Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2023 / Notices 73395 

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). 

4See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 

2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect 

poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in 

hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine 

fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some 

such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

5https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ 

aiam3524. 

6An earlier interpretation from 1973 also to 

American Honda stated that S5.2.5 regulates ‘‘only 

the direction in which footrests shall retract, so that 

if they are inadvertently left down when not in use 

they will fold rearward and upward should they hit 

an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling 

forward.’’ That interpretation suggests that contact 

of the footrests with obstacles other than the ground 

or roadway may be a consideration. However, all 

other agency interpretations of S5.2.5 focus on 

footrest contact with the ground/roadway. See 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht73-622. 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries when determining if a 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. The absence of complaints does 

not mean vehicle occupants have not 

experienced a safety issue, nor does it 

mean that there will not be safety issues 

in the future.4

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the inconsequential noncompliance 

petition and supplemental materials 

submitted by BMW and has determined 

that this particular noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Specifically, the Agency considered the 

following when making its decision: 

In pertinent part, S5.2.5 requires that 

each footrest for a passenger other than 

an operator fold rearward and upward 

when not in use. NHTSA has issued 

several interpretations of section S5.2.5. 

In a letter dated February 16, 1982, to 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with 

respect to a proposed footboard design, 

the then Chief Counsel commented that 

‘‘[w]e consider that the purpose of 

S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by 

rigid footrests contacting the ground in 

a banking turn.’’ 5 Various other NHTSA 

letters provided the same interpretation 

of the footrest requirement in S5.2.5.6

BMW conducted a measurement 

analysis for the K1600 GTL Motorcycle 

including lean angle to determine the 

distance between the passenger footrest 

and the ground when other motorcycle 

components contact the ground during 

a banked turn. The analysis indicated 

that the first component that would 

contact the ground would be the rider’s 

footrest at 39 degrees lean angle, 

followed by other components such as 

the engine spoiler that would contact 

the ground at 43 degrees. Next, 

components including the center stand 

would contact the ground at 46 degrees. 

The BMW analysis demonstrated that, 

as the motorcycle lean angle increases, 

all of these components contact the 

ground well before the passenger 

footrest would make contact with the 

ground. 

Additionally, BMW conducted a 

measurement analysis for the K1600 B 

Motorcycle including lean angle to 

determine the distance between the 

passenger footrest and the ground when 

other motorcycle components contact 

the ground during a banked turn. The 

analysis indicated that the first 

component that would contact the 

ground would be the rider’s footrest at 

39 degrees, followed by other 

components such as the engine spoiler 

that would contact the ground at 42 

degrees. Next, components including 

the engine spoiler would contact the 

ground at 43.5 degrees. According to 

BMW’s analysis, as the motorcycle lean 

angle increases, all of these components 

contact the ground before the passenger 

footrest would make contact with the 

ground. 

Furthermore, BMW conducted a 

measurement analysis for the K1600 

Grand America Motorcycle including 

lean angle to determine the distance 

between the passenger footrest and the 

ground when other motorcycle 

components contact the ground during 

a banked turn. The analysis indicated 

that the first component that would 

contact the ground would be the rider’s 

floorboard at a lean angle of 34.5 

degrees, followed by other components 

such as the rider footrest that would 

contact the ground at 39 degrees. Next, 

components including the silencer 

would contact the ground at 42 degrees. 

As motorcycle lean angle increases, all 

of these components contact the ground 

well before the passenger footrest would 

make contact with the ground. 

BMW also conducted real-world test 

rides with a K 1600 GTL and with a K 

1600 Grand America. On-board videos 

were taken to provide a close-up view 

of certain components prior to, and at, 

contact with the ground. The videos 

confirmed the findings from the 

measurement analysis. 

NHTSA considers the purpose of 

S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by 

rigid passenger footrests contacting the 

ground when a motorcycle is leaned 

over in a turn. BMW’s measurement 

analysis and real-world testing clearly 

demonstrate there is no possibility for 

the passenger footrests to contact the 

ground while the motorcycle is under 

control in a banked turn because 

numerous other components would 

contact the ground first, preventing 

either passenger footrest from ever 

contacting the ground. Therefore, this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that BMW has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 123 noncompliance in the 

affected motorcycles is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

BMW’s petition is hereby granted, and 

BMW is consequently exempted from 

the obligation of providing notification 

of, and a free remedy for, that 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

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, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

motorcycles that BMW no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

the granting of 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 motorcycles under 

their control after BMW 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. 2023–23529 Filed 10–24–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0064; Notice 2] 

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
73396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2023 / Notices 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG and 

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (collectively, 

‘‘Mercedes-Benz’’ or ‘‘Petitioner’’) have 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 118, Power-operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed a 

noncompliance report dated May 11, 

2020, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on June 3, 2020, for a decision 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

the denial of Mercedes-Benz’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frederick Smith, Office of Vehicle 

Safety Compliance, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–7487, 

facsimile (202) 366–3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz has 

determined that certain MY 2020 

Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 motor vehicles 

do not fully comply with the 

requirements of paragraph S6(a)(1) of 

FMVSS No. 118, Power-operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems (49 CFR 571.118). MercedesBenz filed a noncompliance report 

dated May 11, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. MercedesBenz subsequently petitioned NHTSA 

on June 3, 2020, 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, 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 Mercedes-Benz 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on October 23, 

2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR 

67604). No comments were received. To 

view the petition 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 number ‘‘NHTSA–2020– 

0064.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Mercedes-Benz 

stated that it determined that 22 MY 

2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS 580 motor 

vehicles manufactured between 

February 8, 2019, and September 20, 

2019, do not meet the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 118, S6(a)(1). 

III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the automatic reversal systems and 

actuation devices for the sunroofs in the 

subject vehicles do not fully comply 

with paragraph S6(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 

118. Specifically, when the vehicle’s 

‘‘car wash mode’’ is activated by using 

the central touch display in the center 

console, the sunroof may close 

automatically. 

IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 

S6(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 118 includes the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

An actuation device must not cause a 

window, partition, or roof panel to 

begin to close from any open position 

when tested using a stainless steel 

sphere having a surface finish between 

8 and 4 micro inches and a radius of 20 

mm ± 0.2 mm, when the surface of the 

sphere is placed against any portion of 

the actuation device. 

V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz’s 

Petition: The following views and 

arguments presented in this section are 

the views and arguments provided by 

Mercedes-Benz and do not reflect the 

views of NHTSA. Mercedes-Benz 

describes the subject noncompliance 

and contends that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, MercedesBenz offers the following reasoning: 

1. Mercedes-Benz alleges that ‘‘due to 

their specific operating parameters, even 

though the buttons used to activate car 

wash mode do not meet the 

performance requirement of paragraph 

S6(a), the condition does not create an 

increased safety risk.’’ 

2. First, Mercedes-Benz states, ‘‘the 

car wash mode feature must first be 

activated by the user. Car wash mode is 

not automatically enabled unless and 

until the operator activates the feature 

by affirmatively accepting the option 

and turning the feature on. Thus, unless 

car wash mode is already active within 

the vehicle, the condition described 

above cannot occur.’’ 

3. Mercedes-Benz further states, 

‘‘[o]nce the vehicle has initialized car 

wash mode, the feature can only be 

activated through a series of steps using 

either the vehicle’s central touch 

display or from a touchpad located in 

the center console. Activating car wash 

mode is a multi-step process and the 

process varies depending on the current 

menu contained on the display screen. 

For example, if car wash mode has been 

programmed by the user inside the 

‘‘favorites’’ menu, then a series of two 

touches is needed to activate car wash 

mode. In all other cases, the operator 

would first need to change the display 

screen to the vehicle menu first and 

from there, navigate to the car wash 

mode icon. In either case, car wash 

mode will not become active unless 

each of these steps is executed in the 

corresponding order. Because of the 

complexity involved in navigating 

through the required sequence of events 

there is an extremely low likelihood of 

the car wash mode being inadvertently 

activated in the first place.’’ 

4. Further, Mercedes-Benz claims ‘‘the 

sunroofs in the subject vehicles contain 

an auto-reverse feature. Upon detecting 

an object or obstruction inside the 

sunroof, it will automatically stop and 

reverse course and fully retract. While 

the sunroofs do not meet the 

requirements of paragraph S5, 

Mercedes-Benz states that they are 

certified to the European standard UN– 

R–21. The European standard 

incorporates many of the performance 

features included in the automatic 

reversal function contained in FMVSS 

No. 118, paragraph S5. The sunroofs in 

the subject vehicles will automatically 

reverse prior to exerting 100 Newtons of 

pinch force, and consistent with the 

options provided at paragraph S5.2, the 

sunroof will either retract to a position 

at least as wide as the initial position 

before closing or will allow a 200-mm 

rod to be inserted in the gap.’’ 

5. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA 

‘‘has previously granted petitions for 

inconsequential treatment for FMVSS 

No. 118 involving similar circumstances 

and vehicle features. NHTSA granted a 

petition by General Motors involving a 

noncompliance with FMVSS No. 118, 

paragraph S4(e), where for 60 seconds 

after the vehicles are started, an issue 

with the sunroof module would allow 

the sunroof to close via the control 

button if the engine is turned off and a 

front door is opened. In that instance, in 

order to activate the sunroof, a series of 

specific steps must be taken in order 

and the steps must be completed within 

a 60-second time frame. See General 

Motors Corporation, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 73 FR 22459 (April 25, 

2008). In granting the petition, the 

Agency found that the potential for 

entrapment in a power operated sunroof 

presented less of a risk of entrapment 

than power-operated windows because, 

in general, sunroofs are less physically 

accessible than power-operated 

windows. The decision also focused on 

the presence of an auto-reverse feature, 

which would reverse the movement of 

the sunroof before it exerted a pressure 

of 100 Newtons. In granting the petition, 

the Agency noted the presence of this 

auto-reverse feature as one that would 

further reduce the risk of entrapment.’’ 

6. Mercedes-Benz further asserts that 

‘‘much like the conditions present in the 

General Motors Corporation vehicles, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2023 / Notices 73397 

1Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition 

for Determination of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14, 

2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was 

expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to 

vehicle occupants or approaching drivers). 

2See 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). 

3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

4United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 

754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an 

unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as 

potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and 

where there is no dispute that at least some such 

hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

5See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 2001) 

(rejecting argument that noncompliance was 

inconsequential because of the small number of 

vehicles affected); Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) 

(noting that situations involving individuals 

trapped in motor vehicles—while infrequent—are 

consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21664 (Apr. 12, 

2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 

granted because the vehicle was produced in very 

low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited 

basis). 

6See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 

69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 2004); Cosco Inc.; 

Denial of Application for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 

29409 (June 1, 1999). 

the noncompliance in the car wash 

mode feature of the subject vehicles 

similarly does not create an increased 

safety risk. Assuming that the function 

has been initialized by the operator, a 

series of specific and coordinated steps 

must occur in order to activate car wash 

mode. If those steps are not carried out 

in the precise order required, then the 

car-wash mode program will not be 

activated. Even in the unlikely event 

that the car wash mode function is 

inadvertently activated, there is no 

enhanced risk of injury because of the 

sunroof auto-reverse feature.’’ 

Mercedes-Benz concludes by again 

contending 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. 

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The burden of 

establishing the inconsequentiality of a 

failure to comply with a performance 

requirement in a standard—as opposed 

to a labeling requirement with no 

performance implications—is more 

substantial and difficult to meet. 

Accordingly, NHTSA has not found 

many such noncompliances 

inconsequential.1 Potential performance 

failures of safety-critical equipment, like 

seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed 

inconsequential. 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality based 

upon NHTSA’s prior decisions on 

noncompliance issues was the safety 

risk to individuals who experience the 

type of event against which the recall 

would otherwise protect.2 In general, 

NHTSA does not consider the absence 

of complaints or injuries to show that 

the issue is inconsequential to 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.’’ 3 ‘‘[T]he fact that in past 

reported cases good luck and swift 

reaction have prevented many serious 

injuries does not mean that good luck 

will continue to work.’’ 4

Arguments that only a small number 

of vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment are affected have also not 

justified granting an inconsequentiality 

petition.5 Similarly, NHTSA has 

rejected petitions based on the assertion 

that only a small percentage of vehicles 

or items of equipment are likely to 

actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 

percentage of potential occupants that 

could be adversely affected by a 

noncompliance does not determine the 

question of inconsequentiality. Rather, 

the issue to consider is the consequence 

to an occupant who is exposed to the 

consequence of that noncompliance.6

These considerations are also relevant 

when considering whether a defect is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

NHTSA has reviewed the MercedesBenz inconsequentiality petition and 

does not concur with Mercedes-Benz’s 

conclusion that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

and is denying Mercedes-Benz’s 

petition. 

FMVSS 118 S6 sets performance 

requirements intended to mitigate the 

potential for injury from a window or 

sunroof being inadvertently closed 

when a person is in its path. Under the 

standard, the operating controls may not 

allow a window, sunroof or partition to 

close when a test sphere (simulating a 

child’s knee) is pressed against the 

control. Specifically, FMVSS No. 118 

S6(a)(1) requires that ‘‘an actuation 

device must not cause a window, 

partition, or roof panel to begin to close 

from any open position when tested 

. . . [u]sing a stainless steel sphere 

having a surface finish between 8 and 4 

micro inches and a radius of 20 mm ± 

0.2 mm, place the surface of the sphere 

against any portion of the actuation 

device.’’ 

According to the Mercedes-Benz 

petition, ‘‘the actuation devices used to 

engage car wash mode do not meet the 

inadvertent activation provisions of 

FMVSS No. 118 S6(a)(1).’’ However, 

Mercedes-Benz argues activating carwash mode is a multi-step process and 

the process varies depending on the 

current menu contained on the display 

screen of a particular vehicle. After 

considering information provided by 

Mercedes-Benz and from online 

descriptions of the system, NHTSA 

believes there is a minimal level of 

complexity involved in navigating 

through the required sequence of events 

to actuate and close the sunroof. The 

controls at issue include those located 

on the console between the front seats 

where a child could easily stand or 

kneel. Given the unpredictable behavior 

of an unattended child, inadvertent 

selection of the ‘‘Quick Access’’ or 

‘‘Favorite’’ hard buttons, where the ‘‘Car 

Wash Mode’’ icon can be located, is a 

foreseeable and appreciable risk. Car 

Wash Mode can be programmed as the 

only selectable icon within the 

‘‘Favorite’’ menu, increasing its 

susceptibility to accidental engagement. 

In their petition, Mercedes-Benz 

states, ‘‘the sunroofs in the subject 

vehicles contain an auto-reverse feature. 

Upon detecting an object or obstruction 

inside the sunroof, it will automatically 

stop and reverse course and fully 

retract. While the sunroofs do not meet 

the requirements of S5, they are 

certified to the European standard UN– 

R–21. The European standard 

incorporates many of the performance 

features included in the automatic 

reversal function contained in FMVSS 

118, S5.’’ NHTSA acknowledges that the 

sunroofs in the Mercedes-Benz vehicles 

in question are compliant with UN–R– 

21, but Mercedes-Benz concedes they do 

not comply with FMVSS 118 S5, 

NHTSA’s regulations governing 

automatic reversal systems. While UN– 

R–21 does provide a level of safety, 

FMVSS 118 S5 provides a greater level 

of protection from pinching injuries, 

particularly to smaller appendages like 

a child’s fingers. 

Finally, in the petition Mercedes-Benz 

claims the circumstances here are 

analogous to the circumstances in a 

previous NHTSA determination that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
73398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2023 / Notices 

noncompliance was inconsequential. 

NHTSA considers each petition on its 

own merits and the prior decision cited 

by the Petitioner has limited 

applicability in this case. NHTSA 

believes the circumstances for 

accidental window/sunroof closure 

involved in the cited General Motors 

(GM) petition are significantly different 

than those required under MercedesBenz current petition. In granting the 

GM petition, the agency was persuaded 

that the high level of complexity 

involved in navigating through the 

required sequence of events effectively 

eliminated any entrapment risk, 

particularly the limited timeframe 

within which the events would have to 

occur. Specifically, NHTSA stated, ‘‘[i]t 

is very unlikely that the entire sequence 

of events—starting the engine, turning 

the engine off, opening a front door, a 

person becoming positioned in the 

sunroof opening, and pushing the 

sunroof close button—will occur in less 

than 60 seconds from the time the 

ignition is turned off and the vehicle 

operator has exited the vehicle and left 

the immediate area.’’ General Motors, 

Decision Granting Petition for 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 73 FR 

22459 (April 25, 2008). In contrast, the 

noncompliance in the Mercedes-Benz 

petition does not involve as great a level 

of complexity in the required sequence 

of events that would lead to sunroof 

engagement. The Mercedes-Benz 

petition states, in the subject vehicles, 

as few as two inputs to the centralized 

control devices is sufficient to actuate 

and close the sunroof, i.e., with Car 

Wash Mode included in the ‘‘Favorites’’ 

menu. Furthermore, the touch screens at 

issue here remain activated indefinitely 

until the vehicle is turned off or a user 

activates a command. NHTSA therefore 

does not agree that the prior 

determination in the GM case is 

analogous or persuasive here. 

Therefore, Mercedes-Benz has not met 

its burden of persuasion and for the 

reasons described herein NHTSA does 

not find that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In 

consideration of the foregoing analysis, 

NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

FMVSS No. 118 noncompliance at issue 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. 

Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz’s 

petition is hereby denied and MercedesBenz is consequently obligated to 

provide notification of, and a free 

remedy for, the 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) 

Cem Hatipoglu, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23528 Filed 10–24–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund 

Funding Opportunities: Small Dollar 

Loan Program; 2024 Funding Round 

Funding Opportunity Title: Notice of 

Funds Availability (NOFA) inviting 

Applications for the fiscal year (FY) 

2024 Funding Round of the Small Dollar 

Loan Program (SDL Program). 

Announcement Type: Announcement 

of funding opportunity. 

Funding Opportunity Number: CDFI– 

2024–SDL. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 21.025. 

Dates: 

TABLE 1—FY 2024 SMALL DOLLAR LOAN PROGRAM FUNDING ROUND CRITICAL DEADLINES FOR APPLICANTS

Description Deadline 

Time 

(eastern 

time—ET) 

Submission method 

OMB Standard Form (SF)–424 Mandatory form .. November 20, 2023 ...... 11:59 p.m. ..... Electronically via Grants.gov. 

Last day to enter the Employer Identification 

Number (EIN) and Unique Entity Identifier 

(UEI) numbers in AMIS.

November 20, 2023 ...... 11:59 p.m. ..... Electronically via Awards Management Information System (AMIS). 

Last day to contact SDL Program Staff ................ December 18, 2023 ...... 5 p.m. ............ Service Request via AMIS or CDFI Fund 

Helpdesk: 202–653–0421 or sdlp@

cdfi.treas.gov. 

Last day to contact the Certification, Compliance 

Monitoring and Evaluation (CCME) Help Desk.

December 18, 2023 ...... 5 p.m. ............ CCME Helpdesk: 202–653–0423 or Compliance 

and Reporting AMIS Service Request. 

Last day to contact IT Help desk regarding AMIS 

support only.

December 20, 2023 ...... 5 p.m. ............ CDFI Fund IT Helpdesk: 202–653–0422 or IT 

AMIS Service Request. 

Last day to submit Title VI Compliance Worksheet (all Applicants) *.December 20, 2023 ...... 5 p.m. ............ Electronically via AMIS. 

SDL Program Application and Required Attachments.December 20, 2023 ...... 5 p.m. ............ Electronically via AMIS. 

* This requirement also applies to Applicants’ prospective sub-recipients that are not direct beneficiaries of federal financial assistance (e.g., 

Depository Institutions Holding Company and their Subsidiary Depository Institutions). 

Executive Summary: The Small Dollar 

Loan Program (SDL Program) is 

administered by the Community 

Development Financial Institutions 

Fund (CDFI Fund). Through the SDL 

Program, the CDFI Fund provides (1) 

grants for Loan Loss Reserves (LLR) to 

enable a Certified Community 

Development Financial Institution 

(CDFI) establish a loan loss reserve fund 

in order to cover the losses on small 

dollar loans associated with starting a 

new small dollar loan program or 

expanding an existing small dollar loan 

program; and (2) grants for Technical 

Assistance (TA) for technology, staff 

support, and other eligible activities to 

enable a Certified CDFI to establish and 

maintain a small dollar loan program. 

All awards provided through this Notice 

of Funds Availability (NOFA) are 

subject to funding availability. 

I. Program Description 

A. Authorizing Statute: The SDL 

Program is authorized by Title XII— 

Improving Access to Mainstream 

Financial Institutions Act of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

203), which amended the Riegle 

Community Development Banking and 

Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (Pub. 

L. 103–325) to include the SDL Program 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1