Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 65136-65137 [2020-22674]

Download as PDF 65136 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 14, 2020 / Notices hourly limits) and some recovery from lower demand in adjacent periods. Consistent with past practice at EWR, the FAA will accept flights above the limits if the flights were operated, or treated as operated, by the same carrier on a regular basis in the previous corresponding season (i.e., Summer 2020). Consistent with the WSG, carriers are asked for their voluntary cooperation to adjust schedules to meet the scheduling limits in order to minimize potential congestion and delay. New operations will be offered alternative times unless the period is below the FAA’s desired scheduling limits.7 Consistent with this approach, the FAA intends to offer alternative times in response to any new flights for the Summer 2021 scheduling season if operations are at or above the applicable scheduling limits. However, the FAA notes that there may be availability for ad hoc passenger and cargo operations due to temporary COVID–19-related service changes. EWR Assessment Status jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES As indicated in the EWR schedule submission notice for the Summer 2020 scheduling season, the FAA is assessing the impacts on performance of peak period reductions and other schedule changes, such as Southwest Airlines’ cessation of operations at EWR, as well as the impacts on competition, in close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.8 This assessment is ongoing; the FAA intends to publish additional information on the outcome of this assessment in the future. The sudden, drastic disruption caused by COVID–19 9 affects the analysis and the relevant long-term effects of operational, performance, and demand-related changes at EWR. Pending further study, the FAA does not at this time invite replacing or ‘‘backfilling’’ the peak morning and afternoon/evening operations that Southwest Airlines conducted during 7 See e.g., Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2019/2020 Scheduling Season, 84 FR 18630 at 18632 (May 1, 2019); Notice of Submission Deadline for the Summer 2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR 49155at 49156–49157 (Sep. 28, 2018); Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2018/2019 Scheduling Season, 83 FR 21335 at 21337–21338 (May 9, 2018); Notices of Submission Deadline for Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2020 Scheduling Season, 84 FR 52580 at 52581–52582 (Oct. 2, 2019); Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2020/2021 Scheduling Season, 85 FR 30001 at 30003 (May 19, 2020). 8 See Notice of Submission Deadline for Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2020 Scheduling Season, 84 FR at 52582. 9 For example, the FAA’s Operational Network (OPSNET) data shows total operations for April to September 2020 were 73.7% lower than the same period in 2019. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Oct 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 Winter 2018/2019 and Summer 2019, to the extent the new operations would exceed the current desired scheduling limits. There may be availability for ad hoc passenger and cargo operations due to temporary COVID–19-related service changes. Construction Updates The FAA is aware of preliminary plans by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) to reconstruct Runway 4R/22L at EWR. The FAA is closely monitoring the scope and timing of this project currently expected to start in Spring 2021 along with the impacts of other ongoing terminal and taxiway construction. The FAA plans to work with the PANYNJ and carriers to assess operational impacts and potential changes in delays and to develop mitigation strategies, as appropriate. In addition, construction projects are upcoming or underway at JFK, LAX, and ORD. For additional information, see https://www.faa.gov/about/office_ org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_ units/systemops/perf_analysis/sys_cap_ eval/. The construction plans for each of the airports is subject to change. The airport operators regularly meet with the FAA, airlines, and other stakeholders to review construction plans, identify operational or other issues, and develop mitigation strategies. Carriers interested in additional information on construction plans should contact the airport operator to obtain further details or information on stakeholder discussions. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 2020. Virginia T. Boyle, Acting Vice President, System Operations Services. [FR Doc. 2020–22756 Filed 10–9–20; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0095] Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. AGENCY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted on April 10, 2020, by Mr. Surjit Singh to NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 requests that the Agency investigate Model Year 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for alleged premature rear brake line corrosion failure. NHTSA opened Defect Petition DP20–004 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. After reviewing the information provided by the petitioner and available NHTSA complaint and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to pursue further action at this time. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frederick LaMance, Vehicle Defects Division—D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–366–9525). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated April 10, 2020, Mr. Singh (the petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the Agency investigate 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for alleged premature rear brake line corrosion failure. Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.1). 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 CFR 552.6). After conducting the technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint, allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect, and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation, the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 CFR 552.8. The petitioner alleges that his 2013 Mercedes E350 sedan with approximately 37,000 miles has a safety defect due to rusted brake lines. Mr. Singh stated that his vehicle was inspected by a Mercedes-Benz dealership and received an estimate of $3,300 to repair the rear brake lines. He attached supplemental information including photos of his vehicle’s rear brake lines, that had visible corrosion, as well as a service invoice from the brake line repair. He does not allege that his vehicle experienced brake line leakage or any effect on brake system performance before the corrosion concern was detected and repaired in a dealer inspection. E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 14, 2020 / Notices On April 24, 2020, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Defect Petition DP20–004 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. ODI conducted a search for all consumer complaints and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data related to allegations of brake line corrosion or leakage in 2013 MercedesBenz E350 sedans and similarly equipped vehicles. The 2013 E350 is a fourth-generation Mercedes-Benz EClass vehicle (W212 platform), which was first sold in the United States in 2009 as a 2010 model. Mercedes-Benz has sold approximately 245,000 model year 2010 through 2015 E-Class sedan and wagon vehicles in the United States with the same brake line design as the petitioner’s vehicle. The subject brake lines are routed along the left undercarriage and have a corrosion protection coating system consisting of a base layer of zinc and an outer coating of polyvinyl fluoride. The Mercedes-Benz maintenance plan for the subject vehicles recommends brake line inspection every 12 months or 10,000 miles to detect and repair corrosion damage before it compromises brake circuit integrity. While there is potential for brake line corrosion and leakage in older vehicles operated in States with high road salt use in winter months, the low complaint counts do not provide evidence that such failures are occurring prematurely in the subject platform or that the failures are having an impact on brake system performance. Specifically, ODI’s search for complaints and EWR data in 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles found no additional records related to the alleged defect. Expanding the search to all W212 platform vehicles identified just one incident, a complaint alleging unspecified brake line corrosion and leakage in a 2011 Mercedes-Benz E550 (NHTSA ID 10902081). The complaint did not allege that the brake line leakage resulted in reduced brake performance, crash, or injury. The resulting failure rate of 0.4 failures per hundred thousand vehicles is extremely low for a population that includes vehicles that have been in service for over ten years and does not include any allegations of reduced brake performance, crash, or injury. After reviewing the available data and evaluating the safety risk posed by the condition specified in the petition, ODI has not identified evidence of a defect trend in the subject E-Class vehicles that would support opening a defect investigation into premature brake line corrosion failure. Additionally, the brake system of the subject vehicles is a dual-circuit hydraulic system split front-to-rear. Brake line leakage resulting from VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Oct 13, 2020 Jkt 253001 undetected/unrepaired corrosion damage is not expected to result in diminished brake performance at the onset of a slow leak condition. Undetected brake fluid loss would first lead to brake warning lamp illumination from low brake fluid reservoir level. Continued operation with brake warning lamp illuminated could result in loss of rear brake function should the fluid loss continue until the rear circuit reservoir is empty.1 The subject vehicles would retain most of their braking capacity even after loss of the rear circuit, as the front circuit provides approximately 70 percent of the stopping force in the split front-to-rear design. After reviewing the available data and evaluating the safety risk posed by the condition cited in the petition, ODI has not identified evidence of a defect trend in the subject E-Class vehicles that would support opening a defect investigation into premature brake line corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 30118. Since the information currently before the Agency is not indicative of a defect trend, it is unlikely that any investigation opened after granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if warranted, or lessen the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the Agency may receive. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2020–22674 Filed 10–13–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. AGENCY: 1 Rear circuit loss may occur more rapidly if corrosion damage results in a more significant brake line rupture. PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ACTION: 65137 Notice. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC’s determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490, or; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Electronic Availability The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC’s website (www.treas.gov/ofac). Notice of OFAC Actions The Secretary of State has identified the following persons in a list submitted to the appropriate congressional committees pursuant to Executive Order ‘‘Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to the Conventional Arms Activities of Iran.’’ Accordingly, on September 21, 2020, the Director of OFAC, acting pursuant to delegated authority, has taken the actions described below to impose the sanctions set forth in Section 2 of this Executive Order with respect to the persons listed below. Individuals 1. MADURO MOROS, Nicolas (Latin: MADURO MOROS, Nicola´s), Caracas, Capital District, Venezuela; DOB 23 Nov 1962; POB Caracas, Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 5892464 (Venezuela); President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (individual) [VENEZUELA] [IRAN–CON–ARMS–E.O.]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13949 of September 21, 2020, 85 FR 60043 (E.O. 13949) for having engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to the supply, sale, or transfer to or from Iran directly or indirectly, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of arms or related materiel, including spare parts. 2. KETABACHI, Mehrdada Akhlaghi (a.k.a. KETABCHI, Merhdada Akhlaghi), c/o AIO, Langare Street, Nobonyad Square, Tehran, Iran; c/o SBIG, Tehran, Iran; DOB 10 Sep E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM 14OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65136-65137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0095]


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted on April 10, 2020, by Mr. Surjit Singh to NHTSA's 
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the 
Agency investigate Model Year 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for 
alleged premature rear brake line corrosion failure. NHTSA opened 
Defect Petition DP20-004 to evaluate the petitioner's request. After 
reviewing the information provided by the petitioner and available 
NHTSA complaint and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data, NHTSA has 
concluded that there is insufficient evidence to pursue further action 
at this time. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frederick LaMance, Vehicle Defects 
Division--D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-9525).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated April 10, 2020, Mr. Singh 
(the petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the Agency 
investigate 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for alleged premature rear 
brake line corrosion failure. Interested persons may petition NHTSA 
requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine 
whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not 
comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a 
defect that relates to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 
CFR 552.1). 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 CFR 552.6). After 
conducting the technical review and considering appropriate factors, 
which may include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint, 
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of 
uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect, 
and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation, 
the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 CFR 552.8.
    The petitioner alleges that his 2013 Mercedes E350 sedan with 
approximately 37,000 miles has a safety defect due to rusted brake 
lines. Mr. Singh stated that his vehicle was inspected by a Mercedes-
Benz dealership and received an estimate of $3,300 to repair the rear 
brake lines. He attached supplemental information including photos of 
his vehicle's rear brake lines, that had visible corrosion, as well as 
a service invoice from the brake line repair. He does not allege that 
his vehicle experienced brake line leakage or any effect on brake 
system performance before the corrosion concern was detected and 
repaired in a dealer inspection.

[[Page 65137]]

    On April 24, 2020, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) 
opened Defect Petition DP20-004 to evaluate the petitioner's request. 
ODI conducted a search for all consumer complaints and Early Warning 
Reporting (EWR) data related to allegations of brake line corrosion or 
leakage in 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 sedans and similarly equipped 
vehicles. The 2013 E350 is a fourth-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class 
vehicle (W212 platform), which was first sold in the United States in 
2009 as a 2010 model. Mercedes-Benz has sold approximately 245,000 
model year 2010 through 2015 E-Class sedan and wagon vehicles in the 
United States with the same brake line design as the petitioner's 
vehicle.
    The subject brake lines are routed along the left undercarriage and 
have a corrosion protection coating system consisting of a base layer 
of zinc and an outer coating of polyvinyl fluoride. The Mercedes-Benz 
maintenance plan for the subject vehicles recommends brake line 
inspection every 12 months or 10,000 miles to detect and repair 
corrosion damage before it compromises brake circuit integrity. While 
there is potential for brake line corrosion and leakage in older 
vehicles operated in States with high road salt use in winter months, 
the low complaint counts do not provide evidence that such failures are 
occurring prematurely in the subject platform or that the failures are 
having an impact on brake system performance.
    Specifically, ODI's search for complaints and EWR data in 2013 
Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles found no additional records related to the 
alleged defect. Expanding the search to all W212 platform vehicles 
identified just one incident, a complaint alleging unspecified brake 
line corrosion and leakage in a 2011 Mercedes-Benz E550 (NHTSA ID 
10902081). The complaint did not allege that the brake line leakage 
resulted in reduced brake performance, crash, or injury. The resulting 
failure rate of 0.4 failures per hundred thousand vehicles is extremely 
low for a population that includes vehicles that have been in service 
for over ten years and does not include any allegations of reduced 
brake performance, crash, or injury. After reviewing the available data 
and evaluating the safety risk posed by the condition specified in the 
petition, ODI has not identified evidence of a defect trend in the 
subject E-Class vehicles that would support opening a defect 
investigation into premature brake line corrosion failure.
    Additionally, the brake system of the subject vehicles is a dual-
circuit hydraulic system split front-to-rear. Brake line leakage 
resulting from undetected/unrepaired corrosion damage is not expected 
to result in diminished brake performance at the onset of a slow leak 
condition. Undetected brake fluid loss would first lead to brake 
warning lamp illumination from low brake fluid reservoir level. 
Continued operation with brake warning lamp illuminated could result in 
loss of rear brake function should the fluid loss continue until the 
rear circuit reservoir is empty.\1\ The subject vehicles would retain 
most of their braking capacity even after loss of the rear circuit, as 
the front circuit provides approximately 70 percent of the stopping 
force in the split front-to-rear design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rear circuit loss may occur more rapidly if corrosion damage 
results in a more significant brake line rupture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the available data and evaluating the safety risk 
posed by the condition cited in the petition, ODI has not identified 
evidence of a defect trend in the subject E-Class vehicles that would 
support opening a defect investigation into premature brake line 
corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring 
notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency's investigation shows 
a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle 
that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 
30118. Since the information currently before the Agency is not 
indicative of a defect trend, it is unlikely that any investigation 
opened after granting this petition would result in an order concerning 
the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon 
full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the 
potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this 
petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if 
warranted, or lessen the potential for a future finding that a safety-
related defect exists based upon additional information the Agency may 
receive.

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

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-22674 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P