4846 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 

200.320. Recipients have flexibility in 

structuring their RFPs and contracts to 

address the unique needs of their 

operations services procurements, 

including considerations for pricing 

structures and staffing substitutions. 

Furthermore, while seeking industry 

input before issuing an RFP may be 

useful, it is not universally required. 

The current guidance provides 

sufficient flexibility for recipients to 

develop RFPs that align with their 

procurement objectives while 

complying with Federal requirements. 

Comment: A law firm on behalf of an 

industry coalition suggested that FTA 

include a series of recommendations to 

recipients on what to include in 

contracts, such as provisions requiring 

the provision of detailed information 

from contract bidders, specifying a 

contract base period, bilateral rather 

than unilateral options for contract 

extension, inflation adjustment and 

force majeure clauses. This commenter 

also suggested FTA specify that fixed 

monthly fee and variable rate; variable 

rate; and cost plus rate structures are all 

appropriate for operations contracts. 

FTA Response: FTA declines to 

include these specific 

recommendations. FTA’s existing 

guidance already provides recipients 

with the flexibility to structure contracts 

in a manner that best meets their 

operational and financial needs, 

provided they remain compliant with 

Federal procurement requirements. 

Similarly, FTA declines to prescribe 

specific pricing structures—such as 

fixed monthly fees, variable rates, or 

cost-plus rates—as universally 

appropriate for recipients. Recipients 

have discretion to select contract terms 

and pricing structures based on their 

procurement objectives, market 

conditions, and the specific 

requirements of each procurement. 

Comment: A city agency commented 

that Chapter VI, Section 2.g(1) should 

clarify whether contracts using 

negotiated hourly rates fall under the 

Cost Reimbursement category. 

FTA Response: FTA declines to 

amend the Circular to describe different 

types of cost reimbursement contracts, 

because these terms are generally 

understood in the contracting 

community, and recipients have broad 

discretion to craft contracts within the 

limits of the Federal procurement 

standards (e.g., cost-plus-percentage-ofcost contracts are ineligible). If the 

commenter has a question about a 

specific procurement, the commenter 

should contact its FTA regional office. 

Comment: A city agency commented 

that Chapter VI, Section h.2(c) should 

clarify the prohibition on using 

qualifications based selection (QBS) 

procedures to procure actual 

construction. They suggested adding a 

cross-reference for exceptions under 

alternative contracting methods. 

FTA Response: FTA has added a 

cross-reference to the section of the 

Circular discussing alternative 

contracting methods. 

Comment: A transit bus manufacturer 

suggested that in Chapter VI, Section 

2(g), ‘‘Contract Type Specified,’’ FTA 

include language on price adjustment 

clauses and contract modifications on 

price increases. 

FTA Response: FTA declines to revise 

this section. The current guidance 

already provides recipients with 

flexibility to structure contracts, 

including incorporating price 

adjustment provisions where 

appropriate, as long as they remain 

consistent with Federal procurement 

requirements and principles of fair and 

reasonable pricing. 

G. Chapter VII 

FTA is adopting as proposed the 

proposal to eliminate Chapter VII and 

replace it with a new paragraph in 

proposed Chapter III on Recipient 

Responsibilities and FTA’s Role in 

Procurement Disputes. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00992 Filed 1–15–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2025–0001] 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

reasons for the denial of a defect 

petition, DP23–003, submitted on July 2, 

2023, by Aldelberto A. Cordova (the 

‘‘Petitioner’’) to NHTSA’s Office of 

Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition 

requests that NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’) 

investigate an alleged defect in the ‘‘ISG 

48-volt on-board electrical system,’’ 

which resulted in a warning light 

illumination and an inability to start the 

Petitioner’s 2023 Mercedes-Benz 

GLC300. The Petitioner further 

requested a recall for 2023 MercedesBenz GLC300 vehicles based on this 

issue. After conducting a technical 

review of the Petitioner’s submissions, 

reviewing complaints related to MY 

2023 Mercedes-Benz GLC300 warning 

light illumination as well as the 

inability to start a vehicle, and 

reviewing information provided by 

Mercedes-Benz regarding the ISG 48- 

volt system, NHTSA has concluded that 

the issues raised by the petition do not 

warrant a defect investigation at this 

time. Accordingly, the Agency has 

denied the petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Alexa Ardron, Vehicle Defects Division 

D, Office of Defects Investigation, 

NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. Phone: (202)- 

819–4554. Email: Alexa.Ardron@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

Interested persons may petition 

NHTSA requesting that the Agency 

initiate an investigation to determine 

whether a motor vehicle or an item of 

replacement equipment does not 

comply with an applicable motor 

vehicle safety standard or contains a 

defect that relates to motor vehicle 

safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 

552.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed 

petition, the Agency conducts a 

technical review of the petition, 

material submitted with the petition, 

and any additional information. 49 

U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. The 

technical review may consist solely of a 

review of information already in the 

possession of the Agency or it may 

include the collection of information 

from the motor vehicle manufacturer 

and/or other sources. After conducting 

the technical review and considering 

appropriate factors, which may include, 

but are not limited to, the nature of the 

complaint, allocation of Agency 

resources, Agency priorities, the 

likelihood of uncovering sufficient 

evidence to establish the existence of a 

defect, and the likelihood of success in 

any necessary enforcement litigation, 

the Agency will grant or deny the 

petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 

CFR 552.8. 

Background Information 

In a letter dated July 2, 2023, 

Aldelberto A. Cordova (the ‘‘Petitioner’’) 

submitted a petition requesting that 

NHTSA initiate an investigation into an 

alleged defect in the ISG 48-volt onboard electrical system, which allegedly 

resulted in warning light illumination 

and an inability to start the Petitioner’s 

2023 Mercedes-Benz GLC300 vehicle. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 10 / Thursday, January 16, 2025 / Notices 4847 

1The authority to determine whether to approve 

or deny defect petitions under 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) 

and 49 CFR part 552 has been further delegated to 

the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

Thus, the scope of ODI’s review was 

directed to those GLC300 vehicles. 

NHTSA has based its decision on a 

review of the material cited by the 

Petitioner in his petition, information 

submitted by Mercedes-Benz in 

response to an Agency request, and 

other pertinent information in NHTSA’s 

databases. 

Summary of the Petition 

The Petitioner alleged that Model 

Year (MY) 2023 Mercedes-Benz GLC300 

vehicles equipped with the 48-volt ISG 

system can experience a failure 

resulting in the illumination of warning 

lights and an inability to start a vehicle. 

The Petitioner enclosed the following 

information with the petition: 

• A description of the check engine 

light illuminating; 

• A description of communications 

with a dealership about illumination of 

the check engine light; 

• Copies of select Mercedes-Benz 

Service Campaign Bulletins; 

• A listing of Mercedes-Benz vehicles 

that are covered under a recall for ISG– 

48V system issues; 

• Excerpts from internet consumer 

chats that reported no-start conditions; 

• A service invoice at a MercedesBenz dealership; 

• Listings of Mercedes-Benz Xentry 

system communications; and 

• Listings of allegedly related NHTSA 

recalls. 

Office of Defects Investigation Analysis 

ODI conducted the following actions 

while evaluating the Petition: 

• Examined the Petition and its 

enclosures; 

• Reviewed the Petitioner’s vehicle 

history; 

• Sent an Information Request letter 

to Mercedes-Benz and reviewed 

Mercedes-Benz’s response to that letter; 

and 

• Searched for similar complaint 

traffic in NHTSA’s consumer 

complaints database. 

In its August 24, 2023 response to 

NHTSA’s Information Request letter, 

Mercedes-Benz stated that: 

• The cause of the condition reported 

by the Petitioner was a software 

deviation in the Central Powertrain 

Controller (CPC); 

• The CPC is separate from and 

independent of the 48V mild hybrid ISG 

system; 

• The CPC condition in question may 

cause intermittent no-start conditions; 

and 

• Mercedes-Benz has an active 

software campaign to correct the CPC 

software deviation. 

ODI conducted a search of NHTSA’s 

consumer complaint database and did 

not find support for a related stalling 

trend in the subject vehicles. 

Based on available information, it 

appears that the defect alleged by the 

Petitioner may be caused by a software 

error in the CPC software, which is a 

system separate and independent from 

the 48-volt system. 

ODI concentrated its evaluation on 

conditions that could lead to a loss of 

motive power during a drive cycle, and 

the CPC condition only takes place 

during a vehicle’s startup. Based on this 

distinction, coupled with the absence of 

a loss of motive power while driving in 

the Petitioner’s vehicle, and an absence 

of other applicable loss of motive power 

allegations in the subject vehicle 

population in general, ODI finds no 

basis on which to open a related safety 

defect investigation at this time. 

Mercedes-Benz has an ongoing service 

campaign to resolve the CPC software 

error, which caused the illumination of 

the engine lights and the no-start 

condition. 

After thoroughly assessing the 

material submitted by the Petitioner, 

information in NHTSA’s databases, and 

information submitted by MercedesBenz in response to an ODI Information 

Request regarding the Petitioner’s 

allegations, and in consideration of the 

action Mercedes-Benz is taking to 

address the software issue, NHTSA does 

not find that a formal investigation is 

warranted at this time. Accordingly, the 

Agency is denying the petition. As with 

all potential motor vehicle safety risks, 

NHTSA will continue to review any 

new information or incidents as they are 

submitted to the Agency. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 

CFR part 552; delegations of authority at 

CFR 1.95(a) and 49 CFR part 501.1

Eileen Sullivan, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00969 Filed 1–15–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Hazardous Materials: Notice of 

Applications for Modification to 

Special Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications for 

modification of 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 January 31, 2025. 

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 or at http://

regulations.gov. 

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)). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1