Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 22019 

replacement for a permanent discrete 

size label since the removable comfort 

liner (headliner) is made to be 

exchanged for a new liner that may not 

contain a size label (or may have an 

incorrect size label), and expecting a 

consumer to rely on the original 

packaging is unrealistic since product 

packaging is often discarded. 

Arai refers to a petition related to a 

noncompliance that resulted from a 

goggle strap potentially obscuring the 

DOT label of a motorcycle helmet and 

that NHTSA agreed that the 

noncompliance was inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. See 79 FR 47720. 

NHTSA responds that the agency 

determines whether a particular 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety based on the 

specific facts of each case. NHTSA does 

not agree that this petition supports 

granting Arai’s petition because the 

goggle strap petition does not seem 

related. For example, (1) the 

noncompliance in the case referenced 

by Arai resulted from a goggle strap 

potentially obscuring the DOT symbol 

which is completely unrelated to a 

discrete size label; (2) the issue of 

permanency was not examined; and (3) 

the purposes of the DOT symbol are 

significantly different than the purposes 

for discrete size labels. NHTSA is not 

persuaded to grant the Arai petition 

based on facts concerning the goggle 

strap petition (79 FR 47720). 

However, Arai states, and NHTSA 

agrees, that the discrete label on the 

helmet tested by NHTSA permitted the 

agency to select the correct headform 

and that the Arai Corsair-X helmet 

samples tested by NHTSA met the 

performance standards under FMVSS 

No. 218. In this instance, NHTSA agrees 

the discrete size label non-permanency 

did not affect the helmet’s ability to be 

tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 

218. 

The key issue in determining 

inconsequentiality is whether the 

noncompliance in question is likely to 

increase the safety risk to the individual 

persons who experience the type of 

injurious event against which the 

standard is designed to protect. 

In response to Arai’s statement that 

NHTSA tested the subject Arai Helmet 

under FMVSS No. 218, and that the 

testing ‘‘demonstrated that these 

helmets meet the performance 

standards,’’ NHTSA is clarifying that 

testing performed on behalf of NHTSA 

is neither sufficient nor intended to 

ensure that the item tested, nor similar 

products, meet or exceed FMVSS. The 

burden to certify products and ensure 

every product manufactured and 

imported into the United States meets or 

exceeds all applicable FMVSS, falls 

squarely on the manufacturer. Arai has 

provided NHTSA with its basis for 

certification of the Arai Corsai-X 

motorcycle helmet. 

In this specific case, the subject 

helmets are labeled with a unique serial 

number which helps satisfy the safety 

need associated with the discrete size 

being permanent. In addition to 

certifying its helmets to FMVSS No. 

218, Arai also certifies its helmets 

through the Snell Foundation. Every 

Arai helmet is permanently labeled with 

a unique serialized number on a Snell 

label, which is cross-referenced to the 

helmet model, the date of manufacture, 

the outer shell size, the corresponding 

fit of the helmet, and the distributor to 

whom Arai sold the helmet. Arai stated 

that in the event of a recall, it would 

direct consumers to the Snell label to 

determine whether a specific helmet 

was subject to the recall. 

Therefore, in this specific instance, 

NHTSA agrees that, because the helmet 

was labeled with the discrete size and 

had additional permanent labeling, the 

safety needs of consumers would be met 

despite the discrete size label not being 

permanent. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Arai has met its 

burden of persuasion that the FMVSS 

No. 218 noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, Arai’s 

petition is hereby granted, and Arai is 

exempted from the obligation to provide 

notification of and remedy for the 

subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

equipment that Arai no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

the granting of this petition does not 

relieve equipment distributors and 

dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 

offer for sale, or introduction or delivery 

for introduction into interstate 

commerce of the noncompliant 

equipment under their control after Arai 

notified them that the subject 

noncompliance existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Otto G. Matheke III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07824 Filed 4–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

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

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North 

America, LLC, (DTNA) has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2020–2021 

Freightliner Cascadia heavy motor 

vehicles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

DTNA filed a noncompliance report 

dated May 12, 2020, and amended the 

report on December 23, 2021. DTNA 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

June 4, 2020, and later amended its 

petition on July 22, 2020, and January 

19, 2022, for a decision that the subject 

noncompliances are inconsequential as 

it relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces receipt of DTNA’s 

petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

May 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

holidays. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
22020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

DTNA has determined that certain 

MY 2020–2021 Freightliner Cascadia 

heavy motor vehicles do not fully 

comply with the requirements of 

paragraph S6.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 108, 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment (49 CFR 

571.108). DTNA filed a noncompliance 

report dated May 12, 2020, and 

amended the report on December 23, 

2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. DTNA 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

June 4, 2020, and later amended its 

petition on July 22, 2020, and January 

19, 2022, for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 

Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

This notice of receipt of DTNA’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any Agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Trucks Involved 

Approximately 24,282 MY 2020–2021 

Freightliner Cascadia heavy motor 

vehicles manufactured between January 

16, 2019, and March 27, 2020, are 

potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

DTNA explains that the first 

noncompliance is that during an 

Advanced Brake Assist (ABA) event, the 

hazard warning signal in the subject 

vehicles, does not meet the flash rate 

required by paragraph S6.1.5.1 of 

FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, during an 

emergency braking (EB) stage of ABA 

events and if the vehicle is being 

operated at 20 kilometers per hour (km/ 

h) (12 miles per hour (MPH)) or more, 

the hazard warning signal lights are 

actuated at a flash rate of 140 flashes per 

minute when the flash rate should be 

between 60 and 120 flashes per minute. 

In addition to the flash rate 

noncompliance, DTNA says that in 

specific operating circumstances, where 

the truck has progressed to the third and 

final phase of an ABA event, the system 

automatically activates the hazard 

warning lamps contrary to the definition 

of the vehicular hazard warning signal 

operating unit which states it is a driver 

controlled device. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraphs S4, S6.1.5.1, S9.6.2, 

S14.9.3.9.3, and Figure 2 of FMVSS No. 

108 include the requirements relevant to 

this petition. Paragraph S4 defines the 

vehicular hazard warning signal 

operating unit as a driver-controlled 

device which causes all required turn 

signal lamps to flash simultaneously to 

indicate to approaching drivers the 

presence of a vehicular hazard. 

Paragraph S.6.1.5.1 requires that in all 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, and buses, the 

activation of the vehicular hazard 

warning signal operating unit must 

cause to flash simultaneously sufficient 

turn signal lamps to meet, as a 

minimum, the turn signal photometric 

requirements of this standard. Paragraph 

S9.6.2 requires that the vehicular hazard 

warning signal operating unit must 

operate independently of the ignition or 

equivalent switch and if the actuation of 

the hazard function requires the 

operation of more than one switch, a 

means must be provided for actuating 

all switches simultaneously by a single 

driver action. Paragraph S14.9.3.9.3 

requires that the flash rate and percent 

current ‘‘on’’ time test for at least 17 of 

20 samples comply with the following: 

(a) The performance of a normally 

closed type flasher must be within the 

unshaded portion of the polygon shown 

in Figure 2, or (b) The performance of 

a normally open type flasher must be 

within the entire rectangle including the 

shaded areas shown in Figure 2. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 22021 

1 Details of DTNA’s ABA development can be 

found in its petition at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/NHTSA-2020-0063-0002. 

2 DTNA cites Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and 

Near-Crashes in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving 

Study to Support Rear-Signaling Countermeasure 

Development. DOT HS 810 846 (October 2007). 

3See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 2001). 

4See General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 

7847 (February 22, 2018) and General Motors, LLC, 

Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013). 5See Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant 

of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 84 FR 8151 (March 6, 2019), 

Maserati S.p.A and Maserati North America, Inc., 

Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 1676 (January 13, 2016), and 

General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application 

for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 

FR 56734 (November 4, 1996). 

V. Summary of DTNA’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of DTNA’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by DTNA. They 

have not been evaluated by the Agency 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. DTNA described the subject 

noncompliances and stated its belief 

that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

DTNA explains the three phases of an 

ABA event as follows: First, there is the 

Optic Acoustic Warning (OAW), the 

Warn (Haptic) Braking (WB/HB), and 

then the EB. The first phase, OAW, 

‘‘warns the operator of a possible 

collision with a pop-up and audio alert 

only,’’ and will move into the second 

phase, ‘‘if the driver does not apply 

sufficient deceleration by applying 

service brakes.’’ The WB/HB ‘‘applies 50 

percent deceleration to the vehicle in 

order to assist the driver in mitigating a 

possible collision.’’ Then, DTNA states, 

‘‘[i]f the system deems it necessary’’ it 

will start the EB phase (third phase) 

which would apply ‘‘maximum braking 

force to assist the driver in bringing the 

truck to a complete halt.’’ DTNA states 

that only during this third phase would 

‘‘the warning system in question 

engage.’’ 

DTNA provides background 

information, detailing the development 

of its ABA system 1 and states that its 

findings show ‘‘that an EB event is an 

extremely rare scenario that is visible 

only for a short period of time in only 

the rarest of extreme braking events.’’ 

According to DTNA, the data ‘‘conveys 

that an EB event has an extremely short 

occurrence with a negligible reaction 

time to notice the change in hazard 

warning signal flash rate.’’ Further 

according to DTNA, the average EB 

event lasts ‘‘less than 1 second’’ and of 

‘‘millions of miles of recorded data’’ the 

maximum EB event observed lasted 

‘‘less than 3 seconds.’’ Specific to the 

noncompliant flash rate, DTNA says this 

data supports their assertion that ‘‘the 

number of blink cycles between the 

maximum permissible flash rate and 

emergency braking flash rate on the 

subject vehicles is minimal.’’ 

DTNA contends that ‘‘[t]he flashing 

warning provides other vehicles with a 

safe indication of the aggressiveness of 

the braking.’’ DTNA claims that NHTSA 

has found that ‘‘flashing warning under 

certain extreme braking events may be 

regarded as a safer indicator for rear 

signaling.’’ 2 DTNA also notes that the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration ‘‘has granted an 

approval’’ for hazmat hauler tanker 

trucks to use amber brake activated 

lights, following a 30-month study by 

Groendyke Transportation which found 

that a ‘‘pulsating amber brake light 

reduced rear-end collisions by roughly 

34%.’’ 

Further, DTNA states that NHTSA has 

previously granted petitions for 

noncompliances similar to the 

noncompliant flash rate 3 where those 

noncompliances only occur ‘‘under 

specific and rare conditions,’’ 4 and 

‘‘were granted for short duration of 

occurrence’’ 5

DTNA states that it ‘‘is not aware of 

any accidents, injuries, owner 

complaints or field reports’’ in relation 

to the subject noncompliances. 

On September 13, 2022, NHTSA 

contacted DTNA to further explain and 

discuss the automatic activation of the 

hazard warning lamps. DTNA clarified 

that ‘‘based on analysis of prior agency 

interpretations,’’ it believes that the 

‘‘limited technical parameters and 

operating conditions under which the 

hazard warning lamps would activate,’’ 

does not constitute a noncompliance 

with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA informed 

DTNA that the prior interpretations did 

not support DTNA’s position because 

the subject vehicles ‘‘have not come to 

a complete stop at the time the hazard 

warning lamps activate.’’ As a result, 

DTNA amended its original petition to 

include the automatic activation of the 

hazard warning lamps as a 

noncompliance. 

DTNA believes that this 

noncompliance is also inconsequential 

because the ‘‘limited context in which 

the hazard lamps automatically activate 

ensure the message which the hazard 

warning lamps is communicating is 

clear and does not confuse other drivers 

about the meaning of the lamps.’’ DTNA 

again explains the phases of its ABA 

system and says that if the driver does 

not disengage the ABA system, it ‘‘will 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN13AP22.000</GPH>
22022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 

6https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289- 

gm-hazard-innovative-28-apr-16-rsy. 

7See SAE J910, Jan. 1966; see also Letter to Sen. 

Richard Lugar (May 9, 2000). 

apply the maximum braking force’’ and 

cause the vehicle to come to a complete 

stop. When the emergency braking is 

activated in this phase while the subject 

vehicle is traveling at 20 mph or more 

‘‘the hazard warning lamps are 

automatically activated and flash at a 

rate of 140 Hz.’’ Therefore, DTNA says, 

the automatic activation of the hazard 

warning lamps would not occur ‘‘in stop 

and go traffic.’’ DTNA also notes that 

after the subject vehicle ‘‘comes to a 

complete stop, the hazard lamps revert 

to a standard flash rate’’ and 

‘‘throughout the ABA event, the hazard 

warning signal operating unit can be 

manually engaged by the driver.’’ 

DTNA then contends that the 

automatic activation of the hazard 

warning lamps is consistent with prior 

NHTSA interpretations in which it says, 

‘‘the agency has found automatic 

activation of the hazard warning signal 

operating unit to be appropriate in 

certain circumstances.’’ DTNA claims 

that the November 18, 2016, 

interpretation letter to General Motors 6

supports its view. In that interpretation 

letter, DTNA says that NHTSA 

‘‘concluded that in the context of an 

adaptive cruise control system, the 

automatic activation of the hazard 

warning lamps was consistent with 

FMVSS 108 if the human driver failed 

to respond to the system’s requests to 

regain control of the vehicle.’’ DTNA 

argues that the automatic activation of 

the hazard warning lamps in the subject 

vehicles is consistent with the condition 

found in the interpretation letter to 

General Motors. Id. 

DTNA claims that the automatic 

activation of the hazard warning lamps 

‘‘is consistent with the type of message 

the hazard lamps are intended to 

convey’’ and consistent with other 

NHTSA precedents.7

DTNA concludes by expressing its 

belief that the subject noncompliances 

are inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that DTNA no 

longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on this 

petition does not relieve vehicle 

distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after DTNA notified them that 

the subject noncompliances existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Otto G. Matheke III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07825 Filed 4–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0095; Notice 1] 

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the 

Americas, LLC, (CTA) has determined 

that certain Continental motorcycle tires 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 

4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), 

Specialty Tires, and Tires for 

Motorcycles. CTA filed a 

noncompliance report dated December 

2, 2021, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on December 22, 2021, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

receipt of CTA’s petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

May 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1