44486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Use of Certain 

Personal Oxygen Concentrator (POC) 

Devices on Board Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew an information 

collection. A Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation requires passengers who 

intend to use an approved POC to 

present a physician statement before 

boarding. The flight crew must then 

inform the pilot-in-command that a POC 

is on board. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by September 29, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by 

email at: Kathy.DePaepe@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0702. 

Title: Use of Certain Personal Oxygen 

Concentrator (POC) Devices on Board 

Aircraft. 

Form Numbers: There are no FAA 

forms associated with this collection. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: A pilot in command is 

required to be apprised when a 

passenger brings a POC on board the 

aircraft, and passengers who have a 

medical need to use a POC during flight 

are required to possess a signed 

physician statement describing the 

oxygen therapy needed, to determine 

whether an inflight diversion to an 

airport may be needed in the event the 

passenger’s POC fails to operate or the 

aircraft experiences cabin pressurization 

difficulties, and to verify the need for 

the device, the oxygen therapy needed 

to be provided by use of the POC, and 

the oxygen needs of the passenger in 

case of emergency. 

Respondents: Approximately 

1,690,555 passengers. 

Frequency: Information is collected as 

needed. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 6 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

169,046 hours. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA 

at the following address: Ms. Kathy 

DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation 

Administration, ASP–110, 6500 S. 

MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 

73169. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The agency 

will summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 28, 

2014. 

Albert R. Spence, 

FAA Assistant Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 

Services Division, ASP–110. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18062 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 

DP12–003 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition from Mr. Peter J. Gonzalez (the 

petitioner) of Fuquay Varina, NC, 

requesting that the agency open an 

investigation into headlamp failures on 

the model year (MY) 2008 Saturn 

Outlook and similar vehicles. After 

reviewing the petition and other 

information, NHTSA has concluded that 

further investigation of MY 2007–2009 

Saturn Outlook vehicles and the similar 

GMC Acadia vehicles (subject vehicles) 

is unlikely to result in a determination 

that a safety-related defect exists. The 

agency accordingly denies the petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Steve Chan, Defects Assessment 

Division, Office of Defects Investigation, 

NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–8537. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Alleged Problem 

The petitioner alleges that his MY 

2008 Saturn Outlook vehicle had 

experienced a loss of low beam 

headlamp illumination. The petitioner 

found that the headlamp harness mating 

to the headlamp had melted. He also 

noted that there were other complaints 

on NHTSA’s Web site related to the 

same melting of the headlamp harness. 

Loss of Headlamp Illumination 

The United States Code for Motor 

Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) 

defines motor vehicle safety as ‘‘the 

performance of a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment in a way that 

protects the public against unreasonable 

risk of accidents occurring because of 

the design, construction, or performance 

of a motor vehicle, and against 

unreasonable risk of death or injury in 

an accident, and includes 

nonoperational safety of a motor 

vehicle.’’ 

Over the last 25 years, ODI has 

opened numerous defect investigations 

of the loss of headlamp illumination. 

Investigations that resulted in safety 

recalls involved simultaneous loss of 

illumination from both headlamps. 

NHTSA does not consider the loss of a 

single headlamp as presenting an 

unreasonable safety risk—such failures 

are readily detectable by the driver 

while allowing the vehicle to retain 

forward visibility and conspicuity from 

the remaining headlamp. There is 

typically enough time between the 

failure of the first headlamp and the 

second during which the vehicle 

operator can obtain the needed repairs. 

Subject Vehicle Complaints 

As of July 16, 2014, out of a 

population of 248,453 subject vehicles, 

NHTSA identified 473 consumer 

complaints of inoperative headlamp(s). 

Many of these complaints indicated that 

the headlamp harness suffered damage 

from overheating. After reviewing the 

complaints, ODI found: 

—69% (328) Alleged that a single 

headlamp was inoperative. 

—18% (86) alleged that both headlamps 

were inoperative but not at the same 

time. 

—9% (41) alleged that both headlamps 

were inoperative but the complaints 

did not indicate whether the failures 

had occurred at the same time. 

—4% (17) alleged that both headlamps 

were inoperative at the same time. 

—One additional complaint cited wire 

harness damage to both sides but did 

not specify an outage. 

—No crashes or loss of vehicle control 

were reported. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES