[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26142-26143]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0039]

Notice of Buy America Waiver

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Buy America waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides NHTSA's finding with respect to a request
from the Connecticut Department of Transportation's Highway Safety
Office (HSO) to waive the requirements of Buy America. NHTSA finds that
a non-availability waiver is appropriate for HSO to purchase twenty-
three foreign-made training motorcycles using Federal grant funds
because there are no suitable motorcycles produced in the United States
for safety training purposes.

DATES: The effective date of this waiver is May 18, 2015. Written
comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be
received on or before: May 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this waiver
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, contact Barbara
Sauers,

Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA (phone: 202-
366-0144). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico, Office of Chief
Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice provides NHTSA's finding that a
waiver of the Buy America requirements, 23 U.S.C. 313, is appropriate
for Connecticut's HSO to purchase twenty-three training motorcycles
using grant funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) (section 405) for
training motorcycles. Section 405(f) funds are available for use by
State Highway Safety Programs to implement effective programs to reduce
the number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists
that, among other things, include supporting training of motorcyclists.
23 U.S.C. 405(f).
    Buy America provides that NHTSA ``shall not obligate any funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or [Title 23] and administered
by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron, and
manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United
States.'' 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those requirements if
(1) their application would be inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) such materials and products are not produced in the United States
in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will increase the
cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. 23 U.S.C.
313(b). In this instance, NHTSA has determined a non-availability
waiver is appropriate for the twenty-three training motorcycles because
there is no sufficient product produced domestically that meets the
needs of Connecticut's HSO.
    NHTSA recently granted a waiver to the Hawaii Department of
Transportation's Motor Vehicle Safety Office, Highway Safety Section to
purchase training motorcycles because the cost of domestically produced
motorcycles is 25 percent more than the cost of foreign-made
motorcycles. Connecticut's HSO request also meets the cost waiver
conditions because purchasing the least expensive American alternative,
Harley-Davidson Street 500, would increase the cost of the project more
than 25 percent. However, this request should be categorized as a non-
availability waiver because American motorcycle manufacturers do not
produce a motorcycle designed specifically with a smaller engine
displacement (250 CC), which is consistent with motorcyclist training
programs. As smaller engine displacement is common for training
purposes and no American manufacturer produces motorcycles with this
specification, then a non-availability waiver is appropriate in this
situation.
    Connecticut's HSO seeks a waiver to purchase twenty-three Honda
(CMX250) Rebel motorcycles at $4,055 per unit. The total purchase price
for all twenty-three motorcycles is $93,265. Connecticut's training
program is designed to expand motorcycle safety efforts. Connecticut
asserts that this purchase will enhance its aging fleet of training
motorcycles and accommodate the growing demand for training. HSO
requires that its training bikes meet specific specifications. The
engine displacement must be no less than one-hundred fifteen cubic
centimeters and no more than two-hundred seventy-five cubic
centimeters. Additionally, the motorcycles must have four stroke,
electric start engines. HSO desires to use these motorcycles for its
2015 Motorcycle Safety Training Program because they are designed
specifically with smaller engine displacement (250 CC), low brake horse
power, and an upright seating position with typical hand and foot
controls, which is consistent with motorcyclist training programs.
Connecticut, however, is unable to identify any training motorcycles
that meet Buy America requirements. HSO researched motorcycle models
made by three American motorcycle manufacturers, Harley-Davidson, Inc.,
Victory Motorcycles, and Indian Motorcycle. Harley-Davidson produces a
500 CC motorcycle called the Street 500, with a MSRP of $6799. Victory
Motorcycles and Indian Motorcycle produce a motorcycle with a much
heavier and larger engine displacement than 500 CC, with the lowest
MSRP of $12,499 for the Victory Vegas 8-ball motorcycle and the lowest
MSRP of $10,999 for the Indian Scout. Connecticut's experience with
motorcycles with a 500 CC engine displacement is that the bikes, in
general, over power beginning riders and do not provide an appropriate
upright position for these riders. HSO was unable to find a motorcycle
that meets the requirements for training motorcycles that also meets
the Buy America requirements. NHTSA is unaware of any other domestic
motorcycle manufacturers other than Harley-Davidson, Victory, and
Indian. As these manufacturers do not sell a motorcycle that meets
standard requirements for motorcycle safety training purposes, a Buy
America waiver is appropriate. NHTSA invites public comment on this
conclusion.
    In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
313(b)(3), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from
the Buy America requirements to HSO in order to purchase twenty-three
Honda (CMX250) Rebel motorcycles. This waiver applies to Connecticut
and all other States seeking to use section 405 funds to purchase these
motorcycles for the purposes mentioned herein. This waiver will
continue through fiscal year 2015 and will allow the purchase of these
items as required for Connecticut's HSO and its training programs.
Accordingly, this waiver will expire at the conclusion of fiscal year
2015 (September 30, 2015). In accordance with the provisions of Section
117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this notice as its finding
that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for
certain Honda motorcycles. Written comments on this finding may be
submitted through any of the methods discussed above. NHTSA may
reconsider these findings, if through comment, it learns of and can
confirm the existence of a comparable domestically made product to the
item granted a waiver.
    This finding should not be construed as an endorsement or approval
of any products by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The
United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
O. Kevin Vincent,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-10609 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24390-24391]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0155]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit--Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc.

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to seek public comments on a
request for special permit, seeking relief from compliance with certain
requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the
conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments
received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny
the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
June 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the specific
special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: 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: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note: Privacy Act Statement: DOT may solicit comments from the
public regarding certain general notices. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
[email protected].
    Technical: Mr. Joshua Johnson by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 13, 2017, PHMSA received a
special permit request from the Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.,
(HECO), a hazardous liquid pipeline operator seeking permission to
deviate from the pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 195.571,
regarding the criteria that must be used to determine cathodic
protection of a pipeline.
    On January 9, 2018, PHMSA issued a Notice of Proposed Safety Order
(NOPSO) mandating that HECO adopt certain corrective measures for the
Waiau pipeline while the special permit request was being reviewed and
determined. After issuance of the NOPSO, a situation occurred where the
Waiau pipeline leaked for over six hours. The preliminary cause of the
spill appears to be external corrosion due to ineffective cathodic
protection, as described in the NOPSO.
    The Waiau pipeline is a 13-mile onshore intrastate pipeline located
within the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. It begins at the
Hawaiian Electric Barbers Tank Farm in Kapolei, Oahu, and ends at the
Waiau Power Plant in Pearl City, Oahu, Hawaii. The pipeline was
constructed in 2004 using fusion bond epoxy coating with 2 inches of
urethane foam insulation, and 80-millimeter, high density polyurethane
(HDPE) jacket. The thermal insulation and PE jacketing has high
electrical resistance properties that inhibit the cathodic protection
current flow to areas where water migration and corrosion may occur.
Although annual cathodic protection inspections confirm that the Waiau
pipeline experiences adequate levels of cathodic protection, cathodic
protection is expected to be an ineffective corrosion control method
for thermally insulated pipe. The maximum operating pressure of this
pipeline is 1,350 psig. The pipeline runs through areas of mixed high
population and other populated areas and is located entirely in an
ecologically unusually sensitive area.
    For additional protection and integrity of the pipeline, HECO
proposes to conduct, among other measures, alternative in-line
inspection technology every four years, rotating between Axial or
Circumferential and Ultrasonic testing. HECO claims that the proposed
measures will provide a safer alternative than required by the
regulations and better capabilities to detect corrosion clusters that
may appear invisible if they were to align with the inspection tool
magnetic fields.
    A draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) is provided in the
respective docket at http://www.Regulations.gov, for each special
permit request. We invite interested persons to participate by
reviewing the special permit request and DEA at http://www.Regulations.gov, and by submitting written comments, data, or other
views. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will

evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date.
Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated if it is
possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA
will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision
to grant or deny a request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2018-11333 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65758-65763]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27328]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65585; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-057]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New
FINRA Rule 5123 (Private Placements of Securities)

October 18, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on October 5, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items

have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 5123, which as described
further below, would require that members and associated persons that
offer or sell applicable private placements (as described in the Rule),
or participate in the preparation of private placement memoranda
(``PPM''), term sheets or other disclosure documents in connection with
such private placements, provide relevant disclosures to each investor
prior to sale describing the anticipated use of offering proceeds, and
the amount and type of offering expenses and offering compensation.
FINRA Rule 5123 also would require that the PPM, term sheet or other
disclosure document, and any exhibits thereto, be filed with FINRA no
later than 15 calendar days after the date of the first sale, and any
material amendments to such document, or any amendments to the
disclosures mandated by the Rule, be filed no later than 15 calendar
days after the date such document is provided to any investor or
prospective investor, as discussed further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and for
Web site viewing and printing at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing to adopt new Rule 5123 (Private Placements of
Securities) to ensure that investors in private placements are provided
detailed information about the intended use of offering proceeds, the
offering expenses and offering compensation. In addition, new Rule 5123
would provide FINRA, through a member ``notice'' filing requirement,
with more timely and detailed information about the private placement
activities of member firms.
    Rule 5123(a) would prohibit a member or person associated with a
member from offering or selling any security conducted in reliance on
an available exemption from registration under the Securities Act of
1933 (``Securities Act'') (``private placement''), or participating in
the preparation of a PPM, term sheet or other disclosure document for
such private placement, unless certain conditions are met. In
particular, the member or associated person must provide a PPM or term
sheet to each investor prior to sale that describes the anticipated use
of offering proceeds, the amount and type of offering expenses, and the
amount and type of compensation provided or to be provided to sponsors,
finders, consultants, and members and their associated persons in
connection with the offering. In addition, in a private placement
without a PPM or term sheet, a member or person associated with a
member must prepare a document that contains these disclosures and must
provide the document to each investor prior to sale.
    Proposed Rule 5123(b) would require ``notice'' filings of members'
private placement activities. Specifically, the proposed Rule would
require participating members to file the PPM, term sheet or other
disclosure document (including exhibits) with FINRA no later than 15
calendar days after the date of first sale, and to file any material
amendments to such document, or any amendments to the disclosures
mandated by the Rule, with FINRA no later than 15 calendar days after
the date such document is provided to any investor or prospective
investor.
    Proposed Rule 5123(c) would exempt from the requirements of the
Rule several types of private placements. Exemptions include offerings
sold only to any one or more of the following purchasers:
     Institutional accounts, as defined in NASD Rule
3110(c)(4); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The SEC approved SR-FINRA-2010-052, which, when it becomes
effective on December 5, 2011, will transfer the definition of
``institutional accounts'' currently found in NASD Rule 3110(c)(4)
to FINRA Rule 4512(c). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63784
(January 27, 2011), 76 FR 5850 (February 2, 2011) (Approving SR-
FINRA-2010-052); Regulatory Notice 11-19 (April 2011) (SEC Approves
Consolidated FINRA Rules Governing Books and Records). The text of
proposed Rule 5123 will be amended to reflect this change after SR-
FINRA-2010-052 becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Qualified purchasers, as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of
the Investment Company Act;
     Qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities
Act Rule 144A;
     Investment companies, as defined in Section 3 of the
Investment Company Act;
     An entity composed exclusively of qualified institutional
buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
     Banks, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities
Act; and
     Employees and affiliates of the issuer.
    In addition, the Rule would exempt the following types of
offerings:
     Offerings of exempted securities, as defined by Section
3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act;
     Offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or SEC
Regulation S;
     Offerings of exempt securities with short term maturities
under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act;
     Offerings of subordinated loans under Exchange Act Rule
15c3-1, Appendix D (see NASD Notice to Members 02-32 (June 2002));
     Offerings of ``variable contracts'' as defined in Rule
2320(b)(2);
     Offerings of modified guaranteed annuity contracts and
modified guaranteed life insurance policies, as referenced in Rule
5110(b)(8)(E);
     Offerings of non-convertible debt or preferred securities
by issuers that meet the eligibility criteria for incorporation by
reference in Forms S-3 and F-3; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA notes that the Commission recently adopted amendments
to remove any references to credit ratings from its rules and forms
promulgated under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. See,
e.g., Security Ratings, Securities Act Release No. 9245 (July 27,
2011), 76 FR 46603 (August 3, 2011). FINRA is proposing to use the
references described therein in the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock
splits and restructuring transactions that are executed by an already
existing investor without the need for additional consideration or
investments on the part of the investor;
     Offerings of securities of a commodity pool operated by a
commodity pool operator as defined under Section 1a(11) of the
Commodity Exchange Act; and
     Offerings filed with FINRA under Rules 2310, 5110, 5121
and 5122.
    These proposed exemptions are very similar to the exemptions in
existing Rule 5122 (Member Private Offerings), upon which proposed Rule
5123 is

based. The only differences in the exemptions are that the current
proposed Rule would not exempt (1) Offerings in which a member acts in
a wholesaling capacity and (2) offerings of certain credit derivatives,
both of which are exempted from Rule 5122.\5\ Wholesaling is typically
engaged in by broker-dealers affiliated with the issuer, and for
reasons described in Section 5 below, FINRA does not intend to
incorporate that exemption into proposed Rule 5123. The exemption for
offerings of equity and credit derivatives was intended to avoid
attributing certain derivative products on unaffiliated issuers as a
``member private offering.'' However, since proposed Rule 5123 would
apply to all offerings in which a member participates, that distinction
is not relevant to Rule 5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also would, as noted supra at note
4, replace references to credit ratings with alternative language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 5123 contains provisions identical to those in
current Rule 5122 regarding confidential treatment and application for
exemption. Pursuant to proposed paragraph 5123(d), FINRA would accord
confidential treatment to all documents and information filed pursuant
to the Rule, and would use such documents and information solely for
the purpose of determining compliance with FINRA rules or other
applicable regulatory purposes. Proposed paragraph 5123(e) would
provide members a method for application for an exemption from the
provisions of the Rule for good cause pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change no later than 90 days following Commission approval. The
implementation date will be no more than 180 days following Commission
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,\6\ which requires,
among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. The proposed rule change will provide
investors in private placements with detailed information about the
intended use of offering proceeds, the offering expenses and offering
compensation. In addition, the proposed rule change will provide FINRA
with more timely and detailed information about the private placement
activities of member firms. As a result, FINRA believes that ensuring
that investors have information about private placements will provide
important investor protections in connection with private placements
without unduly restricting capital formation through the private
placement offering process. In addition, FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change will assist its efforts to identify problematic
terms and conditions in private placements, thereby helping to detect
and prevent fraud in connection with private placements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change requires that members and associated persons provide relevant
disclosures to each investor prior to the sale of applicable private
placements, and file disclosure documents with FINRA no later than 15
calendar days after the date of the first sale (or, in the case of
material amendments, the date provided to an investor or prospective
investor). As noted above, FINRA does not believe that the proposed
rule change will unduly restrict capital formation through the private
placement offering process. FINRA believes that the relatively modest
``burden'' of the proposed rule change is both necessary and
appropriate in helping to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.

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

    In January 2011, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 11-04 requesting
comment on proposed amendments to expand Rule 5122 (the ``11-04
Proposal''). A copy of the Notice is available on FINRA's Web site at
http://www.finra.org. The comment period expired on March 14, 2011.
FINRA received 35 comments in response to the Notice. A list of the
commenters and abbreviations that were received in response to the
Notice are attached as Exhibit A, and copies of the comment letters
received in response to the Notice are available on FINRA's Web site at
http://www.finra.org. A summary of the comments and FINRA's response is
provided below.
The 11-04 Proposal
    The 11-04 Proposal would have extended virtually all of the
existing requirements of Rule 5122, i.e., those requiring disclosure,
filing and limitations on the use of offering proceeds, to all private
placements in which a member participates (subject to the listed
exemptions). While many commenters expressed support for the 11-04
Proposal,\7\ many, as discussed below, were critical of various
provisions. Most criticisms concerned proposed requirements regarding
the use of offering proceeds and filing. FINRA has considered the
comments received in response to the 11-04 Proposal. The proposed rule
change balances the goals of ensuring investors and FINRA receive key
information about private placements while maintaining the flexibility
and expediency offered by private placements. Based on these
considerations, the current proposed rule change differs in several key
respects from the 11-04 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., letters from Cornell, FSI, Intellivest
Securities, Mick & Associates, NIBA and WSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding Use of Offering Proceeds
    The issue generating the most comment was the proposed use of
proceeds limitation (i.e., the proposed requirement that 85 percent of
the proceeds raised be used for the business purposes described in the
disclosure document). Many commenters expressed concerns about the
ability of members to monitor an issuer's use of proceeds and the
Rule's potential for additional liability if the use of proceeds
deviates from that provided in the required disclosure document.\8\
Some raised concerns that, as written, the proposed Rule would impose
burdens on or attempt to regulate non-FINRA members.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See letters from 3PM, ABA, AOG, George, IPA, NYC Bar, NY
State Bar, NIBA, Secore & Waller, SIFMA and Sullivan & Cromwell.
    \9\ See letters from ABA, NYC Bar, Patrick, Saxony, SIFMA and
Sullivan & Cromwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters asserted the proposed 85 percent limitation was an
arbitrary ``one size fits all'' approach and could be a barrier to
capital formation, especially for smaller offerings or other specific
types of offerings.\10\ Commenters suggested that the fixed costs of
smaller offerings, or higher cost of specific types of offerings,

could make this limitation unworkable. A few commenters feared that
constraints on the allowable expenses for such offerings could force
issuers to explore alternative means of raising capital without the
assistance of member firms, including the use of finders and
unregistered persons.\11\ In addition, commenters raised interpretive
questions regarding whether certain expenses--including, among other
things, costs relating to due diligence, legal, travel, blue sky, stock
grants, warrants, tail fees, rights of first refusal, conference
expenses, trail fees, management fees and appraisals and valuations--
would be required to be treated as ``offering expenses'' or would
constitute proceeds used for business purposes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letters from ABA, AOG, BFS, FSI, George, IMS, IPA, NY
State Bar, Patrick, Rothwell Consulting, Saxony, Schulten Ward,
Secore & Waller, WSI and Weinstein Smith.
    \11\ See letters from ABA, Krieger & Prager and REISA.
    \12\ See letters from ABA, IMS, Locke Lord, Mick & Associates,
Network 1, Patrick, REISA, Saxony, Secore & Waller, SIFMA, Sullivan
& Cromwell and Weinstein Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters recommended that FINRA simply require greater
disclosures about the various uses of proceeds, offering expenses, and
compensation as an alternative to adopting a use of offering proceeds
limitation.\13\ Based in large part on these comments, as discussed
above, FINRA has amended the proposal such that it no longer includes
the substantive requirement that at least 85 percent of offering
proceeds must be used for the disclosed business purposes and has
instead chosen to reorient the Rule towards disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See letters from FSI, IPA, NIBA, REISA and WSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FINRA continues to believe that the manner in which offering
proceeds are used is critically important in a private placement--and
that offerings in which a large percentage of offering proceeds are for
other than business purposes raise regulatory concerns--FINRA believes
that these concerns can be addressed through the obligations of broker-
dealers, under the suitability and anti-fraud provisions of the
securities laws and FINRA rules, to conduct a reasonable inquiry of an
issuer.\14\ FINRA appreciates the importance of raising capital in the
private placement market for certain issuers and recognizes commenters'
concerns that an across-the-board application of the 85 percent
requirement may impose unnecessary burdens on some offerings,
especially smaller private placements. FINRA's expectation is that the
reasonable inquiry obligations of broker-dealers will encourage
reasonable limits on the use of offering proceeds for purposes other
than generating a return on investment.\15\ If the rigorous application
of the reasonable inquiry obligations outlined in Regulatory Notice 10-
22 does not achieve this result, FINRA will reconsider the imposition
of numerical limitations. In addition, eliminating the 85 percent
requirement will simplify the administration of the Rule by removing
the need for members to determine whether various expenses would have
been classified as ``offering expenses,'' ``compensation,'' or
``business purposes'' under the Rule. In the public offering context,
FINRA's Corporate Financing Department staff's review process in
connection with issuing a ``no-objections'' opinion ensures consistent
and accurate treatment of various expenses. Since only a ``notice''
filing is required in proposed Rule 5123, the lack of staff review and
comment could raise interpretive questions regarding the application of
the 85 percent requirement if the provision remained in the Rule.
Lastly, eliminating the 85 percent requirement would eliminate any
implication, as indicated by some comments, that the 11-04 Proposal
would create an independent, continuing obligation for members to
monitor an unaffiliated issuer's use of proceeds after the closing of
an offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Regulatory Notice 10-22 (April 2010) (Regulation D
Offerings).
    \15\ Members have an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry
regarding the use of proceeds prior to making a recommendation in
that security. See, e.g., Regulatory Notice 10-22 (regarding private
placements). Such a recommendation would not comply with the
requirements of FINRA's suitability rule if the description of the
use of proceeds in the disclosure document is inconsistent with the
information obtained in the course of this inquiry. See NASD Rule
2310 (Recommendations to Customers (Suitability)). FINRA notes that
the SEC has approved new FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). See
Regulatory Notice 11-02 (January 2011) (SEC Approves Consolidated
FINRA Rules Governing Know-Your-Customer and Suitability
Obligations). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63325
(November 17, 2010), 75 FR 71479 (November 23, 2010) (File No. SR-
FINRA-2010-039; Order Granting Accelerated Approval, As Modified by
Amendment, to Proposed Rule Change to Adopt FINRA Rules 2090 (Know
Your Customer) and 2111 (Suitability) in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64260 (April 8,
2011), 76 FR 20759 (April 13, 2011) (File No. SR-FINRA-2011-016;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
to Delay the Implementation Date of FINRA Rule 2090 (Know Your
Customer) and FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Regarding Filing Requirements
    The 11-04 Proposal would have required a member to file information
with FINRA by the time an offering document is provided to any
investor. While the 11-04 Proposal states that offerings would not be
held in abeyance pending FINRA staff review and that filings would not
be ``approved'' nor would the staff issue ``no-objections'' opinions,
commenters raised concerns about potential slowdowns of offerings due
to the filing requirement. Several commenters believed that the 11-04
Proposal's filing requirement could delay the offering process as firms
would be reluctant to proceed with an offering without assurances or
clearances from FINRA.\16\ Commenters also raised technical concerns
about the proposed filing process, including concerns regarding who
must file (e.g., each selling dealer in a private placement), how
members of a selling group would know if an offering memorandum had
been previously filed, and who bears the responsibility to file
amendments.\17\ A few commenters, including the NYC Bar, suggested that
the application of the filing requirement would result in offerings
structured to avoid application of the Rule, either by limiting the
offering to exempted investors or moving the transaction offshore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See letters from ABA, Achates, IMS, Intellivest, IPA,
George, LeGaye, Network 1, NIBA, NYC Bar, NY State Bar, Patrick,
REISA, Saxony, Secore & Waller and Sullivan & Cromwell.
    \17\ See letters from Achates, FSI and Moloney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, FINRA now proposes to require that a
member file ``no later than 15 calendar days after the date of first
sale.'' This timing requirement is the same as the filing requirement
for Form D; synchronizing these timing requirements may allow some
filers to utilize operational efficiencies. Moreover, by requiring a
``notice'' filing, FINRA will remove any implication that the FINRA
staff will provide comments on a filing; that such filing with FINRA
could be a precondition to commencing an offering; or that members
should expect to receive any FINRA staff input before proceeding with
an offering. The proposed filing requirement would nevertheless provide
FINRA staff with timely access to information about the private
placement business of FINRA members.
    The proposal would require that each member that participates in a
private placement make the requisite filing. FINRA had considered
requiring only one member to file, but determined that such a
requirement would limit its ability to gain timely access to
information about the private placement business of FINRA members that
might not file. Moreover, as the comment letters indicate, requiring
only one member to file would complicate the ability of the other
members to

participate, since they would have to determine whether another member
had filed and whether the filing complies with FINRA's requirements. If
one member engaged in the private placement under different
compensation terms than another member, then it could further
complicate such a single-filer regime. Therefore, it is more practical,
and more helpful to FINRA's need for timely access to information about
the private placement business of members, to require every member that
participates in a particular private placement to make the notice
filing.
Other Comments
    Comments regarding disclosure ranged from support \18\ to requests
for clarification or guidance regarding what would constitute adequate
disclosure \19\ to claims that disclosure would be duplicative of that
provided to the SEC pursuant to Regulation D.\20\ Some requested
clarification of specific types of disclosure (e.g., sponsor fees,\21\
non-variable third party costs \22\ or the scope of offering expenses
\23\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., letter from WSI.
    \19\ See, e.g., letter from LeGaye.
    \20\ See letter from NY State Bar.
    \21\ See letter from AOG.
    \22\ See letter from Weinstein Smith.
    \23\ See letters from IMS and Weinstein Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters suggested narrowing the scope of the Rule
through additional exemptions, including adding exemptions for offers
and sales to: all accredited investors; \24\ small groups of accredited
investors; \25\ or alternatively a de minimis exemption for sales to
accredited investors; \26\ other registered broker-dealers in
connection with the establishment of a joint back office arrangement;
\27\ issuers that are reporting companies under the Federal securities
laws; \28\ knowledgeable employees or officers of the issuing company;
\29\ or when there is a change in ownership.\30\ Others argued that
exemptions for the following types of securities should be added:
insurance contracts; \31\ mergers and acquisitions structured as a
stock sale either for cash or for acquirer stock; \32\ secondary sales
of securities; \33\ and privately offered commodity pools and
investment funds.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See letters from NYC Bar, SIFMA, Sullivan & Cromwell and
Weinstein Smith.
    \25\ See letter from LeGaye.
    \26\ See letters from ABA, IMS, NYC Bar, Rothwell Consulting,
SIFMA, St. Charles and Sullivan & Cromwell.
    \27\ See letter from ABA.
    \28\ See letter from SIFMA.
    \29\ See letters from ABA, SIFMA and St. Charles.
    \30\ See letter from IMS.
    \31\ See letter from Sutherland.
    \32\ See letter from NYC Bar.
    \33\ See letter from Sullivan & Cromwell.
    \34\ See letter from MFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes the exemptions in the proposed rule change are
appropriately tailored and inclusive, and as noted above, are very
similar to those in existing Rule 5122. Based upon its experience with
Rule 5122, FINRA does not believe it should expand the list of
exemptions. Further, FINRA notes that the proposed Rule would provide a
method by which a member may apply for an exemption from the provisions
of the Rule for good cause pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series.
    Some commenters supported FINRA's proposal not to incorporate the
wholesaling exemption into the Rule,\35\ while others questioned the
elimination of this exemption, especially as the 11-04 Proposal would
have eliminated the exemption for member private offerings as well as
private placements more generally.\36\ The basis for this exemption in
Rule 5122 was that distribution of the private placement by independent
retail broker-dealers would obviate the need for the rule, which
applies to private placements in which the selling member or its
control entity is the issuer. However, given that the current proposed
rule change reaches all private placements, the reliance upon the
efforts of an ``independent'' broker-dealer is no longer relevant.
Accordingly, the wholesaling exemption is not provided in proposed Rule
5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See letters from Cornell, NIBA and SIFMA.
    \36\ See letters from 3PM, LeGaye, SIFMA and WSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also requested that the Rule (or supplementary material)
state that the exemption provisions may be combined without triggering
the requirements of the Rule.\37\ FINRA notes that the exemption
provisions may be combined. These exemptions are derived from those in
Rule 5122. In announcing the approval of Rule 5122, FINRA stated as
follows:

    \37\ See letters from ABA, NYC Bar, Rothwell Consulting and
SIFMA.

    Types of exemptions may be combined without triggering the
requirements of the rule. For example, if an MPO is offered to both
qualified purchasers and employees or affiliates of the issuer or
its control entities, as long as these purchasers qualify for
exemptions under the rule, the MPO would be exempt from the rule's
requirements.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Regulatory Notice 09-27 (May 2009) (Member Private
Offerings).

FINRA would make a similar statement in connection with a Regulatory
Notice regarding this Rule.
    One commenter raised a concern that, as proposed, the Rule would
not afford confidential treatment to any comment or similar letters by
FINRA, and thus they could be discovered by a litigant through
appropriate legal action.\39\ FINRA believes that proposed paragraph
5123(d) addresses this issue and would afford confidential treatment to
all such documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See letter from ABA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the differences between the 11-04 Proposal (and Rule
5122) and the current proposed Rule, as described above, FINRA is
proposing that the rule regarding private placements be a new rule
separate from Rule 5122.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ FINRA believes that the provisions of existing Rule 5122
are appropriate for the types of private offerings covered by that
rule, i.e., the offering of securities issued by a member or its
control affiliate. In addition, FINRA is not aware of any concerns
regarding the timing of Rule 5122's filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall:
(a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission specifically
requests comment on the following:
     Whether the proposed rule would impact issuers' access to
capital via the private placement market, particularly small issuers.
If so, how?
     Whether the proposed rule would impact investors
purchasing private placement securities through a broker-dealer subject
to the new rule. If so, how? For example, would knowledge of the
information contained in a mandatory disclosure improve an investor's
ability to decide whether to invest in a private placement subject to
the rule?
     Whether the proposed rule would impact registered broker-
dealers' participation in private placements. If so, how?
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-057 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-057. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-057
and should be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

Exhibit A

Alphabetical List of Written Comments

    1. Achates Capital Advisors LLC (March 4, 2011) (``Achates'').
    2. American Bar Association (March 14, 2011) (``ABA'').
    3. AOG Wealth Management (March 14, 2011) (``AOG'').
    4. Balanced Financial Securities (February 12, 2011) (``BFS'').
    5. Colonnade Securities LLC (March 10, 2011) (``Colonnade'').
    6. Cornell University Law School (March 14, 2011) (``Cornell'').
    7. Financial Services Institute (March 15, 2011) (``FSI'').
    8. Ken George (March 14, 2011) (``George'').
    9. Integrated Management Solutions USA LLC (March 14, 2011)
(``IMS'').
    10. Investment Program Association (March 14, 2011) (``IPA'').
    11. Intellivest Securities, Inc. (March 10, 2011) (``Intellivest
Securities'').
    12. Krieger & Prager, LLP (February 18, 2011) (``Krieger &
Prager'').
    13. The LeGaye Law Firm P.C. (March 14, 2011) (``LeGaye'').
    14. Valerie Lewis (January 19, 2011) (``Lewis'').
    15. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP (March 11, 2011) (``Locke
Lord'').
    16. Moloney Securities Co., Inc. (March 7, 2011) (``Moloney'').
    17. Managed Funds Association (March 14, 2011) (``MFA'').
    18. Mick & Associates, P.C., LLO (March 10, 2011) (``Mick &
Associates'').
    19. National Investment Banking Association (March 14, 2011)
(``NIBA'').
    20. Network 1 Financial Securities, Inc. (March 10, 2011)
(``Network 1'').
    21. New York City Bar Association (March 14, 2011) (``NYC Bar'').
    22. New York State Bar Association (March 28, 2011) (``NY State
Bar'').
    23. Patrick Capital Markets, LLC (March 14, 2011) (``Patrick'').
    24. Real Estate Investment Securities Association (March 14, 2011)
(``REISA'').
    25. Rothwell Consulting LLC (March 1, 2011) (``Rothwell
Consulting'').
    26. Saxony Securities, Inc. (March 14, 2011) (``Saxony'').
    27. Schulten, Ward & Turner (February 3, 2011) (``Schulten Ward'').
    28. Secore & Waller, L.L.P. (March 14, 2011) (``Secore & Waller'').
    29. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (March
14, 2011) (``SIFMA'').
    30. St. Charles Capital, LLC (March 14, 2011) (``St. Charles'').
    31. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (March 14, 2011) (``Sullivan &
Cromwell'').
    32. Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP (March 14, 2011)
(``Sutherland'').
    33. Third Party Marketers Association (March 10, 2011) (``3PM'').
    34. Walton Securities, Inc. (March 14, 2011) (``WSI'').
    35. Weinstein Smith LLP (March 9, 2011) (``Weinstein Smith'').

[FR Doc. 2011-27328 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 71889]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azure Sky Wind Project, LLC..................  EG21-237-000
Alta Farms Wind Project II, LLC..............  EG21-238-000
Azure Sky Wind Storage, LLC..................  EG21-239-000
Ranchland Wind Project II, LLC...............  EG21-240-000
Ranchland Wind Storage, LLC..................  EG21-241-000
Blue Jay Solar I, LLC........................  EG21-242-000
Skipjack Solar Center, LLC...................  EG21-243-000
AR Searcy Project Company, LLC...............  EG21-244-000
El Algodon Alto Wind Farm, LLC...............  EG21-245-000
Blackjack Creek Wind Farm, LLC...............  EG21-246-000
Big Star Solar, LLC..........................  EG21-247-000
IP Radian, LLC...............................  EG21-248-000
Bellflower Solar 1, LLC......................  EG21-249-000
Black Bear Alabama Solar 1, LLC..............  EG21-250-000
Happy Solar 1, LLC...........................  EG21-251-000
Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC....................  EG21-252-000
Bay Tree Solar, LLC..........................  EG21-253-000
Bay Tree Lessee, LLC.........................  EG21-254-000
EnerSmart El Cajon BESS LLC..................  EG21-255-000
AP Solar 2, LLC..............................  EG21-256-000
Drew Solar, LLC..............................  EG21-257-000
Dunns Bridge Solar LLC.......................  EG21-258-000
Mililani I Solar, LLC........................  EG21-259-000
Lanikuhana Solar, LLC........................  EG21-260-000
Ventress Solar Farm 1, LLC...................  EG21-261-000
Nexus Line, LLC..............................  EG21-262-000
Stanly Solar, LLC............................  EG21-263-000
PGR 2021 Lessee 1, LLC.......................  EG21-264-000
NET Power, LLC...............................  EG21-265-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of November 2021, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2021).

    Dated: December 14, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27451 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69785-69787]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0997; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-044-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Model T67M260 airplanes. 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 cracked horizontal stabilizer attachment
brackets, which could lead to separation of the

horizontal stabilizer and result in loss of control. We are issuing
this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 6, 2014.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Slingsby Advanced Composites, Ings Lane, Kirbymoorside, York, YO62 6EZ,
United Kingdom, telephone: +44 (0) 1751 432474; fax +44 (0) 1751
433016, Internet: www.marshall-slingsby.com. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0997; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2013-0997;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-044-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2012-0169, dated August 31, 2012 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Several cases have been reported of cracked horizontal
stabiliser attachment brackets on Slingsby T67 aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
separation of the horizontal stabiliser and consequent loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    Prompted by these reports, Slingsby issued Service Bulletin (SB)
179 to provide instructions for repetitive inspections. The CAA UK,
the State of Design authority at the time, issued AD 001-12-
2002,which was later superseded by AD G-2005-0004 (EASA approval
2005-564) to require repetitive inspections and, depending on
findings, replacement of the affected brackets.
    Since that AD was issued, Slingsby published SB 179 issue 4,
which removed the Model T67M260-T3A from the Applicability (all
aeroplanes of this Model are confirmed to have been scrapped) and
clarified that replacement of the affected aluminum brackets with
titanium brackets (Slingsby Modification M988A or B) constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of CAA UK AD G-2005-0004, which is superseded, removes
the Model T67M260-T3A from the Applicability and confirms that
installing titanium brackets constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0997.

Relevant Service Information

    Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd. has issued Service Bulletin No.
179, Issue 4, dated March 15, 2007. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 11 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic inspection of the aluminum horizontal
stabilizer attachment brackets requirement of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $7,250 (for all four
titanium horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets), for a cost of
$7,930 per product, or parts costing $9,557 (for all four aluminum
horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets), for a cost of $10,237. We
have no way of determining the number of products that may need these
actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority

because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Slingsby Aviation Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0997; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-044-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 6, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Model T67M260
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by 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 cracked
horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets. We are issuing this AD to
prevent separation of the horizontal stabilizer, which could result
in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or at the next annual inspection after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, inspect the
aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets for cracks. Do
the inspections following the ACTION instructions in Slingsby
Advanced Composites Ltd. Service Bulletin S.B. No: 179, Issue 4,
dated March 15, 2007.
    (2) If, during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, any cracks are found, before further flight, replace the
cracked bracket with a serviceable part. Do the replacement
following the ACTION instructions in Slingsby Advanced Composites
Ltd. Service Bulletin S.B. No: 179, Issue 4, dated March 15, 2007.
If a serviceable aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment bracket
is used as a replacement part, repetitively inspect as specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) To terminate the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, all four aluminum horizontal stabilizer
attachment brackets must be replaced with titanium horizontal
stabilizer attachment brackets.
    (4) After installing titanium horizontal stabilizer attachment
brackets, installing aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment
brackets are prohibited.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (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, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012-
0169, dated August 31, 2012, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0997. For
service information related to this AD, contact Slingsby Advanced
Composites, Ings Lane, Kirbymoorside, York, YO62 6EZ, United
Kingdom, telephone: +44 (0) 1751 432474; fax +44 (0) 1751 433016,
Internet: www.marshall-slingsby.com. You may review this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 15, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27919 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Public
Teleconference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is
hereby given of a teleconference of the Business/Legal Working Group
(BLWG) of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC).

DATES: The teleconference will take place on Friday, January 25, 2013,
from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. U.S. Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The teleconference call-in number and passcode will be
posted by approximately one week prior to the teleconference date at
the following Web site link: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/. Individuals who
participate in the teleconference should contact Paul Eckert,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email approximately 15 minutes
before the call begins, using the email address provided in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Eckert, Office of Commercial
Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this call is to discuss how
to respond to a request to COMSTAC by the FAA Office of Commercial
Space Transportation (FAA/AST), regarding how best to conduct a review
of the Office's methodology for calculation of Maximum Probable Loss
(MPL). The FAA/AST request to COMSTAC took place following a 2012
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled ``Commercial Space
Launches--FAA Should Update How It Assesses Federal Liability Risk.''
This report included a recommendation calling for FAA/AST to carry out
periodic reviews of its MPL methodology. GAO further stated that FAA/
AST should consider using external experts in the course of an MPL
review.
    The MPL represents an estimate of the maximum probable cost of
damage to life and property, in the event of a launch mishap. MPL
calculation has considerable significance, because the figure is used
to determine the financial responsibility requirements of each launch
license or experimental permit holder. While AST believes its current
MPL methodology has been effective, GAO's recommendation to conduct a
review of the methodology is prudent given the growth of the commercial
space transportation industry and the amount of time that has passed
since MPL modification.
    In addition to or in lieu of teleconference participation,
interested members of the public may submit relevant written statements
for COMSTAC to consider, in compliance with advisory committee
procedures. Statements may address the issues mentioned above or
additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to submit written
statements regarding the January 25, 2013 teleconference should contact
Paul Eckert, DFO (the Contact Person listed below) in writing (i.e., by
mail or email) by January 18, 2013. Written statements should be
supplied in the following formats: one hard copy with original
signature or one electronic copy via email.
    Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance
should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the
meeting.
    Complete information regarding COMSTAC is available on the FAA Web
site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 2, 2013.
 George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2013-00279 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53890]
[DOCID:fr17se08-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3292-EM]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of
Alabama (FEMA-3292-EM), dated August 30, 2008, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 3, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 3, 2008.

(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.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21772 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6211-6212]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of open Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet via teleconference on Thursday, March 5, 2020. The meeting
will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Thursday, March 5, 2020, 1:00 to
3:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the
Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public who wish to participate in the
teleconference should contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by close of business February
28, 2020, to obtain the call-in number and access code for the March
5th teleconference meeting. For more information on services for
individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact
Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Participants seeking to have their
comments considered during the meeting should submit them in advance or
during the public comment segment. Comments submitted up to 30 days
after the meeting will be included in the public record and may be
considered at the next meeting. Comments submitted in advance must be
identified by Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Deborah Gartrell-Kemp, 16825 South
Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, post-marked no later than
February 15, 2020 for consideration at the March 5, 2020 meeting.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and

the Docket ID for this action. Comments received will be posted without
alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By Agency,'' and then click ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Alternate Designated Federal Officer: Kirby E. Kiefer, telephone
(301) 447-1117, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Logistical Information: Deborah Gartrell-Kemp, telephone (301) 447-
7230, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board will meet via teleconference on
Thursday, March 5, 2020. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice
of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. Appendix.

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States
Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any
improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out
its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine
whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by
the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy
to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the
funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual
report through the United States Fire Administrator to the
Administrator of FEMA. The report provides detailed comments and
recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

Agenda

    On Thursday, March 5, 2020, there will be four sessions, with
deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:
    1. The Board will discuss USFA Data, Research, Prevention and
Response.
    2. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital
improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
    3. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy
program activities to include developments, deliveries, staffing, and
admissions.
    4. There will also be an update on the Board of Visitors
Subcommittee Groups for the Professional Development Initiative Update
and the National Fire Incident Report System.
    There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and
each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note
that the public comment period may end before the time indicated
following the last call for comments. Contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp to
register as a speaker. Meeting materials will be posted at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/about/bov.html by March 2, 2020.

Tonya L. Hoover,
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-02132 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-74-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49380-49381]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21333]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0575; FRL-9984-82-OAR]

Alternative Methods for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Application From
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting comment on an application from Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. (``Volkswagen'') for off-cycle carbon dioxide
(CO2) credits under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission reductions can be achieved
by employing technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where
that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's
light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits
by giving automobile manufacturers several options for generating
``off-cycle'' CO2 credits. Under the regulations, a
manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for off-cycle
technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these cases, a
manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. Volkswagen has submitted
an application that describes methodologies for determining off-cycle
credits from technologies described in their application. Pursuant to
applicable regulations, EPA is making the Volkswagen's off-cycle credit
calculation methodologies available for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0575, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, if the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In
cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional
laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway
allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as
``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be
demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies
were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and
therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use
these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek
EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-
cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option for model
years prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle CO2 reductions
for technologies that are on the predetermined list, or to demonstrate
reductions that exceed those available via use of the predetermined
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described above) must describe a methodology that meets the
following criteria:
     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.

     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above,
Volkswagen Group of America (``Volkswagen'') is applying for credits
for model years prior to 2014, and thus prior to when the list of
default credits became available. Volkswagen has applied for off-cycle
credits using the alternative demonstration methodology pathway for the
following technologies: High efficiency exterior lighting, active
aerodynamics, active transmission warmup, active engine warmup, and
several thermal control technologies. EPA has already approved credits
for these technologies for several other manufacturers, and
Volkswagen's request is consistent with previously approved
methodologies and credits. The application covers 2010-2011 model year
vehicles. These technologies are described in the predetermined list of
credits available in the 2014 and later model years. The methodologies
described by Volkswagen are consistent with those used by EPA to
establish the predetermined list of credits in the regulations, and
would result in the same credit values as described in the regulations.
The magnitude of these credits is determined by specification or
calculations in the regulations based on vehicle-specific measurements
(e.g., the area of glass or the lighting locations using the specified
technologies), but would be no higher than the following established
regulatory values:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Off-cycle      Off-cycle
                Technology                  credit--cars  credit--trucks
                                            (grams/mile)   (grams/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High efficiency lighting..................           1.0            1.0
Active seat ventilation...................           1.0            1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active aerodynamics.......................   Based on measured reduction
                                             in the coefficient of drag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active transmission warm-up...............           1.5            3.2
Active engine warm-up.....................           1.5            3.2
Solar reflective glass/glazing............           2.9            3.9
Solar reflective paint....................           0.4            0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the application for completeness and is now making
the application available for public review and comment as required by
the regulations. The off-cycle credit application submitted by the
manufacturer (with confidential business information redacted) have
been placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section above) and on
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards.
    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for
off-cycle credits described in this notice, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of
comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in
response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any
rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision
available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple
decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's website at the same
manufacturer-specific pages shown above. While the broad methodologies
used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other
vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed
to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be
different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.

    Dated: September 20, 2018.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2018-21333 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P