Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices 2475 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of 

Transportation, as represented by the 

Maritime Administration (MARAD), is 

authorized to issue coastwise 

endorsement eligibility determinations 

for foreign-built vessels which will carry 

no more than twelve passengers for hire. 

A request for such a determination has 

been received by MARAD. By this 

notice, MARAD seeks comments from 

interested parties as to any effect this 

action may have on U.S. vessel builders 

or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.- 

flag vessels. Information about the 

requestor’s vessel, including a brief 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket Number 

MARAD–2024–0003 by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Search 

MARAD–2024–0003 and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket 

Management Facility is in the West 

Building, Ground Floor of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. The 

Docket Management Facility location 

address is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, MARAD–2024–0003, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 

Building, Room W12–140, Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except on 

Federal holidays. 

Note: If you mail or hand-deliver your 

comments, we recommend that you include 

your name and a mailing address, an email 

address, or a telephone number in the body 

of your document so that we can contact you 

if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

specific docket number. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to the docket at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments, or to submit 

comments that are confidential in 

nature, see the section entitled Public 

Participation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W23–461, 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–0903. Email: 

patricia.hagerty@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described in the application, the 

intended service of the vessel MAS 

PURA VIDA is: 

—Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: 

Requester intends to use for charters. 

—Geographic Region Including Base of 

Operations: Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, 

Oregon, Washington. Base of 

Operations: Montauk, NY. 

—Vessel Length and Type: 72.3′ Motor 

Yacht. 

The complete application is available 

for review identified in the DOT docket 

as MARAD 2024–0003 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Interested parties 

may comment on the effect this action 

may have on U.S. vessel builders or 

businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag 

vessels. If MARAD determines, in 

accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and 

MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part 

388, that the employment of the vessel 

in the coastwise trade to carry no more 

than 12 passengers will have an unduly 

adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or 

a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in 

that business, MARAD will not issue an 

approval of the vessel’s coastwise 

endorsement eligibility. Comments 

should refer to the vessel name, state the 

commenter’s interest in the application, 

and address the eligibility criteria given 

in section 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR part 388. 

Public Participation 

How do I submit comments? 

Please submit your comments, 

including the attachments, following the 

instructions provided under the above 

heading entitled ADDRESSES. Be advised 

that it may take a few hours or even 

days for your comment to be reflected 

on the docket. In addition, your 

comments must be written in English. 

We encourage you to provide concise 

comments and you may attach 

additional documents as necessary. 

There is no limit on the length of the 

attachments. 

Where do I go to read public comments, 

and find supporting information? 

Go to the docket online at https://

www.regulations.gov, keyword search 

MARAD–2024–0003 or visit the Docket 

Management Facility (see ADDRESSES for 

hours of operation). We recommend that 

you periodically check the Docket for 

new submissions and supporting 

material. 

Will my comments be made available to 

the public? 

Yes. Be aware that your entire 

comment, including your personal 

identifying information, will be made 

publicly available. 

May I submit comments confidentially? 

If you wish to submit comments 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit the information you 

claim to be confidential commercial 

information by email to SmallVessels@

dot.gov. Include in the email subject 

heading ‘‘Contains Confidential 

Commercial Information’’ or ‘‘Contains 

CCI’’ and state in your submission, with 

specificity, the basis for any such 

confidential claim highlighting or 

denoting the CCI portions. If possible, 

please provide a summary of your 

submission that can be made available 

to the public. 

In the event MARAD receives a 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

request for the information, procedures 

described in the Department’s FOIA 

regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be 

followed. Only information that is 

ultimately determined to be confidential 

under those procedures will be exempt 

from disclosure under FOIA. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). For information on DOT’s 

compliance with the Privacy Act, please 

visit https://www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. 

(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 

46 U.S.C. 12121) 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00539 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0109 and 

NHTSA–2018–0074; Notice 2] 

Consolidated Glass & Mirror, LLC, 

Denial of Petitions for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petitions. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
2476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices 

SUMMARY: Consolidated Glass & Mirror, 

LLC (CGM), a subsidiary of Guardian 

Industries Corporation (Guardian), has 

determined that certain laminated glass 

parts do not fully comply with Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 205, Glazing Materials. CGM filed 

two separate noncompliance reports 

dated December 14, 2018, and April 15, 

2020, and petitioned NHTSA on 

December 20, 2018 and May 23, 2018, 

respectively, for decisions that the 

subject noncompliances are 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of the petitions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(202) 366–0661, Jack.Chern@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

CGM determined that certain 

laminated glass parts do not fully 

comply with paragraph S6 of FMVSS 

No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 

571.205). On May 23, 2018, CGM 

petitioned NHTSA for an exemption 

from the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 

on the basis that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 

556, Exemption for Inconsequential 

Defect or Noncompliance, without 

initially filing a noncompliance report. 

NHTSA prompted CGM to file the 

required noncompliance report and 

Guardian, on behalf of CGM, did so on 

April 15, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 

573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

Guardian, on behalf of CGM, also filed 

a noncompliance report on December 

14, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. CGM 

petitioned NHTSA on December 20, 

2018, for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 

Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of CGM’s petitions 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on November 10, 

2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR 

71712). No comments were received. To 

view the petitions and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket numbers ‘‘NHTSA–2018– 

0109’’ and ‘‘NHTSA–2018–0074.’’ 

II. Equipment Involved 

Approximately 223 laminated 

windshields manufactured on March 8, 

2018, and shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus 

Plant for installation into Navistar buses 

are potentially involved with the 

noncompliance report dated December 

14, 2018. 

Approximately 1,390 bus door 

windowpanes, manufactured between 

November 1, 2017, and March 29, 2018, 

are potentially involved with the 

noncompliant report dated April 15, 

2020. The windowpanes were sold to 

Vapor Bus for use in the fabrication of 

bus doors. Vapor Bus subsequently 

shipped the bus doors to Nova Bus for 

installation in their buses. 

III. Noncompliance 

Guardian explained that the 

noncompliance is that the markings on 

the subject laminated glass panes do not 

fully meet the requirements specified in 

paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205. 

Specifically, the laminated windshields 

shipped to IC Corp Tulsa Bus Plant were 

marked AS–2, when they should have 

been marked AS–1, and the laminated 

bus door windowpanes sold to Nova 

Bus were marked AS–S, when they 

should have been marked AS–2. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 

includes the requirements relevant to 

these petitions. A manufacturer or 

distributor who cuts a section of glazing 

material, to which FMVSS No. 205 

applies, for use in a motor vehicle or 

camper, must correctly mark that 

material in accordance with section 7 of 

ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996. 

V. Summary of CGM’s Petitions 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of CGM’s Petitions,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by CGM and do not 

reflect the views of the Agency. The 

petitioner describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petitions, CGM 

submits the following reasoning: 

1. CGM explains that the laminated 

glass parts are affixed with the Guardian 

trademark, the correct DOT 

manufacturer’s code mark that NHTSA 

assigned to the manufacturer, and the 

model number that was assigned by the 

manufacturer of the safety glazing 

material. The manufacturer can use the 

model number to identify the type of 

construction of the glazing material. 

2. CGM claims that although the 

laminated glass parts are affixed with 

the misprinted AS numbers, the glass 

construction from which the laminated 

glass parts were fabricated is in full 

compliance with the technical 

requirements that 49 CFR 571.205 as it 

currently applies to laminated glass for 

use in a motor vehicle. CGM believes 

the misprinted AS numbers do not 

affect the safety of the laminated glass 

parts. 

3. Despite the misprinted AS numbers 

being affixed to the laminated glass 

parts, CGM states that the correct parts 

were sold and shipped to Navistar and 

Nova Bus for use as windscreens and 

door windows. 

4. CGM believes that the subject 

noncompliance could not result in the 

wrong part being used in an OEM 

application, given that the part would 

be ordered by its unique part number 

and not the model number. 

Furthermore, CGM says the parts are 

also easily traceable back to Guardian 

via their unique DOT manufacturer’s 

code mark. 

Guardian concluded by contending 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petitions to 

be exempted from providing notification 

of the noncompliance, as required by 49 

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

noncompliance, as required by 49 

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

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis 

1. General Principles 

Congress passed the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 

(the Safety Act) with the express 

purpose of reducing motor vehicle 

accidents, deaths, injuries, and property 

damage. 49 U.S.C. 30101. To this end, 

the Safety Act empowers the Secretary 

of Transportation to establish and 

enforce mandatory FMVSS, pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has 

delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49 

CFR 1.95. 

NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after 

the Agency has determined that the 

performance requirements are objective, 

practicable, and meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

Thus, there is a general presumption 

that the failure of a motor vehicle or 

item of motor vehicle equipment to 

comply with an FMVSS increases the 

risk to motor vehicle safety beyond the 

level deemed appropriate by NHTSA 

through the rulemaking process. To 

protect the public from such risks, 

manufacturers whose products fail to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices 2477 

1See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

2 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

comply with an FMVSS are normally 

required to conduct a safety recall under 

which they must notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of the 

noncompliance and provide a free 

remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120. 

However, Congress has recognized that, 

under some limited circumstances, a 

noncompliance could be 

‘‘inconsequential’’ to motor vehicle 

safety. It, therefore, established a 

procedure under which NHTSA may 

consider whether it is appropriate to 

exempt a manufacturer from its 

notification and remedy (i.e., recall) 

obligations. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h). The Agency’s regulations 

governing the filing and consideration 

of petitions for inconsequentiality 

exemptions are set forth in 49 CFR part 

556. 

Under the Safety Act and part 556, 

inconsequentiality exemptions may be 

granted only in response to a petition 

from a manufacturer, and then only after 

notice in the Federal Register and an 

opportunity for interested members of 

the public to present information, 

views, and arguments on the petition. In 

addition to considering public 

comments, the Agency will draw upon 

its own understanding of safety-related 

systems and its experience in deciding 

the merits of a petition. An absence of 

opposing argument and data from the 

public does not require NHTSA to grant 

a manufacturer’s petition. 

Neither the Safety Act nor part 556 

defines the term ‘‘inconsequential.’’ The 

Agency determines whether a particular 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety based upon the 

specific facts before it in a particular 

petition. An important issue to consider 

in determining inconsequentiality is the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect.1 NHTSA also does not consider 

the absence of complaints or injuries to 

show that the issue is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. ‘‘Most importantly, 

the absence of a complaint does not 

mean there have not been any safety 

issues, nor does it mean that there will 

not be safety issues in the future.’’ 2

2. NHTSA’s Response to the Petitioner’s 

Arguments 

The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to 

reduce injuries resulting from impact to 

glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary 

degree of transparency in motor vehicle 

windows for driver visibility, and to 

minimize the possibility of occupants 

being thrown through the vehicle 

windows in collisions. 

NHTSA has reviewed documentation 

provided by Guardian, on which 

Guardian bases its certification of the 

affected laminated windshields and 

laminated door windowpanes. This 

documentation shows the product met 

the safety performance requirements of 

the standard based on the intended 

design of the product. NHTSA also 

analyzed whether the documentation 

shows that the product met the safety 

performance requirements of the 

affected windshields and door 

windowpanes based on how they are 

labeled and used. 

There is a safety-related purpose for 

every required marking on motor 

vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment. The Agency also has a longstanding position that an incorrect 

marking reduces the safety 

effectiveness. The required markings are 

an assuring indication to the Agency 

and to consumers, including 

secondhand vehicle owners, that the 

item of equipment is certified to the 

applicable Federal requirements and 

provides the required minimum level of 

safety protection. See 49 CFR 571.205, 

S6. The vehicle owners (including 

firsthand and secondhand vehicle 

owners) might go to the original vehicle 

manufacturer and glazing supplier to 

obtain replacement parts when the 

affected glazing needs to be replaced. 

However, it is also likely that many 

vehicle owners will instead purchase 

replacement parts from aftermarket 

suppliers and rely on the marking 

suggested on the glazing, which will 

trigger safety-related concerns if the 

vehicle owners replace the glazing 

solely based on the incorrect marking 

suggested on the glazing. The Agency 

believes it is important to inform all 

vehicle owners, including firsthand and 

secondhand vehicle owners, what the 

proper specifications are for 

replacement products. 

Guardian stated that the laminated 

windshields shipped to IC Corp Tulsa 

Bus Plant were marked as AS–2 when 

they should have been marked as AS– 

1. Because the affected windshield is 

marked as AS–2, consumers might 

replace the windshield according to the 

suggested AS–2 marking. Importantly, 

AS–2 laminated glazing is not permitted 

to be installed as a vehicle windshield 

because the test requirements for AS–2 

are not as comprehensive as for AS–1. 

For example, the test requirements for 

certifying AS–1 laminated glazing 

require additional tests relating to 

deviation, distortion, and penetration 

resistance of the glazing, which are not 

required for certifying AS–2 laminated 

glazing. Therefore, the potential 

consequence to vehicle owners, 

especially for secondhand vehicle 

owners, to replace the windshield with 

an AS–2 laminated glazing is high and 

unsafe. 

Guardian also stated that the 

laminated bus door windowpanes sold 

to Nova Bus were marked as AS–S when 

they should have been marked as AS– 

2. There is no ‘‘AS–S’’ marking as 

specified in the FMVSS No. 205 

standard. Vehicle owners, especially 

secondhand vehicle owners, will be 

confused as to which AS-marked 

glazing they need as a replacement part 

when they need to replace their 

windowpane. 

Moreover, it is highly possible for 

consumers to mis-read the ‘‘AS–S’’ 

marking as an ‘‘AS–5’’ marking because 

of the physical similarity of the printed 

characters ‘‘S’’ and ‘‘5.’’ Replacing an 

AS–2 windowpane with an AS–5 

glazing is not permitted because AS–5 

glazing should only be used for 

installation in locations at levels not 

requisite for driving visibility. 

Conversely, an AS–2 marked glazing is 

required in locations at levels requisite 

for driving visibility. Consequently, 

using an AS–5 glazing as a replacement 

part poses a risk to motor vehicle safety 

because it would impair the bus driver’s 

ability to see clearly. 

In summary, the petitioner’s 

noncompliant markings are not 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

due to the possibility that vehicle 

owners may purchase incorrect and 

unsafe replacement parts for their 

vehicles. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Guardian has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance 

in the affected vehicles is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Guardian’s petitions are 

hereby denied, and Guardian is 

consequently obligated to provide 

notification of and free remedy for that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
2478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2024 / Notices 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Eileen Sullivan, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00391 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

[Docket ID Number: DOT–OST–2014–0031 

BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice] 

Agency Information Collection; 

Activity Under OMB Review; Report of 

Extension of Credit to Political 

Candidates—Form 183 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Research and Technology 

(OST–R), Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics invites the 

general public, industry and other 

governmental parties to comment on the 

continuing need and usefulness of BTS 

collecting reports from air carriers on 

the aggregated indebtedness balance of 

a political candidate or party for Federal 

office. The reports are required when 

the aggregated indebtedness is over 

$5,000 on the last day of a month. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by March 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

DOT–OST–2014–0031 and the 

associated OMB approval #2138–0016 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Mail: Docket Services: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: 202–366–3383. 

Instructions: Identify docket number, 

DOT–OST–2014–0031, at the beginning 

of your comments, and send two copies. 

To receive confirmation that DOT 

received your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may access all comments received 

by DOT at http://www.regulations.gov. 

All comments are posted electronically 

without charge or edits, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Gorham, Office of Airline Information, 

RTS–42, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Street SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

(202) 366–4406. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Approval No. 2138–0016. 

Title: Report of Extension of Credit to 

Political Candidates—Form 183, 14 CFR 

part 374a. 

Form No.: 183. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Certificated air carriers. 

Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly 

Average). 

Number of Responses: 24. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Total Annual Burden: 24 hours. 

Needs and Uses: The Department uses 

this form as the means to fulfill its 

obligation under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (the Act). The 

Act’s legislative history indicates that 

one of its statutory goals is to prevent 

candidates for Federal political office 

from incurring large amounts of 

unsecured debt with regulated 

transportation companies (e.g., airlines). 

This information collection allows the 

Department to monitor and disclose the 

amount of unsecured credit extended by 

airlines to candidates for Federal office. 

All certificated air carriers are required 

to submit this information. 

The Confidential Information 

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act 

of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires 

a statistical agency to clearly identify 

information it collects for non-statistical 

purposes. BTS hereby notifies the 

respondents and the public that BTS 

uses the information it collects under 

this OMB approval for non-statistical 

purposes including, but not limited to, 

publication of both Respondent’s 

identity and its data, submission of the 

information to agencies outside BTS for 

review, analysis and possible use in 

regulatory and other administrative 

matters. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 

2024. 

William Chadwick, Jr., 

Director, Office of Airline Information, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00566 Filed 1–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

[Docket ID Number: DOT–OST–2014–0031 

BTS Paperwork Reduction Notice] 

Agency Information Collection; 

Activity Under OMB Review; 

Submission of Audit Reports—Part 248 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Research and Technology 

(OST–R), Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

invites the general public, industry and 

other governmental parties to comment 

on the continuing need for and 

usefulness of BTS requiring U.S. large 

certificated air carriers to submit a true 

and complete copy of its annual audit 

that is made by an independent public 

accountant. If a carrier does not have an 

annual audit, the carrier must file a 

statement that no audit has been 

performed. Comments are requested 

concerning whether the audit reports 

are needed by BTS and DOT; BTS 

accurately estimated the reporting 

burden; there are other ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collected; and there are 

ways to minimize reporting burden, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by March 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

DOT–OST–2014–0031 and the 

associated OMB approval #2138–0004 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES