Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 65136-65137 [2020-22674]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
