82 FR 46346 - Gillig, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 191 (October 4, 2017)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 191 (October 4, 2017)
| Page Range | 46346-46349 | |
| FR Document | 2017-21257 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 46346-46349] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-21257] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0021; Notice 1] Gillig, 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: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has determined that certain model year (MY) 1997-2016 Gillig low floor buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated February 24, 2017. Gillig also petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2017, and amended it on May 10, 2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is November 3, 2017. 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 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 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 Federal Holidays. Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site 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 dockets. 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: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has determined that certain model year (MY) 1997-2016 Gillig low floor buses do not fully comply with paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated February 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Gillig also petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2017, and amended it on May 10, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 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. This notice of receipt of Gillig'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. Buses Involved: Approximately 41,714 MY 1997-2016 Gillig low floor buses, manufactured between December 31, 1997, and February 3, 2017, are potentially involved. III. Noncompliance: Gillig stated that it installed six different generations of turn signal assemblies in the subject buses; however, after receiving two complaints that their Generation 7 turn signal assemblies were not sufficiently visible, Gillig and the turn signal manufacturer went back and tested the previous generations to see if they met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Test results for generations 1 through 6 of the turn signal assemblies showed that they do not meet all the minimum photometry requirements of paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. [[Page 46347]] IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, states, in pertinent part: S7.1.1.13 Photometry S7.1.1.13.1 When tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1, each front turn signal lamp must be designed to conform to the base photometry requirements plus any applicable multipliers as shown in Tables VI-a and VI-b for the number of lamp compartments or individual lamps and the type of vehicle it is installed on. V. Summary of Gillig's Petition: Gillig described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of its petition, Gillig submitted the following reasoning: 1. Analysis: For front turn signals, the FMVSS No. 108 photometry requirements provide that ``when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1, each front turn signal lamp must be designed to conform to the base photometry requirements plus any applicable multipliers \1\ for the number of lamp compartments or individual lamps and the type of vehicle it is installed on.'' See FMVSS No. 108, S7.1.1.13.1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ All of the designs of the turn signal assemblies employ a reflector. Since the spacing from the geometric centroid of the turn signal to the lighted edge of the lower beam of the headlamp is greater than 100 mm, a multiplier is not applicable. (FMVSS No. 108, S7.1.1.10.3, S7.1.1.10.4(a)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A front turn signal lamp meets the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108 if it: (1) Meets the minimum photometric intensity (``PI'') requirement in each of the five test groups, (2) none of the values for the individual test points are less than 60% of its own minimum PI value, and (3) the minimum PI value between test points is not less than the lower specified minimum value of the two closest adjacent test points on a horizontal or vertical line. Stated another way, an individual test point may be up to 40% below its minimum PI value as long as the group in which it is contained achieves the overall group minimum PI value. Based on this approach, even if the turn signal did not meet the minimum photometry requirements at multiple individual test points, the assembly complies with the standard as long as the overall light intensity of all the test points included within the group does not fall below the required minimum value of the group. (See 61 FR 1663; January 23, 1996) (``The photometric requirements for turn signal lamps may be met at zones or groups of test points, instead of at individual test points.'') Gillig, in concert with Hamsar Diversco (Hamsar), its lighting supplier, conducted a series of compliance testing for Generations 1 to 6. In order to accurately execute the testing, Hamsar used CAD drawings of the Gillig Low-Floor to construct an aluminum test stand fixture. The test stand precisely matched the orientation and angle at which the turn signal would have been installed on a Gillig Low-Floor bus. Hamsar then conducted a series of tests measuring the PI output using samples of each of the available generations of turn signals. A summary of test data shows: (a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest generations), the assemblies meet the minimum photometric intensity (PI) requirements for 3 of 5 groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual test points. The turn signal's overall PI output of 1271 candelas is approximately 25% below the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements of 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 3 turn signals of 2506 candelas is 47% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ In addition, the integrated side markers for Generation 3 turn signals were tested and meet all photometric requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements for 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 4 turn signals of 2120 candelas is 24% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI 8 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 5 turn signals of 1403 candelas is only 18% below the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 6, the assemblies also meet the minimum photometric intensity for 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum photometric intensity for 12 of 19 individual test points. The overall photometric intensity output for Generation 6 turn signals of 4201 candelas is 146% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). Gillig states that for the test groups in each generation that meets the PI requirements, the values for those groups well exceed the minimum values for the group. The PI output for groups exceeding the minimum values in Generations 1 and 2 achieve 119%-242% of minimum values. The PI output for Generation 3 turn signals achieve 105%-575% of minimum values. The PI output for Generation 4 turn signals achieve 109%-386% of minimum values. The PI output for Generation 5 turn signals achieve 224%-267% of minimum values. Finally, the PI output for Generation 6 turn signals achieve 114%-1022% of minimum values. Gillig further contends that the turn signals are sufficiently bright and visible overall and there is little if any perceptible difference in light output when compared with a compliant turn signal. The comparisons also illustrate how visually similar the performance of the earlier generations of the assemblies are to the FMVSS No. 108 standard, and why their noncompliance garnered no attention, by Gillig or its customers, in over twenty years of production. 2. NHTSA has Previously Granted Petitions Where Lighting Equipment Did Not Meet the Photometry Requirements: Gillig contends that from its inception, the Safety Act has included a provision recognizing that some noncompliances pose little or no safety risk. In applying this recognition to particular fact situations, the agency considers whether the noncompliance gives rise to ``a significantly greater risk than . . . in a compliant vehicle.'' See 69 FR 19897-19900 (April 14, 2000). Relying on this same principle, Gillig contends that despite the technical noncompliance with the PI requirements, the light output in Generation 1-6 turn signals is sufficiently bright and does not create a greater risk than turn signal assemblies that fully meet the photometric parameters. Gillig states that NHTSA has considered deviations from these photometric parameters on numerous occasions, frequently finding that there is no need for a recall remedy campaign when there are other factors contributing to the overall brightness of the equipment. For example, the agency granted a petition by General Motors \3\ where its turn signals met the photometry requirements in 3 of 4 test groups and produced, on average, 90% of the required PI output. For the three complying groups of turn signals, the assemblies exceeded the light intensity requirements by at least 20%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 61 FR 1663-1664 (January 22, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gillig further states that the agency granted similar petitions for inconsequential noncompliance where [[Page 46348]] the product did not meet the photometric intensity requirements.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013); 55 FR 37602 (September 12, 1990); 61 FR 1663 (January 22, 1996). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, because the PI output of the compliant test groups within Generations 3, 4 and 6 exceeds the candela requirements by a substantial margin, a range of 24%-146% above the additional candela offsets the overall performance of the turn signals.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 63 FR 70179 (December 18, 1998); 61 FR 1663-1664 (January 22, 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gillig observes that in some instances, involving reduced photometric output, NHTSA has denied the petition on the basis that the condition created a measurable impact on the driver's ability to see objects on or above the road.\6\ In contrast, the only indication of such an impact involves the Generation 7 assemblies for which Gillig is in the process of conducting a recall remedy campaign. There is no indication that the deviation in performance for Generations 1-6 has led to any difficulty in seeing and responding to the turn signals, and as supported by the field history, the turn signal assemblies have operated successfully for years and in some cases decades. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ 66 FR 38340 (July 23, 2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gillig states that the agency has long considered changes in light output in the range presented here as being visually imperceptible to vehicle occupants or other drivers.\7\ Gillig also states that the agency has noted that turn signals, unlike head lamps, do not affect road illumination so that a reduced amount of light output would not, by itself, create an increased risk to the public.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 59 FR 65428 (December 19, 1994). \8\ 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, according to Gillig, the environment in which the Gillig turn signals are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. Because the buses in which the subject turn signals are installed are predominantly public transit buses, they are managed by fleet operators and undergo regular maintenance and reviews by skilled technicians.\9\ Part of that process includes a pre-trip inspection. That protocol requires a review of the bus's operating systems, including a review of the turn signals. Consequently, if the photometric intensity of the Generations 1-6 lights were inadequate, trained professional service personnel and drivers would have identified this over the years, and in some cases, decades of pre-trip inspections.\10\ Gillig has never received a complaint, notice or report related to visibility concerns with the Generation 1-6 turn signals, underscoring the overall visibility of the turn signals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The Typical life cycle for a public transit bus is either 12 years or 500,000 miles, meaning that the majority of the vehicles with Generation 1-6 turn signals may no longer be in service. \10\ 64 FR 44575 (August 16, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gillig concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is 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. 3. Supplemental Petition: In April 2017, and as part of its ongoing quality review process, Gillig contracted with an independent lighting certification laboratory (Calcoast-ITL) to conduct a series of additional compliance tests for the turn signals included in Generations 1-6. In order to accurately execute the testing, CAD drawings of the front of the Gillig Low-Floor bus were used to construct an aluminum test stand fixture. The test stand precisely matched the orientation and angles at which the right and left front turn signals would have been installed on the bus. The laboratory then conducted a series of tests measuring the PI output using samples of each of the available generations of turn signals. The testing was certified to have been conducted in accordance with the FMVSS 108 Test Procedure (TP-108-13). A summary of the test data provides: (a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest generations), the assemblies meet the minimum photometric intensity (PI) requirements for 3 of 5 groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual test points. The turn signal's overall PI output of 1364 candelas is approximately 20% below the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements of 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 3 turn signals of 2387 candelas is 40% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ In addition, the integrated side markers for Generation 3 turn signals were tested and meet all photometric requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements for 4 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 4 turn signals of 3307 candelas is 93% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the assemblies meet the minimum PI requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI 12 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI output for Generation 5 turn signals of 2385 candelas is only 39% below the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). (e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 6, the assemblies also meet the minimum photometric intensity for 4 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum photometric intensity for 17 of 19 individual test points. The overall photometric intensity output for Generation 6 turn signals of 5655 candelas is 231% greater than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). Thus, the new PI output for groups that exceed the minimum values are: Generations 1 and 2 achieve 122%-267% of minimum values. Generation 3 achieves 192%-428% of minimum values. Generation 4 achieves 125%-598% of minimum values. Generation 5 achieves 367%-445% of minimum values. Generation 6 achieves 143%-1185% of minimum values. As a result, the groups that exceed the minimum values in each lamp compensate for the groups that are below the minimums to the extent that the overall PI outputs of the most recent four generation of lights (Generations 3-6) significantly exceed the overall PI output required for a front turn signal lamp (1710 candelas). As part of Gillig's supplemental petition, they submitted a video which shows a side-by-side comparison of Generation 1-6 turn signal assemblies with a newer generation of turn signal that exceeds all FMVSS No. 108 minimum requirements for photometry. Gillig says that the comparisons were performed with the lights in their various generations installed on the same bus as it is driven through a turning maneuver (filmed indoors to control ambient lighting throughout the comparisons). Gillig believes that it is evident from the multiple angles in the video that the lights from Generation 1-6 are so bright and large that they are virtually indistinguishable from the newer version. To view Gillig's petition analyses, test data and video in its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice. 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 [[Page 46349]] 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 buses that Gillig 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 Gillig 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) Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017-21257 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![46346 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices
E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. SUMMARY: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has be considered to the fullest extent
13175 Consultation and Coordination determined that certain model year possible.
with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. (MY) 1997–2016 Gillig low floor buses When the petition is granted or
11514 Protection and Enhancement of do not fully comply with Federal Motor denied, notice of the decision will also
Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. be published in the Federal Register
Invasive Species. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and pursuant to the authority indicated at
The projects subject to this notice are: Associated Equipment. Gillig filed a the end of this notice.
1. Project Location: Santa Rosa noncompliance report dated February All comments, background
County, SR 87 Connector from SR 87 24, 2017. Gillig also petitioned NHTSA documentation, and supporting
South to SR 87 North, Federal Project on March 24, 2017, and amended it on materials submitted to the docket may
No: SF1 296 R, S129 348 R, TCSP 033 May 10, 2017, for a decision that the be viewed by anyone at the address and
U, T129 348 R. Project type: The project subject noncompliance is times given above. The documents may
involves a new roadway facility that inconsequential as it relates to motor also be viewed on the Internet at https://
will directly link SR 87S with SR 87N vehicle safety. www.regulations.gov by following the
in the vicinity of Milton. Final agency online instructions for accessing the
DATES: The closing date for comments
actions are taken under: NEPA, FAHA, dockets. The docket ID number for this
on the petition is November 3, 2017.
CAA, 4(f), E.O. 12898, etc., and are petition is shown in the heading of this
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are notice.
described in the FEIS and ROD issued invited to submit written data, views,
on October 20, 2016, and are available DOT’s complete Privacy Act
and arguments on this petition. Statement is available for review in a
at http://www.sr87connector.com/ Comments must refer to the docket and
status.html. Federal Register notice published on
notice number cited in the title of this April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
2. Project Location: Orange, Seminole, notice and submitted by any of the
and Volusia Counties, Interstate 4 (I–4) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
following methods: I. Overview: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has
from south of SR 528 to east of SR 472, • Mail: Send comments by mail
Federal Project No: 0041 227 I. The determined that certain model year
addressed to U.S. Department of (MY) 1997–2016 Gillig low floor buses
project involves the build-out of I–4 in Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
Central Florida to result in three General do not fully comply with paragraph
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps,
Use lanes in each direction with the W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
addition of two new Express Lanes in Reflective Devices, and Associated
Washington, DC 20590. Equipment. Gillig filed a
each direction, resulting in a total of ten • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments
dedicated lanes. Final agency actions noncompliance report dated February
by hand to U.S. Department of 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
are taken under: NEPA, etc., and are Transportation, Docket Operations, M– Defect and Noncompliance
described in the Final Evaluation and 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room Responsibility and Reports. Gillig also
Assessment Study and ROD issued on W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2017,
August 24, 2017, and are available at Washington, DC 20590. The Docket and amended it on May 10, 2017,
www.i4express.com. Section is open on weekdays from 10 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning • Electronically: Submit comments exemption from the notification and
and Construction. The regulations electronically by logging onto the remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
implementing Executive Order 12372 Federal Docket Management System Chapter 301 on the basis that this
regarding intergovernmental consultation on (FDMS) Web site at https://
Federal programs and activities apply to this noncompliance is inconsequential as it
program.)
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online relates to motor vehicle safety.
instructions for submitting comments. This notice of receipt of Gillig’s
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). • Comments may also be faxed to petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
Issued on: September 27, 2017. (202) 493–2251. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent
David Hawk, Comments must be written in the any agency decision or other exercise of
Acting Division Administrator, Federal English language, and be no greater than judgment concerning the merits of the
Highway Administration, Tallahassee, 15 pages in length, although there is no petition.
Florida. limit to the length of necessary II. Buses Involved: Approximately
[FR Doc. 2017–21372 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] attachments to the comments. If 41,714 MY 1997–2016 Gillig low floor
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P comments are submitted in hard copy buses, manufactured between December
form, please ensure that two copies are 31, 1997, and February 3, 2017, are
provided. If you wish to receive potentially involved.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION confirmation that comments you have III. Noncompliance: Gillig stated that
submitted by mail were received, please it installed six different generations of
National Highway Traffic Safety enclose a stamped, self-addressed turn signal assemblies in the subject
Administration postcard with the comments. Note that buses; however, after receiving two
all comments received will be posted complaints that their Generation 7 turn
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0021; Notice 1] without change to https:// signal assemblies were not sufficiently
www.regulations.gov, including any visible, Gillig and the turn signal
Gillig, LLC, Receipt of Petition for personal information provided. manufacturer went back and tested the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Decision of Inconsequential All comments and supporting previous generations to see if they met
Noncompliance materials received before the close of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic business on the closing date indicated Test results for generations 1 through 6
Safety Administration (NHTSA), above will be filed in the docket and of the turn signal assemblies showed
Department of Transportation (DOT). will be considered. All comments and that they do not meet all the minimum
supporting materials received after the photometry requirements of paragraph
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
closing date will also be filed and will S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 03, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46537/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46349
30120, respectively, to notify owners, Abstract: Form 637 is used to apply or start-up costs and costs of operation,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or for excise tax registration. The maintenance, and purchase of services
noncompliance and to remedy the registration applies to a person required to provide information.
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any to be registered under Revenue code Approved: September 28, 2017.
decision on this petition only applies to section 4101 for purposes of the federal L. Brimmer,
the subject buses that Gillig no longer excise tax on taxable fuel imposed
Senior Tax Analyst.
controlled at the time it determined that under Code sections 4041 and 4071; and
[FR Doc. 2017–21260 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am]
the noncompliance existed. However, to certain manufacturers or sellers and
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
any decision on this petition does not purchasers that must register under
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers Code section 4222 to be exempt from
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for the excise tax on taxable articles. The
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
sale, or introduction or delivery for data is used to determine if the
introduction into interstate commerce of applicant qualifies for the exemption. Internal Revenue Service
the noncompliant vehicles under their Taxable fuel producers are required by
control after Gillig notified them that Code section 4101 to register with the Proposed Collection; Comment
the subject noncompliance existed. Service before incurring any tax Request for Regulation Project
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: liability.
Current Actions: Section B, line 8 is AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and Treasury.
501.8) removed because it was a burdensome
to applicants to request their tax ACTION: Notice and request for
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, returns/financials at this stage of the comments.
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. process.
SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service
[FR Doc. 2017–21257 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] Type of Review: Revision of a
(IRS), as part of its continuing effort to
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other for- reduce paperwork and respondent
profit organizations, and not-for-profit burden, invites the general public and
institutions, and farms. other Federal agencies to take this
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Estimated Number of Respondents: opportunity to comment on information
2,000. collections, as required by the
Internal Revenue Service Estimated Time per Respondent: 11 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
hr., 19 min. IRS is soliciting comments concerning
Proposed Collection; Comment Estimated Total Annual Burden Low-income Housing Credit for
Request for Form 637 Hours: 22,620. Federally-assisted Buildings.
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), The following paragraph applies to all DATES: Written comments should be
Treasury. of the collections of information covered received on or before December 4, 2017
by this notice: to be assured of consideration.
ACTION: Notice and request for
An agency may not conduct or ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
comments. sponsor, and a person is not required to to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service respond to, a collection of information Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
(IRS), as part of its continuing effort to unless the collection of information Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
reduce paperwork and respondent displays a valid OMB control number. Requests for additional information or
burden, invites the general public and Books or records relating to a collection copies of the regulations should be
other Federal agencies to take this of information must be retained as long directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal
opportunity to comment on information as their contents may become material Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111
collections, as required by the in the administration of any internal Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The revenue law. Generally, tax returns and DC 20224, or through the Internet at
IRS is soliciting comments concerning tax return information are confidential, Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov.
Form 637, Application for Registration as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(For Certain Excise Tax Activities). Request For Comments: Comments Title: Low-income Housing Credit for
submitted in response to this notice will Federally-assisted Buildings.
DATES: Written comments should be
be summarized and/or included in the OMB Number: 1545–1005.
received on or before December 4, 2017 request for OMB approval. All
to be assured of consideration. Regulation Project Number: T.D. 8302.
comments will become a matter of Abstract: The regulation provides
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments public record. Comments are invited on: state and local housing credit agencies
to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue (a) Whether the collection of and owners of qualified low-income
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution information is necessary for the proper buildings with guidance regarding
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. performance of the functions of the compliance with the waiver
Requests for additional information or agency, including whether the requirement of section 42(d)(6) of the
copies of the form and instructions information shall have practical utility; Internal Revenue Code. The regulation
should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate requires documentary evidence of
Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, of the burden of the collection of financial distress leading to a potential
1111 Constitution Avenue NW., information; (c) ways to enhance the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
claim against a Federal mortgage
Washington, DC 20224 or through the quality, utility, and clarity of the insurance fund in order to get a written
Internet at Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov. information to be collected; (d) ways to waiver from the IRS for the acquirer of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: minimize the burden of the collection of the qualified low-income building to
Title: Application for Registration (For information on respondents, including properly claim the low-income housing
Certain Excise Tax Activities). through the use of automated collection credit.
OMB Number: 1545–0014. techniques or other forms of information Current Actions: There is no change to
Form Number: Form 637. technology; and (e) estimates of capital this existing regulation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Oct 03, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46537/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-25 09:53:34
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 09:53:34
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Receipt of petition. | |
| Dates | The closing date for comments on the petition is November 3, 2017. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 46346 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR