### 1731 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules

district’s Board seat. Grower and handler nominations must follow the petition procedures outlined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (3)(i) * * * (ii) To be seated as a handler representative in any district, the successful candidate must receive the support of handler(s) that handled a combined total of no less than five percent (5%), of the average production, as that term is used in § 930.20, handled in the district; Provided , that this paragraph shall not apply if its application would result in a sales constituency conflict as provided in § 930.20(g).

(4) In districts entitled to only one Board member, growers and handlers may vote for either the grower or handler nominee(s) for the single seat allocated to those districts.

* * * * *

4. Revise paragraph (i) of § 930.50 to read as follows:

**§ 930.50 Marketing policy.**
* * * * *

(i) Restricted Percentages. Restricted percentage requirements established under paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section may be fulfilled by handlers by either establishing an inventory reserve in accordance with § 930.55 or § 930.57 or by diversion of product in accordance with § 930.59. In years where required, the Board shall establish a maximum percentage of the restricted quantity which may be established as a primary inventory reserve such that the total primary inventory reserve does not exceed 50-million pounds; Provided

, That such 50-million-pound quantity may be changed upon recommendation of the Board and approval of the Secretary. Any such change shall be recommended by the Board on or before September 30 of any crop year to become effective for the following crop year, and the quantity may be changed no more than one time per crop year. Handlers will be permitted to divert (at plant or with grower diversion certificates) as much of the restricted percentage requirement as they deem appropriate, but may not establish a primary inventory reserve in excess of the percentage established by the Board for restricted cherries. In the event handlers wish to establish inventory reserve in excess of this amount, they may do so, in which case it will be classified as a secondary inventory reserve and will be regulated accordingly.

* * * * *

5. Add a new paragraph (d) to § 930.54 to read as follows:

**§ 930.54 Prohibition on the use or disposition of inventory reserve cherries.** 

* * * * *

(d) Should the volume of cherries held in the primary inventory reserves and, subsequently, the secondary inventory reserves reach a minimum amount, which level will be established by the Secretary upon recommendation from the Board, the products held in the respective reserves shall be released from the reserves and made available to the handlers as free tonnage.

6. Revise paragraph (b) of § 930.55 to read as follows:

**§ 930.55 Primary inventory reserves.**

* * * * *

(b) The form of the cherries, frozen, canned in any form, dried, or concentrated juice, placed in the primary inventory reserve is at the option of the handler. The product(s) placed by the handler in the primary inventory reserve must have been produced in either the current or the preceding two crop years. Except as may be limited by § 930.50(i) or as may be permitted pursuant to §§ 930.59 and 930.62, such inventory reserve portion shall be equal to the sum of the products obtained by multiplying the weight or volume of the cherries in each lot of cherries acquired during the fiscal period by the then effective restricted percentage fixed by the Secretary; Provided , That in converting cherries in each lot to the form chosen by the handler, the inventory reserve obligations shall be adjusted in accordance with uniform rules adopted by the Board in terms of raw fruit equivalent.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2010–315 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0027; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–204–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Sicma Aero Seat 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184,**  **9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C3, 91C4, 91C5, and 9301 Series**  **Passenger Seat Assemblies; and Sicma Aero Seat 9501311–05,**  **9501301–06, 9501311–15, 9501301–16, 9501441–30, 9501441–33, 9501311–55,**  **9501301–56, 9501441–83, 9501441–95, 9501311–97, and 9501301–98**  **Passenger Seat Assemblies; Installed on Various Transport Category**  **Airplanes**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/N (part number) 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104– 2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 1, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Fax: (202) 493–2251.

• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.


### 1732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Sicma Aero Seat, 7, Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 ISSOUDUN, France; telephone +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 39; fax +33 (0) 2 54 03 39 00; e-mail: customerservices@sicma.zodiac.com; Internet http://www.sicma.zodiac.com/ en/. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the **ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238–7161; fax (781) 238–7170.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the

**ADDRESSES** section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2010–0027; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–204–AD ’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

The Direction Ge  ́ ne

 ́ rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued French Airworthiness Directive 2001–605(AB), dated December 12, 2001 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI ’’ ), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/N (part number) 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Therefore a life limit is introduced on the links. On 9g seats also affected by this problem, stronger unlimited life limits have been developed and their installation has been rendered mandatory. However, on 16g seats the affected links have a direct influence on certification dynamic tests and cannot be replaced by similar stronger links without performing again all dynamic tests for each seat part number.
Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The required actions include a general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links, replacement with new links if cracking is found, and eventual replacement of all links with new links.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Sicma Aero Seat has issued Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001, including Annex 1, Issue 1, dated July 9, 2001. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect 70,073 seats on 163 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per seat to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per seat. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,605,840, or $80 per
seat. Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. ‘‘ Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, ’’ describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in ‘‘ Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. ’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on


### 1733 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules

the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action ’’ under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a ‘‘ significant rule ’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

**PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES** 

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

**§ 39.13 [Amended]**

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Sicma Aero Seat : Docket No. FAA–2010– 0027; Directorate Identifier 2008–NM– 204–AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) We must receive comments by March 1,
2010.

Affected ADs

(b) None.
Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat 9140, 9166, 9173, 9174, 9184, 9188, 9196, 91B7, 91B8, 91C0, 91C2, 91C3, 91C4, 91C5, and 9301 series passenger seat assemblies; and Sicma Aero Seat 9501311–05, 9501301– 06, 9501311–15, 9501301–16, 9501441–30, 9501441–33, 9501311–55, 9501301–56, 9501441–83, 9501441–95, 9501311–97, and 9501301–98 passenger seat assemblies; identified in Annex 1, Issue 1, dated July 9, 2001, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001; that have backrest links part numbers (P/Ns) 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200– 104–2; and that are installed on, but not limited to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. 

### TABLE 

### 1—C ERTAIN 

### A FFECTED 

### M ODELS

Manufacturer Model

Airbus ............. A330–200 and –300 Series Airplanes. Airbus ............. A340–200, –300, –500 and –600 Series Airplanes. The Boeing

Company. 777–200, –300, –300ER,and –200LR Series Airplanes.

Note 1: This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat passenger seat assemblies as installed on any airplane, regardless of whether the airplane has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Subject

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

Reason

(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

Cracks have been found on seat backrest links P/Ns (part numbers) 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2. These cracks can significantly affect the structural integrity of seat backrests. Therefore a life limit is introduced on the links. On 9g seats also affected by this problem, stronger unlimited life limits have been developed and their installation has been rendered mandatory. However, on 16g seats the affected links have a direct influence on certification dynamic tests and cannot be replaced by similar stronger links without performing again all dynamic tests for each seat part number.

Failure of the backrest links could result in injury to an occupant during emergency landing conditions. The required actions include a general visual inspection for cracking of backrest links, replacement with new links if cracking is found, and eventual replacement of all links with new links.
Actions and Compliance

(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, do a general visual inspection for cracking of the backrest links, P/Ns 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, in accordance with Part One ‘‘ Checking Procedure ’’ of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001:

(i) Before 6,000 flight hours on the backrest link since new.

(ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, cracking is found between the side of the backrest link and the lock-out pin hole but the cracking does not pass this lock-out pin hole (refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25– 012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001): Within 600 flight hours or 3 months after doing the inspection, whichever occurs first, replace both backrest links of the affected seat with new backrest links having the same part number (P/N 90–000200–104–1 or 90–000200–104– 2), in accordance with Part Two

‘‘Replacement Procedure ’’ of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001.

(3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, cracking is found that passes beyond the lock-out pin hole (refer to Figure 2 of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001): Before further flight, replace both backrest links of the affected seat with new backrest links having the same part numbers (P/N 90–000200–104–1 or 90–000200–104– 2), in accordance with Part Two

‘‘Replacement Procedure ’’ of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001.

(4) If no cracking is found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, replace the links, P/Ns 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, with new backrest links having the same part numbers (P/N 90– 000200–104–1 or 90–000200–104–2), in accordance with Part Two ‘‘Replacement Procedure ’’ of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001.

(i) Before 12,000 flight hours on the backrest links, P/Ns 90–000200–104–1 and 90–000200–104–2, since new.

(ii) Within 900 flight hours or 5 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(5) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 3, dated October 3, 2001, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies doing repetitive inspections for cracking of links having over 12,000 flight hours since new until the replacement of the link is done. This AD does not include those repetitive inspections because we have reduced the required time for replacing those links. This AD requires replacement of the link before 12,000 flight hours since new, or within 900 flight hours or 5 months of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Other FAA AD Provisions

(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to


### 1734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules

1 64 FR 59888 (1999).

2 16 C.F.R. Part 312.

3 See 16 C.F.R. § 312.10; 64 FR at 59906-59908,
59915. 4 See 16 C.F.R. § 312.10(b)(1); 64 FR at 59915.

5 See 16 C.F.R. § 312.10(b)(2); 64 FR at 59915.

6 See 16 C.F.R. § 312.10(b)(3); 64 FR at 59915. approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238– 7161; fax (781) 238–7170. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

Related Information

(h) Refer to MCAI French Airworthiness Directive 2001–605(AB), dated December 12, 2001, and Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin 90–25–012, Issue 4, dated December 19, 2001, including Annex 1, Issue 1, dated July 9, 2001, for related information.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2010. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–484 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION**

**16 CFR Part 312**

**Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule Safe Harbor Proposed Self**  **Regulatory Guidelines; i-SAFE, Inc. Application for Safe Harbor** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission)

**ACTION :**  Notice announcing submission of proposed ‘‘ safe harbor’’ guidelines and requesting public comment.

**SUMMARY :**  The Federal Trade Commission publishes this notice and request for public comment concerning proposed self-regulatory guidelines submitted by i-SAFE, Inc. under the safe harbor provision of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mamie Kresses, Attorney, (202) 326- 2070, Division of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received by March 1, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form, by following the instructions in the Invitation To Comment part of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section below. Comments in electronic form should be submitted by using the following weblink: ( https:// public.commentworks.com/ftc/ iSAFEsafeharbor ) (and following the instructions on the web-based form). Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex E), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
2252.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Section A. Background

On October 20, 1999, the Commission issued its final Rule 1 pursuant to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 6501, et seq , which became effective on April 21, 2000. 2 The Rule requires certain website operators to post privacy policies, provide notice, and obtain parental consent prior to collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children. The Rule contains a ‘‘ safe harbor’’ provision enabling industry groups or others to submit to the Commission for approval self-regulatory guidelines that would implement the Rule’s protections. 3

Pursuant to Section 312.10 of the Rule, iSAFE has submitted proposed self-regulatory guidelines to the Commission for approval. The full text of the proposed guidelines is available on the Commission’s website, at ( www.ftc.gov/bcp/ isafesafeharborapplication.pdf ). Section B. Questions on the Proposed Guidelines

The Commission is seeking comment on various aspects of the proposed guidelines, and is particularly interested in receiving comment on the questions that follow. These questions are designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. Responses to these questions should cite the numbers and subsection of the questions being answered. For all comments submitted, please provide any relevant data, statistics, or any other evidence, upon which those comments are based.

1. Please provide comments on any or all of the provisions in the proposed guidelines. For each provision commented on please describe (a) the impact of the provision(s) (including any benefits and costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, if any, iSAFE should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those alternatives.

2. Do the provisions of the proposed guidelines governing operators’ information practices provide ‘‘the same or greater protections for children’’ as those contained in Sections 312.2-312.8 of the Rule? 4 Where possible, please cite the relevant sections of both the Rule and the proposed guidelines.

3. Are the mechanisms used to assess operators’ compliance with the guidelines effective? 5 If not, please describe (a) how the proposed guidelines could be modified to satisfy the Rule’s requirements, and (b) the costs and benefits of those modifications.

4. Are the incentives for operators’ compliance with the guidelines effective? 6 If not, please describe (a) how the proposed guidelines could be modified to satisfy the Rule’s requirements, and (b) the costs and benefits of those modifications.

5. Do the guidelines provide adequate means for resolving consumer complaints? If not, please describe (a) how the proposed guidelines could be modified to resolve consumer complaints adequately, and (b) the costs and benefits of those modifications.

Section C. Invitation to Comment

All persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views, facts, and arguments addressing the proposed self-regulatory guidelines. The Commission invites written comments to assist it in ascertaining the facts necessary to reach a determination as to whether to approve the proposed guidelines. Written comments must be received on or before March 1, 2010, and may be submitted electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer
to ‘‘ iSAFE Safe Harbor Proposal, P094504 ’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that your comment – including your name and your state – will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC website, at