11178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of the 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: February 24, 2015. 

Julia Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04167 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; Recording 

Assignments 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce 

Title: Recording Assignments 

OMB Control Number: 0651–0027 

Form Number(s): 

• PTO–1594 

• PTO–1595 

Type of Request: Regular 

Number of Respondents: 524,298 

Average Hours per Response: 0.5 

Burden Hours: 262,150 annually 

Cost Burden: $2,954,726 

Needs and Uses: 

This collection of information is 

required by 35 U.S.C. 261 and 262 for 

patents and 15 U.S.C. 1057 and 1060 for 

trademarks. These statutes authorize the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO) to record patent and 

trademark assignment documents, 

including transfers of properties (i.e. 

patents and trademarks), liens, licenses, 

assignments of interest, security 

interests, mergers, and explanations of 

transactions or other documents that 

record the transfer of ownership of a 

particular patent or trademark property 

from one party to another. Assignments 

are recorded for applications, patents, 

and trademark registrations. 

The USPTO administers these statutes 

through 37 CFR 2.146, 2.171, and 37 

CFR part 3. These rules permit the 

public, corporations, other federal 

agencies, and Government-owned or 

Government-controlled corporations to 

submit patent and trademark 

assignment documents and other 

documents related to title transfers to 

the USPTO to be recorded. In 

accordance with 37 CFR 3.54, the 

recording of an assignment document by 

the USPTO is an administrative action 

and not a determination of the validity 

of the document or of the effect that the 

document has on the title to an 

application, patent, or trademark. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profits; not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

Obtain or Retain Benefits 

OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, 

email: Nicholas_A._Fraser@

omb.eop.gov. 

Once submitted, the request will be 

publicly available in electronic format 

through reginfo.gov. Follow the 

instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Paper copies can be obtained by: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0027 

Recording Assignments’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records 

Management Division Director, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent on 

or before April 1, 2015 to Nicholas A. 

Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov, or by 

fax to 202–395–5167, marked to the 

attention of Nicholas A. Fraser. 

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

Marcie Lovett, 

Records Management Division Director, 

USPTO, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04214 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; ‘‘Rules for Patent 

Maintenance Fees’’ 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to comment on proposed and/ 

or continuing information collections, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0016 Rules for 

Patent Maintenance Fees’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records 

Management Division Director, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Raul Tamayo, 

Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent 

Legal Administration, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450; by telephone at 571–272–7728; or 

by email at Raul.Tamayo@uspto.gov 

with ‘‘Paperwork’’ in the subject line. 

Additional information about this 

collection is also available at http://

www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information 

Collection Review.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 41 and 37 CFR 

1.20(e)–(i) and 1.362–1.378, the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO) charges fees for maintaining in 

force all utility patents based on 

applications filed on or after December 

12, 1980. Payment of these maintenance 

fees is due at 3 1/2, 7 1/2, and 11 1/2 

years after the date the patent was 

granted. If the USPTO does not receive 

payment of the appropriate maintenance 

fee and any applicable surcharge within 

a grace period of six months following 

each of the above due dates (at 4, 8, or 

12 years after the date of grant), the 

patent will expire at that time. After a 

patent expires, it is no longer 

enforceable. Maintenance fees are not 

required for design or plant patents, or 

for reissue patents if the patent being 

reissued did not require maintenance 

fees. 

Payments of maintenance fees that are 

submitted during the six-month grace 

period before patent expiration must 

include the appropriate surcharge as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11179 

indicated by 37 CFR 1.20(h). 

Submissions of maintenance fee 

payments and surcharges must include 

the relevant patent number and the 

corresponding United States application 

number in order to identify the correct 

patent and ensure proper crediting of 

the fee being paid. 

If the USPTO refuses to accept and 

record a maintenance fee payment that 

was submitted prior to the expiration of 

a patent, the patentee may petition the 

Director to accept and record the 

maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.377. 

This petition must be accompanied by 

the fee indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(g), 

which may be refunded if it is 

determined that the refusal to accept the 

maintenance fee was due to an error by 

the USPTO. 

If a patent has expired due to 

nonpayment of a maintenance fee, the 

patentee may petition the Director to 

accept a delayed payment of the 

maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378. 

The Director may accept the payment of 

a maintenance fee after the expiration of 

the patent if the petitioner shows to the 

satisfaction of the Director that the delay 

in payment was unintentional. Petitions 

to accept unintentionally delayed 

payment must also be accompanied by 

the required maintenance fee and 

appropriate surcharge under 37 CFR 

1.20(i). If the Director accepts the 

maintenance fee payment upon petition, 

then the patent is reinstated. If the 

USPTO denies a petition to accept 

delayed payment of a maintenance fee 

in an expired patent, the patentee may 

petition the Director to reconsider that 

decision under 37 CFR 1.378(e). This 

petition must be accompanied by the fee 

indicated in 37 CFR 1.17(f), which may 

be refunded if it is determined that the 

refusal to accept the maintenance fee 

was due to an error by the USPTO. 

The rules of practice (37 CFR 1.33(d) 

and 1.363) permit applicants, patentees, 

assignees, or their representatives of 

record to specify a ‘‘fee address’’ for 

correspondence related to maintenance 

fees that is separate from the 

correspondence address associated with 

a patent or application. A fee address 

must be an address that is associated 

with a USPTO customer number. 

Customer numbers may be requested by 

using the Request for Customer Number 

form (PTO/SB/125), which is covered 

under OMB control number 0651–0035. 

Maintaining a correct and updated 

address is necessary so that fee-related 

correspondence from the USPTO will be 

properly received by the applicant, 

patentee, assignee, or authorized 

representative. If a separate fee address 

is not specified for a patent or 

application, the USPTO will direct feerelated correspondence to the 

correspondence address of record. 

The USPTO offers forms to assist the 

public with providing information 

covered by this collection, including the 

information necessary to submit a 

patent maintenance fee payment (PTO/ 

SB/45) and to designate or change a fee 

address (PTO/SB/47). The USPTO offers 

a total of three different versions of the 

form for petitions to accept 

unintentionally delayed payment of 

maintenance fee in an expired patent 

under 37 CFR 1.378(c). In addition to (i) 

the basic PDF that may be filled out 

electronically and then printed and 

mailed (or submitted online) (Form 

PTO/SB/66), the USPTO offers (ii) an 

enhanced PDF that is designed only to 

be submitted electronically through 

EFS-Web (PTO/SB/66—EFS-Web), and 

(iii) a Web-based ePetition, which the 

public can complete on a computer 

using a Web browser and then click a 

submit button to send the information to 

the USPTO over the Internet (ePetition). 

No forms are provided for the petitions 

under 37 CFR 1.377 and 1.378(e). 

Customers may submit maintenance 

fee payments and surcharges incurred 

during the six-month grace period 

before patent expiration by using the 

Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form 

(PTO/SB/45) or by paying online 

through the USPTO Web site. However, 

to pay a maintenance fee after patent 

expiration, the maintenance fee 

payment and the appropriate surcharge 

must be filed together with a petition to 

accept unintentionally delayed 

payment. The USPTO accepts online 

maintenance fee payments by credit 

card, deposit account, or electronic 

funds transfer (EFT). Otherwise, nonelectronic payments may be made by 

check, credit card, or deposit account. 

II. Method of Collection 

By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or 

electronically to the USPTO. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0651–0016. 

IC Instruments: The individual 

instruments in this collection, as well as 

their associated forms, are listed in the 

table below. 

IC number Form and function Form # 

1 .............................. Maintenance Fee Transmittal Form, electronic and paper ................................... PTO/SB/45 

2 .............................. Electronic Maintenance Fee Form, electronic ....................................................... No Form Associated 

3 .............................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an 

Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)), electronic and paper.

PTO/SB/66 

4 .............................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an 

Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c))—EFS-Web, electronic.

PTO/SB/66 

5 .............................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an 

Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c))—ePetition, electronic.

ePetition 

6 .............................. Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377), electronic and paper.No Form Associated 

7 .............................. Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed 

Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)), electronic and paper.

No Form Associated 

8 .............................. ‘‘Fee Address’’ Indication Form, electronic and paper .......................................... PTO/SB/47 

Type of Review: Regular 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

525,309 responses per year. The USPTO 

estimates that approximately 25% of 

these responses will be from small 

entities. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

USPTO estimates that it will take the 

public approximately 20 seconds (0.006 

hours) to 8 hours to submit the 

information in this collection, including 

the time to gather the necessary 

information, prepare the appropriate 

form or petition, and submit the 

completed request to the USPTO. The 

time per response, estimated annual 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 

responses, and estimated annual hour 

burden associated with each instrument 

in this information collection is shown 

in the table below. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

18,123.42 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden 

(Hourly): $3,263,347.08. The USPTO 

expects that the petitions included in 

this collection will be prepared by 

attorneys and that the other items in this 

collection will be prepared by 

paraprofessionals. Using the 

professional rate of $389 per hour for 

attorneys in private firms, the USPTO 

estimates that the respondent cost 

burden for attorneys submitting the 

petitions will total $1,470,420 per year. 

Using the paraprofessional rate of $125 

per hour, the USPTO estimates that the 

respondent cost burden for 

paraprofessionals submitting the other 

items in this collection will total 

$1,792,927.08 per year, for a total 

annual respondent cost burden of 

$3,263,347.08. 

IC No. Item/form No. Minutes Responses 

(yr) 

Burden 

(hrs/yr) 

Rate 

($/hr) 

Total cost 

($/yr) 

(a) (b) (c) (a x b)/60 (d) (e) (c x d) 

1 .................. Maintenance Fee Transmittal Transactions 

(PTO/SB/45).

5 37,434 3,119.5 $125.00 $389,937.50 

2 .................. Electronic Maintenance Fee Transactions 0.333 375,555 2,086.42 125.00 260,802.08 

3 .................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed 

Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/

SB/66).

60 1,000 1,000 389.00 389,000.00 

4 .................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed 

Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/

SB/66)—EFS-Web.

60 500 500 389.00 194,500.00 

5 .................. Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed 

Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)) (PTO/

SB/66)—ePetition.

60 1,000 1,000 389.00 389,000.00 

6 .................. Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377).240 20 80 389.00 31,120.00 

7 .................. Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on 

Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed 

Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(e)).

480 150 1,200 389.00 466,800.00 

8 .................. ‘‘Fee Address’’ Indication Form (PTO/SB/

47).

5 109,650 9,137.5 125.00 1,142,187.50 

Totals ... ..................................................................... ........................ 525,309 18,123.42 ........................ 3,263,347.08 

Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden 

(Non-Hourly): $3,801.42. This 

information collection has annual (nonhour) cost burden in the form of postage 

costs. 

The public may submit the forms and 

petitions in this collection to the 

USPTO by mail through the United 

States Postal Service. If the submission 

is sent by first-class mail, the public 

may also include a signed certification 

of the date of mailing in order to receive 

credit for timely filing. The USPTO 

estimates that the average first-class 

postage cost for a mailed submission 

will be 49 cents and that approximately 

7,758 submissions per year may be 

mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage 

cost of $3,801.42 per year. 

IC No. Item Responses Postage cost 

Total non-hour 

cost burden 

(postage) 

(a) (b) (c) (a x b) 

3 ................... Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in 

an Expired Patent (37 CFR 1.378(c)).

70 $0.49 $34.30 

6 ................... Petition to Review Refusal to Accept Payment of Maintenance Fee Prior to 

Expiration of Patent (37 CFR 1.377).

1 0.49 0.49 

7 ................... Petition for Reconsideration of Decision on Petition Refusing to Accept Delayed Payment of Maintenance Fee in an Expired Patent (37 CFR 

1.378(e)).

11 0.49 5.39 

8 ................... ‘‘Fee Address’’ Indication Form ......................................................................... 7,676 0.49 3,761.24 

Totals .... ............................................................................................................................ 7,758 ........................ 3,801.42 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11181 

The total (non-hour) respondent cost 

burden for this collection in the form of 

postage costs is estimated to be 

$3,801.42 per year. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they will also become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

Marcie Lovett, 

Records Management Division Director, 

USPTO, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04212 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 15–C0003] 

General Electric Company, Provisional 

Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement 

and Order 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the 

Commission to publish settlements 

which it provisionally accepts under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act in the 

Federal Register in accordance with the 

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published 

below is a provisionally-accepted 

Settlement Agreement with General 

Electric Company, containing a civil 

penalty of $3,500,000, within twenty 

(20) days of service of the Commission’s 

final Order accepting the Settlement 

Agreement. 

DATES: Any interested person may ask 

the Commission not to accept this 

agreement or otherwise comment on its 

contents by filing a written request with 

the Office of the Secretary by March 17, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to the 

Comment 15–C0003 Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer C. Argabright, Trial Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, Division 

of Compliance, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408; telephone (301) 504–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below. 

Dated: February 24, 2015. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: GENERAL ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, CPSC Docket No.: 15–C0003 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

1. In accordance with the Consumer 

Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051–2089 

(CPSA) and 16 CFR 1118.20, General Electric 

Company (‘‘GE’’ or ‘‘Firm’’), and the United 

States Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), through its staff, hereby 

enter into this Settlement Agreement 

(‘‘Agreement’’). The Agreement, and the 

incorporated attached Order, resolve staff’s 

charges set forth below. 

THE PARTIES 

2. The Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency, established 

pursuant to, and responsible for the 

enforcement of, the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051– 

2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is 

acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant 

to 16 CFR § 1118.20(b). The Commission 

issues the Order under the provisions of the 

CPSA. 

3. GE is a corporation, organized and 

existing under the laws of the state of New 

York, with its principal place of business in 

Fairfield, CT. GE Appliances (‘‘GEA’’ or ‘‘GE 

Appliances’’) is an unincorporated business 

unit of GE that is located in Louisville, KY. 

STAFF CHARGES 

GE RANGES 

4. Between June 2002 through December 

2004, GE imported into the United States 

approximately 28,000 dual fuel ranges (the 

Range). The Range was sold through 

department and appliance stores nationwide 

for approximately $1,300 to $2,000 between 

June 2002 and December 2005. 

5. The Range is a 30-inch wide GE Profile 

Dual Fuel Freestanding Range with an 

electric range with gas cooktop burners. The 

Range is a ‘‘consumer product’’ ‘‘distributed 

in commerce,’’ as those terms are defined or 

used in sections 3(a)(5), (8), and (11) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5), (8), and (11). At 

all relevant times, GE was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

of the Range, as such term is defined or used 

in sections 3(a)(11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2052(a)(11). 

6. The Range is defective because a 

connector in the wire harness at the rear of 

the Range can overheat, posing a fire and 

burn hazard to consumers. 

7. GE first received notice of a possible 

Range failure in 2003, when a consumer 

reported to GE that she had called the fire 

department because the Range had caught 

fire while it was pre-heating. A GE technician 

noted that the wiring had shorted out. By the 

end of 2004, GE received four more consumer 

complaints of fire or melted wires. In 2004, 

GE technicians examined several of the 

Ranges involved in the consumer complaints 

and confirmed that the wiring harness at the 

rear of the Range could overheat, causing a 

fire hazard. 

8. In December 2004, to reduce the risk of 

an overheated connector, GE redesigned the 

Range to remove the connectors in the wiring 

harness. By this time, GE had obtained 

sufficient information that reasonably 

supported the conclusion that the Range 

contained a defect or possible defect which 

could create a substantial product hazard or 

created an unreasonable risk of serious injury 

or death. GE was required to inform the 

Commission immediately of such defect or 

risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) 

of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b)(3) and (4). 

9. After the redesign of the Range, GE 

continued to receive reports from consumers 

of overheated wiring and fires that occurred 

in the back of the Range. 

10. Despite having information regarding 

the Range’s defect or risk, GE failed to inform 

the Commission immediately of such defect 

or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and 

(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2064(b)(3) and 

(4). 

11. GE did not file its Full Report with the 

Commission until February 25, 2009. GE 

recalled the Range on April 8, 2009. By that 

time, GE was aware of an additional eight 

reports of harness and wiring overheating in 

the back of the Range, including five in 

which the consumer reported that the unit or 

wiring caught fire. GE failed to update the 

Commission regarding these new incidents. 

GE DISHWASHERS 

12. Between July 2003 and December 2006, 

GE manufactured approximately 174,000 

stainless steel tub dishwashers (the 

Dishwasher). The Dishwasher was sold 

through department and appliance stores 

nationwide for approximately $750 to $1,400 

between July 2003 and October 2010. 

13. The Dishwasher was sold under brand 

name of GE Profile or GE Monogram. The 

Dishwasher is a ‘‘consumer product’’ 

‘‘distributed in commerce,’’ as those terms 

are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (8), 

and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5), 

(8), and (11). At all relevant times, GE was 

a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of the Dishwasher, as such 

term is defined or used in sections 3(a)(11) 

of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(11). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES