6646 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices 

www.stb.gov. A recording of the public 

commentary phase of the hearing, the 

conference, and the evidentiary phase of 

the hearing, as well as a transcript of 

each, will be posted on the Board’s 

website when they become available. 

It is ordered: 

1. A public hearing in this proceeding 

will commence on February 15, 2022. 

All portions of the hearing taking place 

on February 15, 2022, and February 16, 

2022, will be held online using video 

conferencing. 

2. By February 7, 2022, any person 

who is not one of the Parties identified 

above and wishes to speak at the public 

portion of the hearing shall file with the 

Board a notice of intent to participate 

identifying the entity, if any, the person 

represents, the proposed speaker, and 

the amount of time requested, and also 

summarizing the key points that the 

speaker intends to address. Also by 

February 7, 2022, such persons shall 

submit, via email at Hearings@stb.gov, 

the email address of the speaker. 

3. Notices of intent to participate will 

be posted to the Board’s website and 

need not be served on any other persons 

or entities. 

4. Counsel for Amtrak, CSXT, NSR, 

and the Port are directed to appear at a 

conference before the Board on February 

16, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or immediately 

following the conclusion of the public 

commentary phase of the hearing, 

whichever is later. 

5. Amtrak, CSXT, NSR, and the Port 

are directed to appear at the evidentiary 

phase of the hearing before the Board 

beginning on March 9, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. 

6. All evidence previously filed in 

this proceeding is accepted into the 

record. 

7. This decision is effective on its 

service date. 

8. This decision will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

Decided: February 1, 2022. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02416 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–1086] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of a Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Aviation 

Maintenance Technician Schools; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA published a 

document in the Federal Register of 

November 23, 2021, concerning request 

for comments about the FAA’s intention 

to request the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval to renew an 

information collection, in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. The document was published 

with an incorrect docket number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya Glines by email at: Tanya.glines@

faa.gov; phone: 202–380–5896. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction: In the Federal Register of 

November 23, 2021, FR Doc. 2021– 

25472, on page 66615, in the third 

column, correct the docket number to 

read: 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–1086] 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 

2022. 

Tanya A. Glines, 

Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA Safety 

Standards, Aircraft Maintenance Division. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02356 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0107 Notice 2] 

Weldon, Denial of Petition for Decision 

of Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Weldon, a Division of Akron 

Brass Company, has determined that 

certain backup lamps do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment. Weldon filed a 

noncompliance report dated November 

7, 2018, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on November 30, 2018, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

the denial of Weldon’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(202) 366–5304, Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Weldon has determined that certain 

backup lamps it manufactures do not 

fully comply with paragraph S14.4.1 of 

FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 

CFR 571.108). Weldon filed a 

noncompliance report dated November 

7, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 556, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

November 30, 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 Weldon’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on July 15, 2020, in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 42977). 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–2018– 

0107.’’ 

II. Equipment Involved 

Approximately 6,315 rear 

combination lamps manufactured 

between June 6, 2018, and June 25, 

2018, are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Weldon explains that its subject rear 

combination lamp is noncompliant 

because its backup lamp does not meet 

the requirements for color as specified 

in paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. 

Specifically, the subject backup lamp, 

when tested in accordance with the 

Tristimulus Method, fell outside the 

required boundaries for white light. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraphs S14.4.1, S14.4.1.4.2, and 

S14.4.1.4.2.3, of FMVSS No. 108 

includes the requirements relevant to 

this petition. The color of a sample 

device must comply when tested by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices 6647 

1See General Motors Corporation; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001). 

2See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 61 FR 1663 (January 22, 1996). 

3See General Motors Corporation; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001), for a 

denial of inconsequentiality petition where points 

on the headlamp used for overhead sign 

illumination were substantially below the 

photometric minimum values, which impaired 

driver visibility. 

4NHTSA notes that Weldon uses the incorrect 

term ‘‘backup indicator taillamps’’. NHTSA believes 

that Weldon is referring to a ‘‘backup lamp.’’ 

5NHTSA believes that Weldon means that the 

backup lamp intensity is not affected. 

6Cf. 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). 

either the Visual Method or the 

Tristimulus Method. When tested using 

the Tristimulus method, the backup 

lamp color must comply with the color 

of light emitted within the following 

boundaries for white (achromatic): 

• x = 0.31 (blue boundary) 

• y = 0.44 (green boundary) 

• x = 0.50 (yellow boundary) 

• y = 0.15 + 0.64x (green boundary) 

• y = 0.38 (red boundary) 

• y = 0.05 + 0.75x (purple boundary) 

V. Summary of Weldon’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

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

arguments provided by Weldon and do 

not reflect the views of the Agency. 

Weldon describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Weldon 

offers the following reasoning: 

1. Weldon states that backup lamps 

are intended to signal to other drivers 

that a vehicle is in reverse gear. Weldon 

says that despite the slight deviation 

from the white color boundaries, the 

backup lamps, when engaged, are fully 

illuminated and are still sufficiently 

white in color that they will not create 

confusion (at any distance) that the 

truck is in the reverse gear. The lamps 

still comply with the luminous intensity 

photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 

108. Weldon contends that even with 

the color specification noncompliance, 

these backup lamps fulfill the intended 

purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies 

to signal lamps, namely to ensure 

signals are understood by other road 

users. 

2. Weldon also argues that the 

vehicles for which the lamps have been 

supplied have full backup lamp 

functionality. This creates no safety risk, 

as the backup lamps are fully functional 

and remain completely illuminated. 

Further, Weldon states, the difference in 

color white light is very slight, so much 

so that the color is nearly imperceptible 

to the human eye at any distance. The 

lamps are sufficiently visible, effective, 

would not be confused with any other 

signal lamp, and do not create a safety 

risk. 

3. In considering past petitions 

involving FMVSS No. 108, Weldon 

contends that NHTSA has previously 

considered and found deviations from 

the standard which were not perceptible 

to the human eye and/or did not affect 

the illumination or brightness of the 

lamp were inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety. According to Weldon, 

NHTSA has found that deviation from 

the photometric parameters were 

inconsequential to safety when the 

overall intensity of the equipment was 

near to the required parameters to not be 

perceptible to the human eye. Weldon 

asserts that NHTSA has historically 

employed a rule that a margin of up to 

25 percent deviation from FMVSS No. 

108 photometric intensity requirements 

is reasonable to grant a petition of 

inconsequentiality for noncompliant 

signal lamps. See ‘‘Driver Perception of 

Just Noticeable Differences of 

Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities,’’ 

(herein, ‘‘UMTRI Report’’) DOT HS 808 

209, Sept. 1994 (described by Weldon as 

a study sponsored by NHTSA that 

demonstrated that a change in luminous 

intensity of 25 percent or less is not 

noticeable by most drivers and is a 

reasonable criterion for determining the 

inconsequentiality of noncompliant 

signal lamps). According to Weldon, 

NHTSA has stated that it has granted 

such inconsequentiality petitions when 

it was ‘‘confident that the noncompliant 

signal lights would still be visible to 

nearby drivers.’’ 1 Moreover, Weldon 

notes that NHTSA has stated that 

‘‘because signal lighting is not intended 

to provide roadway illumination to the 

driver, a less than 25 percent reduction 

in light output at any particular test 

point is less critical.’’ Id. Weldon points 

out that NHTSA has stated the UMTRI 

Report’s findings to be ‘‘mostly 

analogous to those of the signal lighting 

research.’’ Id. Weldon also states that 

NHTSA granted a petition for a 

determination of inconsequentiality to 

General Motors for turn signals that met 

the photometry requirements in just 

three of four test groups and produced, 

on average, 90 percent of the required 

photometric intensity.2 Weldon further 

states that NHTSA has granted similar 

petitions for lamps that do not comply 

with photometric requirements in other 

slight ways. 

4. Conversely, Weldon states that 

NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality 

petitions in cases where headlamps do 

not meet the minimum FMVSS 

requirements, thus, causing an 

increased safety risk.3 The purpose of 

headlamps, as opposed to rear signal 

lighting, is roadway illumination, which 

is crucial to road safety. Insufficient 

roadway illumination from 

nonconforming headlamps creates an 

increased safety risk to the public and 

thus is held to a higher standard than 

the 25 percent deviation of the UMTRI 

Report. Id. Backup indicator taillamps,4

unlike headlamps, do not illuminate the 

road for drivers, and thus deviation 

from the FMVSS No. 108 color 

requirement of the standard does not 

impede visibility. Weldon says the 

backup lamps in question are still 

entirely visible (that is, the brightness of 

the tail lamps is not affected) 5 and still 

appear white to the human eye at any 

distance, as demonstrated by Weldon’s 

findings. The lamps fulfill the intended 

purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies 

to signal lamps, which is to make a 

driver’s operating signals understood. 

Further, Weldon states that despite the 

slight deviation from the white light 

boundaries, the backup lamps would be 

understood to signal that the truck is in 

reverse gear and create no additional 

safety risk and fulfill the intent of 

FMVSS No. 108. 

5. Weldon has not received any 

reports related to the performance of the 

lamps from the field and is not aware of 

any accidents or injuries related to the 

issue. 

Weldon concludes 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, the 

Agency has not found many such 

noncompliances inconsequential.6

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
6648 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices 

7See 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). 

8 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

9United 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’’). 

10See 49 CFR 571.108 S4. 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect.7 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.’’ 8

‘‘[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.’’ 9

One purpose of vehicle backup lamps 

is to indicate that a motor vehicle has 

engaged its reverse gear and is intending 

to move in that direction, which is a 

safety-critical alert to both pedestrians 

and drivers of other vehicles. Another 

purpose of the backup lamps is to serve 

as an illumination device so the driver 

can see what is behind the vehicle when 

moving in reverse.10

As an illumination device, the driver 

relies on the correct color of light for 

proper color rendering. Color rendering 

of the environment, provided by a lamp 

whose color is within the range of 

permissible chromaticity coordinates, 

allows the driver to properly see objects, 

obstacles, pedestrians, etc. when 

conducting this maneuver. Based on the 

chromaticity plot provided by Weldon 

for this lamp, the lamp color is outside 

the white boundary as required by 

FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA does not agree 

with Weldon’s arguments that the color 

of light emitted by backup lamps is 

inconsequential to safety. With respect 

to Weldon’s argument related to 

granting other petitions where a 

deviation from the requirement is not 

perceptible to the human eye and/or did 

not affect the illumination or brightness 

of the lamp, Weldon states in its own 

petition that in the subject 

noncompliance, there is a noticeable 

difference between the compliant lamp 

and the noncompliant lamp when 

viewed side-by-side. 

Equally important, NHTSA does not 

find Weldon’s arguments concerning 

NHTSA’s past decisions related to the 

research documented in the ‘‘Driver 

Perception of Just Noticeable 

Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp 

Intensities’’ paper relevant to this 

petition since the application of the 

study is limited to luminous intensity of 

signal lamps and irrelevant to color 

requirements. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Weldon has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, Weldon’s petition 

is hereby denied and Weldon 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) 

Anne L. Collins, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02311 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0118] 

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special 

Permit; Florida Gas Transmission 

Company, LLC 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this 

notice to solicit public comments on a 

request for a special permit received 

from the Florida Gas Transmission 

Company, LLC (FGT). The special 

permit request is seeking relief from 

compliance with certain requirements 

in the federal pipeline safety 

regulations. At the conclusion of the 30- 

day comment period, PHMSA will 

review the comments received from this 

notice as part of its evaluation to grant 

or deny the special permit request. 

DATES: Submit any comments regarding 

this special permit request by March 7, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

the docket number for this special 

permit request and may be submitted in 

the following ways: 

• E-Gov website: http://

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

System: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket number for the special permit 

request you are commenting on at the 

beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, please 

submit two (2) copies. To receive 

confirmation that PHMSA has received 

your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may submit comments at http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

Note: There is a privacy statement 

published on http://www.Regulations.gov. 

Comments, including any personal 

information provided, are posted without 

changes or edits to http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to this notice contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to this 

notice, it is important that you clearly 

designate the submitted comments as 

CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask 

PHMSA to give confidential treatment 

to information you give to the agency by 

taking the following steps: (1) Mark each 

page of the original document 

submission containing CBI as 

‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along 

with the original document, a second 

copy of the original document with the 

CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the 

information you are submitting is CBI. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1