Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 22623 

1See Ford Motor Company; Grant of Application 

for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 60 

FR 31345 (June 14, 1995); see also Fleetwood 

Enterprises, Inc.; Action on Application for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 

10964 (March 5, 1998) 

Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

This notice of receipt of DTNA’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any Agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Windshields Involved 

Approximately 68,658 MY 2020–2022 

Freightliner Cascadia, MY 2021 Western 

Star 57X, MY 2021–2022 Western Star 

49X, and MY 2021–2022 Western Star 

47X motor vehicles, manufactured 

between June 25, 2020, and June 22, 

2021, are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

DTNA explains that the 

noncompliance is that windshield 

installed in the subject vehicles may 

contain a Tintex Plus light material, 

which, in combination with the 

windshield configuration and thickness, 

do not fully meet the requirements of 

paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205. 

Specifically, the windshields in the 

subject vehicles have a luminous 

transmittance measured between 67.35 

and 68.01 percent, instead of the 

required 70 percent. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 

includes the requirements relevant to 

this petition. Glazing materials for use 

in motor vehicles must conform to 

ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996. 

V. Summary of DTNA’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

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

arguments provided by DTNA. They 

have not been evaluated by the Agency 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. DTNA describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

DTNA states that although the 

luminous transmittance of the 

windshields in the subject vehicles is 

1.99–2.65 percent less than the required 

70 percent, the subject vehicles have 

such features as windshield’s 

installation angles that make effective 

visibility much higher than other 

vehicles with similar transmittance.’’ 

DTNA claims that NHTSA has 

previously determined that luminous 

transmittance, lower than what is 

required, to not be a safety risk. 

According to DTNA, NHTSA’s ‘‘Report 

to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle 

Windows,’’ in March 1991 found that 

‘‘the light transmittance of windows of 

the then new passenger cars and vans 

that complied with Standard No. 205 

did not present an unreasonable risk of 

accident occurrence.’’ DTNA says that a 

study reported by TUY Rheinland also 

supports its position that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because the report 

states that ‘‘low contrast targets were not 

seen 100% of the time by either group 

of subjects, but the normally sighted 

group performed equally well in seeing 

them through windshields of 89, 76, and 

58% transmittance’’ and visibility was 

not found to be ‘‘much reduced’’ until 

it reached 40%. Thus, DTNA believes 

that the subject windshields ‘‘are far 

closer to the standard’’ in luminous 

transmittance than what the TUY 

Rheinland study found would reduce 

visibility. 

DTNA explains the light 

transmittance ‘‘as experienced by a 

vehicle driver, is a function of the 

windshield construction and 

installation angle.’’ DTNA states that 

because of the measurements found in 

the subject windshields, the luminous 

transmittance of the subject windshields 

is ‘‘only nominally outside the 

specification but perform in a manner 

exceeding the typical modern passenger 

vehicle with a window at a standard 

angle.’’ Therefore, the luminous 

transmittance in the subject windshields 

are ‘‘as good or better than the visibility 

through windshields of other vehicles 

that comply’’ with the requirement. 

Furthermore, DTNA explains that due 

to the ‘‘6–9 month lifetime’’ for heavy 

truck windshields, ‘‘the length of time 

for any particular windshield to be on 

the road is limited’’ and would be 

replaced with windshields that do not 

contain the subject noncompliance. 

DTNA claims that NHTSA has 

previously granted inconsequentiality 

petitions for similar noncompliances 

with luminous transmittance.1 DTNA 

says that in those cases, NHTSA agreed 

that although the percentage of 

luminous transmittance was lower, the 

reduction ‘‘would have no practical or 

perceivable effect on driver visibility.’’ 

Therefore, DTNA believes that granting 

its petition would be consistent with 

inconsequentiality petitions that 

NHTSA has previously granted. 

DTNA concludes by stating its belief 

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. 

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, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that DTNA no 

longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on 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 and 

replacement windshield glass panes 

under their control after DTNA 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. 2022–08108 Filed 4–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 

are generally prohibited from engaging 

in transactions with them. Additionally, 

OFAC is publishing the names of one or 

more persons that have been removed 

from the SDN List. As of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register, their property and interests in 

property are no longer blocked, and U.S. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
22624 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 

persons are no longer generally 

prohibited from engaging in transactions 

with them. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for effective date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 

202–622–2490; Associate Director for 

Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; 

or the Assistant Director for Sanctions 

Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 

2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Actions 

A. On April 11, 2022, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following persons are 

blocked under the relevant sanctions 

authority listed below. 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 22625 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN15AP22.040</GPH>
22626 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–C 

Entity 

1. I.C.I.C. KFT. (a.k.a. I.C.I.C. LTD.), Bocskai 

utca 9, Pecel 2119, Hungary; 

Organization Established Date 15 Jul 

2021; Tax ID No. 27189173–1–13 

(Hungary); Registration Number 13–09– 

214318 (Hungary) [BALKANS–EO14033] 

(Linked To: GRUEVSKI, Nikola). 

Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vii) of 

E.O. 14033 for being owned or controlled by, 

or having acted or purported to act for or on 

behalf of, directly or indirectly, Nikola 

Gruevski, a person whose property and 

interests in property are blocked pursuant to 

E.O. 14033. 

B. On May 28, 2003, the individuals listed 

below were included in the Annex to 

Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, 

‘‘Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten 

International Stabilization Efforts in the 

Western Balkans,’’ as amended by Executive 

Order 13304 of May 28, 2003, ‘‘Termination 

of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia 

and Modification of Executive Order 13219 

of June 26, 2001’’ and added to the SDN List. 

OFAC has determined that circumstances no 

longer warrant the inclusion of the following 

individuals on the SDN List under this 

authority. 

1. ARSENOVIC, Djojo; DOB 06 Jan 1952; POB 

Donje Crnjelovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina 

(individual) [BALKANS]. 

2. BEARA, Ljubisa; DOB 14 Jul 1939; POB 

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 

(individual) [BALKANS]. 

3. BOROVNICA, Goran; DOB 15 Aug 1965; 

ICTY indictee at large (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

4. DERONJIC, Miroslav; DOB 06 Jun 1945; 

POB Bratunac, Bosnia-Herzegovina; 

ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

5. HADZIC, Goran; DOB 07 Sep 1958; POB 

Municipality of Vinkovci, Croatia 

(individual) [BALKANS]. 

6. HYSENI, Xhemajl; DOB 15 Aug 1958; POB 

Lojane, Macedonia (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

7. MARINIC, Zoran; DOB 06 Jun 1963; POB 

Busovaca, Bosnia-Herzegovina; ICTY 

indictee at large (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

8. MRKSIC, Milan; DOB 20 Jul 1947; POB 

Vrginmost, Croatia; ICTY indictee in 

custody (individual) [BALKANS]. 

9. MUSLIU, Jonuz; DOB 05 Jan 1959; POB 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN15AP22.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 22627 

Konculj, Serbia and Montenegro 

(individual) [BALKANS]. 

10. NIKOLIC, Drago; DOB 09 Nov 1957; POB 

Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina; ICTY 

indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

11. RUSHITI, Sait (a.k.a. RUXHETI, Sait); 

DOB 07 Nov 1966 (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

12. TODOROVIC, Stevan; DOB 29 Dec 1957; 

POB Donja Slatina, Bosnia-Herzegovina; 

ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

13. CENGIC, Hasan; DOB 03 Aug 1957; POB 

Odzak, Bosnia-Herzegovina (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

14. OJDANIC, Dragoljub; DOB 01 Jun 1941; 

POB Ravni-Cajetina, Serbia and 

Montenegro; Ex-Fry Minister of Defense; 

ICTY indictee in custody (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

15. BALA, Haradin; DOB 10 Jun 1957; POB 

Gornja Koretica, Serbia and Montenegro; 

ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

16. JOSIPOVIC, Drago; DOB 14 Feb 1955; 

POB Santici, Bosnia-Herzegovina; ICTY 

indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

17. MUCIC, Zdravko; DOB 31 Aug 1955; 

ICTY indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

18. STRUGAR, Pavle; DOB 13 Jul 1933; POB 

Pec, Serbia and Montenegro; ICTY 

indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

19. TALIC, Momir; DOB 15 Jul 1942; POB 

Piskavica, Bosnia-Herzegovina; ICTY 

indictee (individual) [BALKANS]. 

20. ZELENOVIC, Dragan; DOB 12 Feb 1961; 

ICTY indictee at large (individual) 

[BALKANS]. 

21. GASHI, Sabit; DOB 30 Dec 1967; POB 

Suva Reka, Serbia and Montenegro 

(individual) [BALKANS]. 

The removal of the individuals listed 

above from the SDN List is effective as 

of the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: April 11, 2022. 

Andrea M. Gacki, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08144 Filed 4–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Requesting 

Comments on Form 5316 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, 

as part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

invites the general public and other 

federal agencies to take this opportunity 

to comment on proposed and/or 

continuing information collections, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting 

comments concerning Form 5316, 

Application for Group or Pooled Trust 

Ruling. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before June 14, 2022 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or 

by email to omb.unit@irs.gov. Include 

OMB Control No. 1545–2166 in the 

subject line of the message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Requests for 

additional information or copies of this 

collection should be directed to Jon 

Callahan, (737) 800–7639, at Internal 

Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20224, or through the internet at 

jon.r.callahan@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IRS is 

currently seeking comments concerning 

the following information collection 

tools, reporting, and record-keeping 

requirements: 

Title: Application for Group or Pooled 

Trust Ruling. 

OMB Number: 1545–2166. 

Form Number: Form 5316. 

Abstract: Group/pooled trust sponsors 

file this form to request a determination 

letter from the IRS for a determination 

that the trust is a group trust 

arrangement as described in Rev. Rul. 

81–100, 1981–1 C.B. 326 as modified 

and clarified by Rev. Rul. 2004–67, 

2004–28 I.R.B. 28, as modified by Rev. 

Rul. 2011–1, 2011–2, I.R.B. 251, and as 

modified by Rev. Rul. 2014–24, 2014–37 

I.R.B. 529. 

Current Actions: There are changes to 

the existing collection: (1) Form 5316 

was revised for clarity and organization, 

(2) line 1(l) was added for the group 

trust EIN, (3) lines 2(b) through 2(g) 

duplicated information collected in 

required attachments and were 

removed, (4) additional Revenue Ruling 

and statutory citations were added 

throughout the form and instructions, 

and (5) lines in the Procedural 

Requirements Checklist do not collect 

information and were removed from the 

burden calculation. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 200. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 14 

hours, 6 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 2,820. 

The following paragraph applies to all 

of the collections of information covered 

by this notice: 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Books or records relating to a collection 

of information must be retained as long 

as their contents may become material 

in the administration of any internal 

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and 

tax return information are confidential, 

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; and (e) estimates of capital 

or start-up costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Approved: April 12, 2022. 

Jon R. Callahan, 

Tax Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08101 Filed 4–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Form 8918 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service, 

as part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

IRS is soliciting comments concerning 

Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure 

Statement. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before June 14, 2022 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1