20152 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Notices

Issued in Orlando, Florida on April 14,

1995.

Charles E. Blair,

Manager, Orlando Airports District Office

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 95–10037 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 94–48; Notice 2]

John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Grant of

Petition for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

John Russo Industrial, Inc. (Russo) of

San Jose, California, determined that

some of its trucks failed to comply with

requirements of several Federal motor

vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in 49

CFR Part 571. These are FMVSS No.

113, ‘‘Hood Latch Systems,’’ FMVSS No.

120, ‘‘Tire Selection and Rims for Motor

Vehicles other than Passenger Cars,’’

FMVSS No. 205, ‘‘Glazing Materials,’’

and FMVSS No. 207, ‘‘Seating

Systems.’’ All these noncompliances

were discovered on July 13, 1993 during

inspection of vehicles by NHTSA’s

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

(File NCI 3288). Russo filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Russo also petitioned to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15

U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (now 49 U.S.C.

30118 and 30120) on the basis that the

noncompliances were inconsequential

as they relate to motor vehicle safety.

This notice grants the petition.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on June 9, 1994 (59 FR

29861), and an opportunity afforded for

comment. Comments on the petition

were received from Donald W. Beams

(Fleet Manager, Vehicle Maintenance

Division, Department of General

Services, City of San Jose); R. A. Gaffney

(a senior member of the board of the

California Fire Chief’s Mechanics

Education Committee); and Darlene E.

Skelton. These commenters

recommended that the petition be

denied. Comments on the safety issues

were also received from the Fire

Marshal of the State of California,

Ronny J. Coleman.

1. FMVSS No. 113, ‘‘Hood Latch

Systems’’

In 1991, Russo completed two

vehicles which do not comply with the

hood latching requirements in S4.2 of

FMVSS No. 113, in that panels opening

on the front were not provided with a

second latch position on the hood latch

system or with a second hood latch

system. With respect to this

noncompliance, Russo argued:

[49 CFR 571.113 S3] definition, ‘‘Hood

means any movable exterior body panel

forward of the windshield that is used to

cover [an] engine, luggage, storage, or battery

compartment.’’ The forward face panels on

our vehicles are below the windshield, and

are not used as compartment, storage, or any

criteria to classify it as a hood.

Paragraph S4.2 of standard 113 states: ‘‘A

front opening hood which, in any open

position partially or completely obstructs a

driver’s forward view through the windshield

must be provided with a second latch

position on the hood latch system or with a

second hood latch system.’’

The access panels in question are not

classified as a hood mechanism, therefore

[they] do not need to follow these guidelines.

If the panel were left open it would not

obstruct the driver’s view enough to cause a

driving hazard.

Our testing of this design consisted of the

air flow testing of up to 78 mph with a head

wind of 14 mph that brought the total air

speed to 92 mph. Air flow only holds the

access panel down more securely. The panel

cannot fly up as a result of the air flow.

Panels of similar design are easily found on

hundreds of thousands of on-road vehicles

including GMC Astro 9500, Chevrolet Titan

90, Ford CLT 9000, Freight Liner cab overs,

and many other vehicles * * *.

The Hazmat and Command vehicles are

built with windshields which are much

larger than those of typical van or cab over

engine type vehicles. This large windshield

is provided partially as a styling feature and

partly to provide exceptional visibility in low

speed maneuvering situations. The small area

of windshield which would be blocked if the

access panel could physically be lifted up by

air flow, would not even be in the field of

view on typical vehicles in this class.

The City of San Jose disputes Russo’s

contention that the panel is not a hood,

saying that the front compartment ‘‘has

some storage capacity.’’ Commenters

expressed concern that the panel could

rise and strike the windshield. The Fire

Marshal asks whether a standard has

been developed for air flow tests; if no

standard exists, the panel’s performance

in Russo’s tests is an inadequate

justification for granting the petition.

NHTSA has reviewed Russo’s

arguments and the comments received.

The agency accepts the manufacturer’s

position that the panels do not cover the

engine, luggage or storage space, or

battery compartment. The panel,

therefore, would not appear to be a

‘‘hood’’ within the meaning of the

standard’s definition. Even if it were a

hood, Russo’s 92 mph wind tests

provide a measure of assurance that the

airflow increases the pressure on the

panels, making it unlikely that the wind

could blow the panels open. Even if the

panels do blow open, any obstruction to

the operator’s view is minor and affects

visibility only through the lowest

portion of the windshield.

2. FMVSS No. 120, ‘‘Tire Selection and

Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than

Passenger Cars’’

Seventeen vehicles completed or

modified by Russo from 1989 through

1991 do not have the label required by

S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, which includes

the size designation of the tires, the size

designation of the rims, and the cold

inflation pressure of the tires. According

to Russo, the noncompliances are due to

removal of labels after the purchaser

took delivery of the vehicles. It

commented that

Without waiving this petition for

exemption due to inconsequential noncompliance, we will notify the Deputy Chief

of the San Jose Fire Dept. of our offer to

supply and install new decals if they wish in

a coordinated verifiable supervised manner.

We shall document it for NHTSA and send

NHTSA all copies of the labels.

The City of San Jose comments that it

has no records that the labels were

installed or removed. Darlene E. Skelton

says that the same noncompliance can

be found on Russo vehicles provided to

fire departments other than those of San

Jose. The Fire Marshal notes that Russo

has offered to provide the labels.

Russo’s provision of the labels is the

same remedy that other manufacturers

with similar noncompliances have

performed in the absence of an

inconsequentiality petition. Thus, this

action moots the petition for relief from

remedy. Russo’s notification letter to the

Fire Department does not contain all the

information required by 49 CFR Part

577, but the omissions (safety warnings,

DOT address, etc.) are not critical in this

case where there is only one owner,

who is aware of the problem and who

has contacted NHTSA already with

comments on it.

3. FMVSS No. 205, ‘‘Glazing Materials’’

In 1991, Russo completed two

vehicles that do not comply with the

glazing materials marking requirements

in Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205, which

state that windshields must be marked

AS–1 and windows to the right and left

of the driver’s position must be marked

AS–2. The subject vehicles have no

marking on the windshields, and the

markings on the windows to the right

and left of the driver’s position are AS–

3, not AS–2. Russo provided a

photocopy of a purchase order for AS–

1 windshield glass which it claims were

used for the windshields. Russo further

provided a copy of a letter from the

supplier of the cockpit side windows
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 78 / Monday, April 24, 1995 / Notices 20153

stating that the windows in question

were marked AS–3. Russo argued:

The windshields that were installed in

these vehicles were labeled AS–1.

The [installers] had shown us the

windshield label on the windshield stock

plate before the installation and fitting

process. The San Jose Fire Dept.’s Battalion

Chief Master Mechanic was also shown the

label at this time and he said this to Mr.

Shifflet [of NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance] during his visit.

We have a sample of the label that the glass

company that supplies the Fire Dept. And all

of California had supplied(sic) to show DOT.

The windshield that was supplied to us by

San Jose Glass contained this label:

Laminated

16 CFR 1201 M550

CATT II AS–1

DOT 273

* * * * *

The labeling on the driver’s and

passenger’s window is also inconsequential

to vehicle safety as shown by supporting data

that the glass manufacturer uses all the same

AS 2 glass except for a very slight

insignificant light transmission in AScertified configuration.

The City of San Jose notes that the

side windows are AS–3 rather than AS–

2. Darlene E. Skelton and the Fire

Marshal note that the noncompliance is

easily remedied by the installation of

new glass. The Fire Marshal also

believes that the windshield should be

marked to bring it into full compliance

with Standard No. 205.

Because all windshields are required

to be AS–1 glazing, NHTSA is confident

that, if the unmarked windshields have

to be replaced, the replacement

windshield will be AS–1 glazing. The

agency does not concur with Russo’s

characterization of the substitution of

AS–3 glazing for AS–2 glazing as

resulting in ‘‘a very slight insignificant

light transmission’’, but it does

conclude that, because the

noncompliance exists in only two

vehicles, it will have an inconsequential

effect on safety.

4. FMVSS No. 207, ‘‘Seating Systems’’

In April 1991, Russo produced one

Command/Communications van (1989

Gillig chassis) with an 18,000 pound

gross vehicle weight rating. The vehicle

is a specially configured portable

meeting room for use at the scene of

disasters. It is a closed, straight body

van-type vehicle consisting essentially

of a cab for vehicle operation and a

cargo area which Russo converted into

a conference room.

Section 4.4 of FMVSS No. 207

requires that all seats not designed to be

occupied while the vehicle is in motion

are to be conspicuously labeled to that

effect. The seats located in the meeting

room area of this vehicle are not

designed to be occupied while the

vehicle is being operated, but are not

labeled as such.

Subsequent to its petition, Russo

agreed to provide the labels for the seats

in question. This moots its penalty for

exemption from the statutory remedial

requirements. Any failures to comply

with the letter of the notification

requirements of Part 577 are less

significant in the case where

notification is to be provided a single

owner who is aware of the

noncompliance and has commented to

NHTSA on it.

Accordingly, in consideration of the

foregoing, it is hereby found that the

petitioner has met its burden of

persuasion that the noncompliances

herein described are inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety, and its petition is

granted.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8)

Issued on April 18, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–10000 Filed 4–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Privacy Act of 1974; Computer

Matching Programs

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service;

Treasury Department.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section

552a(e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974,

as amended, and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching

Programs, notice is hereby given of the

conduct of Internal Revenue Service

computer matching programs.

In accordance with various provisions

of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue

Code (IRC) of 1986, the computer

matching programs provide Federal,

State, and local agencies with tax

information from IRS records to assist

them in administering the programs and

activities described hereafter. The

purpose of these programs is to prevent

or reduce fraud and abuse in certain

Federally assisted benefit programs and

facilitate the settlement of government

claims while protecting the privacy

interest of the subjects of the match. The

matches are conducted on an on-going

basis in accordance with the terms of

the Computer Matching Agreement in

effect with each participant as approved

by the Data Integrity Boards of both

agencies, and for the period of time

specified in such Agreement. Members

of the public desiring specific

information concerning an on-going

matching activity may request a copy of

the agreement at the address provided

below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed to

Director, Office of Disclosure, Internal

Revenue Service, P.O. Box 795,

Washington, DC 20044.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gwen Collins, Program Manager,

Privacy Act and Education Branch,

Internal Revenue Service, (202) 622–

6240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

nature, purposes, and authorities for IRS

computer matching programs are as

follows:

Matches Conducted Pursuant to IRC

6103(1)(7)

The Service is required, upon written

request, to disclose current information

from returns with respect to unearned

income to any Federal, State, or local

agency administering federally-assisted

benefit programs which provide:

(a) Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) under a State Plan

approved under Part A of Title IV of the

Social Security Act;

(b) Medical assistance under a State

plan approved under Title XIX of the

Social Security Act;

(c) Supplemental Security Income

benefits under Title XVI of the Social

Security Act, and federally administered

supplementary payments of the type

described in section 1616(a) of such Act

(including payments pursuant to an

agreement entered into under section

212(a) of Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat. 155);

(d) Any benefits under a State plan

approved under Titles I, X, XIV or XVI

of the Social Security Act (as those titles

apply to Puerto Rico, Guam and the

Virgin Islands);

(e) Unemployment Compensation

under a State law as described in

section 3304 of the Internal Revenue

Code;

(f) Assistance under the Food Stamp

Act of 1977; and

(g) State-administered supplementary

payments of the type described in

section 1616(a) of the Social Security

Act (including payments pursuant to an

agreement entered into under section

212(a) of Pub. L. 93–66);

(h) Needs-based pensions under

United States Code (USC) Title 38,

Chapter 15 or under any other law

administered by the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs;