Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Notices 2981 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, at (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name (Federal Transit 

Administration) and Docket Number 

(FTA–2022–0002) for this notice, at the 

beginning of your comments. If sent by 

mail, submit two copies of your 

comments. 

Electronic Access and Filing: This 

document and all comments received 

may be viewed online through the 

Federal eRulemaking portal at http://

www.regulations.gov or at the street 

address listed above. Electronic 

submission and retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days a year. Please follow the 

instructions. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

home page at https://

www.federalregister.gov. 

Privacy Act: Except as provided 

below, all comments received into the 

docket will be made public in their 

entirety. The comments will be 

searchable 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 should not include 

information in your comment that you 

do not want to be made public. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or at https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Coleman, National Transit 

Database Program Manager, FTA Office 

of Budget and Policy, (202) 366–5333, 

thomas.coleman@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Transit Database (NTD) is the 

Federal Transit Administration’s 

(FTA’s) primary database for statistics 

on the transit industry. Each year, 

transit systems use data from the Census 

Bureau to update their basic information 

(B–10) form indicating what urbanized 

areas and rural areas they serve, and 

also to complete their Federal Funding 

Allocation (FFA–10) form distributing 

their service data across those urbanized 

and rural areas. In implementing the 

2010 Census, FTA required transit 

systems to complete only one FFA–10 

form for the 2011 annual report (76 FR 

30997). Transit systems were not 

required to complete an FFA–10 form 

based on the UZA definitions from the 

2000 Census. Instead, transit systems 

filled out one FFA–10 form for their 

2011 annual report during the summer 

of 2012, following the release of the 

2010 Census UZA definitions in spring 

2012. 

In 2021, the Census Bureau 

announced that the new UZA 

definitions from the 2020 Census will 

not be released until summer 2022 or 

later. These UZA definitions are 

necessary for the NTD to create 

apportionment files. Federal law 

requires FTA to use the most recent 

urbanized area definitions from the 

Census Bureau (49 U.S.C. 5302(23)) in 

formula funding apportionments. 

For the 2021 annual report, NTD 

reporters have already begun 

completing an initial FFA–10 and B–10 

forms using existing 2010 Census 

definitions. For Report Year 2021, FTA 

proposes to require transit systems to 

submit the B–10 and FFA–10 forms 

using 2010 Census data by the normal 

NTD annual report deadline. If the 

Census Bureau releases new urbanized 

area definitions prior to October 1, 2022, 

FTA would require transit operators to 

submit new B–10 and FFA–10 forms 

using 2020 Census data as an addendum 

to the annual report. Collecting this 

addendum based on 2020 Census data is 

necessary to allow FTA to meet the UZA 

definition found in 49 U.S.C. 5302(23) 

and produce apportionment data files 

that support the apportionment of 

formula funds. If the Census Bureau 

releases new urbanized area definitions 

on or after October 1, 2022, then FTA 

would not require the form addendum 

and would instead integrate the new 

urbanized area definitions into the 2022 

reporting process. 

To minimize reporting burden, transit 

operators will not have to fill in the 

addendum from scratch. The addendum 

will pull in as much data as possible 

from the initial FFA–10 and B–10 forms 

completed using 2010 Census UZA 

definitions, based on unchanged or 

minimally changed UZA boundaries. 

Nuria I. Fernandez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00851 Filed 1–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0105; Notice 2] 

BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC 

(BMW), a subsidiary of BMW AG, has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2019 BMW F750 GS and F850 GS 

motorcycles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. 

BMW filed a noncompliance report 

dated October 19, 2018. BMW 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

October 29, 2018, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the grant of BMW’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–5304, 

Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

BMW has determined that certain MY 

2019 BMW F750 GS and F850 GS 

motorcycles do not fully comply with 

paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205, 

Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). 

BMW filed a noncompliance report 

dated October 19, 2018, pursuant to 49 

CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. BMW subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on October 29, 2018, 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 BMW’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on February 27, 2020, 

in the Federal Register (85 FR 11447). 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
2982 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Notices 

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’’). 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2018– 

0105.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved 

Approximately 604 MY 2019 BMW 

F750 GS and F850 GS motorcycles, 

manufactured between June 21, 2018, 

and September 19, 2018, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

BMW explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject 

motorcycles are equipped with 

windscreens that do not comply with 

paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205. 

Specifically, the subject windscreens 

were marked with the AS4 glazing type 

marking instead of the AS6 glazing type 

marking. The windscreens were AS6 

glazing and should have been marked as 

the AS6 glazing type. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205 

includes the requirements relevant to 

this petition. A manufacturer or 

distributor who cuts a section of glazing 

material to which this standard applies, 

for use in a motor vehicle or camper, 

must mark that material in accordance 

with section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 

and certify that its product complies 

with this standard in accordance with 

49 U.S.C. 30115. 

AS4 certified glazing is typically rigid 

plastic and is only permitted for use in 

certain locations. AS4 glazing may not 

be used for motorcycle windscreens. 

AS4 glazing is not subject to a flexibility 

test, whereas AS6 marked glazing is 

subject to this test. AS6 certified glazing 

is typically made of flexible plastic and, 

unlike AS4 certified glazing, can be 

used as a motorcycle windscreen. 

Additionally, AS6 certified glazing is 

not subject to two impact tests, an 

abrasion test, and a dimensional 

stability test, whereas, AS4 certified 

glazing is subject to these tests. 

V. Summary of BMW’s Petition 

BMW described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The 

following views and arguments 

presented in this section ‘‘V. Summary 

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

arguments provided by BMW. 

In support of its petition, BMW 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. FMVSS No. 205 Section 2 (Purpose) 

states, ‘‘The purpose of this standard 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.’’ 

2. Potentially affected vehicles 

conform to all of the FMVSS No. 205 

performance requirements. Therefore, 

they satisfy the stated purpose of 

FMVSS No. 205 regarding a) injury 

reduction, and b) rider visibility. 

3. Potentially affected vehicles 

conform to all the FMVSS No. 205 

performance requirements. Therefore, 

there are no safety performance 

implications associated with this 

potential noncompliance. 

4. BMW has not received any contacts 

from vehicle owners regarding this 

issue. Therefore, BMW is unaware of 

any vehicle owners that have 

encountered this issue. 

5. BMW is unaware of any accidents 

or injuries that may have occurred as a 

result of this issue. 

6. NHTSA has previously granted 

petitions for inconsequential 

noncompliance regarding FMVSS No. 

205 involving marking of window 

glazing. BMW believes that its petition 

is similar to other manufacturers’ 

petitions in which NHTSA has granted. 

Examples of similar petitions, in which 

NHTSA has granted, include the 

following: 

• Ford Motor Company, 80 FR 11259 

(March 2, 2015). 

• Ford Motor Company, 78 FR 32531 

(May 30, 2013). 

• Ford Motor Company, 64 FR 70115 

(December 15, 1999). 

• General Motors, LLC, 79 FR 23402 

(September 25, 2015). 

• General Motors, LLC, 70 FR 49973 

(August 25, 2005). 

• Toyota Motor North America Inc., 

68 FR 10307 (March 4, 2003). 

• Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc., 78 

FR 59088 (September 25, 2013). 

• Mitsubishi Motors North America, 

Inc., 80 FR 72482 (August 22, 2015). 

• Pilkington North America, Inc., 78 

FR 22942 (April 17, 2003). 

• Supreme Corporation, 81 FR 72850 

(October 21, 2016). 

• Custom Glass Solutions Upper 

Sandusky Corp., 80 FR 3737 (January 

23, 2015). 

7. Vehicle production has been 

corrected to conform to FMVSS No. 205 

S6. 

8. BMW also provided a copy of the 

FMVSS No. 205 Certification Report 

from AIB-Vincotte International N.V. 

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, the 

Agency has not found many such 

noncompliances inconsequential.1

Potential performance failures of safetycritical equipment are rarely deemed 

inconsequential. 

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.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

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

BMW’s petition for inconsequential 

noncompliance. 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. 

The subject vehicles in BMW’s 

petition have noncompliances that 

pertain to motorcycle windscreens that 

have incorrect AS markings. The 

Agency believes that it is important that 

the motorcycle windscreens equipped 

in the subject motorcycles are compliant 

with both FMVSS No. 205 performance 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2022 / Notices 2983 

and labeling requirements. Nonetheless, 

BMW’s petition establishes that the 

incorrectly marked windscreens on the 

affected motorcycles conform to all 

FMVSS No. 205 performance 

requirements as evidenced in a test 

report showing the windscreens meet all 

the AS6 glazing performance 

requirements required by FMVSS No. 

205. 

As the performance requirements are 

met, NHTSA’s principal concern is 

whether the noncompliant marking of 

the windscreen creates a safety risk in 

the event that consumers mistakenly 

believe the glazing meets the impact, 

abrasion, and dimensional stability 

requirements of AS4 glazing or attempt 

to replace the windscreen with AS4 

glazing. 

First, NHTSA considered whether the 

mismarking would lead a consumer to 

believe that the windscreen offers the 

same level of performance provided by 

AS4 glazing that is not provided by AS6 

glazing material. Specifically, NHTSA 

considered whether a rider would 

believe that, as a result of the 

mismarking, the windscreen provides 

impact protection and meets 

dimensional stability and abrasion 

requirements. While this could be a 

potential safety risk, the size and 

placement of the subject windscreen 

was factored into NHTSA’s analysis. 

The windscreens come in two sizes, one 

measuring 316 mm wide by 309 mm 

high, and the other measuring 314 mm 

wide by 216 mm high. The size, design, 

and placement of the subject 

windscreens appear such that a rider 

would expect that they would offer little 

to no impact protection. Further, the 

size and placement of the windscreens 

are such NHTSA does not believe that 

the mismarking will create a safety risk 

from riders believing that the 

windscreen meets the abrasion and 

dimensional stability requirements of 

AS4 glazing. According to BMW, the 

subject windscreens are intended to 

protect the dashboard electronics, 

deflect wind away from the rider, and 

serve as an aesthetic design for the 

motorcycle. Further, NHTSA believes 

that few riders know the differences in 

performance of AS4 and AS6 glazing. 

NHTSA believes that due to the size, 

design, placement of the subject 

windscreens, and the likelihood that 

riders would know the differences 

between the performance of AS4 and 

AS6 glazing, riders are unlikely to 

believe that the windscreen offers a 

higher level of performance than 

actually offered by the noncompliant 

windscreens. 

Second, in the case that the 

windscreens require replacement, 

NHTSA believes that there is minimal 

risk in a motorcyclist being misled by 

the improper marking and concluding 

that a replacement windscreen must be 

of AS4 glazing rather than AS6 flexible 

glazing. The Agency believes that this 

risk is minimal because an AS4 

replacement part would not be available 

and obtaining such a part would require 

that the new windscreen be custom 

fabricated from rigid AS4 glazing. If 

such fabrication were possible, it would 

likely entail considerable inconvenience 

and expense. Further, BMW or another 

replacement part supplier would be able 

to easily identify the correct AS6 

replacement glazing through their 

replacement parts identification 

systems. 

BMW’s petition also cited multiple 

instances where NHTSA previously 

determined that incorrect AS markings 

on glazing were inconsequential for 

safety. The Agency first notes that use 

of previous determinations for 

inconsequential noncompliance should 

be viewed with caution as each 

inconsequential noncompliance petition 

is evaluated on the individual facts 

presented and determinations are made 

on a case-by-case basis. Further, of the 

eleven cited petitions, only 2 pertained 

to glazing that contained an incorrect 

AS glazing type marking and are 

potentially relevant to this petition. In 

both the petition from General Motors, 

LLC, (79 FR 23402, September 25, 2015) 

and the petition from Mitsubishi Motors 

North America, Inc. (80 FR 72482, 

August 22, 2015), AS3 glazing was 

marked as AS2 glazing. While the 

petitions are similar to BMW’s, AS3 

glazing and AS2 glazing have the same 

impact protection requirements. The 

analysis for this petition is different 

because, as discussed above, AS4 

glazing is required to meet two impact 

tests that are not required for AS6 

glazing. 

Given that the windscreens in the 

subject motorcycles meet all the 

performance requirements as required 

by FMVSS No. 205 and the improper 

marking of the glazing presents no 

recognizable safety risk, the Agency 

finds that the subject glazing 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. 205 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

BMW’s petition is hereby granted. 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 

vehicles 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 vehicles 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. 2022–00869 Filed 1–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Small Business 

Lending Fund Quarterly Supplemental 

Report 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other federal agencies to comment on 

the proposed information collections 

listed below, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 21, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the burden estimate, or any other aspect 

of the information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, by 

the following method: 

• Federal E-rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Refer to Docket Number TREAS–DO– 

2022–0001 and the specific Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1505–0228. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1