95348 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as 

amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued on November 25, 2024. 

Jazmyne Lewis, 

Information Collection Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28086 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions 

on Transportation Project in 

Washington State 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 

ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims 

for judicial review of actions by FHWA. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA that are final. The 

action relates to the SR 3 Freight 

Corridor—New Alignment project, 

located in western Washington within 

the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, 

and Mason County. The Project will 

construct the SR 3 Freight Corridor— 

New Alignment to the east of the 

existing SR3 with a design and posted 

speed of 50 miles per hour. The 

proposed alignment will begin at MP 

22.81 on existing SR 3 and connect back 

to the existing SR 3 alignment at MP 

29.49. The project includes stormwater 

treatment facilities, 12-foot lanes with 8- 

foot shoulders, and roundabouts at the 

north and south connections to existing 

SR 3. The FHWA’s Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) provides 

details on the Selected Alternative for 

the proposed improvements. 

DATES: A claim seeking judicial review 

of the Federal agency actions on the 

listed highway project will be barred 

unless the claim is filed on or before 

May 1, 2025. If the Federal law that 

authorizes judicial review of a claim 

provides a time period of less than 150 

days for filing such claim, then that 

shorter time period still applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Liana Liu, Area Engineer, Federal 

Highway Administration, 711 S Capitol 

Way, Suite 501, Olympia, WA, 98501– 

1284, (360) 753–9553, liana.liu@dot.gov 

or Washington.FHWA@dot.gov, or 

Victoria Book, Environmental & 

Hydraulics Manager, WSDOT Olympic 

Region, P.O. Box 47440, Olympia, WA 

98504–7440, (360) 570–6707, 

victoria.book@wsdot.wa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that FHWA has taken final 

agency actions within the meaning of 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing a NEPA 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) for the SR 3 Freight CorridorNew Alignment Project in Mason and 

Kitsap Counties, Washington. The 

action(s) by FHWA and the laws under 

which such actions were taken, are 

described in the FONSI and the 

associated agency records. That 

information is available by contacting 

FHWA at the addresses provided above. 

The project proposed to provide a 

reliable, high-speed, regional route 

between Kitsap and Mason Counties. 

This new route will move freight and 

regional traffic between Shelton and 

Bremerton, thus bypassing the urban 

center of Belfair. This project will 

reduce congestion and improve safety 

through Belfair and provide an alternate 

route during highway closures resulting 

from vehicular crashes and other 

incidents. Construction of this project 

will provide safe and reliable regional 

access to jobs, goods, and services, and 

improve efficiencies for all public 

service providers, on SR 3 through 

Belfair. A FONSI for the project was 

signed on November 15, 2024. 

Information about the NEPA FONSI 

and associated records are available 

from FHWA at the addresses provided 

above and can be found at: https://

wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/ 

search-projects/sr-3-freight-corridornew-alignment. This notice applies to 

all Federal agency decisions related to 

the FONSI as of the issuance date of this 

notice and all laws under which such 

actions were taken, including but not 

limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4347]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act, as amended [42 

U.S.C. 7401–7671(q)]. 

3. Land: Section 6(f) of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

[16 U.S.C. 4601]; section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and 1536]. Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 

U.S.C. 661–667(d)]. Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]. Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act [16 

U.S.C. 668–668c]. Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archaeological 

and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]; 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.]; 

Farmland Protection Policy Act [7 

U.S.C. 4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act (section 319, section 

401, section 402, section 404) [33 U.S.C. 

1251–1377]. Safe Drinking Water Act 

[42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq.]. 

8. Executive Orders: Executive Order 

11990 Protection of Wetlands; Executive 

Order 11988 Floodplain Management; 

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations; Executive Order 11593 

Protection and Enhancement of Cultural 

Resources; Executive Order 13007 

Indian Sacred Sites; Executive Order 

13287 Preserve America; Executive 

Order 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments; Executive Order 11514 

Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality; Executive Order 

13112 Invasive Species; Executive Order 

13166 Improving Access to Services for 

Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency; Executive Order 13045 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks; Executive Order 14096 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All. 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). 

Ralph J. Rizzo, 

FHWA Division Administrator, Olympia, WA. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28219 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0148] 

Commercial Driver’s License: National 

School Transportation Association 

Application for Renewal of Exemption 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; 

granting of renewal of exemption. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its final 

decision to renew the exemption 

granted to the National School 

Transportation Association (NSTA) for a 

period of two years to permit all 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

applicants seeking a school bus 

endorsement to forgo the engine 

compartment portion of the pre-trip 

vehicle inspection skills testing 

requirement, known informally as the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95349 

1FMCSA received verbal comments from two 

States during a CDL Bi-Monthly Roundtable 

Meeting held on October 1, 2024. These comments 

were made long after the comment period closed on 

July 1, 2024, were raised in an entirely different 

context, and did not raise new substantive issues. 

Accordingly, FMCSA did not consider them in its 

decision. A summary of the comments is 

nevertheless available in the docket to this notice. 

‘‘under-the-hood’’ testing requirement. 

Drivers issued CDLs pursuant to the 

requested exemption are restricted to 

intrastate operation of school buses 

only. 

DATES: The exemption is effective for 

the period of November 28, 2024, 

through November 28, 2026. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and 

Carrier Operations Division; Office of 

Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety 

Standards; 202–366–2722; MCPSD@

dot.gov. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, contact Dockets Operations at 

(202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation Viewing 

Comments and Documents 

To view comments, go to 

www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 

number ‘‘FMCSA–2022–0148’’ in the 

keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, 

sort the results by ‘‘Posted (NewerOlder),’’ choose the first notice listed, 

and click ‘‘Browse Comments.’’ 

To view documents mentioned in this 

notice as being available in the docket, 

go to www.regulations.gov, insert the 

docket number ‘‘FMCSA–2022–0148’’ in 

the keyword box, click ‘‘Search,’’ and 

chose the document to review. 

If you do not have access to the 

internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting Dockets Operations 

on the ground floor of the DOT West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

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

except Federal holidays. To be sure 

someone is there to help you, please call 

(202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–9826 

before visiting Dockets Operations. 

II. Legal Basis 

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant 

exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations. FMCSA must 

publish a notice of each exemption 

request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 

381.315(a)). The Agency must provide 

the public an opportunity to inspect the 

information relevant to the application, 

including the applicant’s safety 

analyses. The Agency must provide an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

request. 

The Agency reviews safety analyses 

and public comments submitted and 

determines whether granting the 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety equivalent to, or greater than, 

the level that would be achieved by the 

current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). 

The Agency must publish its decision in 

the Federal Register (49 CFR 

381.315(b)). If granted, the notice will 

identify the regulatory provision(s) from 

which the applicant will be exempt, the 

effective period, and all terms and 

conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 

381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is 

denied, the notice will explain the 

reasons for the denial (49 CFR 

381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be 

renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)). 

III. Background 

Current Regulatory Requirements 

Under 49 CFR 383.113(a), CDL 

applicants are required to possess basic 

pre-trip vehicle inspection skills for the 

vehicle class that the applicant operates 

or expects to operate. For all test 

vehicles, applicants must be able to 

identify each safety-related part on the 

vehicle and explain what needs to be 

inspected to ensure a safe operating 

condition of each part, including the 

engine compartment. 

IV. Application for Renewal of 

Exemption 

The renewal application for 

exemption from NSTA was described in 

detail in a Federal Register notice 

published on May 30, 2024 (89 FR 

46986) and will not be repeated here as 

the facts have not changed. 

V. Public Comments 

The Agency received 75 comments; 

64 supported the exemption, including 

12 from individuals. Six commenters 

opposed the exemption, including three 

from individuals. Five others took no 

position either for or against the 

request.1 Various school bus companies 

and contractors and industry 

associations including NSTA, American 

Bus Association (ABA), Chicago Public 

Schools, Pennsylvania School Bus 

Association, Wisconsin School Bus 

Association, First Student, and 

individuals supported the exemption 

renewal. Common themes of 

commenters in support of granting the 

exemption renewal included the 

ongoing school bus driver shortage, the 

frequent lack of a need for school bus 

drivers to make under-the-hood repairs, 

and the eventual obsolescence of underthe-hood testing as the industry 

transitions to electric school buses. 

B.R. Williams, Inc., a school bus 

contractor, commented, ‘‘As you know, 

a national school bus driver shortage 

has been a prevalent problem of the 

student transportation system, and the 

effects of the Covid–19 pandemic only 

served to increase this shortage in many 

areas. The pronounced shortage of 

school bus drivers, and more 

importantly school bus driver 

candidates, have had a great impact on 

the ability of our company to serve the 

community. We believe that one 

impediment to qualifying and licensing 

school bus driver candidates is the 

Under the Hood testing requirements for 

school bus driver candidates.’’ 

The Washington State Student 

Transportation Coalition commented, 

‘‘[o]ur bus drivers are not allowed to 

perform any on-road repairs or 

maintenance to their vehicle in the 

event of a break down. The bus driver 

must call dispatch with the problem, 

and typically a replacement bus is sent 

to their location to transport students 

from the original bus . . . Safety for 

students in this situation is the priority 

for our drivers. They must stay with the 

students and let those with training 

address the mechanical issues. To this 

end, the need for Under the Hood 

knowledge is extremely limited and 

only serves as a deterrent for potential 

school bus drivers. Removing this 

outdated requirement will allow us to 

focus our drivers on what is most 

important, keeping students safe.’’ 

The Wisconsin School Bus 

Association added, ‘‘given the current 

transition to electric school buses, the 

Under the Hood testing will eventually 

become obsolete entirely . . . Bus 

manufacturers warn against untrained 

laypersons going under the hood to 

inspect or repair a vehicle. Requiring 

drivers to do so is fraught with danger, 

and ultimately becomes a liability 

concern for operators and testing 

facilities. Wisconsin was one of the first 

states to adopt this exemption and many 

members are using it when existing 

drivers renew their license. The 

exemption has allowed employers to 

maintain the driver pool and 

discontinuing it would be a large 

burden on employers, including 

potentially losing those drivers.’’ 

James Lynch, an individual 

commenter who supported granting the 

exemption renewal, stated, ‘‘We should 

all consider potential options that can 

assist us with overcoming the bus driver 

shortage that has contributed to a 

substantial increase in lost instructional 

time across all schools. This waiver 

does not pose any concerns with safety 

standards and is a practical option that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
95350 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 

each State would have the discretion to 

implement.’’ 

The prevalent themes of comments 

opposed to the exemption included that 

the exemption may pose an increased 

risk to safety, it is costly for States to 

change the current testing process, and 

drivers who lack the strength to lift the 

hood may not be able to perform other 

essential functions, such as assisting 

passengers in an emergency evacuation. 

AWM Associates, LLC commented, 

‘‘FMCSA must recognize there are safety 

issues impacting the operation of school 

buses and the issues must be addressed 

to reduce the high turnover rate driving 

the renewal for the exception. NSTA’s 

request should be denied as the request 

places school children and drivers in 

[h]arm’s way.’’ AWM Associates, LLC 

further asked, ‘‘Has NSTA conducted 

any research to identify the root cause 

of high turnover rates and taken 

corrective actions to repair the issues 

that cause drivers to quit as soon as they 

start?’’ Jennifer Brunette stated: ‘‘In our 

company it would handicap our drivers 

from making extra money due to the 

restriction that is placed on their 

license. They are class B, CDL drivers 

and should be held to the same 

standards of every CDL driver.’’ 

The National Association of State 

Directors of Pupil Transportation 

Services (NASDPTS) commented that it 

was ‘‘concerned by the cost states would 

incur to change the current testing 

process. Licensing and testing agencies 

would have to update their systems, all 

trainers and third-party testers would 

need to be trained on the waiver and 

law enforcement would need to be 

trained on the additional license. 

NASDPTS urges FMCSA to consider the 

burdensome costs, both financial and in 

work hours, to states before considering 

such a requirement.’’ 

NASDPTS further commented: 

‘‘NASDPTS continues to believe that the 

unintended consequences of this waiver 

have result[ed] in an increased risk to 

safety. Many public-school 

transportation fleets rely upon school 

bus drivers to perform pre-trip 

inspections. In addition, many rural 

school bus drivers take their buses home 

each night and therefore must perform 

the pre-trip inspections themselves.’’ 

NASDPTS also noted ‘‘there is also a 

shortage of school bus maintenance 

personnel facing the school 

transportation industry and to not 

ensure all school bus drivers are capable 

of performing the inspection themselves 

could leave a district shorthanded or in 

the position of compromising safety 

. . . NASDPTS believes that if a driver 

is capable of adequately ensuring safety 

in an emergency, then that same driver 

is capable of inspecting under the hood 

of a vehicle.’’ NASDPTS added that it 

‘‘has great unease with limiting drivers 

to intrastate only operations as state 

lines are not always easily avoided in 

school transportation. In the State of 

Vermont, for example, school bus 

drivers often cross state lines even in 

home-to-school transportation as in 

doing so can result in shorter route 

distances and times.’’ 

The American Association of Motor 

Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) did 

not oppose the exemption but had 

technical concerns and stated, ‘‘[t]esting 

experience tells us that of all the 

applicable testing requirements, being 

able to identify the under the hood 

components is not one of the more 

taxing requirements on applicants. 

AAMVA also notes that to date, not 

many jurisdictions have utilized the 

available exemption, and we remain 

unsure that this specific relief will 

amount to a dramatic increase in the 

number of eligible school bus driver 

applicants.’’ AAMVA also commented 

that the under-the-hood testing 

component ‘‘may prevent safety critical 

issues, like fire prevention or other 

hazard mitigation prior to the 

onboarding of children.’’ AAMVA also 

noted that ‘‘the school bus endorsement, 

in conjunction with a passenger 

endorsement, may be transferred to 

general passenger carrying duties or 

other commercial vehicle operations 

that have nothing to do with the school 

bus endorsement—but the exemption 

may provide individual testing relief.’’ 

Finally, AAMVA commented that 

‘‘there is no way for licensing agencies 

to currently differentiate the record of 

someone who has been granted relief 

from this specific exemption from those 

that have not. Meaning, that if someone 

is initially granted the exemption and 

moves to another jurisdiction, the new 

jurisdiction of record may not know that 

the applicant was previously subject to 

an exemption that may not conform 

with their own testing requirements.’’ 

The National Association of Pupil 

Transportation (NAPT) did not oppose 

the exemption but commented, ‘‘[i]t is 

our belief that such a long-term 

extension needs to be based in evidence 

that the exemption is working 

effectively and that the continued 

exemption would not compromise 

safety for the children who ride our 

yellow school buses.’’ The NAPT asked 

if FMCSA has ‘‘data that demonstrates 

that the ‘under the hood’ component has 

led to any of the following (1) 

candidates refusing to complete the test; 

(2) trainees deciding not to continue 

because of the test; or (3) CDL 

candidates failing the test because of the 

component?’’ The NAPT also asked if 

FMCSA has data demonstrating that the 

exemption has increased the numbers of 

school bus drivers, about the 

experiences of States that have 

implemented the exemption, and why 

many States have not implemented the 

exemption. NAPT also suggested 

consideration of information on the 

extent to which potential drivers have 

abandoned their pursuit of a CDL 

because of other ELDT requirements 

that might be unrelated to the 

characteristics of school bus driving. 

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Agency 

Decision 

FMCSA has evaluated NSTA’s 

application and the public comments 

and grants the exemption renewal 

request for a two-year period. Due to the 

limited scope, terms, conditions, and 

restrictions of the exemption and the 

existing regulatory requirements that 

remain in place, FMCSA has 

determined that the ‘‘under-the-hood’’ 

exemption will likely achieve a level of 

safety that is equivalent to the level of 

safety that would be obtained absent the 

exemption. The exemption does not 

apply to the remaining elements of the 

pre-trip vehicle inspection components 

of the skills test, as set forth in 49 CFR 

383.113(a)(1)(ii–ix). Accordingly, 

drivers obtaining CDLs under this 

exemption will have demonstrated the 

ability to safely operate the special 

features of a school bus. 

Further, because school buses are 

typically operated for relatively short 

distances, mechanics or other qualified 

personnel can readily provide roadside 

assistance in the event of an engine 

malfunction. The exemption does not 

change FMCSA’s vehicle maintenance 

requirements in 49 CFR part 396, 

including that every motor carrier must 

systematically inspect, repair, and 

maintain all vehicles (49 CFR 396.3) and 

that unsafe operations of a CMV are 

forbidden (49 CFR 396.7). All State or 

local school bus inspection maintenance 

standards continue to apply. In response 

to concerns about costs, FMCSA notes 

that use of the exemption is optional for 

States, as a State may elect to continue 

to require all CDL applicants to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR 383.113(a)(1)(i). 

As it pertains to bus routes that require 

crossing state lines, the exemption is 

expressly limited to intrastate 

operations and drivers obtaining 

licenses under the exemption must 

adhere to that restriction. A driver who 

was granted a CDL under this 

exemption simply would not be eligible 

to drive a school bus on a route that 

crosses State lines; to drive on such a 

route would require a CDL without a K 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 231 / Monday, December 2, 2024 / Notices 95351 

restriction granted upon passing the full 

skills test. 

FMCSA believes requiring States to 

include ‘‘school bus only’’ and K 

restrictions on CDLs issued under this 

exemption per 49 CFR 

383.153(a)(10)(vii) and (ix) addresses 

concerns about drivers operating under 

the exemption moving to a jurisdiction 

that did not adopt the exemption. The 

new jurisdiction will become aware of 

these restrictions when driver 

applicants surrender their old CDLs, as 

required by 49 CFR 383.71(c)(4). 

FMCSA agrees with comments from 

AAMVA and NAPT that additional data 

would be useful to examine the impact 

of a longer-term exemption. FMCSA 

therefore requires States report to 

FMCSA on a monthly basis the names 

and CDL numbers of drivers who are 

issued a CDL pursuant to the terms of 

this exemption. 

VII. Exemption Decision 

A. Grant of Renewal of Exemption 

This exemption covers States for the 

period beginning at 12:00 a.m. (ET) on 

November 28, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. 

on November 28, 2026. Under this 

exemption, a State may, but is not 

required to, waive the engine 

compartment portion of the pre-trip 

vehicle inspection skills test, set forth in 

49 CFR 383.113(a)(1)(i), only for CDL 

applicants seeking the S and P 

endorsements, subject to the K 

restriction limiting their operation to 

intrastate commerce. States issuing 

CDLs pursuant to this exemption are not 

subject to the requirement in 49 CFR 

383.133(c)(1) that this portion of the 

pre-trip vehicle inspection test be 

administered in accordance with an 

FMCSA pre-approved examiner 

information manual. 

FMCSA intends to continue to closely 

monitor the safety impacts of the relief 

granted under this exemption. As 

necessary, FMCSA may take action to 

modify the exemption, including scaling 

back the regulatory relief provided, or to 

terminate the exemption sooner, if 

conditions warrant. 

B. Terms and Conditions 

States issuing CDLs pursuant to this 

exemption must abide by the following 

terms and conditions: 

1. The State driver’s licensing agency 

must submit the names and CDL 

numbers of drivers who are issued a 

CDL pursuant to the terms of this 

exemption, as authorized by 49 CFR 

383.73(h) and 384.225(e)(2), monthly to 

MCPSD@dot.gov. 

2. The CDL credential must conform 

to the requirements of 49 CFR part 383, 

subpart J. 

3. When issuing a K-restricted CDL 

with the S and P endorsements pursuant 

to this exemption, States must continue 

to comply with the applicable 

provisions set forth in 49 CFR 383.73. 

4. When issuing a K-restricted CDL 

with the S and P endorsements pursuant 

to this exemption, States must place a 

school bus only restriction on the CDL 

in accordance with 49 CFR 

383.153(a)(10)(ix). 

5. States must conduct the remaining 

pre-trip vehicle inspection components 

of the skills test for drivers subject to 

this exemption, as set forth in 49 CFR 

383.113(a)(1)(ii–ix). 

6. This exemption applies only to the 

intrastate operation of school buses used 

to transport pre-primary, primary, or 

secondary school students from home to 

school, from school to home, or to and 

from school-sponsored events, as 

defined in 49 CFR 383.5. 

C. Termination 

FMCSA does not believe that drivers 

issued CDLs under the exemption will 

experience any deterioration of safety 

below the level that would be achieved 

without the exemption. The exemption 

will be rescinded if: (1) States fail to 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of the exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315(b). 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28098 Filed 11–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0080; Notice 2] 

FCA US LLC; Receipt of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler 

Group LLC (collectively referred to as 

‘‘FCA US’’) has determined that certain 

model year (MY) 2018–2022 Alfa Romeo 

Stelvio motor vehicles do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear 

Visibility. FCA US filed a 

noncompliance report dated September 

21, 2021. FCA US subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on October 14, 2021, 

for a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces receipt of FCA US’ 

petition and amended petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

January 2, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the 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: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1