[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4579-4580]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1076; Special Conditions No. 25-607-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X, Limit
Pilot Forces

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This
design feature is an electronic flight-control system with pilot
controls through a side stick instead of a conventional control stick.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 27,
2016. We must receive your comments by March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1076
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Comments Invited

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

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault applied for a type certificate for their
new Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane is a large transport-
category airplane to be operated in private/corporate transportation
with a maximum of 19 passengers. The Falcon 5X is expected to have a
range of 5,200 nm at Mach 0.80. The Model Falcon 5X airplane
incorporates a low, swept wing with winglets, and twin rear-fuselage-
mounted Snecma Silvercrest turbofan engines. The fuselage is about 23 m
long with a 26 m wingspan. The maximum altitude is 51,000 ft and
maximum take-off weight is 30,225 kg. The Model Falcon 5X airplane also
features the newest generation of Dassault Aviation's EASy flight deck.
    The current limit pilot forces requirement in Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 is inadequate for addressing an
airplane

with electronic flight controls that affect maneuvering.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show
that the Model Falcon 5X airplane meets the applicable provisions of
part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-136.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 5X airplane because
of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model Falcon 5X airplane will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design feature:
    This airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system
that includes pilot controls through a side stick instead of through a
conventional control stick.

Discussion

    The Dassault Falcon 5X airplane is equipped with a side stick
instead of a conventional control stick. The requirement of Sec.
25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques, applies to
conventional wheel or stick control and is therefore not adequate for
this new side-stick design.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model Falcon 5X airplane. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued, in lieu of
Sec.  25.397(c), as part of the type-certification basis for the
Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X airplane.
    For Model Falcon 5X airplanes equipped with side-stick controls
designed for forces to be applied by one wrist and not arms, the limit
pilot forces are as follows.
    1. For all components between and including the side-stick control-
assembly handle and its control stops:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Pitch                                Roll
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nose up, 200 lbf..........................  Nose left, 100 lbf.
Nose down, 200 lbf........................  Nose right, 100 lbf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. For all other components of the side-stick control assembly, but
excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies,
to avoid damage to the control system as the result of an in-flight
jam:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Pitch                                Roll
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nose up, 125 lbf..........................  Nose left, 50 lbf.
Nose down, 125 lbf........................  Nose right, 50 lbf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 20, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-01581 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 77835-77837]
[DOCID:fr27de06-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54964; File No. SR-FICC-2006-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Replace the Government
Securities Division Clearing Fund Calculation Methodology With a Yield-
Driven Value-at-Risk Methodology

December 19, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 4, 2006, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on November 14, 2006, amended
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which items have been prepared by FICC. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC is seeking to replace the Government Securities Division
(``GSD'') margin calculation methodology with a value-at-risk (``VaR'')
methodology.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Netting members of FICC's GSD are required to maintain clearing
fund deposits. Each member's required clearing fund deposit is
calculated daily to ensure that enough funds are available to cover the
risks associated with that member's activities.
    The purposes served by the clearing fund are to: (i) have on
deposit from each member clearing fund sufficient to satisfy any losses
that may be incurred by FICC or its members resulting from the default
by a member and the resultant close out of that member's settlement
positions and (ii) ensure that FICC has sufficient liquidity at all
times to meet its payment and delivery obligations.
    FICC proposes to replace the current clearing fund methodology,
which uses haircuts and offsets, with a VaR methodology that is
expected to better reflect market volatility and more thoroughly
distinguish the levels of risk presented by individual securities.
Specifically, FICC is proposing to

replace the existing GSD margin calculation methodology with a yield-
driven VaR model. VaR is defined to be the maximum amount of money that
may be lost on a portfolio over a given period of time within a given
level of confidence. With respect to the GSD, FICC is proposing a 99
percent three-day VaR.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Category 2 Dealers and Category 2 Futures Commission
Merchants will be subject to higher confidence levels than other
Netting Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to the components that comprise the current clearing
fund calculation compared to the proposed VaR methodology in relation
to the risks addressed by the components are summarized below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed
      Existing methodology          Risk addressed      methodology \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive/Deliver component using   Fluctuation in      Interest rate or
 margin factors.                   security prices.    index-driven
                                                       model, as
                                                       appropriate \5\
Repo Volatility component.......  Fluctuation in      Repo index-driven
                                   repo interest       model \6\
                                   rates.
Funds Adjustment Deposit          Uncertainty of      Margin Requirement
 component (based on the average   whether a member    Differential
 size of the member's 20 highest   will satisfy its    (``MRD'') (a
 funds-only settlement amounts     funds-only          portion of which
 over the most recent 75           settlement          is based on the
 business days).                   obligation.         historical size
                                                       of a member's
                                                       funds-only
                                                       settlement
                                                       obligation)
Average Post Offset Margin        Uncertainty of      MRD (a portion of
 Amount component (based on the    whether a member    which is based on
 20 highest margin amounts         will satisfy its    the historical
 derived from all outstanding      next clearing       variability a
 net settlement positions over     fund call.          member's clearing
 the most recent 75 business                           fund requirement)
 days).
Not specifically covered........  Intraday risk and   Coverage Component
                                   additional          (if necessary,
                                   exposure due to     applies
                                   portfolio           additional
                                   variation and       minimum charge to
                                   potential loss in   bring coverage to
                                   unlikely            the applicable
                                   situations beyond   confidence level)
                                   the model's
                                   effective range.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under the current GSD rules, Category 1 Inter-Dealer Brokers are
  subject to a $5 million clearing fund requirement. This proposed rule
  change does not alter that requirement.
\5\ FICC would have the discretion to not apply the interest rate model
  to classes of securities whose volatility is less amenable to
  statistical analysis, which is usually due to a lack of pricing
  history. In lieu of such a calculation, the required charge with
  respect to such positions would be determined based on a historic
  index volatility model.
\6\ FICC is proposing a new definition for ``Term Repo Transaction'' to
  clarify the types of transactions covered by this component. As
  proposed, Term Repo Transaction would mean, on any particular Business
  Day, a Repo Transaction for which settlement of the Close Leg ``is
  scheduled to occur two or more Business Days after the scheduled
  settlement of the Start Leg.'' In addition, the existing definition
  for ``Term GCF Repo Transaction'' is being revised to conform to the
  proposed language for ``Term Repo Transaction'' as the new definition
  provides greater clarity as to transactions covered.

    In addition, FICC may include in a member's clearing fund
requirement a ``special charge'' as determined by FICC based on such
factors as it determines to be appropriate from time to time such as
price fluctuations, volatility, or lack of liquidity of any security.
    The proposed VaR methodology, if approved, would necessitate a
change to the risk management consequences of the late allocation of
repo substitution collateral.\7\ Because offset classes and margin
rates will no longer be present in the GSD's rules as proposed, FICC
would base the margining for such a generic CUSIP on the same
calculation as that used for securities whose volatility is less
amenable to statistical analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53534 (March 21, 2006),
71 FR 15781 [File No. SR-FICC-2005-18]. This rule change created a
generic CUSIP offset and applicable margin rate for determining
clearing fund consequences for such late allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VaR methodology will not include calculations that are
incorporated in the GSD's current cross-margining programs with The
Clearing Corporation (``TCC'') and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(``CME''). In order to provide for continuity of cross-margining
following the implementation of the VaR methodology and because certain
key calculations required for cross-margining are unique to cross-
margining, the GSD will continue to perform the applicable cross-
margining calculations outside of the VaR model. The GSD would then
adjust the cross-margining clearing fund calculation using a scaling
ratio of the VaR clearing fund calculation to the cross-margining
clearing fund calculation so that the clearing fund amount available
for cross-margining is appropriately aligned with the VaR model. The
proposed changes described herein would necessitate amendments to
FICC's cross-margining agreements with TCC and CME as follows:
    1. The definition of FICC's ``Margin Rate'' in each of the
agreements would be amended to reflect that the margin rate will no
longer be based on margin factors published in the current rules (as
these would no longer be applied under the VaR methodology). Instead,
they would be determined based on a percentage that would be determined
using the same parameters and data (e.g., confidence level and historic
indices) as those used to generate margin factors in the current rules.
    2. Section 5(a) of each cross-margining agreement would be amended
to state that FICC's residual margin amount would be calculated as
specified in the agreement and would be adjusted, if necessary, to
correct for differences between the methodology of calculating the
residual margin amount as described in the agreement and the VaR
methodology. This change is necessary to account for the deletion of
relevant margin factor and disallowance schedules (which, like the
margin factors, are incorporated into the agreements by reference) from
the GSD rules and to adjust for the possibility that the new VaR
methodology could generate a charge that would otherwise allow for a
cross-margining reduction that is greater than the margin requirement.
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it should assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in FICC's custody or control or
for which it is responsible by enabling FICC to more effectively manage
risk presented by members' activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

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

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments have not been solicited with respect to the
proposed rule change, and none have been received. FICC will notify the
Commission of any written comments it receives.

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

    Within thirty-five 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 ninety 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 will:
    (A) By order approve 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, as amended, 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-FICC-2006-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2006-16. 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on
FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com/gov/[fxsp0]gov.docs.jsp?NS-

query. 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-
FICC-2006-16 and should be submitted on or before January 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22085 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22019-22022]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0063; Notice 1]

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, (DTNA) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia heavy motor
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.
DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 12, 2020, and amended the
report on December 23, 2021. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June
4, 2020, and later amended its petition on July 22, 2020, and January
19, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces receipt of DTNA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.

     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    DTNA has determined that certain MY 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia
heavy motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). DTNA filed a noncompliance
report dated May 12, 2020, and amended the report on December 23, 2021,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 4, 2020, and
later amended its petition on July 22, 2020, and January 19, 2022, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of DTNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Trucks Involved

    Approximately 24,282 MY 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia heavy motor
vehicles manufactured between January 16, 2019, and March 27, 2020, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    DTNA explains that the first noncompliance is that during an
Advanced Brake Assist (ABA) event, the hazard warning signal in the
subject vehicles, does not meet the flash rate required by paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, during an emergency braking
(EB) stage of ABA events and if the vehicle is being operated at 20
kilometers per hour (km/h) (12 miles per hour (MPH)) or more, the
hazard warning signal lights are actuated at a flash rate of 140
flashes per minute when the flash rate should be between 60 and 120
flashes per minute. In addition to the flash rate noncompliance, DTNA
says that in specific operating circumstances, where the truck has
progressed to the third and final phase of an ABA event, the system
automatically activates the hazard warning lamps contrary to the
definition of the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit which
states it is a driver controlled device.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S9.6.2, S<IP_ADDRESS>.3, and Figure 2 of FMVSS
No. 108 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S4 defines the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit as a
driver-controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to
flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of
a vehicular hazard. Paragraph S.<IP_ADDRESS> requires that in all passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the
activation of the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit must
cause to flash simultaneously sufficient turn signal lamps to meet, as
a minimum, the turn signal photometric requirements of this standard.
Paragraph S9.6.2 requires that the vehicular hazard warning signal
operating unit must operate independently of the ignition or equivalent
switch and if the actuation of the hazard function requires the
operation of more than one switch, a means must be provided for
actuating all switches simultaneously by a single driver action.
Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.3 requires that the flash rate and percent current
``on'' time test for at least 17 of 20 samples comply with the
following: (a) The performance of a normally closed type flasher must
be within the unshaded portion of the polygon shown in Figure 2, or (b)
The performance of a normally open type flasher must be within the
entire rectangle including the shaded areas shown in Figure 2.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13AP22.000

V. Summary of DTNA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
DTNA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. DTNA described the subject noncompliances and
stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    DTNA explains the three phases of an ABA event as follows: First,
there is the Optic Acoustic Warning (OAW), the Warn (Haptic) Braking
(WB/HB), and then the EB. The first phase, OAW, ``warns the operator of
a possible collision with a pop-up and audio alert only,'' and will
move into the second phase, ``if the driver does not apply sufficient
deceleration by applying service brakes.'' The WB/HB ``applies 50
percent deceleration to the vehicle in order to assist the driver in
mitigating a possible collision.'' Then, DTNA states, ``[i]f the system
deems it necessary'' it will start the EB phase (third phase) which
would apply ``maximum braking force to assist the driver in bringing
the truck to a complete halt.'' DTNA states that only during this third
phase would ``the warning system in question engage.''
    DTNA provides background information, detailing the development of
its ABA system \1\ and states that its findings show ``that an EB event
is an extremely rare scenario that is visible only for a short period
of time in only the rarest of extreme braking events.'' According to
DTNA, the data ``conveys that an EB event has an extremely short
occurrence with a negligible reaction time to notice the change in
hazard warning signal flash rate.'' Further according to DTNA, the
average EB event lasts ``less than 1 second'' and of ``millions of
miles of recorded data'' the maximum EB event observed lasted ``less
than 3 seconds.'' Specific to the noncompliant flash rate, DTNA says
this data supports their assertion that ``the number of blink cycles
between the maximum permissible flash rate and emergency braking flash
rate on the subject vehicles is minimal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Details of DTNA's ABA development can be found in its
petition at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0063-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA contends that ``[t]he flashing warning provides other vehicles
with a safe indication of the aggressiveness of the braking.'' DTNA
claims that NHTSA has found that ``flashing warning under certain
extreme braking events may be regarded as a safer indicator for rear
signaling.'' \2\ DTNA also notes that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration ``has granted an approval'' for hazmat hauler tanker
trucks to use amber brake activated lights, following a 30-month study
by Groendyke Transportation which found that a ``pulsating amber brake
light reduced rear-end collisions by roughly 34%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DTNA cites Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in
the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling
Countermeasure Development. DOT HS 810 846 (October 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DTNA states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions
for noncompliances similar to the noncompliant flash rate \3\ where
those noncompliances only occur ``under specific and rare conditions,''
\4\ and ``were granted for short duration of occurrence'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 32871 (June 18,
2001).
    \4\ See General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 7847 (February 22, 2018) and
General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013).
    \5\ See Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 8151 (March 6,
2019), Maserati S.p.A and Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 1676
(January 13, 2016), and General Motors Corporation; Grant of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 FR
56734 (November 4, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA states that it ``is not aware of any accidents, injuries,
owner complaints or field reports'' in relation to the subject
noncompliances.
    On September 13, 2022, NHTSA contacted DTNA to further explain and
discuss the automatic activation of the hazard warning lamps. DTNA
clarified that ``based on analysis of prior agency interpretations,''
it believes that the ``limited technical parameters and operating
conditions under which the hazard warning lamps would activate,'' does
not constitute a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA informed DTNA
that the prior interpretations did not support DTNA's position because
the subject vehicles ``have not come to a complete stop at the time the
hazard warning lamps activate.'' As a result, DTNA amended its original
petition to include the automatic activation of the hazard warning
lamps as a noncompliance.
    DTNA believes that this noncompliance is also inconsequential
because the ``limited context in which the hazard lamps automatically
activate ensure the message which the hazard warning lamps is
communicating is clear and does not confuse other drivers about the
meaning of the lamps.'' DTNA again explains the phases of its ABA
system and says that if the driver does not disengage the ABA system,
it ``will

apply the maximum braking force'' and cause the vehicle to come to a
complete stop. When the emergency braking is activated in this phase
while the subject vehicle is traveling at 20 mph or more ``the hazard
warning lamps are automatically activated and flash at a rate of 140
Hz.'' Therefore, DTNA says, the automatic activation of the hazard
warning lamps would not occur ``in stop and go traffic.'' DTNA also
notes that after the subject vehicle ``comes to a complete stop, the
hazard lamps revert to a standard flash rate'' and ``throughout the ABA
event, the hazard warning signal operating unit can be manually engaged
by the driver.''
    DTNA then contends that the automatic activation of the hazard
warning lamps is consistent with prior NHTSA interpretations in which
it says, ``the agency has found automatic activation of the hazard
warning signal operating unit to be appropriate in certain
circumstances.'' DTNA claims that the November 18, 2016, interpretation
letter to General Motors \6\ supports its view. In that interpretation
letter, DTNA says that NHTSA ``concluded that in the context of an
adaptive cruise control system, the automatic activation of the hazard
warning lamps was consistent with FMVSS 108 if the human driver failed
to respond to the system's requests to regain control of the vehicle.''
DTNA argues that the automatic activation of the hazard warning lamps
in the subject vehicles is consistent with the condition found in the
interpretation letter to General Motors. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289-gm-hazard-innovative-28-apr-16-rsy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA claims that the automatic activation of the hazard warning
lamps ``is consistent with the type of message the hazard lamps are
intended to convey'' and consistent with other NHTSA precedents.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SAE J910, Jan. 1966; see also Letter to Sen. Richard
Lugar (May 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA concludes by expressing its belief that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that DTNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after DTNA
notified them that the subject noncompliances existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-07825 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15549-15551]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Mercer County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Run..............................  Approximately 55 feet                  +1114  City of Sharon.
                                          upstream of Highland
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 30 feet                  +1117
                                          downstream of Richmond
                                          Drive.
Little Shenango River..................  Approximately 0.94 mile                 +968  Township of Sugar Grove.
                                          downstream of the
                                          confluence with Little
                                          Shenango River Tributary
                                          1.
                                         Approximately 0.9 mile                  +968
                                          downstream of the
                                          confluence with Little
                                          Shenango River Tributary
                                          1.
Munnel Run.............................  Approximately 0.31 mile                +1125  Township of Findley.
                                          upstream of Home Street.
                                         Approximately 0.21 mile                +1131
                                          downstream of Franklin
                                          Street.
Neshannock Creek.......................  Approximately 425 feet                 +1093  Township of Findley.
                                          downstream of the
                                          intersection of
                                          Plantation Drive and
                                          Cypress Lane.
                                         Approximately 0.3 mile                 +1095
                                          upstream of the
                                          intersection of Schaffer
                                          Road and Grove City Road.

Otter Creek............................  Approximately 0.28 mile                +1099  Township of Findley.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Munnel
                                          Run.
                                         Approximately 0.3 mile                 +1099
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Munnel
                                          Run.
Sawmill Run............................  Approximately 0.35 mile                +1164  Township of Sandy Lake.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Sawmill
                                          Run Tributary 1.
                                         Approximately 0.46 mile                +1165
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Sawmill
                                          Run Tributary 1.
Sawmill Run............................  Approximately 0.23 mile                +1167  Borough of Stoneboro.
                                          downstream of Franklin
                                          Street (just below Maple
                                          Street).
                                         Approximately 305 feet                 +1167
                                          upstream of Franklin
                                          Street.
Shenango River.........................  Approximately 690 feet                  +930  Borough of Greenville,
                                          upstream of the                               Township of West Salem.
                                          confluence with Big Run
                                          No. 1.
                                         Approximately 295 feet                  +943
                                          upstream of the
                                          intersection of Clinton
                                          Street and Canal Street.
Shenango River.........................  Approximately 275 feet                  +835  City of Hermitage.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Shenango
                                          River Tributary 3.
                                         Approximately 490 feet                  +845
                                          downstream of the
                                          confluence with Little
                                          Yankee Run.
                                         Just downstream of Clark                +856
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 820 feet                  +859
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Big Run
                                          No. 2.
Shenango River.........................  Approximately 2,400 feet                +833  Township of Shenango.
                                          upstream of I-80.
                                         Approximately 1.1 miles                 +833
                                          upstream of I-80.
Shenango River.........................  Approximately 645 feet                  +833  Borough of Wheatland.
                                          downstream of Sieg Hill
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 1,000 feet                +834
                                          upstream of Sieg Hill
                                          Road.
Shenango River.........................  Approximately 0.34 mile                 +949  Township of West Salem.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Little Shenango River.
                                         Approximately 200 feet                  +951
                                          downstream of Porter
                                          Road.
Wolf Creek.............................  Approximately 0.21 mile                +1220  Township of Pine.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Barmore
                                          Run.
                                         Approximately 0.34 mile                +1226
                                          downstream of the
                                          intersection of Craig
                                          Street and Garden Avenue.
                                         Approximately 0.2 mile                 +1226
                                          downstream of the
                                          intersection of Craig
                                          Street and Garden Avenue.
                                         Approximately 0.38 mile                +1226
                                          downstream of State
                                          Route 58 (Main Street).
                                         Approximately 0.22 mile                +1245
                                          downstream of the
                                          confluence with Black
                                          Run.
                                         Approximately 0.21 mile                +1245
                                          downstream of the
                                          confluence with Black
                                          Run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Borough of Greenville
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 125 Main Street, Greenville, PA 16125.

Borough of Stoneboro
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 59 Lake Street, Stoneboro, PA 16153.

Borough of Wheatland
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 71 Broadway Avenue, Wheatland, PA 16161.

City of Hermitage
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 800 North Hermitage Road, Hermitage, PA 16148.

City of Sharon
Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 155 West Connelly Boulevard, Sharon, PA 16146.

Township of Findley
Maps are available for inspection at the Findley Township Building, 369 McClelland Road, Mercer, PA 16137.

Township of Pine
Maps are available for inspection at the Pine Township Building, 545 Barkeyville Road, Grove City, PA 16127.

Township of Sandy Lake
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, 3086 Sandy Lake-Grove City Road, Sandy Lake, PA
 16145.

Township of Shenango
Maps are available for inspection at the Shenango Township Building, 3439 Hubbard-West Middlesex Road, West
 Middlesex, PA 16159.

Township of Sugar Grove
Maps are available for inspection at the Sugar Grove Township Building, 359 Groover Road, Greenville, PA 16125.

Township of West Salem
Maps are available for inspection at the West Salem Township Building, 610 Vernan Road, Greenville, PA 16125.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: January 31, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-06092 Filed 3-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19366-19367]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-171-000]

Navitas KY NG, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 13, 2017, Navitas KY NG, LLC (Navitas),
3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626, filed an
application, pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),\1\
requesting that the Commission make a service area determination to
allow it to enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities
across the Kentucky/Tennessee border without further Commission
authorization. Navitas also requests a determination that it qualifies
as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting
and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily
applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as
more fully described in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Navitas, a Kentucky local distribution company
regulated by the Kentucky Public Service Commission and providing
natural gas service to approximately 125 customers in Albany, Clinton
County Kentucky in the southern portion of the state adjacent to the
Tennessee border, request a service area determination to operate
across the Tennessee border into Pickett County Tennessee near
Byrdstown in order to access a natural gas supply interconnection, the
B&W Pipeline, to service its Kentucky customers. Navitas' application
is related to B&W Pipeline, Inc.'s application for a limited
jurisdiction blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity
filed in Docket No. CP17-78-000 on March 17, 2017.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Thomas Hartline, Navitas Utility Corporation, 3186D Airway Avenue,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08473 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28611-28614]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13059]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0089; FRL-9963-87-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; ME; New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maine on August 18, 2015. This SIP revision includes Maine's
revised regulation for new motor vehicle emission standards. Maine has
updated its rule to be consistent with various updates made to
California's low emission vehicle (LEV) program. Maine has adopted
these revisions to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as to reduce
greenhouse gases. The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of Maine's August 18, 2015 SIP revision. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2013-0089 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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: Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0628, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. The California LEV Program
III. Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On August 18, 2015, the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP consisting of Maine's
amended Chapter 127 ``New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards.'' The
regulation establishes motor vehicle emission standards for new
gasoline powered passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
vehicles, as well as for heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
    A prior version of Maine's Chapter 127 is currently in the Maine
SIP. It was effective in the State of Maine on December 31, 2000 and
approved by EPA into the SIP on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 21959). The SIP-
approved version of Chapter 127 includes California's LEV I and LEV II
standards, effective for model years 1994-2003 and 2004-2010,
respectively. It does not include the California zero emission vehicle
(ZEV) mandate for Maine.
    Since that time, Maine has made several revisions to Chapter 127.
The version included in Maine's August 18, 2015 SIP revision includes
the following requirements, beyond those previously approved into the
SIP. The SIP revision includes California's 2007 heavy-duty diesel
engine (HDDE) emission standards. This was phased in from 2007 through
2009, with full compliance required for model year 2010 and subsequent
engines. The California regulations were identical to EPA's HDDE rule
that requires engines to emit 95% less NOX and 90% less
particulate matter (PM) than the previous standards.
    Maine's revised regulation also includes requirements for diesel
fueled auxiliary power units (APUs). APUs are engines, other than the
main vehicle engine, that could be used for heating or cooling a
sleeper truck, or powering a refrigerator unit while the main vehicle
engine is powered down. The amended Chapter 127 allows truck owners to
install either a California certified or a Federal Tier 4 certified
APU.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For information on the Federal Tier 4 diesel program see 40
CFR part 1039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine's revised rule also includes the California ZEV program. In
2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) finalized modifications
to the ZEV program that better aligned the requirements with the status
of then-available technology development. The updated CARB regulations
require that 10% of vehicles be ZEVs starting in

2005, and allow manufacturers to earn and bank credits for those types
of vehicles produced before 2005. The program also includes an
``alternative compliance path'' that allowed advanced technology
partial ZEVs (AT PZEVs) (gasoline electric hybrids) to be used to meet
ZEV requirements, provided that manufacturers meet a requirement that a
portion of the motor vehicle fleet be fueled by hydrogen fuel cells.
The modifications to the ZEV program also broadened the scope of
vehicles that qualified for meeting a portion of the ZEV sales
requirement.
    Maine's amended Chapter 127 also reflects changes to California's
LEV II program that incorporated motor vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission standards. These standards apply to model year 2009-2016
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles,
and maintain identical standards with California for all vehicle weight
classes as required by Section 177 of the CAA. Maine originally adopted
the vehicle GHG emission standards as part of their overall goal to
reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, with a further reduction
of another 10% by 2020.
    Additionally, Maine's revised rule includes California's LEV III,
updated GHG, and updated ZEV standards and sales requirements. These
three items were `packaged' together by California as part of its
Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program. LEV III standards apply to 2015 and
subsequent model year vehicles. The LEV III standards will increase the
stringency of PM and evaporative emission standards, and reduce the
fleet average hydrocarbon and NOX emissions to achieve super
ultra-low emissions vehicle (SULEV) standards by 2022. The updated GHG
rule extends GHG emission standards for all new vehicles up to 10,000
pounds through 2025 and subsequent model years. The updated ZEV
regulations apply to any 2018 and subsequent model year passenger cars
and light-duty trucks.
    Maine's revised rule also requires that vehicles display an
environmental performance label. Furthermore, the rule requires that
aftermarket catalytic converters be certified to CARB standards as of
June 1, 2018.

II. The California LEV Program

    CARB adopted the first generation of LEV regulations (LEV I) in
1990, which impacted vehicles through the 2003 model year. CARB adopted
California's second generation LEV regulation (LEV II) following a
November 1998 hearing. Subsequent to the adoption of the California LEV
II program in February 2000, EPA adopted separate Federal standards
known as the Tier 2 regulations (February 10, 2000; 65 FR 6698). In
December 2000, CARB modified the California LEV II program to take
advantage of some elements of the Federal Tier 2 regulations to ensure
that only the cleanest vehicle models would continue to be sold in
California. EPA granted California a waiver for its LEV II program on
April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19811). In 2012, CARB `packaged' the third
generation LEV program (LEV III) with updated GHG emission standards
and ZEV requirements as part of the ACC program. EPA granted California
a waiver for the ACC program on January 9, 2013 (78 FR 2112).
    The LEV II and LEV III regulations expanded the scope of LEV I
regulations by setting strict fleet-average emission standards for
light-duty, medium-duty (including sport utility vehicles) and heavy-
duty vehicles. The standards for LEV II began with the 2004 model year
and increased in stringency with each vehicle model year. The LEV III
standards began in 2015 and continue to increase emission stringency
with each progressive vehicle model year through 2025 and beyond.
    The manufacturer must show that the overall fleet for a given model
year meets the specified phase-in requirements according to the fleet
average non-methane hydrocarbon requirement for that year. The fleet
average non-methane hydrocarbon emission limits are progressively lower
with each model year. The program also requires auto manufacturers to
include a ``smog index'' label on each vehicle sold, which is intended
to inform consumers about the amount of pollution produced by that
vehicle relative to other vehicles.
    In addition to meeting the LEV II and LEV III requirements, large
or intermediate volume manufacturers must ensure that a certain
percentage of the passenger cars and light-duty trucks that they market
in California are ZEVs. This is referred to as the ZEV mandate.
California has modified the ZEV mandate several times since it took
effect. One modification allowed an alternative compliance program
(ACP) to provide auto manufacturers with several options to meet the
ZEV mandate. The ACP established ZEV credit multipliers to allow auto
manufacturers to take credit for meeting the ZEV mandate by selling
more partial ZEVs (PZEVs) and AT PZEVs than they are otherwise required
to sell. On December 28, 2006, EPA granted California's request for a
waiver of Federal preemption to enforce provisions of the ZEV
regulations through 2011 vehicle model year. In a letter dated June 27,
2012, CARB requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption that allowed
updated ZEV regulations as part of the ACC program. These updated ZEV
regulations will require manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of
ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 2018 and subsequent years.
EPA granted this waiver on January 9, 2013 (78 FR 2112).
    On October 15, 2005, California amended its LEV II program to
include GHG emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. On December 21, 2005, California
requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption under CAA section
209(b) for its GHG regulations. On June 30, 2009, EPA granted CARB's
request for a waiver of CAA preemption to enforce its GHG emission
standards for new model year 2009 and later motor vehicles (July 8,
2009; 74 FR 32744-32784). Approval for updated and extended GHG
emissions was granted by EPA as part of the January 9, 2013 ACC waiver
(78 FR 2112), which includes regulations that incrementally reduce GHG
emissions though 2025 and beyond.

III. Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements

    Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits states from adopting or
enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. However, under section 209(b) of
the CAA, EPA shall grant a waiver of the section 209(a) prohibition to
the State of California if EPA makes specified findings, thereby
allowing California to adopt its own motor vehicle emission standards.
Furthermore, other states may adopt California's motor vehicle emission
standards under section 177 of the CAA.
    For additional information regarding California's motor vehicle
emission standards and adoption by other states, please see EPA's
``California Waivers and Authorizations'' Web page at URL address:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm. This Web site also lists relevant
Federal Register notices that have been issued by EPA in response to
California waiver and authorization requests.

A. Waiver Process

    The CAA allows California to seek a waiver of the preemption which
prohibits states from enacting emission standards for new motor
vehicles. EPA must grant this waiver before California's rules may be
enforced. When California files a waiver request, EPA publishes a
notice for public

hearing and written comment in the Federal Register. The written
comment period remains open for a period of time after the public
hearing. Once the comment period expires, EPA reviews the comments and
the Administrator determines whether the requirements for obtaining a
waiver have been met.
    According to CAA section 209--State Standards, EPA shall grant a
waiver unless the Administrator finds that California:

--Was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that its standards are in
the aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards;
--Does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or
--Proposes standards and accompanying enforcement procedures that are
not consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA.

    The most recent EPA waiver relevant to EPA's proposed approval of
Maine's LEV program is ``California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air
Act Preemption for California's Advanced Clean Car Program and a Within
the Scope confirmation for California's Zero Emissions Vehicle
Amendments for 2017 and Earlier Model Years'' (January 9, 2013; 78 FR
2112-2145). This final rulemaking allows California to strengthen
standards for LEV regulations and GHG emissions from passenger cars,
light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles. It also allows for
continuing ZEV regulations by requiring more ZEV manufacturing and
sales through 2025 and subsequent years.

B. State Adoption of California Standards

    Section 177 of the CAA allows other states to adopt and enforce
California's standards for the control of emissions from new motor
vehicles, provided that, among other things, such state standards are
identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been
granted under CAA section 209(b). In addition, the state must adopt
such standards at least two years prior to the commencement of the
model year to which the standards will apply. EPA issued guidance
(CISD-07-16) \2\ regarding its cross-border sales policy for
California-certified vehicles. This guidance includes a list and map of
states that have adopted California standards, specific to the 2008-
2010 model years. All SIP revisions submitted to EPA for approval must
also meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EPA's October 29, 2007 letter to Manufacturers regarding
``Sales of California-certified 2008-2010 Model Year Vehicles
(Cross-Border Sales Policy),'' with attachments. https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=16888&flag=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of section 177 of the CAA require Maine to amend the
Maine LEV program at such time as the State of California amends its
California LEV program. Maine has demonstrated its commitment to
maintain a LEV program through the continued adoption of regulatory
amendments to Maine's Chapter 127.
    In addition, Maine's August 18, 2015 SIP submittal meets the anti-
backsliding requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. This SIP
revision sets new requirements, the California LEV III standards, that
are more stringent than the California LEV I and LEV II standards
previously approved into the Maine SIP, and expands program coverage to
model year vehicles not covered by the California LEV I and LEV II
standards, and by extension, not previously included in the Maine SIP.
Maine's revised Chapter 127 also includes increasingly stringent GHG
emissions and LEV sales requirements that are not currently part of the
Maine SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Maine SIP,
Maine's revised Chapter 127 ``New Motor Vehicle Standards,'' effective
in the State of Maine on May 19, 2015, and submitted to EPA on August
18, 2015. The Maine Vehicle Emission Standards program amendments
adopted by Maine include: the California LEV II GHG program beginning
with model year 2009; the California LEV III program beginning with the
2015 model year; the updated California GHG emission standards
beginning with model year 2017; and the California ZEV provision
(updated in 2012). In addition, Maine's amendments include updated HDDE
and diesel APU emission regulations, and the requirement that all
aftermarket catalytic converters be CARB certified as of June 1, 2018.
EPA is proposing to approve Maine's revised Chapter 127 into the Maine
SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are consistent with the
CAA.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1035, which was
promulgated on January 24, 1995 (60 FR 4737). This section states that
Maine must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.120, which are to
implement the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV program. As noted
above, Maine subsequently adopted the California LEV and LEV II
program, that was approved by EPA into the SIP on April 28, 2005 (70 FR
21959). Furthermore, this proposed approval of Maine's revised Chapter
127, if finalized, will add the even more stringent California LEV III
standards into Maine's SIP. Thus, Maine has satisfied 40 CFR 52.1035,
and therefore, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 52.1035 from the CFR.
In addition, on March 11, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated the provisions of 40 CFR. 51.120.
See Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397. Because of the vacatur, EPA
concludes that 40 CFR 52.1035 is, in any event, obsolete.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register document.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Maine's Chapter 127, ``New Motor Vehicle Emission
Standards,'' effective in the State of Maine on May 19, 2015. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 5, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-13059 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 40801]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

     Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP01-382-033.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Carlton
Reimbursement Report.
    Filed Date: 6/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230601-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-241-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: RP23-241 Test Period Updated Statements
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20230615-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: June 15, 2023.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13283 Filed 6-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33377-33378]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14285]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]:

In The Matter of: Artfest International, Inc; Order of Suspension
of Trading

    JUNE 6, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Artfest International, Inc. (``Artfest'') because of questions
regarding the accuracy and adequacy of assertions by Artfest, in its
2010 Form 10-K and amended Form 10-K filed with the Commission,
concerning, among other things, an independent audit of Artfest's
financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, which
was not performed, and financial statements for the 2010 period that
are referenced in the filings as ``audited,'' when they were not.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, It Is Ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is

suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on Monday, June 6, 2011 and
terminating at 11:59 p.m. E.D.T. on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14285 Filed 6-6-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P