[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62886-62889]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc.

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s
(Nissan) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its Z vehicle line
beginning in model year (MY) 2024. The petition is granted because the
agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard. Nissan also requested
confidential treatment for specific information in its petition.
Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes of this
notice has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2024 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger
motor vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106,
manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may
petition the Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a line of
passenger motor vehicles equipped with an antitheft device as standard
equipment that the Secretary decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. In accordance

with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which establishes
the process through which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the
theft prevention standard.
    49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
    (1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
    (2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
    (3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
    (4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence,
the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of part 541.
    Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
    This grant of petition for exemption considers Nissan Motor North
America, Inc.'s (Nissan) petition for its Z vehicle line beginning in
MY 2024. Based on the information provided in Nissan's petition, NHTSA
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on its vehicle
line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard.

I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6

    Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Nissan petitioned for an exemption for its specified
vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard, beginning in MY 2024. Nissan petitioned under 49
CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described
above, requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
    More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other
than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
    \5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe Nissan's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Nissan's
petition is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).

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

II. Nissan's Petition for Exemption

    In a petition dated November 17, 2022, Nissan requested an
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard for the Z vehicle line beginning with MY 2024.
    In its petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Z vehicle line. Nissan stated that its MY 2024
Z vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronic engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Key components of the antitheft device include an engine immobilizer,
immobilizer control (CONT ASSY-SMART KEYLESS), engine control module
(ECM), body control module, immobilizer antenna and a key FOB with a
pre-registered key-ID microchip.
    Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), Nissan explained that activation
of its immobilizer device occurs automatically when the ignition switch
is turned to the ``OFF'' position. Nissan also stated that the
immobilizer device prevents normal operation of the vehicle without
using a special key. Nissan explained that when the brake SW or clutch
is on and the key FOB is near the engine start switch, the BMC scans
the Key-ID via the immobilizer ANT. The microchip then transmits the
key-ID via radio wave. Next, the key-ID is received by the antenna and
is amplified and transmitted to the BMC. Nissan further stated that the
ECM will ``request'' the BCM to start the encrypted communication, and
once the code is accepted, the BCM will send an OK-code and an
encrypted code to the ECM. If the code is not accepted, the immobilizer
control unit will send a NG-code. Nissan stated that the ECM will only
stop the motor if it receives a NG-code from the BCM, the encrypted
code is not correct, or no signal is received from the BCM.
    As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), Nissan provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. Nissan stated
that its antitheft device is tested for specific parameters to ensure
its reliability and durability. Nissan provided a detailed list of the
tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable
since the device complied with its specified requirements for each
test. Nissan stated that its immobilizer device satisfies the European
Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. Nissan further stated
that all control units for the device are located inside the vehicle,
providing further protection from unauthorized accessibility of the
device from outside the vehicle. Nissan also stated that if a potential
intruder were to damage the immobilizer system, it is designed so that
the motor cannot be restarted and that the motor will restart only
after transmission of the correct Key-ID and encrypted code are
accepted. Nissan also stated that if an intruder were to substitute
another immobilizer unit, the vehicle would still not be operable since
the immobilizer and ECM are code-paired.
    Nissan stated that the proposed device is functionally equivalent
to the antitheft device installed on the MY 2011 Nissan Cube vehicle
line which was granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency on April
14, 2010 (75 FR 19458). The agency notes that the theft rates for the
Nissan Cube using an average of 3 MYs data (2012-2014), are 0.3322,
0.6471 and 2.0373 per thousand vehicles produced, respectively. For
reference, the theft rate for MY 2014 passenger vehicles stolen in
calendar year 2014 is 1.1512 thefts per thousand vehicles produced (82
FR 28246).
    Nissan also referenced the National Insurance Crime Bureau's data
which it stated showed a 70% reduction in theft when comparing MY 1997
Ford Mustangs (with a standard immobilizer) to MY 1995 Ford Mustangs
(without an immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the Highway Loss Data
Institute's data which reported that BMW vehicles experienced theft
loss reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim frequency
and a 78% lower average loss payment per claim for vehicles equipped
with an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan stated that theft rates for
its Pathfinder vehicle line experienced reductions from model year (MY)
2000 to 2001 and subsequent years with implementation of an engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment. Specifically, Nissan stated
that the agency's theft rate data for MY's 2001 through 2005 reported
theft rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, and 1.7298 respectively
for the Nissan Pathfinder.
    Nissan compared its device to other similar devices previously
granted exemptions by the agency. Specifically, it referenced the
agency's grant of full exemptions to General Motors Corporation for its
Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines (58 FR 44872, August
25, 1993) and its Cadillac Seville vehicle line (62 FR 20058, April 24,
1997) from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard. Nissan stated that it believes that since its device is
functionally equivalent to other comparable manufacturers' devices that
have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency, along
with the evidence of reduced theft rates for vehicle lines equipped
with similar devices and advanced technology of transponder electronic
security, the Nissan immobilizer device will have the potential to
achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to those vehicles already
exempted by the agency.

III. Decision To Grant the Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541, or deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As discussed above, in this case,
Nissan's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
    This conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided about
its antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on Nissan's supporting
evidence, the antitheft device described for its vehicle line is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard.
    The agency concludes that Nissan's antitheft device will provide
four of the five types of performance features listed in section
543.6(a)(3) \7\: promoting activation; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device. However, the agency wishes to
note that the Z line will not provide any visible or audible indication
of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights and horn alarm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., 70 FR 74107 (Dec. 14, 2005). NHTSA has previously
concluded that the lack of a visual or audio alarm has not prevented
some antitheft devices from being effective protection against
theft, where the theft data indicate a decline in theft rates for
vehicle lines that have been equipped with devices similar to that
what the petitioner is proposing to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the

beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for its requested
vehicle line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such
a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the
device on which the exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for
the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use
of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified
in the exemption.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(copyright)(2) could place on exempted vehicle
manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part
543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every
change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The
significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore,
NHTSA suggests that if a manufacturer with an exemption contemplates
making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as
de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if
Nissan contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Z vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 2024
vehicles.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2023-19761 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 1, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-18811

________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  PSA AIRLINES, INC. d/b/a US AIRWAYS EXPRESS d/b/a US AIR
EXPRESS filed 6/13/06 for:

XX  Renewal of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in
the Turks & Caicos.

Applicant rep:   Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: August 1, 2006, through
August 1, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.aspU.S. Carrier
Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life.  All of my family, friends, and even my doctors appreciate what these products have done to improve the quality of my life.  I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account.

As an individual consumer, I am requesting an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions to which I might want to respond.  I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43862]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14885-000]

Midwest Energy Recycling, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 17, 2018, Midwest Energy Recycling, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Chippewa County Pumped Storage Project to be located near the Minnesota
River and the city of Granite Falls, in Chippewa County, Minnesota. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
circular 100-acre rockfill embankment (upper reservoir) having a total
storage capacity of 3,000 acre-feet with a maximum pond elevation level
of 1080 feet mean sea level; (2) a new 2,400-foot by 1,425-foot
rectangular lower reservoir with a total storage capacity of 3,300
acre-feet; (3) a new 100-foot-diameter, reinforced concrete (morning
glory type) intake connected to a vertical 2,500-foot-long by 18-foot-
diameter steel penstock; (4) a new 200-foot-long by 70-foot-wide by 40-
foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two new 333-
megawatt (MW) reversible pump turbine units with a total plant rating
of 666 MW; (5) a new 50-foot-wide, 240-foot-long, 40-foot-high
transformer gallery; (6); a new 200 to 1,000-foot-long, 230-kilovolt
transmission line extending from the transformer gallery to an existing
substation (the point of interconnection); and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Chippewa County
Pumped Storage Project would be 1,450 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas A. Spaulding, Nelson Energy, LLC,
8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 101 Golden Valley, MN 55426; phone: (952)
544-8133.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone Williams; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14885-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14885) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18605 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28669-28670]
[DOCID:fr21my10-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62105; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Professional Routing Fees

May 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 7, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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 the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees governing pricing for
Exchange members using the Phlx XL II system,\3\ for routing
standardized equity and index option professional orders to away
markets for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a complete description of Phlx XL II, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The instant proposed fees will apply only
to option orders entered into, and routed by, the Phlx XL II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the
Exchange incurs for routing and executing professional orders in equity
and index options to away markets.
    In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish
Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the Exchange, as the
Exchange's exclusive order router.\4\ NOS is utilized by the Phlx XL II
system solely to route orders in options listed and open for trading on
the Phlx XL II system to destination markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's Fee Schedule includes Routing Fees for
customer and professional orders. The Exchange currently assesses a fee
of $.06 per contract in all professional \5\ option orders that are
routed to International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the current fee of $.06 per contract
that is assessed for routing professional orders to ISE in all options
to $.24 per contract. The Exchange is proposing this charge in order to
recoup clearing and transaction charges which are incurred by the
Exchange when orders are routed to ISE. Each destination market's
transaction charge varies and there is a standard clearing charge for
each transaction incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes this
fee change to account for an increase in cost for routing to ISE.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-ISE-2010-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in
response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule
change. While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for trade date May 10, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
this fee is equitable because it would be equally assessed on all
professional orders routed to ISE. The Exchange also believes that this
fee is reasonable because the Exchange is seeking to recoup the costs
incurred by the Exchange to route professional orders to ISE on behalf
of its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-71 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-Phlx-2010-71. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-71 and should be
submitted on or before June 11, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12227 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


% Volatization exposure, inhalation 24h/day 21 days
% Dose to reach average cpfos conc in blood = 0.004 ug/L
% Oct 14, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		% Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=11;	 % Set BW for child at 11 kg
QPC = 79.94	%QALV = 79.94*(11^0.74)*0.7 = 330 L/hr = 0.33 m3/h (from Kelly/Wade 10/13/2016)
PREG=0;		% Not pregnant
TSTOP=504;	%Simulation time = 21 days work week

% Inhalation exposure
%CONCMGM=0.51 % Inhalation concentration mg/m3
CONCMGM = 0.000068;	%Inhalation concentration in mg/m3
D3IN=7;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2IN=24; %HRS/DAY
S2IN=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2IN=21; %21 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5 _blauc*350.6 _blauco*334.5 _blaucavg*350.6 _blaucoavg*334.5];	%conc unit = ug/L

save simall @file='vol_child_inhalation_SS' @format=ascii


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 32 (Friday, February 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10266]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03368]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1508-000]

BOST2 Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On December 1, 2020, BOST2 Hydroelectric LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Shawno County Pump
Storage Project to be located near the Embarrass River and the Village
of Tigerton, in Shawano County, Wisconsin. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A upper
circular reservoir with a surface area of 120 acres at a maximum normal
pool elevation of 967 feet to 1,017 feet mean sea level (msl); (2) a
lower 115,000-foot-long reservoir consisting of eight concentric
circular tunnels with varying diameters of approximately 5,400 feet to
4,200 feet at a maximum normal water surface elevation of 1,091 feet
msl; (3) a 2,800-foot-long, 16-foot-diameter steel-lined penstock; (4)
a 200-foot-long by 70-foot-wide by 130-foot-high powerhouse containing
two 333-megawatt (MW) pump/turbines for a total project capacity of 666
MW; (5) a 240-foot-long by 50-foot-wide by 40-foot-high transformer
gallery; (6) a 200-foot-long by 200-foot-wide substation; (7) a 200 to
500-foot-long 345-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Shawno Pump Storage
Project would be 1,450 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas Spalding, c/o Nelson Energy, 8441
Wayzata Boulevard, Suite101, Golden Valley, MN 55426; phone: (952) 544-
8133.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone Williams; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15058-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15058) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 12, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03368 Filed 2-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1839]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Moore County Airport, Pinehurst/Southern Pines, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Moore County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 27.7
acre parcel of surplus property, located at the Moore County Airport,
be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260,
College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Ms. Carol Thomas, Interim Airport Director at
the following address: Airport Road, P.O. Drawer 5809, Pinehurst, NC
28374.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbus Ave, Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260,
College Park, GA 30337,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the Moore
County Airport Authority to release 27.7 acres of surplus property at
the Moore County Airport. The surplus property will be used as right-
of-way for the newly constructed roadway associated with recent airport
development.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Moore County Airport, 7825 Aviation Drive, Carthage, NC 28327.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on January 4, 2010.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-397 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P