Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC, Denial of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 2475-2478 [2024-00391]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices
ACTION:
Notice.
The Secretary of
Transportation, as represented by the
Maritime Administration (MARAD), is
authorized to issue coastwise
endorsement eligibility determinations
for foreign-built vessels which will carry
no more than twelve passengers for hire.
A request for such a determination has
been received by MARAD. By this
notice, MARAD seeks comments from
interested parties as to any effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. Information about the
requestor’s vessel, including a brief
description of the proposed service, is
listed below.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
February 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket Number
MARAD–2024–0003 by any one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Search
MARAD–2024–0003 and follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management Facility is in the West
Building, Ground Floor of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. The
Docket Management Facility location
address is U.S. Department of
Transportation, MARAD–2024–0003,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Room W12–140, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except on
Federal holidays.
SUMMARY:
Note: If you mail or hand-deliver your
comments, we recommend that you include
your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your
submission.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
specific docket number. All comments
received will be posted without change
to the docket at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments, or to submit
comments that are confidential in
nature, see the section entitled Public
Participation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W23–461,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–0903. Email:
patricia.hagerty@dot.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:38 Jan 12, 2024
As
described in the application, the
intended service of the vessel MAS
PURA VIDA is:
—Intended Commercial Use of Vessel:
Requester intends to use for charters.
—Geographic Region Including Base of
Operations: Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California,
Oregon, Washington. Base of
Operations: Montauk, NY.
—Vessel Length and Type: 72.3′ Motor
Yacht.
The complete application is available
for review identified in the DOT docket
as MARAD 2024–0003 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Interested parties
may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or
businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag
vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part
388, that the employment of the vessel
in the coastwise trade to carry no more
than 12 passengers will have an unduly
adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or
a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in
that business, MARAD will not issue an
approval of the vessel’s coastwise
endorsement eligibility. Comments
should refer to the vessel name, state the
commenter’s interest in the application,
and address the eligibility criteria given
in section 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR part 388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 262001
Public Participation
How do I submit comments?
2475
Will my comments be made available to
the public?
Yes. Be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, will be made
publicly available.
May I submit comments confidentially?
If you wish to submit comments
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit the information you
claim to be confidential commercial
information by email to SmallVessels@
dot.gov. Include in the email subject
heading ‘‘Contains Confidential
Commercial Information’’ or ‘‘Contains
CCI’’ and state in your submission, with
specificity, the basis for any such
confidential claim highlighting or
denoting the CCI portions. If possible,
please provide a summary of your
submission that can be made available
to the public.
In the event MARAD receives a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for the information, procedures
described in the Department’s FOIA
regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be
followed. Only information that is
ultimately determined to be confidential
under those procedures will be exempt
from disclosure under FOIA.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). For information on DOT’s
compliance with the Privacy Act, please
visit https://www.transportation.gov/
privacy.
Please submit your comments,
including the attachments, following the
instructions provided under the above
heading entitled ADDRESSES. Be advised
that it may take a few hours or even
days for your comment to be reflected
on the docket. In addition, your
comments must be written in English.
We encourage you to provide concise
comments and you may attach
additional documents as necessary.
There is no limit on the length of the
attachments.
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103,
46 U.S.C. 12121)
Where do I go to read public comments,
and find supporting information?
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0109 and
NHTSA–2018–0074; Notice 2]
Go to the docket online at https://
www.regulations.gov, keyword search
MARAD–2024–0003 or visit the Docket
Management Facility (see ADDRESSES for
hours of operation). We recommend that
you periodically check the Docket for
new submissions and supporting
material.
Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC,
Denial of Petitions for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–00539 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petitions.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
2476
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices
Consolidated Glass & Mirror,
LLC (CGM), a subsidiary of Guardian
Industries Corporation (Guardian), has
determined that certain laminated glass
parts do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 205, Glazing Materials. CGM filed
two separate noncompliance reports
dated December 14, 2018, and April 15,
2020, and petitioned NHTSA on
December 20, 2018 and May 23, 2018,
respectively, for decisions that the
subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces the denial of the petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack
Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366–0661, Jack.Chern@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket numbers ‘‘NHTSA–2018–
0109’’ and ‘‘NHTSA–2018–0074.’’
I. Overview
III. Noncompliance
Guardian explained that the
noncompliance is that the markings on
the subject laminated glass panes do not
fully meet the requirements specified in
paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205.
Specifically, the laminated windshields
shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant were
marked AS–2, when they should have
been marked AS–1, and the laminated
bus door windowpanes sold to Nova
Bus were marked AS–S, when they
should have been marked AS–2.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
CGM determined that certain
laminated glass parts do not fully
comply with paragraph S6 of FMVSS
No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR
571.205). On May 23, 2018, CGM
petitioned NHTSA for an exemption
from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301
on the basis that the 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, without
initially filing a noncompliance report.
NHTSA prompted CGM to file the
required noncompliance report and
Guardian, on behalf of CGM, did so on
April 15, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
Guardian, on behalf of CGM, also filed
a noncompliance report on December
14, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. CGM
petitioned NHTSA on December 20,
2018, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that
the 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.
Notice of receipt of CGM’s petitions
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on November 10,
2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
71712). No comments were received. To
view the petitions and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:38 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 223 laminated
windshields manufactured on March 8,
2018, and shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus
Plant for installation into Navistar buses
are potentially involved with the
noncompliance report dated December
14, 2018.
Approximately 1,390 bus door
windowpanes, manufactured between
November 1, 2017, and March 29, 2018,
are potentially involved with the
noncompliant report dated April 15,
2020. The windowpanes were sold to
Vapor Bus for use in the fabrication of
bus doors. Vapor Bus subsequently
shipped the bus doors to Nova Bus for
installation in their buses.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205
includes the requirements relevant to
these petitions. A manufacturer or
distributor who cuts a section of glazing
material, to which FMVSS No. 205
applies, for use in a motor vehicle or
camper, must correctly mark that
material in accordance with section 7 of
ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996.
V. Summary of CGM’s Petitions
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of CGM’s Petitions,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by CGM and do not
reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioner describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petitions, CGM
submits the following reasoning:
1. CGM explains that the laminated
glass parts are affixed with the Guardian
trademark, the correct DOT
manufacturer’s code mark that NHTSA
assigned to the manufacturer, and the
model number that was assigned by the
manufacturer of the safety glazing
material. The manufacturer can use the
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
model number to identify the type of
construction of the glazing material.
2. CGM claims that although the
laminated glass parts are affixed with
the misprinted AS numbers, the glass
construction from which the laminated
glass parts were fabricated is in full
compliance with the technical
requirements that 49 CFR 571.205 as it
currently applies to laminated glass for
use in a motor vehicle. CGM believes
the misprinted AS numbers do not
affect the safety of the laminated glass
parts.
3. Despite the misprinted AS numbers
being affixed to the laminated glass
parts, CGM states that the correct parts
were sold and shipped to Navistar and
Nova Bus for use as windscreens and
door windows.
4. CGM believes that the subject
noncompliance could not result in the
wrong part being used in an OEM
application, given that the part would
be ordered by its unique part number
and not the model number.
Furthermore, CGM says the parts are
also easily traceable back to Guardian
via their unique DOT manufacturer’s
code mark.
Guardian concluded by contending
that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petitions 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.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis
1. General Principles
Congress passed the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
(the Safety Act) with the express
purpose of reducing motor vehicle
accidents, deaths, injuries, and property
damage. 49 U.S.C. 30101. To this end,
the Safety Act empowers the Secretary
of Transportation to establish and
enforce mandatory FMVSS, pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has
delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49
CFR 1.95.
NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after
the Agency has determined that the
performance requirements are objective,
practicable, and meet the need for motor
vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
Thus, there is a general presumption
that the failure of a motor vehicle or
item of motor vehicle equipment to
comply with an FMVSS increases the
risk to motor vehicle safety beyond the
level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To
protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices
comply with an FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under
which they must notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of the
noncompliance and provide a free
remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120.
However, Congress has recognized that,
under some limited circumstances, a
noncompliance could be
‘‘inconsequential’’ to motor vehicle
safety. It, therefore, established a
procedure under which NHTSA may
consider whether it is appropriate to
exempt a manufacturer from its
notification and remedy (i.e., recall)
obligations. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h). The Agency’s regulations
governing the filing and consideration
of petitions for inconsequentiality
exemptions are set forth in 49 CFR part
556.
Under the Safety Act and part 556,
inconsequentiality exemptions may be
granted only in response to a petition
from a manufacturer, and then only after
notice in the Federal Register and an
opportunity for interested members of
the public to present information,
views, and arguments on the petition. In
addition to considering public
comments, the Agency will draw upon
its own understanding of safety-related
systems and its experience in deciding
the merits of a petition. An absence of
opposing argument and data from the
public does not require NHTSA to grant
a manufacturer’s petition.
Neither the Safety Act nor part 556
defines the term ‘‘inconsequential.’’ The
Agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular
petition. An important issue to consider
in determining inconsequentiality is the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise
protect.1 NHTSA also does not consider
the absence of complaints or injuries to
show that the issue is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. ‘‘Most importantly,
the absence of a complaint does not
mean there have not been any safety
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
1 See
Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR
35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had
no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect
on the proper operation of the occupant
classification system and the correct deployment of
an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013)
(finding occupant using noncompliant light source
would not be exposed to significantly greater risk
than occupant using similar compliant light
source).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:38 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
issues, nor does it mean that there will
not be safety issues in the future.’’ 2
2. NHTSA’s Response to the Petitioner’s
Arguments
The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to
reduce injuries resulting from impact to
glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary
degree of transparency in motor vehicle
windows for driver visibility, and to
minimize the possibility of occupants
being thrown through the vehicle
windows in collisions.
NHTSA has reviewed documentation
provided by Guardian, on which
Guardian bases its certification of the
affected laminated windshields and
laminated door windowpanes. This
documentation shows the product met
the safety performance requirements of
the standard based on the intended
design of the product. NHTSA also
analyzed whether the documentation
shows that the product met the safety
performance requirements of the
affected windshields and door
windowpanes based on how they are
labeled and used.
There is a safety-related purpose for
every required marking on motor
vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment. The Agency also has a longstanding position that an incorrect
marking reduces the safety
effectiveness. The required markings are
an assuring indication to the Agency
and to consumers, including
secondhand vehicle owners, that the
item of equipment is certified to the
applicable Federal requirements and
provides the required minimum level of
safety protection. See 49 CFR 571.205,
S6. The vehicle owners (including
firsthand and secondhand vehicle
owners) might go to the original vehicle
manufacturer and glazing supplier to
obtain replacement parts when the
affected glazing needs to be replaced.
However, it is also likely that many
vehicle owners will instead purchase
replacement parts from aftermarket
suppliers and rely on the marking
suggested on the glazing, which will
trigger safety-related concerns if the
vehicle owners replace the glazing
solely based on the incorrect marking
suggested on the glazing. The Agency
believes it is important to inform all
vehicle owners, including firsthand and
secondhand vehicle owners, what the
proper specifications are for
replacement products.
Guardian stated that the laminated
windshields shipped to IC Corp Tulsa
Bus Plant were marked as AS–2 when
2 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR
21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2477
they should have been marked as AS–
1. Because the affected windshield is
marked as AS–2, consumers might
replace the windshield according to the
suggested AS–2 marking. Importantly,
AS–2 laminated glazing is not permitted
to be installed as a vehicle windshield
because the test requirements for AS–2
are not as comprehensive as for AS–1.
For example, the test requirements for
certifying AS–1 laminated glazing
require additional tests relating to
deviation, distortion, and penetration
resistance of the glazing, which are not
required for certifying AS–2 laminated
glazing. Therefore, the potential
consequence to vehicle owners,
especially for secondhand vehicle
owners, to replace the windshield with
an AS–2 laminated glazing is high and
unsafe.
Guardian also stated that the
laminated bus door windowpanes sold
to Nova Bus were marked as AS–S when
they should have been marked as AS–
2. There is no ‘‘AS–S’’ marking as
specified in the FMVSS No. 205
standard. Vehicle owners, especially
secondhand vehicle owners, will be
confused as to which AS-marked
glazing they need as a replacement part
when they need to replace their
windowpane.
Moreover, it is highly possible for
consumers to mis-read the ‘‘AS–S’’
marking as an ‘‘AS–5’’ marking because
of the physical similarity of the printed
characters ‘‘S’’ and ‘‘5.’’ Replacing an
AS–2 windowpane with an AS–5
glazing is not permitted because AS–5
glazing should only be used for
installation in locations at levels not
requisite for driving visibility.
Conversely, an AS–2 marked glazing is
required in locations at levels requisite
for driving visibility. Consequently,
using an AS–5 glazing as a replacement
part poses a risk to motor vehicle safety
because it would impair the bus driver’s
ability to see clearly.
In summary, the petitioner’s
noncompliant markings are not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
due to the possibility that vehicle
owners may purchase incorrect and
unsafe replacement parts for their
vehicles.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Guardian has
not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance
in the affected vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Guardian’s petitions are
hereby denied, and Guardian is
consequently obligated to provide
notification of and free remedy for that
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
2478
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024–00391 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
[Docket ID Number: DOT–OST–2014–0031
BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice]
Agency Information Collection;
Activity Under OMB Review; Report of
Extension of Credit to Political
Candidates—Form 183
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST–R), Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics invites the
general public, industry and other
governmental parties to comment on the
continuing need and usefulness of BTS
collecting reports from air carriers on
the aggregated indebtedness balance of
a political candidate or party for Federal
office. The reports are required when
the aggregated indebtedness is over
$5,000 on the last day of a month.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by March 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket ID Number
DOT–OST–2014–0031 and the
associated OMB approval #2138–0016
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Services: U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202–366–3383.
Instructions: Identify docket number,
DOT–OST–2014–0031, at the beginning
of your comments, and send two copies.
To receive confirmation that DOT
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
00:38 Jan 12, 2024
Jkt 262001
received your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may access all comments received
by DOT at https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments are posted electronically
without charge or edits, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Gorham, Office of Airline Information,
RTS–42, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Street SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001,
(202) 366–4406.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Approval No. 2138–0016.
Title: Report of Extension of Credit to
Political Candidates—Form 183, 14 CFR
part 374a.
Form No.: 183.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Certificated air carriers.
Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly
Average).
Number of Responses: 24.
Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.
Total Annual Burden: 24 hours.
Needs and Uses: The Department uses
this form as the means to fulfill its
obligation under the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (the Act). The
Act’s legislative history indicates that
one of its statutory goals is to prevent
candidates for Federal political office
from incurring large amounts of
unsecured debt with regulated
transportation companies (e.g., airlines).
This information collection allows the
Department to monitor and disclose the
amount of unsecured credit extended by
airlines to candidates for Federal office.
All certificated air carriers are required
to submit this information.
The Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act
of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires
a statistical agency to clearly identify
information it collects for non-statistical
purposes. BTS hereby notifies the
respondents and the public that BTS
uses the information it collects under
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to,
publication of both Respondent’s
identity and its data, submission of the
information to agencies outside BTS for
review, analysis and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative
matters.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9,
2024.
William Chadwick, Jr.,
Director, Office of Airline Information,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2024–00566 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
[Docket ID Number: DOT–OST–2014–0031
BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice]
Agency Information Collection;
Activity Under OMB Review;
Submission of Audit Reports—Part 248
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology
(OST–R), Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
invites the general public, industry and
other governmental parties to comment
on the continuing need for and
usefulness of BTS requiring U.S. large
certificated air carriers to submit a true
and complete copy of its annual audit
that is made by an independent public
accountant. If a carrier does not have an
annual audit, the carrier must file a
statement that no audit has been
performed. Comments are requested
concerning whether the audit reports
are needed by BTS and DOT; BTS
accurately estimated the reporting
burden; there are other ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collected; and there are
ways to minimize reporting burden,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by March 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket ID Number
DOT–OST–2014–0031 and the
associated OMB approval #2138–0004
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2475-2478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00391]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0109 and NHTSA-2018-0074; Notice 2]
Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC, Denial of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2476]]
SUMMARY: Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC (CGM), a subsidiary of
Guardian Industries Corporation (Guardian), has determined that certain
laminated glass parts do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. CGM filed two
separate noncompliance reports dated December 14, 2018, and April 15,
2020, and petitioned NHTSA on December 20, 2018 and May 23, 2018,
respectively, for decisions that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the denial of the petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-0661, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
CGM determined that certain laminated glass parts do not fully
comply with paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR
571.205). On May 23, 2018, CGM petitioned NHTSA for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on
the basis that the 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,
without initially filing a noncompliance report. NHTSA prompted CGM to
file the required noncompliance report and Guardian, on behalf of CGM,
did so on April 15, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Guardian, on behalf of CGM, also filed a noncompliance report on
December 14, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. CGM petitioned NHTSA on
December 20, 2018, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that the
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.
Notice of receipt of CGM's petitions was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 10, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 71712). No comments were received. To view the petitions and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket numbers ``NHTSA-2018-0109'' and
``NHTSA-2018-0074.''
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 223 laminated windshields manufactured on March 8,
2018, and shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant for installation into
Navistar buses are potentially involved with the noncompliance report
dated December 14, 2018.
Approximately 1,390 bus door windowpanes, manufactured between
November 1, 2017, and March 29, 2018, are potentially involved with the
noncompliant report dated April 15, 2020. The windowpanes were sold to
Vapor Bus for use in the fabrication of bus doors. Vapor Bus
subsequently shipped the bus doors to Nova Bus for installation in
their buses.
III. Noncompliance
Guardian explained that the noncompliance is that the markings on
the subject laminated glass panes do not fully meet the requirements
specified in paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the laminated
windshields shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant were marked AS-2, when
they should have been marked AS-1, and the laminated bus door
windowpanes sold to Nova Bus were marked AS-S, when they should have
been marked AS-2.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements relevant to
these petitions. A manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of
glazing material, to which FMVSS No. 205 applies, for use in a motor
vehicle or camper, must correctly mark that material in accordance with
section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996.
V. Summary of CGM's Petitions
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of CGM's Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by
CGM and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The petitioner
describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petitions, CGM submits the following reasoning:
1. CGM explains that the laminated glass parts are affixed with the
Guardian trademark, the correct DOT manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA
assigned to the manufacturer, and the model number that was assigned by
the manufacturer of the safety glazing material. The manufacturer can
use the model number to identify the type of construction of the
glazing material.
2. CGM claims that although the laminated glass parts are affixed
with the misprinted AS numbers, the glass construction from which the
laminated glass parts were fabricated is in full compliance with the
technical requirements that 49 CFR 571.205 as it currently applies to
laminated glass for use in a motor vehicle. CGM believes the misprinted
AS numbers do not affect the safety of the laminated glass parts.
3. Despite the misprinted AS numbers being affixed to the laminated
glass parts, CGM states that the correct parts were sold and shipped to
Navistar and Nova Bus for use as windscreens and door windows.
4. CGM believes that the subject noncompliance could not result in
the wrong part being used in an OEM application, given that the part
would be ordered by its unique part number and not the model number.
Furthermore, CGM says the parts are also easily traceable back to
Guardian via their unique DOT manufacturer's code mark.
Guardian concluded by contending that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petitions 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
1. General Principles
Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (the Safety Act) with the express purpose of reducing motor
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. 49 U.S.C.
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory FMVSS, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49
CFR 1.95.
NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after the Agency has determined that the
performance requirements are objective, practicable, and meet the need
for motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with an FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to
[[Page 2477]]
comply with an FMVSS are normally required to conduct a safety recall
under which they must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the
noncompliance and provide a free remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.
However, Congress has recognized that, under some limited
circumstances, a noncompliance could be ``inconsequential'' to motor
vehicle safety. It, therefore, established a procedure under which
NHTSA may consider whether it is appropriate to exempt a manufacturer
from its notification and remedy (i.e., recall) obligations. 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h). The Agency's regulations governing the filing
and consideration of petitions for inconsequentiality exemptions are
set forth in 49 CFR part 556.
Under the Safety Act and part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and
then only after notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
interested members of the public to present information, views, and
arguments on the petition. In addition to considering public comments,
the Agency will draw upon its own understanding of safety-related
systems and its experience in deciding the merits of a petition. An
absence of opposing argument and data from the public does not require
NHTSA to grant a manufacturer's petition.
Neither the Safety Act nor part 556 defines the term
``inconsequential.'' The Agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. An important issue
to consider in determining inconsequentiality is the safety risk to
individuals who experience the type of event against which the recall
would otherwise protect.\1\ NHTSA also does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries to show that the issue is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a complaint
does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does it mean
that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\2\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NHTSA's Response to the Petitioner's Arguments
The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to reduce injuries resulting from
impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of
transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to
minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle
windows in collisions.
NHTSA has reviewed documentation provided by Guardian, on which
Guardian bases its certification of the affected laminated windshields
and laminated door windowpanes. This documentation shows the product
met the safety performance requirements of the standard based on the
intended design of the product. NHTSA also analyzed whether the
documentation shows that the product met the safety performance
requirements of the affected windshields and door windowpanes based on
how they are labeled and used.
There is a safety-related purpose for every required marking on
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The Agency also has
a long-standing position that an incorrect marking reduces the safety
effectiveness. The required markings are an assuring indication to the
Agency and to consumers, including secondhand vehicle owners, that the
item of equipment is certified to the applicable Federal requirements
and provides the required minimum level of safety protection. See 49
CFR 571.205, S6. The vehicle owners (including firsthand and secondhand
vehicle owners) might go to the original vehicle manufacturer and
glazing supplier to obtain replacement parts when the affected glazing
needs to be replaced. However, it is also likely that many vehicle
owners will instead purchase replacement parts from aftermarket
suppliers and rely on the marking suggested on the glazing, which will
trigger safety-related concerns if the vehicle owners replace the
glazing solely based on the incorrect marking suggested on the glazing.
The Agency believes it is important to inform all vehicle owners,
including firsthand and secondhand vehicle owners, what the proper
specifications are for replacement products.
Guardian stated that the laminated windshields shipped to IC Corp
Tulsa Bus Plant were marked as AS-2 when they should have been marked
as AS-1. Because the affected windshield is marked as AS-2, consumers
might replace the windshield according to the suggested AS-2 marking.
Importantly, AS-2 laminated glazing is not permitted to be installed as
a vehicle windshield because the test requirements for AS-2 are not as
comprehensive as for AS-1. For example, the test requirements for
certifying AS-1 laminated glazing require additional tests relating to
deviation, distortion, and penetration resistance of the glazing, which
are not required for certifying AS-2 laminated glazing. Therefore, the
potential consequence to vehicle owners, especially for secondhand
vehicle owners, to replace the windshield with an AS-2 laminated
glazing is high and unsafe.
Guardian also stated that the laminated bus door windowpanes sold
to Nova Bus were marked as AS-S when they should have been marked as
AS-2. There is no ``AS-S'' marking as specified in the FMVSS No. 205
standard. Vehicle owners, especially secondhand vehicle owners, will be
confused as to which AS-marked glazing they need as a replacement part
when they need to replace their windowpane.
Moreover, it is highly possible for consumers to mis-read the ``AS-
S'' marking as an ``AS-5'' marking because of the physical similarity
of the printed characters ``S'' and ``5.'' Replacing an AS-2 windowpane
with an AS-5 glazing is not permitted because AS-5 glazing should only
be used for installation in locations at levels not requisite for
driving visibility. Conversely, an AS-2 marked glazing is required in
locations at levels requisite for driving visibility. Consequently,
using an AS-5 glazing as a replacement part poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety because it would impair the bus driver's ability to see
clearly.
In summary, the petitioner's noncompliant markings are not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety due to the possibility that
vehicle owners may purchase incorrect and unsafe replacement parts for
their vehicles.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Guardian
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 205
noncompliance in the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Guardian's petitions are hereby denied,
and Guardian is consequently obligated to provide notification of and
free remedy for that
[[Page 2478]]
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-00391 Filed 1-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P