harvested at 0 days after the last application. Fruit and leaves were harvested at 28 days after last application.

      Samples from both metabolism studies were surface washed with acetonitrile on the day of sampling. The washed samples were extracted by homogenization with acetonitrile: water and the remaining solid residues combusted. The radioactivity from the washes, extracts and residues are the total residue in the plant.

      In the 2004 study, residues at 14 days after application were 0.289 ppm and 0.537 ppm for the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom respectively. Translocation was found to be a very minor route in the metabolism of amisulbrom in grapes. At both the 0 day and the 14 day harvest intervals, the major residue was amisulbrom per se; 84.3% from the indole ring label and 83.4% from the triazole ring label. There were 8 non-bridge cleaved metabolites, 2 bridge cleaved metabolites, up to 10 unidentified metabolites and polar metabolites. The levels of individual metabolites were between <=0.05% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) and 1.2% TRR (<=0.0005 ppm and 0.006 ppm). The potential residue of concern, 1,2,4-triazole was not detected in grape fruits treated with triazole-ring labeled amisulbrom.

      The residue level in the grape foliage was higher in the foliage than in the grape fruits; 6.08 and 9.19 ppm respectively from the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom. Amisulbrom comprised 3.54 ppm and 4.79 ppm respectively from the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom. Soxlet extraction, mild acidic and basic hydrolysis, EDTA extraction and enzyme hydrolysis were used to release the bound residue. There were 7 non-bridge cleaved metabolites, 3 bridge-cleaved metabolites and up to 13 unidentified metabolites and polar material.

      In the 2005 study, residues at 28 days after application were 0.319 ppm and 0.231 ppm for the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom respectively. Translocation was found to be a very minor route in the metabolism of amisulbrom in grapes. At the 28 day harvest interval, the major residue was amisulbrom per se; 67.3% from the indole ring label and 69.8% from the triazole ring label. There were 6 non-bridge cleaved metabolites, 3 bridge-cleaved metabolites, triazole alanine, triazole acetic acid up to 18 unidentified metabolites and polar metabolites. The levels of individual metabolites were between <=0.05% of the total radioactive residue (TRR) and 5.1% TRR (<=0.0005 ppm and 0.012 ppm). The potential residue of concern, 1,2,4-triazole was not detected in grape fruits treated with triazole-ring labeled amisulbrom.

      The residue level in the grape foliage was much higher in the foliage than in the grape fruits; 3.02 and 3.58 ppm respectively from the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom. Amisulbrom comprised 1.07 ppm and 1.35 ppm respectively from the [14]C indole and the[14]C triazole ring labeled amisulbrom. Soxlet extraction, mild acidic and basic hydrolysis, EDTA extraction and enzyme hydrolysis were used to release the bound residue. There were 7 non-bridge cleaved metabolites, 4 bridge-cleaved metabolites, triazole acetic acid and up to 30 unidentified metabolites and polar material. The levels of the individual metabolites were between <=0.003 ppm and 0.213 ppm.

      The nature of the [3-[3-bromo-6-fluoro-2-methyl-1H-indol-1-yl)sulfonyl]-N.N-dimethyl-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-sulfonamide] (ISO name-amisulbrom) residue in grapes is adequately understood. In summary, [amisulbrom] is metabolized as follows.

1.       Cleavage of the sulfonylamino side chain on the triazole ring
2.       Debromination
3.       Oxidation/hydroxylation
4.       Cleavage of the sulfonyl bridge between the indole and triazole ring
5.       Indole ring opening

      The plant metabolism data show that the amisulbrom itself translocates to a very small extent into the grape fruit. 77% of the residue in grapes has been identified. 70% of the residue in grape fruits is amisulbrom at the proposed 28 day PHI. The potential residue of concern, 1,2,4-triazole was not detected in grape fruits treated with triazole-ring labeled amisulbrom.

      The nature of the residue in grapes, raisins and grape leaves is adequately understood.

      The residue of toxicological concern is parent compound, amisulbrom [3-[3-bromo-6-fluoro-2-methyl-1H-indol-1-yl)sulfonyl]-N.N-dimethyl-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-sulfonamide].

   1. Analytical method. The analytical method used to collect grape field and processing data is briefly described below.

      Grape Method. (Report No. NAS/490/042294):

      The method involves extracting the crop substrate with acetonitrile: water (80:20 v/v).  Clean-up was performed using solid phase extraction (SPE), prior to quantitation using tandem mass spectrographic detection (LC/MS/MS). The limit of quantitation is 0.01 ppm. The limit of detection is 0.0025 ppm.

      Processing Method. (Report No. NAS/648/052518):

      The analytical method used to collect raisin, juice, and wine processing data is similar to the method used for grapes, but has a few minor modifications. The determination and quantitation of the amisulbrom is conducted using LC/MS/MS detection.  The limit of quantitation of the method for amisulbrom is 0.01 ppm.

      Independent Method Validation. (Report No. 0306-150):

      The analytical method used for grape data collection (Report No. NAS/490/042294) was subjected to an independent laboratory validation. Untreated control grapes were fortified with amisulbrom at 0.01 ppm and 1.0 ppm.  The method was successfully validated  and the results are shown in the following table.

      Independent Laboratory Validation Grape Analytical Method

      Analyte
                              Fortification Level (ppm)
                                    Recovery (%)
      Amisulbrom
                                        0.01
                                        1.00
      85, 82, 84, 70, 73
      90, 97, 90, 87, 57

                                  Overall Mean = 82
                             Standard Deviation =  11.7

      Independent Laboratory Validation Analytical Method

                                     Amisulbrom
                                Procedural Recoveries

                                    Matrix
                            Range of Fortification
                                     (ppm)

                                          n
      Mean
                                          %
                                      Recovery
                                    Grapes
                                     0.01
      5
                                         79

                                      1.0
      5
                                         84

      Enforcement Method Conclusion:  An analytical method (LC/MS/MS) is available for enforcement.

      Multiresidue Method. Grapes and Raisins (Report No. 221C-103):

      Grapes and raisins were analyzed to evaluate the multiresidue methodology as presented in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM), Volume I (1), for the determination of amisulbrom in a fortified nonfatty plant substrate. The analyses were performed by solvent extraction and gas chromatography. The decision tree outline for MRM testing was (Protocol C and Protocol E).

      Grapes were fortified at 0.05 ppm a.i. and 0.5 ppm a.i. Raisins were also fortified at 0.05 ppm a.i. and 0.5 ppm a.i.

      For grapes, the recoveries at 0.05 ppm and 0.5 ppm were for samples extracted with method 303 E5 and cleaned-up with C1 were 117% and 120% and 86% and 92% respectively.

      For raisins the recoveries at 0.05 ppm and 0.5 ppm were for samples extracted with method 303 E5 and cleaned-up with C1 were 97% and 107% and 85% and 89%  respectively.

      Amisulbrom is recovered by the FDA PAM I Protocols C and E.

   2. Magnitude of residues. Grapes. The magnitude and decline of amisulbrom residues were determined on grapes and on raisins, grape juice and on wine.

      Magnitude of the Residue-Grape Raw Agricultural Commodity Crop Field Trials

      Seven field trials were conducted in 2003 using various varieties of grapes.

      Trial sites were located in Germany (2 sites), North France (2 sites), South France (1 site), and Spain (2 sites).  Grapes were harvested 0-28 days following four applications (10 day spray intervals) with a suspension concentrate (SC) formulation of amisulbrom.  The target application rate was0.067 lb a.i./A. (Report No. NAS/519/033985)

      Samples of grapes were analyzed for residues of amisulbrom, using a validated analytical method (Report No. NAS/490/042294).  The overall recoveries were 79% to 100% for amisulbrom.  The limit of quantitation was 0.01 ppm.   The samples were stored frozen 38 to 121 days from collection to extraction.

      The residues of amisulbrom ranged from 0.17 ppm to 0.34 ppm at a 0 day PHI and 0.03 to 0.10 ppm in grapes at the proposed 28 day PHI.

      Eleven field trials were conducted in 2004 using various varieties of grape.  Trial sites were located in Germany (2 sites), North France (3 sites), South France (3 sites), Italy (2 sites), and Spain (1 site).  Grapes were harvested 0-28 days following four applications (10 day spray intervals) with a suspension concentrate (SC) formulation of amisulbrom-.  The target application rate was 0.067 lb a.i/A. (Report No. NAS/636/043428)

      Samples of grapes were analyzed for residues of amisulbrom, using a validated analytical method (Report No. NAS/490/042294).  The overall recoveries were 79% - 100% for amisulbrom.  The limit of quantitation was 0.01 ppm.   The samples were stored frozen 28 to 137 days from collection to extraction.

      The residues of amisulbrom ranged from 0.10 ppm to 0.90 ppm at a 0 day PHI and 0.03 to 0.23 ppm in grapes at the proposed 28 day PHI.

      Magnitude of the Residue-Grape Processed Commodity Crop Field Trials (Report No. NAS/638/043430):

      Four processing studies were conducted using grapes grown in Germany (two studies) and Italy (two studies). Grapes were harvested 28 days after four applications of an SC formulation of amisulbrom.

      For the first German trial, there were two plots for two treatments rates. There was also a control plot in the study.

      For the this trial, the first plot reflected four treatments at the proposed application rate of   0.067 lb a.i./A. The amisulbrom residue at the 28 day PHI was 0.28 ppm to 0.32 ppm prior to processing.

      For the second plot, there were four treatments at 2.5 x the proposed application rate. The residue at the 28 day PHI was 1.13 ppm to 1.43 ppm prior to processing.

      At a second German trial, the application rate was 0.067 lb a.i./A. There was also a control plot. The amisulbrom residue at the 28 day PHI was 0.21 ppm to 0.29 ppm prior to processing.

      There were two Italian grape residue studies for processing. In both studies the application rate was 0.067 lb a.i./A There were also control plots in each study.

      In one Italian study, the amisulbrom residue at the 28 day PHI was 0.05 ppm to 0.07 ppm prior to processing.

      In the second Italian study, the amisulbrom residue was 0.09 ppm prior to processing at the 28 day PHI.

      Grapes were harvested at a 28 day PHI in all of the studies that were used for processing.

      Processing study summary: Grapes treated at the proposed application rate in the four studies reported an average amisulbrom residue of 0.19 ppm in grape fruits at the 28 day PHI and were 0.16 ppm at processing; 0.45 ppm in raisins, 0.035 ppm in fresh grape juice, 0.021 ppm in pasteurized grape juice and non-detectable (<0.0025 ppm) in wine. Residues of amisulbrom are not likely to concentrate in grape juice and wine.

      Magnitude of the Residue in Grape and Grape Processed Commodities

      A tolerance of 0.4 ppm is needed for grapes and because residues concentrate in raisins, a tolerance of 1.0 ppm is needed for raisins.

      Magnitude of the Residue in Animals

      There are no livestock feed items associated with the crops for which tolerances are proposed. There will be no problem of secondary residues resulting in meat, milk, poultry and eggs from the proposed grape use.

B. Toxicological Profile

   1. Acute toxicity. Acute Toxicity. Several acute toxicology studies were conducted, and the overall results placed technical grade amisulbrom in toxicity Category IV.  These include the following studies in Category IV: acute oral toxicity (LD50  >5,000 mg/kg); acute dermal LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg rabbit; acute inhalation toxicity (LC50 >2.85 mg/L, rat). Primary eye irritation: not irritating.  Primary skin irritation: not irritating. Amisulbrom was not a dermal sensitizer.

   2. Genotoxicity. All mutagenicity studies on amisulbrom were negative.  Tests run included, bacterial gene mutation assays, chromosomal aberration study in human lymphocytes, mammalian gene mutation in mouse lymphoma cells, in vivo/in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis, and in vivo mouse micronucleus test (bone marrow).

   3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  A developmental toxicity study in Han Wistar rats administered dosage levels of 0, 100, 300 and 1000 mg/kg/d in 22 mated females.  The maternal and developmental   toxicity no-observed effect level (NOEL) was 1000 mg/kg/day. Result: No adverse effect on pregnancy or embryo -fetal survival and development.

      A developmental toxicity study in rabbits administered dosage levels of 0, 30, 100 and 300 mg/kg/day, 24 rabbits/dose. The maternal toxicity NOEL was 30 mg/kg/day was based on decreased body weights and food consumption at 100, 300 mg/kg/d. No fetal effects were observed. The fetal NOEL was 300 mg/kg/d.

      A two-generation developmental study in Wistar rats (28/sex) fed diets containing 0, 120, 600, 3,000 ppm,15,000 ppm (or approximately 9.8, 48.5, 240, 1200 mg/kg/d for males and  10.5, 53, 261, 1291 mg/kg/d for females.)  Results were: Decreased body weight gains, food consumption and increased liver and decrease in ovarian weights and delayed sexual maturation at 3,000, 15,000 ppm: Poor sexual performance in females at 15,000 ppm. Found with mechanistic studies to be due to decreased food consumption and decreased food consumption and decreased lactation in the dams.

      NOEL for F1 and F2 adults: 600 ppm
      NOEL for reproductive performance: 15,000 ppm (males) and 3,000 ppm (females)

   4. Subchronic toxicity. A 13-week study was conducted in Wistar rats fed diets
      containing 0, 2,000, 6,300 ppm, or 20,000 ppm amisulbrom  (or approximately 0, 170.6,
      525.0, 1715.8 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 186.6, 587.2 and 1880.4 mg/kg/day in females).
      The NOEL was 2,000 ppm (170.6 mg/kg/day) in males and 6,300 ppm (587.2 mg/kg/day) in
      females. This was based on decreased body wt, food consumption, increased liver enzymes,
      non-specific toxicity at 6300 and 20,000 ppm.

      A 13-week feeding study in mice was conducted with diets that contained 0, 800, 2,500 or
      8,000 ppm amisulbrom (or approximately 0, 118.8, 400.3, 1280.2 mg/kg/day in males and 0,
      163.4, 505.6 and 1638.4 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOEL was 800 ppm (118.8
      mg/kg/day) in males and (164.4 mg/kg/day) in females. This was based on non-specific
      toxicity seen at 2500 and 8000 ppm. Liver weighs increased at those doses.

      A 13- week dog study with beagle dogs (4/sex/dose) was conducted with diets that
      contained 0, 100, 300 1,000 mg/kg/day amisulbrom by capsule. The NOEL was 300
      mg/kg/day. This was based on non-specific toxicity seen at 1000 mg/kg/day in early weeks,
      increased alkaline phosphatase in females.

      An acute neurotoxicity study was conducted with CD rats; 10/sex/dose were dosed at levels of 0, 200, 2,000 mg/kg with a14-day observation period. The results showed no effects at any dose except decreased absolute brain weights at 2,000 mg/kg (no accompanying pathology). The NOEL was greater than 2,000 mg/kg with no evidence of acute neurotoxicity.

      Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study. Rats dosed at levels of 0, 300, 3,000, and 10,000 ppm (or approximately 0, 22.9, 246, 860 mg/kg/d for males and 0, 29, 313, 1132 mg/kg/d for females. The results were general toxicity-reduced body weight gains at 3,000 and 10,000 ppm.

      NOEL: General Toxicity: 300 ppm (22.9 mg/kg/d for males and 29.0 mg/kg/d for females)
      NOEL: Neurotoxicity: 10,000 ppm (860 mg/kg/d for males and 1132 mg/kg/d for females.

      A 21-day dermal study was conducted in rats at amisulbrom doses of 0, 100, 300, or 1,000
      mg/kg/day. The NOEL was 300 mg/kg/day (males) and 1000 mg/kg/day (females). This was
      based on decreased body weight gain, food efficiency at 1000 mg/kg/day in males:
      Hyperplasia at dermal application site in females at 300 and 1000 mg/kg/day, males at 1000
       mg/kg/day.

   5. Chronic toxicity. Chronic Toxicity/Oncogenicity. A two-year chronictoxicity study was conducted in Han Wistar rats fed diets containing 0, 200, 2000, 10,000, and 20,000 ppm amisulbrom (0, 11.1, 112,, 568 and 1160 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 14.3, 147, 753, and 1503 mg/kg/day for females, respectively). A two-year carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats fed diets containing 2,000, 10,000, 20,000, ppm (0, 96.0, 496, 1008 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 129, 697, 1436 mg/kg/day for females, respectively).

      Toxicity phase: Non-specific toxicity was seen in liver and kidney. NOEL: 200 ppm (11.1 mg/kg/d for males and 14.3 mg/kg/d for females.

      Carcinogenicity phase: Well tolerated at 2,000 ppm but exceeded MTD at 10,000 and 20,000 ppm with marked decreased weight gain and increased mortality. Target organs: liver, kidney, stomach, duodenum, caecum, thyroid and mesenteric lymph nodes.

      Treated-related tumors were seen in liver and stomach at 10,000 ppm and higher, with excess toxicity in liver and chronic inflammatory changes in forestomach.

      Liver tumors: Hepatocellular adenomas (0, 2, 10, 13 in males; 0, 1, 24, 28 in females) and carcinomas (0, 0, 1, 0 in males and 0, 0, 2, 1 in females).

      Stomach tumors: Squamous cell papillomas (0, 0, 1, 2 in males) and carcinomas (0, 0, 0, 1in females).

      A carcinogenicity study in CD-1 mice (78 weeks) was conducted. 50 mice/sex. Doses: 0, 100, 800, 4000, 8000 ppm amisulbrom (11.6, 97.8, 494, 1035 mg/kg/d males; 13.5, 121, 594, 1255 mg/kg/d, females). Results: Decrease body weight gain at 4,000 ppm (23 % males) and 8,000 ppm (37 % male, 13 % females). Non-specific toxicity at 800 ppm and higher.  Focal hepatic necrosis at 8,000 ppm in males.

      Results: Neoplastic: Heptacellular adenomas, non carcinomas in males at 800 ppm and higher (9, 12, 17, 23, 18) MTD exceeded at 4,000 and 8,000 ppm.

      NOEL: 100 ppm (11.6 mg/kg/d males, 13.5 mg/kg/d females).

      A one-year feeding study was conducted in beagle dogs fed diets containing 0, 10, 100, 300, 1000 mg/kg/day amisulbrom by gelatin capsules. There was no specific toxicity at 300, 1000 mg/kg/day, target was liver.  The NOEL was 100 mg/kg/day.

   6. Animal metabolism. Single and repeat dose study:  Han Wistar rats were used in the two studies.

      The route of metabolism of amisulbrom in the rat involves a complex series of reactions including cleavage of the sulfonylamino side chain on the triazole ring, debromination, oxidation/hydroxylation and limited cleavage of the sulfonyl bridge between the indole and triazole moieties.

   7. Metabolite toxicology. Metabolite IT-4

      IT-4: reverse mutation in four histidine-requiring strains of Salmonella typhimurium and one tryptophan-requiring strain of Escherichia coli. Negative.

      IT-4: Induction of micronuclei in the bone marrow of treated mice. Negative.

      IT-4: Acute oral toxicity in the female rat (acute toxic class method). Strain: hsd.BrHan: WIST. Acute oral toxicity: > 50 mg/kg, < 300 mg/kg.

   8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating the potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of amisulbrom have been conducted. However, the standard battery of required toxicology studies has been conducted. These include an evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term exposure to doses that far exceed likely human exposures. Based on these studies there is no evidence to suggest that amisulbrom has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

   9. Immunotoxicity.  Subchronic (4-week) immunotoxicity study:  Rats dosed at levels of 0, 400, 2,000, and 10,000 ppm (0, 32.8, 157, and 732 mg/kg/day in males and 0,33.4, 167, and 823 mg/kg/day in females).  The results were general toxicity with reduced bodyweight gain in both sexes at 10,000 ppm.  There were no statistically significant changes in number of cells/spleen, PFC/106

      NOEL:  General Toxicity 2,000 ppm  (157 mg/kg/day for males and 167 mg/kg/day for females).

      NOEL:  Immunotoxicity:  10,000 ppm (732 mg/kg/day for males and 823 mg/kg/day for females).

      Subchronic (4-week) immunotoxicity study.  Mice dosed at 0,250, 1000, 4000 ppm (0, 36.7, 164, or 595 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 48.7, 191, or 738 mg/kg/day in females).  General toxicity was noted in males at 4,000 ppm with reduced bodyweight gain.  There were no statistically significant changes in number of cells/spleen, PFC/106 cells, or PFC/spleen for any groups that received amisulbrom.

      NOEL:  General Toxicity:  1,000 ppm (164 mg/kg/day for males and 191 mg/kg/day for females).

      NOEL:  Immunotoxicity:  4,000 ppm (595 mg/kg/day in males and 738 mg/kg/day in females).

C. Aggregate Exposure

   1. Dietary exposure.

      i. Food.

      The chronic ADI is 0.11 mg/kg/d with 100 fold safety factor.

      The acute NOEL was based on the findings from the rabbit developmental toxicity study.  The NOEL for general toxicity was 30 mg/kg/day in dams.  This was the lowest does from all short term studies.   The DEEM Model was used to evaluate risk from acute dietary exposure to amisulbrom using this reference dose and tolerance level residues. Using the Tier I assessment (the most conservative exposure) for the overall exposure for the overall U.S. population, the predicted acute exposure are estimated to be 0.4% of the aPAD (0.3 mg/kg/d with 100-fold safety factor) for the general U.S. population, 0.7% for all infants, 2.1% for children aged 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed subpopulation), and 1.4% for children aged 3-5 years old.. Acute dietary exposures below 100% of the aPAD are reasonably expected to result in no harm to exposed populations.

      The chronic NOEL was based on the findings of a combined chronic/carcinogenicity study with rats. The NOEL for general toxicity was 11.1 mg/kg/d for males. This was the lowest dose from all long term studies. The DEEM Model was used to evaluate risk from chronic dietary exposure to amisulbrom using this reference dose and tolerance level residues. Using the Tier I assessment (the most conservative exposure) for the overall exposure for the overall U.S. population, the predicted chronic exposure are estimated to be 0.2% of the cPAD (0.11 mg/kg/d) for the general U.S. population, 0.3% for all infants, 1.1% for children aged 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed subpopulation), and 0.7% for children aged 3-5 years old. Chronic dietary exposures below 100% of the cPAD are reasonably expected to result in no harm to exposed populations.

      ii. Drinking water.

      There is no U.S. registration proposed for the use on grapes; therefore will be no residues of amisulbrom  in drinking water in the U.S.

   2. Non-dietary exposure. There will be no registered use of amisulbrom in the U.S. The proposed tolerances are to cover residues that could occur on imported grapes and grape products that are treated in Western Europe and imported into the U.S. No U.S. registration is involved with this petition.

      There will be no other sources of exposure to amisulbrom than the dietary exposure.

D. Cumulative Effect

      There are no registered uses for the chemical amisulbrom. There is no evidence to indicate that amisulbrom has any toxic effects on mammals that would be cumulative with those of any other chemicals.

E. Safety Determination

   1. U.S. population.

      This assessment documents a Tier I chronic and acute dietary assessment associated with proposed tolerance-level residues of amisulbrom on grapes and raisins. Tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated were assumed for all commodities. The chronic and acute dietary exposures associated with the proposed import tolerances for amisulbrom have been demonstrated to be less than the cPAD (0.11 mg/kg/d) and aPAD (0.3 mg/kg/d). Exposures below the cPAD and the aPAD are not of concern. These dietary assessments are conservative because they include tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated for all commodities. Actual exposures will be considerably lower than those estimated here because only import tolerances are being proposed for amisulbrom.

   2. Infants and children.

      Based on the above, it is concluded that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold uncertainty factor and that an additional uncertainty is not needed to protect the health of infants and children.

F.	International Tolerances International Tolerances. Harmonization of Tolerances:

   	There are no Mexican, Canadian or Codex MRLs/tolerances; therefore, compatibility is not an issue at this time. There is a 3 ppm MRL for amisulbrom on grapes in Japan. The use pattern differs from the use pattern in Europe.  In the EU, a 0.3 ppm MRL has been proposed for grapes, but it has not yet been established.

   	A temporary MRL of 0.01 mg/kg has been set in the U.K. and in Northern Ireland for the use of NC-224 20 SC on potatoes; however, since potatoes from the U.K. and Northern Ireland are not imported in the U.S., import tolerances for these commodities are not required


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 1285]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3589-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

New York; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of New York (FEMA-3589-EM), dated November 20,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued November 20, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 20, 2022, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of New York resulting from a severe winter storm and
snowstorm beginning on November 18, 2022, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the
State of New York.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun
Yee, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Jefferson, Lewis,
Niagara, Oneida, Oswego, St. Lawrence, and Wyoming Counties for
emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00170 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 17397-17411]
[DOCID:fr01ap08-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Order Soliciting Community Proposals

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order Soliciting Community Proposals (Order 2008-3-8)
Docket DOT-OST-2008-0100.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is soliciting proposals from
communities or consortia of communities interested in receiving a grant
under the Small Community Air Service Development Program. The full
text of the Department's order is attached to this document. There are
two mandatory requirements for filing of applications, both of which
must be completed for a community's application to be deemed timely and
considered by the Department. The first requirement is the filing of an
Application for Federal Domestic Assistance (SF424) through http://
www.grants.gov. The second is the submission of the community's
proposal as an attachment to its SF424. Applicants must complete a one-
time registration process at http://www.grants.gov that can take up to
10 days to complete. For this reason, applicants should register as
soon as possible to ensure they can meet the application deadline.

DATES: Grant proposals and the SF424 should be submitted no later than
June 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties must submit applications electronically
as an attachment to the SF424 through http://www.grants.gov. The
application should bear the title, ``Proposal under the Small Community
Air Service Development Program, Docket DOT-OST-2008-0100,'' as well as
the name of the applicant community or consortium of communities, the
legal sponsor, and the applicant's DUNS number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aloha Ley, Office of Aviation
Analysis, 8th Floor, Room W86-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 25, 2008.
Michael W. Reynolds,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

[Docket DOT-OST-2008-0100]

In the Matter of Grant Applications

Small Community Air Service Development Program under 49 U.S.C. 41743
et seq.; Order Soliciting Community Grant Proposals

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 25th day of March,
2008

Overview

    By this order, the Department invites proposals from communities
and/or consortia of communities interested in obtaining a federal grant
under the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Small
Community Program) to address air service and airfare problems in their
communities. Proposals should be submitted in the above-referenced
docket no later than June 6, 2008. Applicants must submit an
Application

for Federal Domestic Assistance (SF424), a standard federal government
grant application form, at http://www.grants.gov and include their
proposals as an attachment to the SF424. An application will not be
deemed complete until and unless all required materials are filed by
the June 6 deadline. (See Appendix C for additional information on
filing form SF424.) Communities are reminded to register with
Grants.gov early in the application period since the registration
process can take up to 10 days to complete.

Funding Opportunity

    The Small Community Program was established under the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21),
Public Law 106-181, and reauthorized under the Vision 100-Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176 (Vision 100). The
program is designed to provide financial assistance to small
communities to help them enhance their air service. The Department
provides this assistance in the form of financial grants that are
disbursed on a reimbursable basis.\1\ Under the Consolidated
Appropriation Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161), the Department received $10
million to carry out the Small Community Program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For detailed background on the Small Community Program, see
our Web site at: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role--
files/smallcommunity.htm#Funds.
    \2\ Program funding for this year may be affected by a provision
that provides the Secretary with authority to transfer funds from
any program within or administered by the Office of the Secretary to
the Essential Air Service program if that program does not have
sufficient funds to meet its statutory obligations. In addition, a
portion of the funds available for the Small Community Program may
be used by the Department for grants-management purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program is limited to a maximum of 40 grant awards, with a
maximum of four grants per State, in each year the program is funded.
There are no limits on the amounts of individual awards, and the
amounts awarded will vary depending upon the features and merits of the
proposals selected. Over the past six years, the Department's
individual grants have ranged from $20,000 to nearly $1.6 million.
Authorized grant projects may include activities that extend over a
multi-year period under a single grant award; however, grant funds are
to be used in a timely manner. Generally speaking, individual grant
awards have not exceeded a three- to four-year period.

Eligibility Information

Who Is Eligible To Apply for a Grant?

    Basic criteria. Eligible applicants are those communities that (1)
are served by an airport that was not larger than a small hub airport
for calendar year 1997 \3\ and (2) have insufficient air service or
unreasonably high airfares. Communities that do not currently have
commercial air service are also eligible, but they must have met or be
able to meet in a reasonable period all necessary requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration for the type of service involved in
their grant proposals. Communities served by medium and large hubs are
not eligible to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The hub classifications are based on the Federal Aviation
Administration's CY 1997 enplanement data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Essential Air Service communities may apply. Small communities that
meet the basic criteria and currently receive subsidized air service
under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program are eligible to apply for
funds under the Small Community Program. Indeed, a number of EAS-
subsidized communities applied in past years and some have received
grant awards. However, grant awards to EAS-subsidized communities are
limited to marketing or promotion projects that support existing or
newly subsidized air services. Grant funds will not be authorized for
EAS-subsidized communities to support any new air service. Furthermore,
no funds will be authorized to support additional flights by EAS
carriers or changes to those carriers' existing schedules. These
restrictions are necessary to avoid potentially adverse effects on EAS
program subsidies and the operations of EAS carriers.
    Additional consideration for communities/members of consortia that
have previously received a grant. Communities or members of a consortia
that were awarded grants in previous years and want to apply for a
grant this year should be aware that (1) they are precluded from
seeking new funds for projects for which they have already received an
award under the Small Community Program and (2) they cannot accept a
new grant while they are a party to an existing grant under the
program, either as an individual community or as a member of a
consortium.
    Grant must be for a new project. No community may participate in
the program in support of the same project more than once. 49 U.S.C.
41743(c)(4). In assessing whether a previous grantee's current proposal
represents a new project, we would look particularly at the goals and
objectives of the earlier grant, as well as the key components of the
means by which those goals and objectives were to be achieved, in
comparison to the current proposal. For example, if a community
received an earlier grant to support a revenue guarantee for service to
a particular destination or direction, a new application for another
revenue guarantee for the same service would be disqualified under
section 41743(c), even if the revenue guarantee were structured
differently or the type of carrier were different. However, we do not
read section 41743(c) to disqualify a new application for service to a
new destination or direction using a revenue guarantee, or for general
marketing of the airport and the various services it offers.
    Last year we interpreted this provision more narrowly than in
previous years. We are revisiting the issue in light of concerns
expressed that the interpretation is too restrictive; for example, that
not all revenue guarantees or marketing agreements are of the same
nature, and that if a subsequent proposal incorporates different goals
or significantly different components, it may be sufficiently different
to constitute a new project under section 41743(c).
    In its application, a community that is a previous grant recipient
should compare and contrast its proposed project with its previously
funded one(s) to demonstrate why its latest idea represents a new
project. Communities should also note that in each of the prior six
years of the program, interest in participation exceeded both the funds
available and the number of communities that can take part in any one
year. For this reason, the fact that a community has already received
one or more grants will be a consideration when comparing its new
proposal with those of other applicant communities.
    No concurrent grants are permitted. A community or member of a
consortia may participate in the program a subsequent time only after
its participation in a prior grant has terminated. 49 U.S.C.
41743(c)(4). Simply stated, a community can have only one Small
Community Program grant at any time. If a grant applicant is applying
for a subsequent grant and its current grant has not yet expired, it
must notify the Department of its intent to terminate the current grant
prior to entering into the new grant. In addition, for grant applicants
that are members of a consortia grant, permission must be granted from
both the grant sponsor and the Department to withdraw from the

current grant prior to being eligible to receive a subsequent grant.
    Subsidies for a carrier to compete against an incumbent raise
concerns. The Department is concerned generally about subsidizing one
carrier but not others in a competitive market. For this reason,
communities that propose to use the grant funds for service in a city-
pair market that is already served by a carrier must explain in detail
why the existing service is insufficient or unsatisfactory, or provide
other compelling information to support such proposals. This
information is necessary for the Department to consider the competitive
implications of giving financial or other tangible incentives for one
carrier that the other carrier is not receiving.
    Subsidy proposals should reflect market analysis and a
complementary marketing commitment. A thorough understanding of the
target market is essential for the ultimate success of new or expanded
air service. Likewise, the chances that such a service will become
self-sustaining are enhanced when its implementation is supported by a
well-designed marketing campaign. For these reasons, communities
requesting funds for a revenue guarantee/subsidy/ financial incentive
are encouraged to include in their proposals an in-depth analysis
evidencing close familiarity with their target markets. Such
communities also are encouraged to designate in their proposals a
portion of their requested funds for the development and implementation
of a marketing plan in support of the service sought.
    A consortium is more than a collection of communities. The statute
permits individual communities and consortia of communities to apply
for grant awards under this program. In some instances in the past,
several communities in a State have filed a single application as a
``consortium'' while in effect the application is a collection of
individual community requests that involve different projects. We do
not view this as a consortium. Rather, an application representing a
consortium would be one that facilitates efforts of communities working
together toward a joint grant project. For example, several communities
surrounding an airport may apply together to improve air services at
that airport, or surrounding airports may work together to provide
regional air service.
    Multiple applications by a community will not be considered. The
Department requests that communities file only one application for a
grant. In the past, some communities have filed both individual
applications and requests as part of a consortium. In many cases these
applications have involved the same project at the same or different
funding levels. We will not consider the stand-alone application if a
community is also submitting a largely identical request as part of a
consortium. To the extent that a community files separately and as part
of a consortium for complementary projects--for example, one request
for funding a revenue guarantee and one for marketing--we will consider
such proposals. However, communities should be aware that they can
receive only one grant, either the stand-alone grant or as a member of
a consortium, because no community can have concurrent grants.

Cost Sharing and Local Contributions Are Important Factors

    The statute does not require communities to contribute toward a
grant project, but those communities that contribute from local sources
other than airport revenues are accorded priority consideration. One
core objective of the Small Community Program is to promote community
involvement in addressing air service/air fare issues through public/
private partnerships. As a financial stakeholder in the process, the
community gains greater control over the type, quality, and success of
the air service initiatives that will best meet its needs, and
demonstrates a greater commitment towards achieving the stated goals.
The Department has historically received many more applications than
can be accommodated and nearly all of those applications have proposed
a community financial contribution to the project. Thus, proposals that
do not propose a community financial contribution will be at a
competitive disadvantage.
    Types of contributions. Contributions should represent a new
financial commitment or new financial resources devoted to attracting
new or improved service, or addressing specific high-fare or other
service issues, such as improving patronage of existing service at the
airport. Contributions from already-existing programs or projects
(e.g., designating a portion of an airport's existing annual marketing
budget to the project) are considered less favorably than contributions
for new and innovative programs or projects. For those communities that
propose to contribute to the grant project, that contribution can be in
the following forms:
    Cash from non-airport revenues. This cash contribution can include
funds from the State, the County or the local government, and/or from
local businesses, or other private organizations in the community.
Contributions that are comprised of intangible non-cash items, such as
the ``value'' of donated advertising, are considered ``in-kind''
contributions (see further discussion below).
    Cash from airport revenues. This includes contributions from funds
generated by airport operations. Airport revenues may not be used for
revenue guarantees to airlines.\4\ Community proposals that include
local contributions based on airport revenues do not receive priority
consideration for selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 47107, 47133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In-Kind Contributions from the airport. This can include such items
as waivers of landing fees, terminal rents, fuel fees, and/or vehicle
parking fees.
    In-Kind Contributions from the community. This can include such
items as donated advertising from media outlets, catering services for
inaugural events, or in-kind trading, such as advertising in exchange
for free air travel. Travel banks and travel commitments/pledges are
considered to be in-kind contributions,\5\ as are reduced fares offered
by airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A travel ``bank'' involves the actual deposit of funds from
participating parties (e.g., businesses, individuals) into a
designated bank account for the purpose of purchasing air travel on
the selected airline, with defined procedures for the subsequent use
or withdrawal of those funds under an agreement with the airline.
Often, however, what communities refer to as a travel ``bank'' in
reality involves travel ``pledges'' from businesses in the community
without any collection of funds or formal procedures for use of the
funds. The Department views travel banks and pledges included in
grant proposals as an indicator of local community support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cash vs. in-kind contributions. Only cash contributions will be
eligible for reimbursement. ``In-kind'' or non-cash contributions,
which encompass property or services contributed by non-Federal third
parties without charge to the grantee, are not eligible. Because they
are not reimbursable, in-kind contributions are not considered as part
of the community's cash financial contribution to the project. Of
course, communities should include any in-kind contributions in their
proposals and are encouraged to offer in-kind inducements as an extra
incentive to facilitate air service/fare improvements. While these
contributions will not be considered as part of the community's cash
contribution toward the project on which reimbursements are made, they
will be considered as illustrative of the community's overall
commitment to the proposed grant project. If there is any question
about whether a proposed contribution would be considered as

``in-kind'' or cash, the applicant should contact the Department before
submitting its proposal.
    Financial commitments must be fulfilled. Applicant communities
should also note that, as part of the grant agreement between the
Department and the community, the community has legally committed
itself to fulfilling its proposed financial contribution to the project
and that its failure to meet this commitment could lead the Department
to terminate the grant. Community participation in all aspects of the
proposal, including the financial aspects, is critical to the success
of the authorized project initiative. As with the grant awards in past
years, receipt of the full federal contribution awarded will thus be
linked to the community's fulfillment of its financial contribution.
Furthermore, communities cannot propose a certain level of cash
contribution from non-airport sources, and subsequent to being awarded
a grant, seek to substitute or replace that contribution with either
``in-kind'' contributions or contributions from airport revenues, or
both. Given the statute's priority for contributions from non-airport
sources and the competitive nature of the selection process, a
community's grant award could be reduced or terminated altogether if it
is unable to replace the committed funds from non-airport revenue
sources.

Application and Submission Information

Filing Deadline and Procedures

    Grant applications are due by June 6, 2008. As part of the
submission process, an applicant must register for and complete SF424,
Application for Federal Domestic Assistance. An applicant must also
include its grant proposal as an attachment to its SF424. In addition,
the cover page of each application should contain the information
specified under ``Cover page contents,'' below. Questions regarding the
program should be directed to the Office of Aviation Analysis on (202)
366-2347 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Communities are encouraged to register
with Grants.gov early during the application period since the
registration process can take up to 10 days to complete. Communities
are also encouraged to contact the Grants.gov help desk for any
technical assistance in filing their applications.
    SF424 required. To comply with the Grants.gov initiative, a mandate
of the President's Management Agenda, all applicants must submit form
SF424, Application for Federal Domestic Assistance, found on http://
www.grants.gov. Further, grant proposals must be submitted as an
attachment to the SF424. An application will not be deemed complete
unless the SF424 and the attached proposal have been submitted through
Grants.gov by the June 6 deadline.
    Applicants must complete a one-time registration process in order
to submit the SF424 application. This registration process can take
seven to ten days to complete. For this reason, communities intending
to file applications should register as soon as possible to ensure they
can meet the application deadline. Appendix C provides additional
information with respect to the registration process in Grants.gov,
along with instructions on submitting the SF424 once the registration
process has been completed.
    Cover page contents. The cover page for all applications should
bear the title ``Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service
Development Program,'' and should include the docket number DOT-OST-
2008-0100, the name of the community or consortium of communities
applying, the legal sponsor, and the community's Dun and Bradstreet
(D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number.
    Confidential treatment of information. Applicants will be able to
provide certain information relevant to their proposals on a
confidential basis. Under the Department's regulations, such
information is limited to commercial or financial information that, if
disclosed, would either significantly harm the competitive position of
a business or enterprise or make it more difficult for the Federal
Government to obtain similar information in the future.
    Applicants seeking confidential treatment of a portion of their
applications must segregate the confidential material in a sealed
envelope marked ``Confidential Submission of X (the applicant) in
Docket DOT-OST-2008-0100,'' and include with that material a request in
the form of a motion seeking confidential treatment of the material
under 14 CFR 302.12 (Rule 12) of the Department's regulations. The
applicant should submit an original and two copies of its motion and an
original and two copies of the confidential material in the sealed
envelope. The confidential material should not be included with the
original of the applicant's proposal that is submitted via http://
www.grants.gov. The applicant's original submission, however, should
indicate clearly where the confidential material would have been
inserted. If an applicant invokes Rule 12, the confidential portion of
its filing will be treated as confidential pending a final
determination. All confidential material must be received by June 6,
2008, and delivered to the Office of Aviation Analysis, 8th Floor, Room
W86-310, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.

Types of Projects and Application Content

    The statute is very general about the types of projects that can be
authorized so that communities are provided greater flexibility in
addressing their particular air service and airfare issues. Because
circumstances may differ among communities, applicants have some
latitude in identifying their own objectives and developing strategies
for accomplishing them.
    One objective of the Small Community Program is to help communities
secure enhancements that will be responsive to their air
transportation/air fare needs on a long-term basis after the financial
support of the grant has ended. There are many ways that a community
might enhance its current air service or attract new service, such as:
     Promoting awareness among residents of locally available
service;
     Attracting a new carrier through revenue guarantees or
operating cost offsets;
     Attracting new forms of service, such as on-demand air
taxi service;
     Offering an incumbent carrier financial or other
incentives to lower its fares, increase its frequencies, add new
routes, or deploy more suitable aircraft, including upgrading its
equipment from turboprops to regional jets;
     Combining traffic support from surrounding communities
with regionalized service through one airport; or
     Providing local ground transportation service to improve
access to air service to the community and the surrounding area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These examples are illustrative only and are not meant as a
list of projects favored by the Department. Interested communities
can view actual proposals submitted in prior years. Go to http://
regulations/gov and, under ``Search,'' enter one of the following
depending on the desired filing year: DOT-OST-2002-11590, DOT-OST-
2003-15065, DOT-OST-2004-17343, DOT-OST-2005-20127, DOT-OST-2006-
23671, or DOT-2007-27370 for proposals filed in 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Communities are encouraged to be innovative and to consider a wide
range of initiatives and air transportation services in developing
their proposals, such as intermodal or regional solutions. At the same
time, proposals must not be general, vague, or unsupported. The more
highly defined

and focused the proposal, the more competitive it will be, particularly
in light of the priority consideration afforded by the statute to those
applicants that can use the funds in a timely manner. 49 U.S.C. 41743
(c)(5)(E).
    There is no set format that must be used in submitting grant
proposals. At a minimum, however, a proposal must provide the following
information:
     A description of the community's existing air service,
including the carrier(s) providing service, service frequency, direct
and connecting destinations offered, available fares, and equipment
types.
     A synopsis of the community's historical service,
including destinations, traffic levels, service providers, and any
extenuating factors that might have affected traffic in the past or
that can be expected to influence service needs in the near to
intermediate term.
     A description of the community's air service development
efforts over the past five years and the results of those efforts. Many
communities have been active on an on-going basis for many years in air
service development efforts, while others are just beginning. To the
extent that a community has previously engaged in other air service
initiatives, including through public/private partnerships, it should
describe those efforts and their results in its grant proposal. The
description should include marketing and promotional efforts of airport
services as well as efforts to recruit additional or improved air
service and airfare initiatives.
     A description of the community's air service needs or
deficiencies, including any major origin/destination markets not now
served or not served adequately. In addition, communities are free to
submit any information about their fare levels that they deem relevant
to consideration of their grant request, including market analyses or
studies demonstrating an understanding of local air service needs.
     A strategic plan for meeting those needs under the Small
Community Program, including the community's specific project goal(s)
and detailed plan for attaining that goal(s). Plans should:
    [check] Clearly identify the target audience of each component of
the proposed transportation initiative, including all advertising and
promotional efforts.
    [check] Set forth a realistic timetable for implementation of the
grant project. In this regard, the statute includes timely use of the
grant funds as a priority consideration. Consequently, communities must
have a well-developed project plan and a detailed timetable for
implementing that plan. In establishing the timetable, however,
communities should be realistic about their ability to meet their
project deadlines.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The projected timetable will be an integral part of the
grant agreements between the selected communities and the
Department. Therefore, there is no advantage to a community in
proposing an aggressive timetable that cannot be met, and there may
be disadvantages if the community finds that it cannot meet its
timetable. Communities should carefully consider all factors
affecting implementation of their projects and develop realistic
timeframes for achieving those objectives, keeping in mind that
authorized projects generally have averaged three to four years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [check] For proposals involving new or improved service, explain
how the service will become self-sufficient. Under the statute, a
community cannot seek grant funding in subsequent years in support of
the same project. Moreover, it is important that communities seriously
consider the scale of their proposed projects in developing their
proposals and the timetable for achieving them. To the extent that a
proposed project is dependent upon or relevant to the completion of
other federally funded capital improvement projects, the community
should provide a description of, and the construction time-line for,
those projects, keeping in mind the statutory requirement to use Small
Community Program funding in a timely manner.
    [check] Of particular importance, fully and clearly outline the
goals and objectives sought to be achieved, e.g., ``to broaden the
awareness by residents in the Tri-County area of the various services
provided by passenger carriers at the Tri-County airport,'' or ``to
obtain new and affordable service to a hub airport in a direction where
there is no such service.'' When an application is selected, these
goals and objectives will be incorporated into the grant agreement and
define its basic project scope. Once an agreement is signed, if
circumstances change and an amendment is sought to allow for different
activities or a different approach, the Department will look to whether
the change being sought is consistent with those fundamental project
goals and objectives. Proposed changes that would alter those
fundamental goals and objectives cannot be authorized, because doing so
would undermine the competitive nature of the selection process.
Applicants are also encouraged to include in their proposals
alternative or back-up strategies for achieving their desired goals and
objectives. By incorporating such information into the grant agreement,
desired changes may be more easily accommodated.
    [check] If the applicant received a Small Community Program grant
in the past, explain how its proposed project differs from its earlier
one by comparing and contrasting project goals, objectives and methods
of achieving them.
     A description of any public-private partnership that will
participate in the project. Full community involvement is a key aspect
of the Small Community Program. The statute gives a priority to those
communities that already have established, or will establish, a public-
private partnership to facilitate air service to the public. The
proposal should fully describe the public-private partnership that will
participate in the community's proposal and how the partnership will
actively participate in the implementation of the proposed project. In
addition, applicants should identify each member of the partnership,
the role that each will play, and the specific responsibilities of each
member in project implementation. If the application does not include
specific information on the partnership participation in the project,
the Department cannot evaluate how well a community has met this
consideration, and the applicant will not be deemed as having met this
priority consideration in the Department's evaluation of the
community's proposal.
     A detailed description of the funding necessary for
implementation of the community's project, including the federal and
non-federal contributions. Proposals should clearly identify the level
of federal funding sought. They should also clearly identify the other
cash contributions toward the proposed project, ``in-kind''
contributions from the airport, and ``in-kind'' contributions from the
community. Cash contributions from airport revenues should be
identified separately from cash contributions from other community
sources. Similarly, cash contributions from the State and/or local
government should be separately identified and described.
    Applicant communities should be aware that, if awarded a grant, the
Department will not reimburse the community for pre-award expenses such
as the cost of preparing the grant application or for any expenses
incurred prior to the community executing a grant agreement with the
Department. In addition, 10 percent of the grant funds will be withheld
until the Department receives the final report of the grant project.
See ``Award Administration Information,'' below.
     An explanation of how the community will ensure that its
own funding contribution is spent in the manner proposed.

     Descriptions of how the community will monitor the
progress of the grant project and the identity of critical milestones
to be met during the life of the grant, including the need to modify or
discontinue funding if identified milestones cannot be achieved. This
is an important component of the community's proposal and serves to
demonstrate the thoroughness of the community's planning of the
proposed grant project.
     A description of how the community plans to continue with
the project if it is not self-sustaining after the grant award expires.
A particular goal of the Small Community Program is to provide long-
term, self-sustaining improvements to air service at small communities.
A community cannot seek further grant funding in support of the same
project. 49 U.S.C. 41743(c)(4). It is possible that a new or improved
service at a community will be well on its way to becoming self-
sustaining, but will not have reached that goal before the grant
expires. Similarly, it is possible that extensive marketing and
promotional efforts may be in process, but have not been completed at
the end of the grant period and will require continued support.
Therefore, in developing its proposal, the community should carefully
consider and describe in detail its plans for providing continued
financial support for the project after the grant funding is no longer
available. This aspect of the application reflects on the community's
commitment to the grant project and is an important component to the
Department's consideration of the community's proposal for selection
for a grant award.
     Designation of a legal sponsor responsible for
administering the program. The legal sponsor of the grant project must
be a government entity. If the applicant is a public-private
partnership, a public government member of the organization must be
identified as the community's sponsor to receive program
reimbursements. In this regard, communities can designate only a single
government entity as the legal sponsor, even if a consortium, for
example, consists of two or more local government entities. Private
organizations cannot be designated as the legal sponsor of a grant
under the Small Community Program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The community has the responsibility to ensure that the
recipient of any funding has the legal authority under State and
local laws to carry out all aspects of the grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Service Development Zone Designation

    The statute authorizing the Small Community Program also provides
that the Department will designate one of the grant recipients as an
Air Service Development Zone. The purpose of the designation is to
provide communities interested in attracting business to the area
surrounding the airport or in developing land-use options for the area
an opportunity to work with the Department on means to achieve those
goals. The Department will assist the designated community in
establishing contacts with and obtaining advice and assistance from
appropriate government agencies, including the Department of Commerce
as well as other offices within the Department of Transportation, and
in identifying other pertinent resources that may aid the community in
its efforts to attract businesses and to develop land-use options.
However, the community receiving the designation will be responsible
for developing, implementing, and managing activities related to the
air service development zone initiative. Only communities that are
interested in these objectives and have a plan to accomplish them
should apply for the available designation. There are no additional
funds associated with this designation, and applying for the
designation will provide no special benefit or preference to a
community in receiving a grant award under the Small Community Program.
    Grant applicants interested in selection for the Air Service
Development Zone designation must include in their applications a
separate section, titled, Support for Air Service Development Zone
Designation. That section should include:
    [check] Detailed information regarding the property and facilities
available for development such as an existing airpark or land for such
an airpark near or adjacent to the local airport;
    [check] The other modes of transportation that would be available
to support additional economic development, such as rail, road, and/or
water access;
    [check] Information concerning historic, existing, and any future
business activity in the area that would support further development;
    [check] Demographic information concerning the community and its
environs relevant to the developmental efforts, including population,
employment, and per capita income data; and
    [check] Any other information that the community believes is
relevant to its plans to enhance air service development.
    The community should provide as detailed a plan as possible,
including the goals it expects to achieve from the air service
development zone designation and the types of activities on which it
would like to work with the Department in achieving those goals. The
community should also indicate whether further local government
approvals are required in order to implement the proposed activities.

Application Review Information

    The Department will carefully review each proposal and the staff
may contact applicants if clarification is needed. The grant awards
will be made as quickly as possible so that communities awarded grants
can complete the grant agreement process and proceed to implement their
plans. Pending unforeseen circumstances, this process should be
completed before October 2008. Given the competitive nature of the
grant process, the Department will not meet with grant applicants with
respect to their grant proposals. Our selection of communities for
grant awards will be based on the communities' written submissions.
    Priority factors considered. The law directs the Department to give
priority consideration to those communities or consortia where: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 U.S.C. 41743(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Air fares are higher than the national average air fares
for all communities;
     The community or consortium will provide a portion of the
cost of the activity from local sources other than airport revenue
sources;
     The community or consortium has established or will
establish a public-private partnership to facilitate air carrier
service to the public;
     The assistance will provide material benefits to a broad
segment of the traveling public, including business, educational
institutions, and other enterprises, whose access to the national air
transportation system is limited; and
     The assistance will be used in a timely manner.
    Additional factors considered. Applications will be evaluated
against the priority considerations listed above. Our experience has
been that more applications are received than can be funded under the
Small Community Program. Consequently, consistent with the criteria
stated above, the selection process will take into consideration such
additional factors as:
     The relative size of each applicant community;

     The geographic location of each applicant, including the
community's proximity to larger centers of air service and low-fare
service alternatives;
     The community's existing level of air service and whether
that service has been increasing or decreasing;
     Whether the community's proposal, if successfully
implemented, could serve as a working model for other communities;
     Current demographic indicators for the community, such as
population, income and business activity;
     The community's demonstrated commitment to and
participation in the proposed grant project;
     The grant amount requested compared with total funds
available for all communities;
     The proposed federal grant amount requested compared with
the local share offered;
     Whether the community has a realistic plan to use the
funds in a timely manner;
     The uniqueness of an applicant's claimed problems and
whether the proposed project addresses those problems;
     The extent to which the applicant's proposed solution(s)
to solving the problem(s) is new or innovative;
     Whether the community's proximity to an existing grant
recipient could impact its proposal; and
     Whether the applicant community has previously received a
grant award under this program and, if so, whether its application
includes an explanation of how the community's proposed project differs
from its previously funded project.
    Full community participation is a key goal of this program as
demonstrated by the statute's focus on local contributions and active
participation in the project. Therefore, applications that demonstrate
broad community support will be more attractive. For example,
communities providing proportionately higher levels of cash
contributions from other than airport revenues will have more
attractive proposals. Communities that provide multiple levels of
contributions--cash and in-kind contributions--also will have more
attractive proposals. Similarly, communities that demonstrate
participation in the development and execution of the proposed air
service project will have the attractiveness of their proposals
enhanced. In this regard, the Department welcomes letters of intent
from airlines on behalf of community proposals that are specifically
intended to enlist new or expanded air carrier presence. Such letters
will be accorded greater credence when authorized by airline planning
departments.
    Proposals that offer innovative solutions to the transportation
issues facing the community will be more attractive. Small communities
have faced many problems retaining and improving their air services and
in coping with air fares that are higher than typical for larger
communities. Therefore, proposals that offer new, creative approaches
to addressing these problems, to the extent that they are reasonable,
will have their attractiveness enhanced. Proposals that provide a well-
defined plan, a reasonable timetable for use of the grant funds, and a
plan for continuation and/or monitoring of the project after the grant
expires also will have greater attractiveness.

Award Administration Information

    The Department will announce its grant selections by Order, which
will be served on each grant recipient, all other applicants, and all
parties served with this order. The selection order will also be posted
in the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov and on the Department's
webpage.
    Grant agreement. Communities awarded grants are required to execute
a grant agreement with the Department before they begin to spend funds
under the grant award. Grant funds will be provided on a reimbursable
basis only, with reimbursements made only for expenses incurred and
billed during the period that the grant agreement is in effect.
Applicants should not assume they have received a grant, nor should
they obligate or spend local funds prior to receiving and fully
executing a grant agreement with the Department. Expenditures made
prior to the execution of a grant agreement, including costs associated
with preparation of the grant application, will not be reimbursed.
Moreover, there are numerous assurances that grant recipients must sign
and honor when federal funds are awarded. All communities receiving a
grant under the Small Community Program will be required to accept the
responsibilities of these assurances and to execute the assurances when
they execute their grant agreements. Copies of the applicable
assurances are available for review on the Department's webpage at
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Role--files/
smallcommunity.htm#Funds.
    Grantee reports. The grant agreement between the Department and
each selected community will require the submission of quarterly
reports on the progress the community has made during the previous
quarter in implementing its grant project. In addition, the grant
agreement will require the submission on a quarterly or other time-
specific basis other materials relevant to the grant project, such as
copies of advertising and promotional material and copies of contracts
with consultants and service providers. In addition, each community
will be required to submit a final report on its project to the
Department, and 10 percent of the grant funds will not be reimbursed to
the community until such final report is received.
    Cost reimbursement. Communities will be permitted to seek
reimbursement of project implementation costs on a regular basis. The
frequency of such requests will be established in the grant agreement,
which will be tailored to the specific features of the community's
grant project. In most cases, reimbursements will be made on a monthly
basis. In this regard, the Department will provide the grant recipient
communities with details and procedures for securing reimbursements
electronically.
    Grant amendments. A grantee may wish to amend its agreement with
the Department in the event of a material change in circumstances after
the date the agreement is executed. Typically, amendments involve an
extension to the time period for completing the grant or a change in
the types of activities authorized for reimbursement under the goals
and objectives (``project scope'') of the grant agreement. Grantees are
cautioned, however, that the Department cannot authorize amendments
that are incompatible with the scope of the agreement. For example, a
grant awarded solely for the purpose of developing an airport marketing
plan cannot be amended to permit subsidization of an air carrier's
startup costs, since the latter was never contemplated by the original
agreement.
    Grantees are also advised that the Department will not extend the
expiration date of an agreement simply to allow more time for a
community to solicit air carriers for new air service. Many grants have
been awarded for the purpose of subsidizing new or additional air
service for a small community, with the goal of that service becoming
self-sustaining by the end of the subsidy period. In virtually all
cases, the community seeking the grant funds has received expressions
of interest from one or more air carriers. In some instances, these
expressions of interest failed to pan out and the community was left
without any immediate prospects, at which time it would ask for a grant
extension to allow more time

to pursue other carriers. Because we are charged by law to consider
timely use of funds when selecting grant recipients, the Department
will grant an extension only when the community can provide strong
evidence of a firm commitment on the part of an air carrier to deliver
the desired service.
    To avoid misunderstandings, grantees contemplating amendments to
their agreements are urged to discuss their situations with the Small
Community Program staff before requesting a formal amendment.
    This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f).

Accordingly

    1. Community proposals for funding under the Small Community Air
Service Development Program should be submitted via http://
www.grants.gov as an attachment to the SF424 no later than June 6,
2008; and
    2. This order will be published in the Federal Register and also
will be served on the Conference of Mayors, the National League of
Cities, the National Governors Association, the National Association of
State Aviation Officials (NASAO), the Association of County Executives,
the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), and the Airports
Council International--North America (ACI), and posted at http://
www.grants.gov.

Michael W. Reynolds,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

    An electronic version of this document is available on the World
Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov.

Appendix A--Small Community Air Service Development Program

United States Code Annotated

Title 49. Transportation

Subtitle VII. Aviation Programs

Part A. Air Commerce and Safety

Subpart II. Economic Regulation

Chapter 417. Operations of Carriers

Subchapter II. Small Community Air Service

>< Sec.  41743. Airports not
receiving sufficient service

    (a) Small community air service development program.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall establish a program that meets the
requirements of this section for improving air carrier service to
airports not receiving sufficient air carrier service.
    (b) Application required.--In order to participate in the
program established under subsection (a), a community or consortium
of communities shall submit an application to the Secretary in such
form, at such time, and containing such information as the Secretary
may require, including--
    (1) An assessment of the need of the community or consortium for
access, or improved access, to the national air transportation
system; and
    (2) An analysis of the application of the criteria in subsection
(c) to that community or consortium.
    (c) Criteria for participation.--In selecting communities, or
consortia of communities, for participation in the program
established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall apply the
following criteria:
    (1) Size.--For calendar year 1997, the airport serving the
community or consortium was not larger than a small hub airport,
and--
    (A) Had insufficient air carrier service; or
    (B) Had unreasonably high air fares.
    (2) Characteristics.--The airport presents characteristics, such
as geographic diversity or unique circumstances, that will
demonstrate the need for, and feasibility of, the program
established under subsection (a).
    (3) State limit.--Not more than 4 communities or consortia of
communities, or a combination thereof, from the same State may be
selected to participate in the program in any fiscal year.
    (4) Overall limit.--No more than 40 communities or consortia of
communities, or a combination thereof, may be selected to
participate in the program in each year for which funds are
appropriated for the program.
    No community, consortia of communities, nor combination thereof
may participate in the program in support of the same project more
than once, but any community, consortia of communities, or
combination thereof may apply, subsequent to such participation, to
participate in the program in support of a different project.
    (5) Priorities.--The Secretary shall give priority to
communities or consortia of communities where--
    (A) Air fares are higher than the average air fares for all
communities;
    (B) The community or consortium will provide a portion of the
cost of the activity to be assisted under the program from local
sources other than airport revenues;
    (C) The community or consortium has established, or will
establish, a public-private partnership to facilitate air carrier
service to the public;
    (D) The assistance will provide material benefits to a broad
segment of the traveling public, including business, educational
institutions, and other enterprises, whose access to the national
air transportation system is limited; and
    (E) The assistance will be used in a timely fashion.
    (d) Types of assistance.--The Secretary may use amounts made
available under this section--
    (1) To provide assistance to an air carrier to subsidize service
to and from an underserved airport for a period not to exceed 3
years;
    (2) To provide assistance to an underserved airport to obtain
service to and from the underserved airport; and
    (3) To provide assistance to an underserved airport to implement
such other measures as the Secretary, in consultation with such
airport, considers appropriate to improve air service both in terms
of the cost of such service to consumers and the availability of
such service, including improving air service through marketing and
promotion of air service and enhanced utilization of airport
facilities.
    (e) Authority to make agreements.--
    (1) In general.--The Secretary may make agreements to provide
assistance under this section.
    (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,
$27,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $35,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to carry out this
section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
    (f) Additional action.--Under the program established under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall work with air carriers providing
service to participating communities and major air carriers (as
defined in section 41716(a)(2)) serving large hub airports to
facilitate joint-fare arrangements consistent with normal industry
practice.
    (g) Designation of responsible official.--The Secretary shall
designate an employee of the Department of Transportation--
    (1) To function as a facilitator between small communities and
air carriers;
    (2) To carry out this section;
    (3) To ensure that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
collects data on passenger information to assess the service needs
of small communities;
    (4) To work with and coordinate efforts with other Federal,
State, and local agencies to increase the viability of service to
small communities and the creation of aviation development zones;
and
    (5) To provide policy recommendations to the Secretary and
Congress that will ensure that small communities have access to
quality, affordable air transportation services.
    (h) Air Service Development Zone.--The Secretary shall designate
an airport in the program as an Air Service Development Zone and
work with the community or consortium on means to attract business
to the area surrounding the airport, to develop land use options for
the area, and provide data, working with the Department of Commerce
and other agencies.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.348

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.349

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.350

Appendix C--Filing Form SF424: Application for Federal Domestic
Assistance

    Grants.gov, originally called the E-Grants Initiative, a mandate
of the President's Management Agenda, states:
    ``Agencies will allow applicants for Federal Grants to apply for
and ultimately manage grant funds online through a common Web site,
simplifying grants management and eliminating redundancies.''
    Public Law 106-107, the legislation that mandates streamlining
and improved accountability for Federal grants, and related
references in the President's Management Agenda, requires that
Federal grant management activities be standardized. As a result,
the Office of Management and Budget recently issued a policy
directive requiring that all Federal agencies post grant
opportunities online as of November 7, 2006.
    Therefore, the Department requires applications to be submitted
via http://www.grants.gov. In order for an application to be
considered in the Small Community Air Service Development Program,
the community must submit its application on form SF424--Application
for Federal Domestic Assistance--via http://www.grants.gov. Below
are instructions on:
     How to FIND the SCASDP application online at http://
www.grants.gov;
     How to GET REGISTERED to submit applications; and
     How to APPLY or complete and submit the application
form SF424.

Finding the SCASDP Grant Opportunity on Grants.Gov

    Start your search for the Small Community Air Service
Development Program grant opportunity by entering http://
www.grants.gov and clicking the Find Grant Opportunities tab at the
top of the page. Next, select ``Basic Search'' from the search
choices. In the search box titled ``Search for Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number'' enter 20.930. You will see a
summary of the SCASDP requirements.

Register to Submit Applications

    Prior to applying, you must register to create a Grants.gov
account and receive approval from your organization to submit
applications. Registration can take seven to ten days to complete,
so it is best to begin the process as soon as possible. Detailed
instructions on how to complete the registration are available on
http://www.grants.gov. For your reference, the Grants.gov
``Organization Registration Checklist'' is reproduced on the final
three pages of this Appendix. You can also access the Checklist at:
http://grants.gov/assets/Organization--Steps--Complete--
Registration.pdf.

Applying for the Grant

    Once you have located the Small Community Air Service
Development Program grant opportunity, you will need to enter the
Funding Opportunity and/or the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Application (CFDA) number 20.930 to access the application package
and instructions online. However, you must complete the registration
process before applying. In order to view the application package
and instructions, you will also need to download and install Adobe
Reader 8.1.2. This version is available to download for free on the
Grants.gov Web site.
    1. Download Adobe Reader 8.1.2 [Required].
    2. Download an Application Package.
    3. Complete an Application Package.
    4. Submit an Application Package.
    Enter the SCASDP CFDA number (20.930) to download the
application form SF424 and begin the process to apply for the grant
through http://www.grants.gov. It is a 4-step process:

Apply Step 1: Download the Grant Application Form SF424 and Application
Instructions

    You will need to enter the Funding Opportunity and/or CFDA
number to access the application package and instructions. Download
and install the Adobe Reader 8.1.2 (available on http://grants.gov).
This small, free program will allow you to access, complete, and
submit applications electronically and securely.

Apply Step 2: Complete the Selected Grant Application Package

    You can complete the application offline--giving you the
flexibility to complete grant applications when and where you want.
It also enables you to easily route it through your organization for
review, or completion of various components, just like any other e-
mail attachment.

Apply Step 3: Submit a Completed Grant Application Package

    You will submit the application online. When you are ready to
submit the completed application form SF424, you must have already
completed the Get Registered steps. You will then need to log into
http://www.grants.gov using the username and password you entered
when you registered with a Credential Provider to submit the
application.

    Note: To submit electronic grant applications, you must be fully
authorized by your organization, i.e., been given status as an
Authorized Organization Representative (AOR). You can easily check
your status by logging into http://www.grants.gov by accessing the
Applicant link at the top of the screen. If you have registered your
user name and password with Grants.gov, you will be able to log in.
After logging in, access the `Manage Profile' link. Your status,
located below your title, will state: ``AOR--request sent'' or
``AOR--Approved.'' If your status is `AOR--request sent', you cannot
yet submit grant applications. You may correct this by

contacting your E-Business Point of Contact (POC). He or she will
need to login by accessing the Ebiz link at the top of the screen.
They will need your organization's DUNs number and MPIN, to approve
you as an AOR.

Apply Step 4: Track the Status of a Completed Grant Application Package

    Once you have submitted an application, you can check the status
of your application submission. You can identify your application by
CFDA Number (20.930), Funding Opportunity Number, Competition ID,
and/or Grants.gov Tracking Number.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.351

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.352

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AP08.353

 [FR Doc. E8-6538 Filed 3-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C