22622 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2022 / Notices 

were unaware that a speedometer had 

been changed to display speed in km/ 

h, they would be likely to travel at a 

slower speed rather than a faster speed 

that might impact safety because the 

indicated numeric value of the speed in 

km/h would be 1.6 times greater than 

the numeric value of the speed in MPH. 

For example, a driver attempting to 

match a speed limit of 40 MPH using a 

speedometer reading ‘‘40’’ in km/h 

would be traveling approximately 25 

MPH and have an opportunity to safely 

detect the difference between their 

speedometer reading and the speed of 

nearby traffic. 

4. Based on the information provided 

by FCA, NHTSA agrees with FCA that 

their petition is highly similar to 

petitions previously granted 

inconsequential treatment (80 FR 61884 

and 85 FR 39675). 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that FCA has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

FCA’s petition is hereby granted and 

FCA is consequently exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a free remedy for, that 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

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, this 

decision only applies to the subject 

vehicles that FCA no longer controlled 

at the time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of 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 under their 

control after FCA 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. 2022–08107 Filed 4–14–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0074; Notice 1] 

Daimler Trucks North America, 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: Daimler Trucks North 

America, LLC, (DTNA) has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2020–2022 

Freightliner Cascadia and Western Star 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. 

DTNA filed an original noncompliance 

report dated June 30, 2021, and later 

amended it on July 16, 2021. DTNA 

petitioned NHTSA on July 29, 2021, for 

a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces receipt of DTNA’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

(202) 366–0661, jack.chern@dot.gov. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

May 16, 2022. 

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 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

DTNA has determined that certain 

MY 2020–2022 Freightliner Cascadia 

and Western Star motor vehicles do not 

fully comply with the requirements of 

paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205, 

Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). 

DTNA filed an original noncompliance 

report dated June 30, 2021, and later 

amended it on July 16, 2021, pursuant 

to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on July 29, 2021, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
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