80 FR 76064 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of an Exemption Application From Atwood Forest Products, Inc.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 234 (December 7, 2015)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 234 (December 7, 2015)
| Page Range | 76064-76066 | |
| FR Document | 2015-30803 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 76064-76066] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-30803] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0326] Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Denial of an Exemption Application From Atwood Forest Products, Inc. AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of exemption application. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an exemption application from Atwood Forest Products, Inc. (Atwood) to allow the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of up to 15 of its commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in lieu of rear-vision mirrors as specified in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs requires every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview mirrors,'' in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. While Atwood wanted to install the camera system on its vehicles for use in an evaluation study to evaluate the safety and economic benefits of eliminating outside mirrors, it did not provide evidence to enable the Agency to conclude that motor carriers operating vehicles without any rear-vision mirrors could achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC- PSV, (202) 366-5370; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request. The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from which an exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)). Atwood Application for Exemption Atwood applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80 to allow the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of CMVs in lieu of rear-vision mirrors as specified in the FMCSRs. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs currently requires every bus, truck, and truck tractor to be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a minimum, meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. The purpose of FMVSS No. 111 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear. In its application, Atwood states: Atwood Forest Products, Inc. is making this request because we are coordinating device development and installation of rear cameras in up to fifteen (15) commercial motor vehicles and trailers. The camera equipment to be installed is going to be located at rear of trailers and at sides of motor vehicles. A monitor is to be located in the cab . . . Regulations currently require that mirrors be installed on each side of [a] tractor. Our system will remove outside mirrors and install cameras at the rear of trailers and cabs and motor vehicles with monitors inside the cabs of tractors. Atwood contends that without the proposed temporary exemption, it will not be able to deploy cameras and monitors in its vehicles because they will be fined for violating the current [[Page 76065]] regulation, which requires rear-vision mirrors. With the exemption, Atwood states that it ``will be able to install the camera systems in a location which will offer the best opportunity to optimize the data and evaluate the benefits of such a system'' which would eliminate the need for the currently required outside mirrors. Public Comments On August 28, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of the Atwood application and asked for public comment (79 FR 51391). The Agency received four comments. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'') opposed the exemption application, stating: Atwood provides absolutely no analysis of the safety impacts the exemption may have. Atwood provides no actual data regarding safety performance at all. In fact, the applicant failed to provide even a rudimentary study to confirm that the proposed systems would provide performance in accordance with FMVSS 111. Atwood has provided no evidence that their proposed exemption would ensure safety and mitigate the concerns regarding rearview visibility which spurred the FMCSR requirement and the underlying FMVSS. Likewise, the applicant fails to cite any research on the performance of the proposed systems, the visibility coverage offered, the possibility of driver distraction, or even usability studies to confirm that the proposed monitor and camera systems would allow a driver to operate a vehicle as safely as while using traditional, compliant, mirrors. The Application is, therefore, insufficient on its face, as Atwood neither performed nor included any form of safety analysis in their application nor provided any form of explanation as to how the applicant would ensure that the proposed exemption will achieve an equivalent level of safety as required by both the statute and regulation. The requirement for a safety analysis is part of the statute and regulations governing the granting of exemptions precisely to ensure that exemptions which increase risk and decrease safety are not permitted. Two anonymous commenters opposed the exemption application, citing concerns that the camera-based system may be prone to operational failure in the event of electrical outages. One of the commenters stated that the camera-based system could be used ``IN ADDITION to rearview mirrors, but not IN LIEU of'' the required mirrors. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) stated ``This system quite possibly could have additional safety benefits when utilized by a well-trained driver. However, there are significant questions regarding this application, both in terms of the technology proposed by Atwood, and the method that Atwood and Safety Track would use to evaluate the performance of the camera systems. As such, OOIDA urges the FMCSA to only move forward with granting the exemption request under significant restrictions.'' OOIDA--like the anonymous commenters--noted concerns regarding the reliability of the camera-based system due to its reliance on electronic components. OOIDA encouraged FMCSA to consider mandating some type of redundancy in the system if the exemption application is granted. OOIDA stated: Mandating the inclusion of one external mirror on each side of the cab (even if smaller than current standards) could provide a level of protection against electronics failure. Requiring redundancy in the electronics system might provide an acceptable level of protection. Rather than one monitor, two monitors with independent wiring systems may accomplish a lower risk of failure. While current mirrors are susceptible to environmental conditions that lessen their effectiveness (rain, road, spray, fog) they never fail completely. We encourage the consideration of this exemption request to utilize appropriate technology, but caution against complete reliance on technology (without redundancy)--at least until a suitable time where the technology has proven reliability in the very harsh conditions that a CMV operates within. In addition, OOIDA echoed Advocates' concerns that Atwood had failed to provide ``any detailed description of the proposed analysis of the effectiveness of the system.'' FMVSS No. 111; NHTSA Rulemaking Specifically with respect to CMVs, FMVSS No. 111 requires vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (excluding trailers) to have mirrors installed on both sides of the vehicle, located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. On April 7, 2014, and to satisfy the mandate of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (``K.T. Safety Act''), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 111 to expand the required field of view for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles with a GVW of less than 10,000 pounds (79 FR 19178). Specifically, the rule specifies an area behind the vehicle which must be visible to the driver when the vehicle is placed into reverse and other related performance requirements. NHTSA noted that it anticipates vehicle manufacturers will use rearview video systems and in-vehicle visual displays in the near term to meet the requirements of the rule. However, the K.T. Safety Act specifically excluded all vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, motorcycles, and trailers. NHTSA declined to extend scope of the rule in response to public comments recommending that the rule cover larger vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. NHTSA stated: Finally, we also decline to extend today's final rule to cover trailers, garbage trucks, and other vehicles not contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. While we acknowledge that many of these vehicles may also have significant blind zones, we have concentrated our research and rulemaking efforts on the vehicles mandated by Congress. We believe that, by focusing on the vehicles types covered in the K.T. Safety Act, this rulemaking is able to more appropriately address the types of crashes that Congress sought to avoid. To include and accommodate vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or more (many of which are used for commercial purposes), the agency may be required to utilize a significantly different approach with different requirements and test procedures that may not be as closely tailored to avoiding the types of crashes contemplated by the K.T. Safety Act. Further, we note that backover crashes involving vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs represent a significant majority of both fatalities and injuries. As this rulemaking has continuously focused exclusively on vehicles covered by the K.T. Safety Act, to introduce requirements regarding other vehicles in today's final rule would raise questions regarding the sufficiency of the scope of notice of this rulemaking. Thus, today's final rule declines to introduce such requirements at this time. FMCSA Decision The purpose of FMVSS No. 111 is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear. While both Advocates and OOIDA note that the use of camera-based technology for rear visibility may have merit for use in CMVs, and such technologies will be used by light vehicle manufacturers to meet the newly adopted requirements of FMVSS No. 111, the Atwood application did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the use of a camera system installed at the sides and rear of CMVs in lieu of rear-vision mirrors as specified in the FMCSRs would be able to provide an equivalent level of safety when compared to a compliant vehicle. Based on the above, FMCSA denies the Atwood exemption application. FMCSA is unable to determine--as required for an exemption by 49 CFR [[Page 76066]] 381.305(a)--that Atwood would be able to maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption. FMCSA notes that while Atwood's use of the camera-based system in lieu of the rear vision mirrors required via Sec. 393.80 is denied, Sec. 393.3 of the FMCSRs expressly permits the use of additional equipment and accessories (such as the camera-based rear vision system), not inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSRs, provided that such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the motor vehicles on which they are used. Issued on: November 30, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015-30803 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![76064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices
provision of a rear exit, providing that ACTION: Denial of exemption The Agency reviews the safety
the roof exit meets the release, application. analyses and the public comments and
extension, and identification determines whether granting the
requirements of the standard. SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an exemption exemption would likely achieve a level
Specifically, the final rule noted ‘‘The application from Atwood Forest of safety equivalent to or greater than
NHTSA has established this alternative Products, Inc. (Atwood) to allow the use the level that would be achieved by the
in order to allow design flexibility while of a camera system installed at the sides current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
providing for emergency egress in and rear of up to 15 of its commercial The decision of the Agency must be
rollover situations’’ [Emphasis added]. motor vehicles (CMV) in lieu of rear- published in the Federal Register (49
Notably, the emergency exit vision mirrors as specified in the CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies
requirements for buses with a GVWR of Federal Motor Carrier Safety the request, it must state the reason for
more than 10,000 pounds have Regulations (FMCSR). Section 393.80 of doing so. If the decision is to grant the
remained largely unchanged since the the FMCSRs requires every bus, truck, exemption, the notice must specify the
establishment of FMVSS No. 217 more and truck tractor to be equipped with person or class of persons receiving the
than 40 years ago. two rear-vision mirrors, one at each exemption and the regulatory provision
FMCSA agrees with the commenters. side, firmly attached to the outside of or provisions from which an exemption
The EMC application did not provide the motor vehicle, and so located as to is granted. The notice must specify the
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that reflect to the driver a view of the effective period of the exemption (up to
an Entertainer Coach without rear and/ highway to the rear along both sides of 2 years) and explain the terms and
or roof emergency exits would be able the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a conditions of the exemption. The
to provide an equivalent level of safety minimum, meet the requirements of exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
when compared to a compliant vehicle, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).
specifically in a rollover crash scenario. (FMVSS) No. 111, ‘‘Rearview mirrors,’’
in effect at the time the vehicle was Atwood Application for Exemption
The intent of the requirements for rear
and roof emergency exits in S5.2.2.2 of manufactured. While Atwood wanted to Atwood applied for an exemption
FMVSS No. 217 is quite clear, in that install the camera system on its vehicles from 49 CFR 393.80 to allow the use of
those exits are required to meet the for use in an evaluation study to a camera system installed at the sides
emergency exit release, opening, and evaluate the safety and economic and rear of CMVs in lieu of rear-vision
identification requirements of the benefits of eliminating outside mirrors, mirrors as specified in the FMCSRs. A
standard ‘‘when the bus is overturned it did not provide evidence to enable the copy of the application is included in
on either side, with the occupant Agency to conclude that motor carriers the docket referenced at the beginning
standing facing the exit.’’ Without the operating vehicles without any rear- of this notice.
required rear and/or roof exits, vision mirrors could achieve a level of Section 393.80 of the FMCSRs
emergency egress in rollover crash safety that is equivalent to, or greater currently requires every bus, truck, and
scenarios will likely be limited, possibly than, the level of safety that would be truck tractor to be equipped with two
leading to increased numbers of obtained by complying with the rear-vision mirrors, one at each side,
fatalities and injuries in such crashes. regulation. firmly attached to the outside of the
motor vehicle, and so located as to
FMCSA Decision FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. reflect to the driver a view of the
Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside highway to the rear along both sides of
Based on the above, FMCSA denies Operations Division, Office of Carrier,
the EMC exemption application. the vehicle. All such mirrors must, at a
Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC–PSV, minimum, meet the requirements of
FMCSA is unable to determine—as (202) 366–5370; Federal Motor Carrier
required for an exemption by 49 CFR FMVSS No. 111 in effect at the time the
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey vehicle was manufactured. The purpose
381.305(a)—that motor carriers would Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
be able to maintain a level of safety of FMVSS No. 111 is to reduce the
0001. number of deaths and injuries that occur
equivalent to, or greater than, the level
achieved without the exemption. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: when the driver of a motor vehicle does
not have a clear and reasonably
Issued on: November 30, 2015. Background unobstructed view to the rear.
T.F. Scott Darling, III, In its application, Atwood states:
Acting Administrator.
Section 4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– Atwood Forest Products, Inc. is making
[FR Doc. 2015–30802 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am] this request because we are coordinating
21) [Pub. L. 105–178, June 9, 1998, 112
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and device development and installation of rear
31136(e) to provide authority to grant cameras in up to fifteen (15) commercial
motor vehicles and trailers. The camera
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION exemptions from the FMCSRs. On equipment to be installed is going to be
August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a located at rear of trailers and at sides of
Federal Motor Carrier Safety final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing motor vehicles. A monitor is to be located in
Administration section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA the cab . . . Regulations currently require
must publish a notice of each exemption that mirrors be installed on each side of [a]
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR tractor. Our system will remove outside
[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0326] mirrors and install cameras at the rear of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide
the public with an opportunity to trailers and cabs and motor vehicles with
Parts and Accessories Necessary for monitors inside the cabs of tractors.
Safe Operation; Denial of an inspect the information relevant to the
Exemption Application From Atwood application, including any safety Atwood contends that without the
Forest Products, Inc. analyses that have been conducted. The proposed temporary exemption, it will
Agency must also provide an not be able to deploy cameras and
AGENCY:Federal Motor Carrier Safety opportunity for public comment on the monitors in its vehicles because they
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. request. will be fined for violating the current
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Dec 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76298/page/1.svg)
![76066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Monday, December 7, 2015 / Notices
381.305(a)—that Atwood would be able (VEPCO), the only shipper on the Line, 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail
to maintain a level of safety equivalent in order to serve VEPCO’s Mt. Storm banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be
to, or greater than, the level achieved Power Station. CSXT states that, even due no later than December 24, 2015.
without the exemption. though it does not own the Line, it is the Each trail request must be accompanied
FMCSA notes that while Atwood’s only common carrier operating over the by a $300 filing fee. See 49 CFR
use of the camera-based system in lieu Line, and it is seeking to abandon the 1002.2(f)(27).
of the rear vision mirrors required via Line in order to terminate its common All filings in response to this notice
§ 393.80 is denied, § 393.3 of the carrier obligation. must refer to Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No.
FMCSRs expressly permits the use of Further, CSXT states that VEPCO 746X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface
additional equipment and accessories operates over the industry track east of Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
(such as the camera-based rear vision milepost BUA 16.38. In addition, CSXT Washington, DC 20423–0001; and (2)
system), not inconsistent with or and VEPCO have agreed to amend their Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave.,
prohibited by the FMCSRs, provided lease agreement, excluding the final Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. Replies
that such equipment and accessories do 0.66 miles of the Line from the lease in to the petition are due on or before
not decrease the safety of operation of order for VEPCO to construct and December 24, 2015.
the motor vehicles on which they are operate a new coal yard and rapid coal
used. Persons seeking further information
dumper. CSXT states that, upon a grant
concerning abandonment procedures
Issued on: November 30, 2015. of abandonment authority, CSXT will
may contact the Board’s Office of Public
T.F. Scott Darling, III, reclassify the Line as yard track for
Assistance, Governmental Affairs and
Acting Administrator. VEPCO’s use, and the land and track
Compliance at (202) 245–0238 or refer
will be returned to VEPCO. Finally,
[FR Doc. 2015–30803 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am] to the full abandonment regulations at
CSXT states that it will not salvage the
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning
Line.1
environmental issues may be directed to
According to CSXT, the Line does not
the Board’s Office of Environmental
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION contain federally granted rights-of-way.
Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245–0305.
Any documentation in CSXT’s
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
Surface Transportation Board possession will be made available
available through the Federal
promptly to those requesting it.
[Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 746X)] Information Relay Service at 1–800–
The interest of railroad employees
877–8339.
CSX Transportation, Inc.— will be protected by the conditions set
forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad— An environmental assessment (EA) (or
Abandonment Exemption—in Grant
Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch environmental impact statement (EIS), if
County, W. Va.
Between Firth & Ammon, In Bingham & necessary) prepared by OEA will be
On November 17, 2015, CSX Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. served upon all parties of record and
Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed with 91 (1979). upon any other agencies or persons who
the Surface Transportation Board By issuing this notice, the Board is comment during its preparation. Other
(Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 instituting an exemption proceeding interested persons may contact OEA to
for exemption from the provisions of 49 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in
U.S.C. 10903 to abandon an decision will be issued by March 4, abandonment proceedings normally will
approximately 0.66-mile rail line 2016. be made available within 60 days of the
between milepost BUA 15.72 and Any offer of financial assistance filing of the petition. The deadline for
milepost BUA 16.38, the end of the line, (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will submission of comments on the EA
on the Mt. Storm Railroad Track, in be due no later than 10 days after generally will be within 30 days of its
Grant County, W.Va. (the Line). The service of a decision granting the service.
Line includes the station of OPSL 56150 petition for exemption. Each OFA must Board decisions and notices are
(FSAC 76373), which will remain open, be accompanied by a $1,600 filing fee. available on our Web site at
and traverses United States Postal See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.
Service Zip Code 26739. All interested persons should be
According to CSXT, the Western Decided: December 1, 2015.
aware that, following abandonment, the
Maryland Railway Company, a By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Line may be suitable for other public Director, Office of Proceedings.
predecessor to CSXT, leased use, including interim trail use. Any
approximately 16.38 miles of track and Kenyatta Clay,
request for a public use condition under
land (between mileposts BUA 0.0 and Clearance Clerk.
16.38), from the predecessor of the 1 CSXT states it will continue to provide service [FR Doc. 2015–30769 Filed 12–4–15; 8:45 am]
Virginia Electric and Power Company to VEPCO beginning at milepost BUA 15.72. BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:36 Dec 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76298/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 13:30:59
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 13:30:59
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of exemption application. | |
| Contact | Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC- PSV, (202) 366-5370; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 76064 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR