72812 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Notices 

1 Gillig filed a Part 573 noncompliance report 

dated July 6, 2022, and later amended the report on 

July 22, 2022, indicating that it has violated the 

marking requirements as specified in S6 of FMVSS 

No. 205. However, in its July 21, 2022, petition to 

NHTSA for a decision that the subject 

noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate 

to motor vehicle safety, Gillig stated that the 

noncompliance was with the Section 5.1.3 of 

FMVSS No. 205. The Agency would like to correct 

Gillig’s mistake because it was, in fact, a violation 

of Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205, as stated in its 

original Part 573 report. 

other vehicle lights. Mercedes-Benz 

states that they are not aware of any 

reports or claims regarding crashes or 

injuries concerning the subject 

noncompliance. 

Mercedes-Benz concludes by stating 

its belief that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety and 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. 

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 

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 vehicles that Mercedes-Benz 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on this 

petition does not relieve vehicles 

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 Mercedes-Benz 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) 

Otto G. Matheke, III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23341 Filed 10–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0093; 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) 1998–2022 Gillig Low Floor buses 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

205, Glazing Materials. Gillig filed a 

noncompliance report dated July 6, 

2022, and later amended the report on 

July 22, 2022. Gillig subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’) on 

July 21, 2022, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliances are 

inconsequential as they relate to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces receipt of Gillig’s petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

November 22, 2023. 

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 may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal 

Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website 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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Chern, General Engineer, NHTSA, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

(202) 366–0661. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Gillig determined that 

certain MY 1998–2022 Gillig Low Floor 

buses do not fully comply with 

paragraph S6 1 of FMVSS No. 205, 

Glazing Materials, and ANSI/SAE 

Z26.1–l996, as referenced by FMVSS 

No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). 

Gillig filed a noncompliance report 

dated July 6, 2022, and later amended 

the report on July 22, 2022, pursuant to 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Gillig petitioned NHTSA on 

July, 21, 2022, for an exemption from 

the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 

on the basis that these noncompliances 

are inconsequential as they relate 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. 

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 another exercise 

of judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Buses Involved: Gillig stated that an 

unknown number of MY 1998–2022 

Gillig Low Floor buses, manufactured 

between May 28, 1998, and May 23, 

2022, are potentially involved. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Notices 72813 

2See Letter to Collingwood, August 20, 2020, 

571.205 Plexiglass Barriers (002) | NHTSA. 

3 77 FR 37477, June 21, 2012. 

III. Noncompliance: Gillig explains 

that the noncompliance is that subject 

buses may be equipped with a 

polycarbonate barrier adjacent to the 

driver’s designated seating position that 

does not meet the performance 

requirements to be certified as Item 4 

glazing. Specifically, the interior 

partition installed in the subject buses 

do not meet the requirements of the 

abrasion, chemical resistance, and 

weathering tests. Within the population 

affected by this noncompliance, there 

are certain partitions that are also 

missing the required glazing 

certification marking required by 

Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205. In a 

separate vehicle population, Gillig 

explains that ‘‘modesty panels’’ were 

installed that are also missing the 

required glazing certification marking. 

The modesty panels are polycarbonate 

barriers installed in certain transit buses 

that are located in the passenger 

compartment of the bus. 

IV. Rule Requirements: S6 of FMVSS 

No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1–l996, as 

referenced by FMVSS No. 205, include 

the requirements relevant to this 

petition. 

V. Summary of Gillig’s Petition: The 

following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Gillig’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by Gillig. They 

have not been evaluated by the Agency 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. Gillig describes the subject 

noncompliances and contends that the 

noncompliances are inconsequential as 

they relate to motor vehicle safety. 

1. Glazing Material Noncompliance 

Gillig believes that the 

noncompliance relating to the partitions 

is inconsequential because the subject 

partitions are not exposed to ‘‘elements 

or conditions that would affect the 

stability and robustness of the partition 

due to weathering, abrasion or chemical 

degradation.’’ Therefore, Gillig contends 

that the performance requirements to 

certify Item 4 glazing ‘‘are not 

appropriate or necessary to maintain the 

safe performance of the partitions as 

installed in Gillig’s transit bus 

applications.’’ 

Gillig states its belief that two of the 

functional purposes of the interior 

partitions installed in the subject buses 

are to create a ‘‘hygiene barrier’’ 

between the driver of the vehicles and 

the passengers that minimizes the 

driver’s risk of exposure to airborne 

viruses and to protect the driver from 

passengers that may pose a security risk. 

Gillig also believes that the overall 

purpose of the abrasion, chemical 

resistance, and weathering tests ‘‘is to 

ensure that driver visibility is 

adequately maintained through the 

glazing and that the Item 4 glazing 

material can withstand long term 

exposure to simulated weathering 

conditions, abrasion due to contact 

friction and resistance to certain 

chemicals that are likely to be used for 

cleaning purposes and that could lead to 

degradation of the glazing surface.’’ 

Gillig refers to an August 2020 

interpretation by NHTSA, in which it 

says the Agency ‘‘took the position that 

rigid plexiglass installed to the right of 

the bus driver is installed in an area that 

is requisite for driving visibility and that 

NHTSA would consider such a barrier 

to be an ‘interior partition.’ ’’ 2 Gillig 

lists the types of glazing that are 

allowed to be used for ‘‘an interior 

partition installed in an area requisite 

for driving visibility,’’ which includes 

Item 4 glazing. Gillig says that while 

Item 4 glazing is allowed in this 

application, it is ‘‘typically used for 

glazing on or facing the exterior of the 

vehicle,’’ and would therefore be 

exposed to weather and other elements. 

However, Gillig states that because 

the subject partitions are installed 

inside of the vehicle compartment, they 

would not be exposed to such elements 

that the abrasion, chemical resistance, 

and weathering test requirements are 

intended to replicate. Thus, Gillig 

believes that those performance 

requirements are ‘‘not appropriate for 

generic partitions installed inside the 

vehicle compartment.’’ 

According to Gillig, the abrasion, 

chemical resistance, and weathering 

performance requirements ‘‘were 

intended for glazing used as windows, 

doors and other glazing that typically 

are or may be installed facing and 

exposed to the exterior of the vehicles.’’ 

Therefore, Gillig believes that the 

application of these performance 

requirements ‘‘may be appropriate for 

exterior-mounted devices but is 

overinclusive and unnecessary for 

interior partitions like the Gillig 

partitions.’’ 

A. Abrasion Test 

According to Gillig, ‘‘the risk of 

exposure to actual abrasion conditions 

in real-world operation similar to those 

specified by the standard is extremely 

low.’’ 

Gillig says that in a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 3 the Agency 

‘‘acknowledged that internal glazing 

requires significantly less cleaning 

compared to glazing mounted facing the 

exterior of the vehicle, which needs 

frequent cleaning to remove dirt and 

grime due to exposure to external 

elements.’’ Gillig states that the Agency 

also recognized that different 

performance requirements for glass and 

glass faced plastic are based on the 

differing locations on the vehicle in 

which each type of glazing is installed. 

While Gillig acknowledges that an 

internal partition may be exposed to 

abrasion when passengers are ‘‘leaning 

and rubbing against the glazing 

surface,’’ Gillig explains that the 

partition installed in the subject buses 

‘‘is situated in an area of the passenger 

compartment where no standees are 

allowed and, therefore, this risk is 

considerably reduced.’’ 

B. Chemical Resistance Test 

Gillig provides the ANSI Standard 

that states the purpose of the chemical 

resistance test: 

‘‘The purpose of the test is to 

determine whether non-stressed 

transparent plastic or glass-plastic 

glazing material have certain minimum 

resistance to the following chemicals 

which are likely to be used for cleaning 

purposes in motor vehicle service: 

(1) One percent solution of 

nonabrasive soap in deionized water; 

(2) Kerosene No. K–1 or K–2; 

(3) Undiluted denatured alcohol 

(Formula SD No. 30); 

(4) Gasoline; 

(5) An aqueous solution of 

isopropanol and glycol ether solvents in 

concentration no greater than 10% or 

less than 5% by weight each and 

ammonium hydroxide no greater than 

5% or less than 1% by weight each, 

simulating typical commercial 

windshield cleaner.’’ 

Gillig explains that the partitions 

installed in the subject buses were 

found to be noncompliant with the 

performance requirements pertaining to 

the gasoline immersion. Gillig says that 

the gasoline exposure test is ‘‘focused 

on extended exposure to gasoline where 

the glazing specimen is immersed in the 

substance’’ which Gillig believes is 

unlikely to occur in real-world use. 

Gillig contends that in the event 

gasoline were to make contact with the 

partition, ‘‘it would not occur at a rate 

or level that is so frequent that it would 

have any impact on the performance of 

the partition.’’ Furthermore, Gillig says 

it is not aware of any claims, 

information, or other data that suggests 

the partitions installed in the subject 

buses would be exposed to gasoline. 

Gillig adds that the subject buses 

equipped with the noncompliant 

interior partitions are not gasoline 

powered, therefore the potential for the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
72814 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2023 / Notices 

4See, e.g., Grant of Petition of Supreme 

Corporation, 81 FR 72850, October 21, 2016. 

partitions to be exposed to gasoline is 

lowered. Furthermore, due to the 

location of the partition inside the 

subject buses adjacent to the driver’s 

seat, Gillig contends that the probability 

that the partitions would be exposed to 

gasoline is ‘‘extremely low and most 

likely to be nonexistent.’’ 

C. Weathering Test 

Gillig states that the purpose of the 

weathering test is ‘‘to determine 

whether the plastic or glass plastic 

material glazing will sufficiently 

withstand exposure to simulated 

weathering conditions over an extended 

period of time.’’ To conduct this test, 

Gillig explains that a specimen is first 

exposed to a simulated source of 

radiation, after which the specimen’s 

luminous transmittance is required to 

not be reduced by more than 5 percent, 

however, any increase in regular 

luminous transmittance is acceptable. 

The specimen may develop some 

discoloration but other defects should 

not develop. Additionally, the irradiated 

specimen shall develop no bubbles or 

other noticeable decomposition. 

When testing the partitions installed 

in the subject buses, Gillig found that 

‘‘segments of the coating peeled up and 

flaked off during the exposure and did 

not pass the abrasion test that followed 

the weathering procedure.’’ However, 

Gillig believes that this weathering test 

does not reflect real-world use of the 

subject partition. Gillig explains that the 

light sources used to conduct the 

weathering test ‘‘simulate solar 

maximum conditions, meaning global, 

noon sunlight at normal incidence on 

the summer solstice.’’ Gillig says this is 

‘‘the most severe condition met in 

outdoor service.’’ 

Gillig says that any type of glass that 

surrounds a partition located in the 

passenger compartment of a vehicle 

would act as a sunlight filter and would 

significantly reduce the energy of the 

damaging wavelengths. Thus, Gillig 

believes, the material deterioration due 

to UV weathering of subject partitions 

would be greatly reduced. Gillig further 

contends that ‘‘since automotive glass is 

thicker than common window glass, it 

provides an even superior filtering 

efficiency compared to common glass 

with the potential to filter out almost all 

of the damaging UV wavelengths.’’ 

2. Glazing Marking Noncompliance 

In the same population of buses 

affected by the glazing material 

noncompliance, Gillig determined that 

certain buses are not marked with the 

‘‘DOT AS4’’ glazing marking required by 

FMVSS No. 205 to indicate that it is 

certified as Item 4 glazing. Gillig also 

determined that a separate population of 

buses are equipped with modesty panels 

in the passenger compartment that are 

not marked with the required ‘‘AS4’’ 

glazing marking. Gillig says the modesty 

panel is not used for driver visibility but 

is used to ‘‘enhance privacy for 

passengers.’’ 

Gillig says, ‘‘The purpose of the 

glazing marking is so that appropriate 

equivalent glazing can be used in the 

event that the original glazing needs to 

be replaced.’’ Gillig states its belief that 

the absence of the required glazing 

marking does not create an increased 

risk to motor vehicle safety because the 

subject buses are operated by personnel 

that are trained and knowledgeable of 

the appropriate Item of glazing that is 

allowed to be used in the interior of the 

bus. Despite the lack of the marking, 

Gillig says that the trained maintenance 

personnel would ensure that the subject 

glazing is replaced by the appropriate 

glazing. Furthermore, Gillig says that 

replacement parts need to be 

specifically ordered for the vehicle 

using a unique part number. 

Gillig states production has been 

corrected and any of the subject glazing 

still in its possession have been 

removed from future service. Gillig says 

that the modesty panels meet all other 

FMVSS No. 205 labeling and 

performance requirements and the 

interior partitions ‘‘meet all of the 

performance requirements that are 

necessary for the real-world use’’ of the 

subject partitions. 

Gillig claims that the Agency has 

granted prior petitions in which the 

glazing was missing the required 

marking, such as the 2016 granting of a 

petition submitted by Supreme 

Corporation.4

Gillig concludes its petition by stating 

its belief that the subject 

noncompliances are inconsequential as 

they relate to motor vehicle safety and 

its petition to be exempted from 

providing notification of the 

noncompliances, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliances, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

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 

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 vehicles that Gillig no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve vehicles 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 noncompliances existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8.) 

Otto G. Matheke, III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23330 Filed 10–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 

(SDN 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 effective date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 

202–622–2490; Associate Director for 

Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; 

or the Assistant Director for Sanctions 

Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, 

tel.: 202–622–2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (ofac.treasury.gov). 

Notice of OFAC Action(s) 

On October 18, 2023, OFAC 

determined that the property and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1