82288 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2024 / Notices 

on behalf of the FAA. Additionally, the 

information will be used to determine if 

a designee continues to be qualified for 

the designation. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by November 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya Glines by email at: Tanya.glines@

faa.gov; phone: 202–380–5896. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0033. 

Title: Representatives of the 

Administrator, 14 CFR part 183. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collection of information was published 

on May 29, 2024 (89 FR 46571). Title 49, 

United States Code, Section 44702 states 

that the Secretary of Transportation may 

delegate to any properly qualified 

private person, the examination and 

testing necessary for the issuance of 

certificates under Title VI of the Federal 

Aviation Act. Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR), part 183, 

Representatives of the Administrator, 

describes the requirements for 

delegating to any properly qualified 

private person, the examination and 

testing necessary for the issuance of 

airmen certificates. 

Response to this collection of 

information is required to obtain a 

benefit, specifically, to obtain a FAA 

designation as a representative of the 

FAA Administrator. Designee applicants 

come from private industry. They are 

experts in the aviation and medical 

communities who are familiar with the 

regulations and certification 

requirements necessary to issue an FAA 

certificate. Only highly experienced 

aviation professionals are expected to 

respond to the collection. The collection 

is for reporting of an individual’s 

eligibility and qualifications and occurs 

on an as needed basis for initial 

applicants. However, if an individual is 

not selected as a designee, their 

application must be updated whenever 

information changes (as needed) and at 

least every 12 calendar months 

(annually). The FAA has now fully 

implemented the use of the Designee 

Management System (DMS) web-based 

application, located at https://designee.

faa.gov/#/login, for the application 

process for all designee types. 

Additionally, designees must report 

any arrest, indictment, or conviction for 

violation of local, State, or Federal law 

to the FAA within 30 days of such 

arrest, indictment, or conviction. 

Respondents: Approximately 2,200 

individual designee applicants and 

designated representatives of the FAA 

Administrator. 

Frequency: As needed, annually. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 3 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

5,000 hours. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 7, 

2024. 

Tanya A. Glines, 

Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA Office of 

Safety Standards, Aircraft Maintenance 

Division, Airmen Section. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23450 Filed 10–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2023–0055; Notice 2] 

Blue Bird Body Company, Denial of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Blue Bird Body Company 

(Blue Bird) has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2019–2024 Blue Bird 

Vision and MY 2020–2024 Blue Bird All 

American school buses do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus 

Emergency Exits and Window Retention 

and Release. Blue Bird filed two 

noncompliance reports, both dated 

August 9, 2023, and subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’) on 

September 13, 2023, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of Blue Bird’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Lind, General Engineer, NHTSA, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

(202) 366–7235. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Blue Bird determined that certain MY 

2019–2024 Blue Bird Vision and MY 

2020–2024 Blue Bird All American 

school buses do not fully comply with 

paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, 

Bus Emergency Exits and Window 

Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). 

Blue Bird filed two noncompliance 

reports, both dated August 9, 2023, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Blue Bird petitioned NHTSA 

on September 13, 2023, 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 Blue Bird’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on December 6, 

2023, in the Federal Register (88 FR 

84872). 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–2023– 

0055.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved 

Approximately 28,765 MY 2019–2024 

Blue Bird Vision and 403 MY 2020– 

2024 Blue Bird All American school 

buses, manufactured between July 1, 

2019, and August 3, 2023, were reported 

by the manufacturer. 

III. Noncompliance 

Blue Bird explains that the Emergency 

Exit Label in the subject vehicles 

contains lettering that does not meet the 

lettering height required by paragraph 

S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217. 

Specifically, the lettering height was 

0.882 centimeters and therefore does not 

meet the minimum lettering height 

requirement of 1 centimeter. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 

217 includes the requirements relevant 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2024 / Notices 82289 

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 

Continued 

to this petition. Concise operating 

instructions describing the motions 

necessary to unlatch and open the 

emergency exit shall be located within 

15 centimeters of the release mechanism 

on the inside surface of the bus. These 

instructions shall be in letters at least 1 

centimeter high and of a color that 

contrasts with its background. 

V. Summary of Blue Bird’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Blue Bird’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Blue Bird. 

They do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. Blue Bird describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

Blue Bird contends that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because the 

difference between 1 centimeter and 

0.882 centimeters would be difficult to 

differentiate without the use of precise 

measuring equipment. A 0.118 

centimeter difference is less than 3/ 

64ths of an inch or 0.047 inches, which 

Blue Bird argues would be 

unrecognizable and would not cause the 

instructions to be unclear to passengers 

or impact their ability to open the door 

in an emergency. 

In 2022, NHTSA denied a petition by 

Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) in 

which the lettering height on the 

affected buses was 2 millimeters less 

than 1 centimeter. Collins contended 

that some of the lettering in the labeled 

message exceeds the requirement by 1 

millimeter. Therefore, the difference of 

the noncompliant lettering being 2 

millimeters smaller than required 

should be deemed inconsequential. 

However, Blue Bird notes that NHTSA 

was not persuaded by Collins’s assertion 

that a 2 millimeter measurement is any 

less significant than a 1 millimeter 

measurement. Blue Bird says that 

NHTSA’s decision in this case implies 

that a 0.118 centimeter variation from 

the required lettering height at a single 

location can be considered 

inconsequential. 

Moreover, Blue Bird believes that 

Vernier caliper jaws, when used for the 

official measurement of letter height can 

introduce inaccuracies, particularly in 

discerning small variations from the 

required height. Blue Bird says manual 

error in the repeatability of both the 

measurement device and the user could 

lead to discrepancies that exceed the 

difference between the Blue Bird text 

size from the requirement. Blue Bird 

contends that the photo provided of the 

measurement in this case illustrates the 

potential for human error in identifying 

a small variation. According to Blue 

Bird, ‘‘the caliper is not positioned flat 

against the decal, and only one location 

on the decal was measured.’’ Therefore, 

Blue Bird believes that a discrepancy of 

0.118 centimeters could be attributed to 

a slight angle of the calipers or 

measurements conducted at various 

points on the signage. 

According to Blue Bird, its lettering 

meets all other FMVSS No. 217 labeling 

requirements, specifically that (1) 

operating instructions must be 

‘‘concise’’ and describe ‘‘the motions 

necessary to unlatch and open the 

emergency exit,’’ (2) operating 

instructions must ‘‘be located within 15 

centimeters of the release mechanism on 

the inside surface of the bus,’’ and (3) 

operating instructions must be ‘‘of a 

color that contrasts with [their] 

background.’’ 

Blue Bird asserts NHTSA has not put 

forth any claim or reasoning indicating 

that a 0.118 centimeter variation from 

the 1 centimeter lettering height 

requirement ‘‘compromises a 

passenger’s ability to safely view or 

understand the lettering.’’ Furthermore, 

Blue Bird contends that NHTSA’s prior 

determination on the Collins petition 

notes the substantial difference between 

a 1 millimeter and a 2 millimeter 

variation from the requirement. 

Additionally, Blue Bird believes it has 

effectively demonstrated that the 

manual use of Vernier calipers can 

introduce ‘‘discrepancies and variations 

when distinguishing variations as small 

as 0.118 cm.’’ 

Blue Bird 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. 

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis 

A. 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. See 49 U.S.C. 30101. To this 

end, the Safety Act empowers the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish 

and enforce mandatory Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). See 

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

delegated this authority to NHTSA. See 

49 CFR 1.95. 

NHTSA adopts a FMVSS only after 

the Agency has determined that the 

requirements are objective and 

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 a 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 comply with a 

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. See 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. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 

30120(h). The Agency’s regulations 

governing the filing and consideration 

of petitions for inconsequentiality 

exemptions are set out at 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 

define the term ‘‘inconsequential.’’ 

Rather, 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 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.1 NHTSA also 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
82290 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2024 / Notices 

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). 

3United 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’’). 

4See 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). 

5Blue Bird only cited one previous NHTSA 

decision, which is the Collins petititon. 

6NHTSA’s statement was a direct response to 

Collins stating that a 1 millimeter difference was 

‘‘substantial,’’ but a 2 millimeter difference was 

‘‘inconsequential.’’ 

does not consider the absence of 

complaints or injuries when 

determining whether a noncompliance 

is inconsequential to safety. The Safety 

Act is preventive, and manufacturers 

cannot and should not wait for deaths 

or injuries to occur in their vehicles 

before they carry out a recall. See, e.g., 

United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 

F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Indeed, 

the very purpose of a recall is to protect 

individuals from risk. See id. ‘‘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

‘‘[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.’’ 3 Rather, the issue to consider 

is the consequence to an occupant who 

is exposed to the consequence of that 

noncompliance.4

Further, because each inconsequential 

noncompliance petition must be 

evaluated on its own facts and 

determinations are highly factdependent, NHTSA does not consider 

prior determinations as binding 

precedent. Petitioners are reminded that 

they have the burden of persuading 

NHTSA that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to safety. 

B. Response to Blue Bird’s Arguments 

NHTSA reviewed Blue Bird’s 

arguments that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Blue Bird contends 

that the lettering height of the operating 

instructions describing the motions 

necessary to unlatch and open the 

emergency window exit failing to meet 

the Emergency Exit Identification 

requirements, as specified in paragraph 

S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, poses little, 

if any, risk to motor vehicle safety. 

NHTSA does not agree. 

The purpose of FMVSS No. 217 is to 

minimize the likelihood of occupants 

being thrown from the bus and to 

provide a means of readily accessible 

emergency egress (See 49 CFR 571.217 

S2). The Emergency Exit Identification 

requirements at S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 

217, at issue here, are specific to the 

operating instructions required for 

emergency exits in school buses. Blue 

Bird argues that the 0.882 centimeter 

letter height shortfall of its operating 

instructions is ‘‘not significant enough 

to make the instructions unclear to 

passengers or compromise their ability 

to open the door in an emergency.’’ Blue 

Bird states ‘‘A 0.118 cm difference is 

less than 3/64ths of an inch or 0.047 

inches and will be unrecognizable.’’ 

However, Blue Bird provides no 

evidence demonstrating that the 

difference in letter height present in this 

noncompliance does not affect 

readability of the operating instructions. 

NHTSA also does not find merit in Blue 

Bird’s statement that ‘‘NHTSA has not 

provided any claim or reasoning that 

that 0.118 cm variation from the 1 cm 

lettering height requirement 

compromises a passenger’s ability to 

safely view or understand the lettering’’ 

because the burden of persuasion lies 

with Blue Bird to provide evidence to 

support its petition. NHTSA adoption of 

the 1 cm requirement when issuing the 

FMVSS was based on the statutory 

requirement that the FMVSS meets the 

need for motor vehicle safety. However, 

Blue Bird failed to provide evidence in 

support of its claim that a deviation 

from that requirement is 

inconsequential to safety. Consequently, 

NHTSA is not persuaded by Blue Bird’s 

argument that the readability of the 

operating instructions is unaffected by 

its noncompliance with the letter height 

requirement. 

Regarding Blue Bird’s argument that 

the letter height variation of 0.118 

centimeters is inconsequential based on 

previous NHTSA decisions,5 NHTSA 

does not agree with Blue Bird that 

NHTSA’s denial of the Collins petition 

referenced by Blue Bird warrants 

granting this petition. NHTSA does not 

agree with Blue Bird that ‘‘NHTSA’s 

decision [to deny the petition] suggests 

that a mere 0.118 cm variation from the 

standard measured in a single location 

can be deemed inconsequential,’’ as 

NHTSA made no such statement in its 

denial of the Collins petition. NHTSA 

also does not agree with Blue Bird that 

‘‘NHTSA expressly noted [in the 

previous petition] that there is a 

material difference in a 1 mm variation 

versus a 2 mm variation,’’ as NHTSA 

made no such statement in the denial of 

the Collins petition. Furthermore, 

NHTSA does not agree that NHTSA’s 

analysis in its denial of the Collins 

petition supports granting Blue Bird’s 

petition here, for three reasons. First, 

NHTSA specifically stated in the denial 

of the Collins petition that ‘‘[e]mergency 

egress occurs under states of emergency, 

which may include fire, smoke, 

panicked children, etc. As such, the 

dilution of these emergency egress 

marking requirements in school buses is 

consequential to motor vehicle safety.’’ 

Blue Bird did not provide any evidence 

to demonstrate that a smaller letter 

height is inconsequential to emergency 

egress under states of emergency. 

Second, NHTSA specifically stated in 

the denial of the Collins petition that 

‘‘NHTSA is not persuaded by Collins’s 

argument that the readability of the 

operating instructions is unaffected by 

the noncompliance with the letter 

height requirement, as no evidence was 

provided in support of this claim.’’ Blue 

Bird also did not provide any evidence 

to demonstrate that the readability of 

the operating instructions is unaffected 

by the noncompliance with the letter 

height requirement. Third, NHTSA 

specifically stated in the denial of the 

Collins petition that ‘‘NHTSA is not 

persuaded by Collins’s argument that a 

2 mm measurement is any less 

substantial than a 1 mm measurement, 

as no evidence was provided in support 

of this claim.’’ 6 Blue Bird also did not 

provide any evidence to demonstrate 

that a 0.118 centimeter difference in 

letter height is not substantial with 

respect to readability of emergency exit 

operating instructions. Consequently, 

NHTSA is not persuaded by Blue Bird’s 

argument that the letter height variation 

of 0.118 cm is inconsequential, as no 

evidence was provided in support of 

this claim. 

NHTSA is also not persuaded by Blue 

Bird’s argument that ‘‘the jaws of a 

Vernier caliper when used for the 

official measurement of letter height can 

be inaccurate and inconsistent when 

used to differentiate such small 

variation from the standard.’’ Blue Bird 

states that ‘‘[m]anual error in 

repeatability of the measurement device 

and user could result in differences that 

exceed the difference the Blue Bird text 

size is from the requirement . . . A 

difference of .118 cm could easily be 

accounted for by a slight angle of the 

calipers or measurements taken in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 197 / Thursday, October 10, 2024 / Notices 82291 

multiple locations on the signage.’’ 

However, Blue Bird did not provide any 

evidence to demonstrate the ease by 

which such manual errors could occur. 

NHTSA also does not agree with Blue 

Bird that ‘‘Blue Bird has demonstrated 

that manual use of Vernier calipers can 

create discrepancies and variations 

when distinguishing variations as small 

as .118 cm,’’ as no such demonstrations 

were provided as part of Blue Bird’s 

petition. Consequently, NHTSA is not 

persuaded by Blue Bird’s argument that 

Vernier calipers can be inaccurate and 

inconsistent for the measurement of 

label letter heights, as no evidence was 

provided in support of this claim. 

Arguments about how the lettering 

height is measured are also not relevant 

given that Blue Bird has acknowledged 

its lettering height actually did not meet 

the minimum lettering height 

requirement of the standard. 

Regarding the additional requirements 

at S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217 for the 

operating instructions, NHTSA agrees 

with Blue Bird that the operating 

instructions ‘‘lettering meets all other 

labeling requirements’’ at S5.5.3(b) of 

FMVSS No. 217, but NHTSA does not 

agree with Blue Bird that partial 

compliance with FMVSS No. 217 is 

sufficient to render the partial 

noncompliance inconsequential to 

safety. NHTSA is not persuaded by Blue 

Bird’s argument that meeting the other 

requirements within S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS 

No. 217 for the operating instructions 

mitigates Blue Bird’s noncompliance 

with the letter height requirement, as no 

evidence was provided in support of 

this claim. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Blue Bird has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 217 noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, Blue Bird’s petition 

is hereby denied and Blue Bird is 

consequently obligated to provide 

notification of and free remedy for that 

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. 2024–23460 Filed 10–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Hazardous Materials: Notice of 

Applications for New Special Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications for special 

permits. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations, notice is hereby given that 

the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 

has received the application described 

herein. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. 

Comments should refer to the 

application number and be submitted in 

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of 

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing 

the special permit number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Burger, Chief, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety General 

Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, East Building, PHH–13, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366– 

4535. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each 

mode of transportation for which a 

particular special permit is requested is 

indicated by a number in the ‘‘Nature of 

Application’’ portion of the table below 

as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail 

freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo 

aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying 

aircraft. 

Copies of the applications are 

available for inspection in the Records 

Center, East Building, PHH–13, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue Southeast, 

Washington DC. 

This notice of receipt of applications 

for special permit is published in 

accordance with part 107 of the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 

2024. 

Donald P. Burger, 

Chief, General Approvals and Permits 

Branch. 

SPECIAL PERMITS DATA

Application 

No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of the special permits thereof 

21856–N ....... Lynden Air Cargo, LLC .......... 172.101(j) .................................... To authorize the transportation in commerce of certain cryogenic liquids by air in quantities that exceed the limits 

specified in Column 9B of the 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table. (mode 4) 

21857–N ....... Trinity Industries, Inc ............. 172.203(a), 173.319, 179.401–1 To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale, and use of DOT 

specification 113A90W tank cars for the transportation of 

certain non-flammable cryogenic liquids. (mode 2) 

21859–N ....... Plastipak Packaging, Inc ....... 178.33b–5(a), 178.33b–6(a) ....... To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale, and use of nonDOT specification plastic non-refillable inside containers 

conforming with all regulations applicable to a DOT specification 2S plastic inside container, except that recycled 

plastic may be used, for the transportation in commerce 

of the hazardous materials in paragraph 6. (modes 1, 2, 

3, 4, 5) 

21863–N ....... Munro & Associates, Inc ........ 173.185(f) .................................... To authorize the transportation in commerce of a damaged 

lithium ion battery. (mode 1) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1