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

General Comment:E-cigarettes have been a lifesaver for me.  I am 81 years old and I have been smoking since I was 16.
When my son introduced me to e-cigarettes I made the choice to try them and I have been using them for over a year.
I don't want to go back to regular cigarettes and I'm afraid I might if they are banned, discontinued, etc.
My COPD has improved over the last year and I only need my inhalers sparsely.
Also, please extend  the comment period to 180 days for comments.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 5932]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6772; Summary Notice No. -2022-03]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Cobalt Air,
LLC

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-6772
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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, 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 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean O'Tormey at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.

Timothy R. Adams,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-6772.
    Petitioner: Cobalt Air, LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  135.419(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner Cobalt Air, LLC seeks an
exemption from the exclusive use requirement referenced in Sec.
135.419(a). Because the FAA has not previously granted exemptions from
the exclusive use requirement referenced in Sec.  135.419(a), the FAA
seeks comments on the request for relief from Sec.  135.419(a) for the
Pilatus PC-12 aircraft. See Petitioner's First Amended Request for
Exemption and Request for Consolidation with Pending Request for
Reconsideration of Denial (June 4, 2019), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2016-6772-0004.

[FR Doc. 2022-02116 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16689-16691]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30772; Amdt. No. 3416 ]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective March 25, 2011. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2011.
John McGraw,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 7 APR 2011

Jacksonville, FL, Jacksonville Intl, ILS or LOC RWY 7, ILS RWY 7
(CAT II), ILS RWY 7 (CAT III), Amdt 12D
Nampa, ID, Nampa Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1
Pittsburg, KS, Atkinson Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Wayne NE, Wayne Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Binghamton, NY, Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 10, Orig
Binghamton, NY, Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 28, Amdt 2
Binghamton, NY, Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field, VOR RWY 10,
Amdt 7
Reading, PA, Reading Rgnl/Carl A Spaatz Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 13,
Amdt 1A
Reading, PA, Reading Rgnl/Carl A Spaatz Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 36,
Amdt 30A
Reading, PA, Reading Rgnl/Carl A Spaatz Field, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 25,
CANCELLED
Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, RADAR-1, Amdt 13
Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Delavan, WI, Lake Lawn, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Delavan, WI, Lake Lawn, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig, CANCELLED
Delavan, WI, Lake Lawn, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1,
CANCELLED

Effective 5 MAY 2011

Riverside, CA, Riverside Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Paulding Northwest Atlanta, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Paulding Northwest Atlanta, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1

Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, VOR/DME RWY 4, Amdt 1
Boone, IA, Boone Muni, Copter NDB OR GPS 225, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 19B, CANCELLED
Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 6B, CANCELLED
Carroll, IA, Arthur N Neu, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 7, CANCELLED
Council Bluffs, IA, Council Bluffs Muni, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, NDB RWY 29, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Guthrie Center, IA, Guthrie County Rgnl, NDB RWY 18, Orig-A,
CANCELLED
Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED
Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 32, Amdt 5B, CANCELLED
Sibley, IA, Sibley Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Chicago, IL, Chicago-O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 8A
Kingman, KS, Kingman Airport-Clyde Cessna Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Orig
Homer, LA, Homer Muni, NDB RWY 12, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Homer, LA, Homer Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig,
CANCELLED
Lake Charles, LA, Lake Charles Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED
Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig, CANCELLED
Nantucket, MA, Nantucket Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A
Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, GPS RWY 5, Orig-A,
CANCELLED
Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, GPS RWY 23, Orig-A,
CANCELLED
Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Marlette, MI, Marlette, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR-A, Orig
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 3, Amdt 7A,
CANCELLED
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 21, Amdt 3A,
CANCELLED
Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/Twin Valley, GPS RWY 33,
Orig-A, CANCELLED
Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/Twin Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY
33, Orig
Fergus Falls, MN, Fergus Falls Muni-Einar Mickelson Fld, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 13, Orig
Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt
1
Little Falls, MN, Littles Falls/Morrison County-Lindberg Fld,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Wadena, MN, Wadena Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
New Bern, NC, Coastal Carolina Rgnl, RADAR-1, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED
Fargo, ND, Hector Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1
Kenmare, ND, Kenmare Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B
Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B
Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B
Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, GLS RWY 22L, Orig-B
Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, Amdt 2A
Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT II), Amdt 12A
Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS RWY 2, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS RWY 25, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 5, CANCELLED
Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, CAPITAN ONE Graphic DP
Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, GPS RWY 24, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, GPS RWY 17, Orig-A,
CANCELLED
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A,
CANCELLED
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Kingsville, TX, Kleberg County, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 6
Muleshoe, TX, Muleshoe Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Uvalde, TX, Garner Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 17L, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 35R, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, NDB RWY 35R, Amdt 11
Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Orig
Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Orig
Fort Atkinson, WI, Atkinson Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig

[FR Doc. 2011-6117 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


39538 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2003 / Notices interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the `` e Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   16673 Filed 7   1   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OA   2003   0001; FRL   7521   7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1949.02 ( OMB No. 2010   0032) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: National Environmental Performance Track Program. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Sachs, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Mail Code 1808T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202   566   2884; fax number: 202   566   0966; email address sachs. robert@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 27, 2003, 68 FR 3879, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no relevant comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OA   2003   0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is ( 202) 566   1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to OMB and EPA within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 and ( 2) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to oei. docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: National Environmental Performance Track Program ( OMB Control Number 2010   0032, EPA ICR Number 1949.02). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: EPA announced the National Environmental Performance Track Program on June 26, 2000. The program is designed to recognize and encourage facilities that consistently meet their legal requirements, that have implemented management systems to monitor and improve performance, that have voluntarily achieved environmental improvements beyond compliance, and that publicly commit to specific environmental improvements and report on progress. Applications submitted by facilities are used by EPA and participating regulatory entities to determine whether the applicant qualifies for the program. A total of 304 facilities are current members of this voluntary program. Environmental Performance Track members are also required to submit an annual performance report documenting their environmental performance relative to the commitments they made upon entry into the program. This information is important to determine whether participants are meeting their commitments, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The public reporting elements of the program also provide information to the local community. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 268 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 33 Jul 01, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM 02JYN1 39539 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2003 / Notices information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. For this ICR, EPA considers facilities that are members of the Performance Track program to be respondents. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Public and private facilities/ entities that consistently meet their legal requirements, that have implemented management systems to monitor and improve performance, that have voluntarily achieved environmental improvements beyond compliance, and that publicly commit to specific environmental improvements and report on progress. Estimated Number of Respondents: 513, the average calculated from years 1, 2 and 3 projections of 404, 505 and 631 respondents. Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 109,445. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 6,735,712 includes $ 0 annualized capital or O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 58,995 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is based on the estimated growth in membership in the National Environmental Performance Track Program.

Dated: June 18, 2003. Doreen Sterling, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   16732 Filed 7   1   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OAR   2003   0006, FRL   7521   9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 0619.10 ( OMB No. 2060   0078) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Mobile Source Emission Factor On Highway Recruitment. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 1, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Scarbro, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, AATC, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 734   214   4209; fax number: 734   214   4939; e mail address: scarbro. carl@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On Friday, January 24, 2003 68 FR 3524, EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received a single request for information concerning the ICR. EPA forwarded the requested information to the requestor. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR   2003   0006, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to a andr docket@ epamail. epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: Mobile Source Emission Factor On Highway Recruitment ( OMB Control No. 2060   0078; EPA ICR No. 0619.10). This is a request to renew an existing collection that is scheduled to expire in 06/ 30/ 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The EPA Emissions Factor Program, through contractors, solicits the general public to voluntarily offer their vehicle for emissions testing. There are two methods used to solicit the general public for participation in Emission Factor Program ( EFP): 1. Postal cards are sent to a random selection of vehicle owners using State motor vehicle registration lists; and 2. A random selection of motor vehicle owners, who arrive at State inspection stations on an annual or biennial schedule, are solicited. The legislative basis for the Emission Factors Program is section 103( a)( 1)( 2)( 3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Administrator to `` conduct * * * research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution'' and `` conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency * * *'' EPA uses the data from the EFP to verify predictions of the computer VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 33 Jul 01, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JYN1. SGM 02JYN1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28888]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0272; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-3]

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Gruver Cluck Ranch Airport, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace at Gruver, Cluck Ranch
Airport, TX. The airport has been abandoned, thereby eliminating the
need for controlled airspace in the Gruver, Cluck Ranch Airport, TX,
area. The FAA is taking this action to ensure the efficient use of
airspace within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, August 25, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface in the Gruver, Cluck Ranch Airport, TX area.
Abandonment of the former Cluck Ranch Airport and cancellation of all
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures eliminates the need for
controlled airspace. Since this action eliminates the impact of
controlled airspace on users of the National Airspace System in the
vicinity of Gruver, TX, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes controlled airspace at Cluck Ranch Airport, Gruver, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Gruver Cluck Ranch Airport, TX

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 11, 2011.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-12121 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65038-65040]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0113]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and

reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2013-0113 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Russell Pierce, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Pierce's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Medical Review Guidelines and Medical Advisory Board Practices

    Type of Request--New Information Collection.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--NHTSA 1228.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information
from an individual in the Medical Review Department in each of the 50
State Driver Licensing Agencies and The District of Columbia about
their State's driver medical review structure and processes. The
information collected will be used to produce a short narrative
describing each State's medical review structure and processes, plus
several appendices with tables displaying each individual State's
responses to the questions, and totals for each response. Data will be
collected, according to each respondent's preference, via a Microsoft
Word document distributed and collected via email or a print version
distributed and collected via US mail, and the responses will consist
primarily of checkbox response types and fill-in-the-blank options when
non-standard checkboxes are selected. Additionally, survey respondents
will be provided with a short narrative that describes their State's
medical review processes, and asked to review and edit/update the
narrative as necessary to ensure its accuracy.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established to reduce the number of deaths,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on
the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is
authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of
motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    As our population ages, age-related impairments in safe driving
abilities will become more prevalent. The private automobile remains by
far the most often used and most preferred means of meeting community
mobility needs among older adults. Along with the increase in the
number of older drivers, an increase in the driving exposure of older
adults is likely, both in terms of the frequency of their trips and the
distances they drive. In addition, due to increased physical frailty,
older individuals are also most likely to be seriously injured or
killed in an automotive crash. Therefore, driver medical review
practices are likely to assume a more prominent role in the years
ahead.
    Medical review guidelines and practices can help evaluate drivers
referred to a State motor vehicle licensing agency for reexamination
due to concerns about unsafe driving performance possibly resulting
from suspected age or medical condition related impairments in visual,
physical, or mental abilities. Society has an interest in ensuring that
these medical review guidelines and practices are in place and are
effective in reducing motor vehicle crashes, injury, and death. This
data collection will provide NHTSA with an accurate description of
current medical review practices across the country. This is a
necessary first step in identifying which structures and processes work
best.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
TransAnalytics (NHTSA's Contractor) plans to enlist the assistance of
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to
identify the most appropriate contact in each State, for distribution
of the survey and the narrative summary for review and update.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--There will be
approximately 70 questions on the survey requiring checkbox responses,
and an occasional fill-in-the-blank response required when ``other'' is

checked. We estimate the time to complete the survey for the medical
review contact in each State to be 2.5 hours. Additionally, we estimate
2.5 hours of time for each medical review contact to review and edit
the narrative describing their State's medical review structure and
process. This estimate includes the time that may be required to
respond to telephone contacts made by TransAnalytics if necessary, to
follow-up or clarify survey responses. The total estimated annual
burden will be 255 hours (5 hours for each respondent, 50 States +
Washington, DC). Survey respondents will incur no costs from the data
collection and will incur no record keeping burden and no record
keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on October 25, 2013.
Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-25793 Filed 10-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39757-39758]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16375]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67296; File No. SR-C2-2012-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Rule 8.2 Regarding Market-Maker Registration Cost

June 28, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 15, 2012, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II 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

    C2 proposes to amend its Rule 8.2 regarding Market-Maker
registration cost. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission' Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 those 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rule 8.2(d) regarding
registration costs. An option class registration of a Market-Maker
confers the right to quote in that product. Each Trading Permit held by
a Market-Maker has a registration credit of 1.0. A Market-Maker may
select for each Trading Permit the Market-Maker holds any combination
of option classes, whose aggregate registration cost does not exceed
1.0. When the Exchange initially adopted language regarding
registration costs, the Exchange designated every option traded on C2,
except SPX, VIX, OEX, DJX, and XSP (the ``Excluded Products''), to have
a registration cost of .001, and stated that, if C2 determines to
commence trading of any of the Excluded Products, it will file a
proposed rule change to adopt

registration costs for those products.\3\ The Exchange now intends to
commence trading of XSP, and set a registration cost for Market-Makers
to quote in XSP of .001 (the same registration cost as all other
options traded on C2 (except SPXPM) \4\). As such, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 8.2(d) to delete the language that excludes SPX,
VIX, OEX, DJX and XSP from having a registration cost of .001. Going
forward, the registration cost for XSP will be .001 (like every other
option traded on C2 except for SPXPM). Currently, the Exchange has no
plans to list any of the other Excluded Products, but if that were to
change, the registration cost for those products would also be set at
.001. If the Exchange were to permit trading of any of the Excluded
Products and did not desire for the registration cost for one of those
products to be .001, the Exchange would file a proposed rule change to
adopt a different registration cost for such product (as would also be
necessary under the current rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63021 (September 30,
2010), 75 Fr 62159 (October 7, 2010) (SR-C2-2010-004).
    \4\ See C2 Rule 8.2(d) and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
65452 (September 30, 2011), 76 FR 62123 (October 6, 2011) (SR-C2-
2011-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. Establishing a registration cost of .001 for XSP
as well as the other Excluded Products is reasonable because it is
equal to the registration cost of all other products traded on C2
(except SPXPM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2012-019 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-C2-2012-019. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-C2-2012-019 and should be
submitted on or before June 26, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16375 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18814-18816]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7979]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64151; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols

March 30, 2011.
    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 March 24, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``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 Section I of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule titled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols,'' specifically to amend the Select Symbols.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Select Symbols'' refers to the symbols which are
subject to the Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Section I of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on April 1, 2011.
    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, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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 amend the list of
Select Symbols in Section I of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, titled
``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select
Symbols'' in order to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange displays a list of Select Symbols in its Fee Schedule
at Section I, ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols,'' that are subject to the rebates and fees in that
section. Among those symbols is ON Semiconductor Corp (``ONNN''), which
the Exchange is proposing to remove from the list of Select Symbols.
The Exchange is also proposing to add Silver Wheaton Corp. (``SLW'') to
the list of Select Symbols in Section I.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on April 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to remove ONNN from its
list of Select Symbols and add SLW to its list of Select Symbols to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange anticipates
that the addition of SLW to Section I of the Fee Schedule would attract
market participants to transact equity options at the Exchange because
of the available rebates. In addition, the Exchange believes that
applying the fees in Section II to ONNN, including the opportunity to
receive payment for order flow, would also attract order flow to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable to amend the list of
Select Symbols by removing ONNN and adding SLW because the list of
Select Symbols would apply uniformly to all categories of participants
in the same manner. All market participants who trade the Select
Symbols would be subject to the rebates and fees in Section I of the
Fee Schedule. Also, all market participants would be uniformly subject
to the fees in Section II.

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.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2011-40 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-2011-40. 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 website (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 website 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-2011-40 and should be
submitted on or before April 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7979 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75327-75329]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0109]

Soft Lights Foundation, Denial of Petition for Decision of Non-
Compliance Order

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a non-compliance order.

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

SUMMARY: Soft Lights Foundation (Petitioner) has petitioned NHTSA
requesting NHTSA to issue an order of non-compliance for certain model
year (MY) 2021 Tesla Model 3, 2021 Ford Bronco, and 2021 Rivian R1T
motor vehicles based on its assertions that these motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Soft Lights
Foundation petitioned NHTSA on August 5, 2022, for the 2021 Tesla Model
3, on August 11, 2022, for the 2021 Ford Bronco, and on September 9,
2022, for the 2021 Rivian R1T. This notice announces the denial of Soft
Lights Foundation's petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2) and 49 CFR part 552.1, interested
persons can petition NHTSA to begin a proceeding to make a
determination that a motor vehicle or an item of replacement equipment
does not comply with an applicable FMVSS. Upon receipt of a properly
filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition,
material submitted with the petition and any additional information. 49
U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. After conducting the technical review
and considering appropriate factors, the Agency will grant or deny the
petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.8.
    Soft Lights Foundation has alleged that certain MY 2021 Tesla Model
3, MY 2021 Ford Bronco, and MY 2021 Rivian R1T motor vehicles, herein
also known as ``subject vehicles,'' do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraphs S4, S5, S10.1.1, S14.1.1, and Table XIX of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108) and has requested that NHTSA issue a noncompliance order.

II. Vehicles Involved

    MY 2021 Tesla Model 3, MY 2021 Ford Bronco, and MY 2021 Rivian R1T
motor vehicles are potentially involved. These vehicles are likely
equipped with integral beam headlamps that utilize Light Emitting Diode
(``LED'') technology.

III. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4, S5, S10.1.1, S14.1.1, and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108
include the requirements relevant to this petition as cited by Soft
Lights Foundation.
    Paragraph S4 defines a filament as that part of the light source or
light emitting element(s), such as a resistive element, the excited
portion of a specific mixture of gases under pressure, or any part of
other energy conversion sources, that generates radiant energy which
can be seen.
    Paragraph S5 addresses references to SAE publications where each
required lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must
be designed to conform to the requirements of applicable SAE
publications as referenced and subreferenced in this standard. The
words ``it is recommended that,'' ``recommendations,'' or ``should be''
appearing in any SAE publication referenced or subreferenced in this
standard must be read as setting forth mandatory requirements. S10.1.1
specifies headlighting system requirements for vehicle headlighting
systems. Wherein this section states that each passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus must be equipped with a
headlighting system conforming to the requirements of Table II and this
standard.
    S14.1.1 specifies physical and photometry test procedures and
performance requirements. Wherein this sections states that each lamp,
reflective device, item of conspicuity treatment, and item of
associated equipment required or permitted by this standard must be
designed to conform to all applicable physical test performance
requirements specified for it.
    Table XIX specifies the minimum and maximum photometric intensities
at specific test points for the lower beam headlamp.

IV. Summary of Soft Lights Foundation's Petition

    The views and arguments presented in this section are the views and
arguments provided by Soft Lights Foundation. They do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Soft Lights Foundation described an alleged
noncompliance for the subject vehicles and stated their belief that the
subject vehicles do not comply with FMVSS No. 108. The subject vehicles
are equipped with LED headlamps. The subject Rivian R1T vehicles are
also equipped with Daytime Running Lights (DRLs).
    According to Soft Lights Foundation, the subject vehicles do not
meet federal safety regulation as specified in FMVSS No. 108 for the
following reasons:
    1. Congress has determined that visible light from an electronic
device is different than light from a burning filament or gas discharge
and that this visible electromagnetic radiation from an electronic
product requires special federal regulations. Congress has determined
that ``visible electromagnetic radiation from an electronic product
requires special federal regulations.''
    2. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet developed
safety regulations for LED products, and thus LED headlamps are an
unregulated product which have not been deemed safe.
    3. FMVSS No. 108 is only applicable to spherical/point light
sources and specifies intensity minimums and maximums using luminous
intensity measured in candela. Only vehicles using spherical/point
light sources can be compliant with FMVSS No. 108.
    4. LED lights are flat-surface sources, which results in spatially
non-uniform energy, and which creates a Lambertian mathematical shape.
Brightness is measured with luminance in nits (candela per square
meter). NHTSA has not yet developed the health and safety regulations
for surface source LED headlamps and has not specified the necessary
restrictions that might make LED headlamps safe. The characteristics
specific to LED headlamps that should be regulated include restrictions
on spatial non-uniformity, peak luminance, spectral power distribution,
and square wave flicker.
    5. Tesla, Ford, and Rivian failed to petition NHTSA for amendment
of

existing regulations to allow use of LED technology for headlamps and
has not received authorization from NHTSA.
    6. FMVSS No. 108 contains no tables for specifying the minimum or
maximum peak luminance of an LED headlight system and does not specify
or refer to measurement requirements that involve a laboratory setting
and precision measurement devices. Thus, a vehicle with an LED
headlight system is non-compliant with FMVSS No. 108 because an LED
headlight system cannot meet the requirements of Table XIX and there
are no tables in FMVSS No. 108 that are applicable to an LED light
source.
    7. LED headlights and Daytime Running Lights are dangerous due to
the excessive glare, non-uniform luminance, excessive peak luminance,
and square wave flicker, putting public comfort, health, and safety at
risk.
    Soft Lights Foundation is requesting NHTSA to issue an Order of
Non-Compliance to Tesla, Ford, and Rivian as well as for NHTSA to
notify the public that LED headlamps do not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    NHTSA has reviewed the information Soft Lights Foundation provided
and additional material in response to Soft Lights Foundation's
statements that Congress stated LED products require special federal
regulations, that the FDA has not developed regulations specific to LED
products, and therefore they are unregulated products that have not
been deemed safe.
    First, the FDA has authority to regulate certain aspects of LED
products as radiation-emitting devices.\1\ 21 U.S.C. 360kk states that
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall by regulation
prescribe performance standards for electronic products to control the
emission of electronic product radiation from such products if the
Secretary determines that such standards are necessary for the
protection of the public health and safety. Pursuant to its authority,
FDA issued title 21, part I, subchapter J, part 1040 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, ``Performance Standards for Light-Emitting
Products.'' \2\ Currently, there is no FDA performance standard for LED
products in Part 1040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act Sec.  531 et
seq.
    \2\ See https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/home-business-and-entertainment-products/laser-products-and-instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue that the petition presents to NHTSA, however, is whether
NHTSA should determine (or open an investigation to determine) that the
headlamps in the subject vehicles comply with FMVSS No. 108. In
addressing this, NHTSA is guided by the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and recodified, 49 U.S.C. chapter 301,
and the requirements set out in FMVSS No. 108. The Petitioner asserts
that ``[o]nly vehicles using spherical/point light sources can be
compliant with FMVSS No. 108.'' NHTSA understands ``spherical/point
light sources'' to refer to filament (e.g., tungsten/halogen) or High-
Intensity Discharge Arc (HID) light sources. NHTSA therefore
understands the Petitioner to be asserting that headlamps that utilize
LED technology are de facto noncompliant with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA
disagrees. FMVSS No. 108 is not limited to ``spherical/point light
sources.'' Specifically, regardless of the light sources used in
headlamps, headlamps all have an area from which they emit light and
they all emit different intensities of light in different directions. A
key to understanding this topic is that the integral beam photometry
requirements are for the lamp, not the light source. In addition, a
NHTSA interpretation has stated that a design that combines an
``integral beam lower beam headlamp'' that uses LEDs (wired in series),
with a ``replaceable bulb upper beam headlamp'' would be permissible,
provided that it meets the applicable photometric requirements of the
standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.--Takayuki Amma, December 21,
2005: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/LEDlamp.1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Agency acknowledges that LED light sources have different
physical properties when compared to halogen, incandescent, or a high-
intensity discharge light source, the light emitted by integral beam
headlamps utilizing any of these light sources is measurable by current
laboratory test equipment and can be evaluated based on the performance
requirements in FMVSS No. 108. In a laboratory setting, a photometer is
used to measure, in candela, the amount of light emitted by a lighting
device in a particular direction over multiple test points. This
measurement can determine whether a vehicle's integral beam headlamp
pattern meets the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Further,
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance's annual test program has found
evidence that LED headlamp assemblies can meet the current requirements
of FMVSS No. 108,4 5 and therefore, using LED technology in
an integral beam headlamp does not de facto make the headlamp
noncompliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 2018 Toyota Camry--Compliance Test Report--108-CAN-22-
001: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647670-2022-001.pdf.
    \5\ See 2012 Nissan Leaf--Compliance Test Report--108-CAN-18-
013: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-645804-2018-001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, regarding Soft Lights Foundation's argument that,
Tesla, Ford, and Rivian ``failed to petition NHTSA for amendment of
existing regulations to allow use of LED technology for headlamps and
has not received authorization from NHTSA,'' neither a petition, nor
authorization, is necessarily required for a manufacturer to
manufacture a vehicle that is equipped with FMVSS No. 108-compliant
integral beam headlamps using LED technology. NHTSA does not
``authorize'' or ``approve'' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.
Under NHTSA's self-certification system, the manufacturer is legally
bound to ensure their vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including
FMVSS No. 108.
    With respect to the Soft Lights Foundation's statement that ``LED
headlights and Daytime Running Lights are dangerous due to the
excessive glare, non-uniform luminance, excessive peak luminance, and
square wave flicker, putting public comfort, health and safety at
risk,'' NHTSA believes the current research supports that FMVSS No. 108
contains the appropriate requirements to address these areas. NHTSA
agrees that glare can have a negative safety impact and believes FMVSS
No. 108 addresses that issue. As NHTSA has stated, the requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 apply to LED headlamps. Photometric requirements stated
in FMVSS No. 108 Table XIX specify candela maximums over several test
points to prevent excess light which can result in glare and other
issues. While LED integral beam headlamps can be made to have a smaller
footprint compared to lamps that use halogen or high-intensity
discharge (HID) light sources, which can be perceived to be more
uncomfortable at closer distances, an agency report to Congress,
``Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance,'' stated that when viewed
from more than approximately 100 feet, the size of a headlamp has
little impact on discomfort and that no research has identified any
impact of oncoming headlamp size on the visibility of the person
experiencing glare.\6\ With respect to flicker, FMVSS No. 108 requires
that ``modulating light from the lamp [must

be] perceived to be steady burning.'' \7\ LED integral beam headlamp
systems can meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance (2007)--https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/glare_congressional_report.pdf.
    \7\ Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.--Kiminori Hyodo, November 5,
2005: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/koito2followup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also wants to express appreciation to the Petitioner for
bringing to its attention health concerns that the Petitioner
associates with LED headlamps. NHTSA takes these concerns seriously.
NHTSA, as an agency focused on automotive safety, also recognizes the
expertise of its sister agencies that are health-focused, such as the
FDA.
    NHTSA wants to be clear that its decision in connection with these
petitions is intended to address integral beam headlamps that use LED
lighting technology and does not address other headlamp types like
replaceable bulb headlamps or sealed beam headlamps. FMVSS No. 108
specifies performance requirements for headlamp systems. The most
common types of headlamp systems are integral beam (S10.14) and
replaceable bulb (S10.15, S11) systems. The standard does not mandate a
light source type for integral beam headlamps, so, as we explained
above, LED light sources are permitted in an integral beam headlamp,\8\
provided that the headlamp complies with the performance requirements
set out in FMVSS No. 108. LED light sources are not, however, permitted
in a replaceable bulb headlamp. For replaceable bulb headlamps, S11 of
the standard requires that ``[e]ach replaceable light source must be
designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications
furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter[.]''
\9\ Part 564 requires that replaceable bulb manufacturers submit to
NHTSA various design specifications of the bulb. This design
information is then placed in a publicly-available docket to facilitate
the manufacture and use of those light sources. The design information
that must be submitted is set out in part 564 and includes information
regarding the filament or discharge arc and the filament capsule.
Because an LED light source lacks these components, an LED light source
may not be submitted for inclusion in the Part 564 docket; and, because
it cannot be submitted to the part 564 docket, a replaceable bulb
headlamp may not use an LED replaceable light source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FMVSS No. 108, S4 defines integral beam headlamps as ``a
headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to
conform to paragraph S10.13 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed
to conform to paragraph S10.15) comprising an integral and
indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light
source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or
paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable.''
    \9\ See also Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel,
NHTSA, to Nancy Tavarez, Beitrix Industries (Aug. 30, 1995),
available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/11118 (clarifying
application of part 564 to replaceable headlamp bulbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA does not believe that a
formal investigation is warranted, and NHTSA has decided to deny Soft
Lights Foundation's petitions for non-compliance orders on the subject
vehicles. After full consideration of appropriate factors, Soft Lights
Foundation's petitions are denied.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26658 Filed 12-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P