46346 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 

13175 Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 

11514 Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 

Invasive Species. 

The projects subject to this notice are: 

1. Project Location: Santa Rosa 

County, SR 87 Connector from SR 87 

South to SR 87 North, Federal Project 

No: SF1 296 R, S129 348 R, TCSP 033 

U, T129 348 R. Project type: The project 

involves a new roadway facility that 

will directly link SR 87S with SR 87N 

in the vicinity of Milton. Final agency 

actions are taken under: NEPA, FAHA, 

CAA, 4(f), E.O. 12898, etc., and are 

described in the FEIS and ROD issued 

on October 20, 2016, and are available 

at http://www.sr87connector.com/ 

status.html. 

2. Project Location: Orange, Seminole, 

and Volusia Counties, Interstate 4 (I–4) 

from south of SR 528 to east of SR 472, 

Federal Project No: 0041 227 I. The 

project involves the build-out of I–4 in 

Central Florida to result in three General 

Use lanes in each direction with the 

addition of two new Express Lanes in 

each direction, resulting in a total of ten 

dedicated lanes. Final agency actions 

are taken under: NEPA, etc., and are 

described in the Final Evaluation and 

Assessment Study and ROD issued on 

August 24, 2017, and are available at 

www.i4express.com. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

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

Issued on: September 27, 2017. 

David Hawk, 

Acting Division Administrator, Federal 

Highway Administration, Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21372 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0021; Notice 1] 

Gillig, 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: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 1997–2016 Gillig low floor buses 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment. Gillig filed a 

noncompliance report dated February 

24, 2017. Gillig also petitioned NHTSA 

on March 24, 2017, and amended it on 

May 10, 2017, for a decision that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is November 3, 2017. 

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 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 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 Federal Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site 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 

dockets. 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: Gillig, LLC (Gillig), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 1997–2016 Gillig low floor buses 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, 

Reflective Devices, and Associated 

Equipment. Gillig filed a 

noncompliance report dated February 

24, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Gillig also 

petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2017, 

and amended it on May 10, 2017, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 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. 

This notice of receipt of Gillig’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. Buses Involved: Approximately 

41,714 MY 1997–2016 Gillig low floor 

buses, manufactured between December 

31, 1997, and February 3, 2017, are 

potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Gillig stated that 

it installed six different generations of 

turn signal assemblies in the subject 

buses; however, after receiving two 

complaints that their Generation 7 turn 

signal assemblies were not sufficiently 

visible, Gillig and the turn signal 

manufacturer went back and tested the 

previous generations to see if they met 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. 

Test results for generations 1 through 6 

of the turn signal assemblies showed 

that they do not meet all the minimum 

photometry requirements of paragraph 

S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46347 

1All of the designs of the turn signal assemblies 

employ a reflector. Since the spacing from the 

geometric centroid of the turn signal to the lighted 

edge of the lower beam of the headlamp is greater 

than 100 mm, a multiplier is not applicable. 

(FMVSS No. 108, S7.1.1.10.3, S7.1.1.10.4(a)). 

2 In addition, the integrated side markers for 

Generation 3 turn signals were tested and meet all 

photometric requirements. 3 61 FR 1663–1664 (January 22, 1996). 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 

of FMVSS No. 108, states, in pertinent 

part: 

S7.1.1.13 Photometry 

S7.1.1.13.1 When tested according to the 

procedure of S14.2.1, each front turn signal 

lamp must be designed to conform to the 

base photometry requirements plus any 

applicable multipliers as shown in Tables 

VI–a and VI-b for the number of lamp 

compartments or individual lamps and the 

type of vehicle it is installed on. 

V. Summary of Gillig’s Petition: Gillig 

described the subject noncompliance 

and stated its belief that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Gillig 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. Analysis: For front turn signals, the 

FMVSS No. 108 photometry 

requirements provide that ‘‘when tested 

according to the procedure of S14.2.1, 

each front turn signal lamp must be 

designed to conform to the base 

photometry requirements plus any 

applicable multipliers 1 for the number 

of lamp compartments or individual 

lamps and the type of vehicle it is 

installed on.’’ See FMVSS No. 108, 

S7.1.1.13.1. 

A front turn signal lamp meets the 

photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 

108 if it: (1) Meets the minimum 

photometric intensity (‘‘PI’’) 

requirement in each of the five test 

groups, (2) none of the values for the 

individual test points are less than 60% 

of its own minimum PI value, and (3) 

the minimum PI value between test 

points is not less than the lower 

specified minimum value of the two 

closest adjacent test points on a 

horizontal or vertical line. Stated 

another way, an individual test point 

may be up to 40% below its minimum 

PI value as long as the group in which 

it is contained achieves the overall 

group minimum PI value. Based on this 

approach, even if the turn signal did not 

meet the minimum photometry 

requirements at multiple individual test 

points, the assembly complies with the 

standard as long as the overall light 

intensity of all the test points included 

within the group does not fall below the 

required minimum value of the group. 

(See 61 FR 1663; January 23, 1996) 

(‘‘The photometric requirements for turn 

signal lamps may be met at zones or 

groups of test points, instead of at 

individual test points.’’) 

Gillig, in concert with Hamsar 

Diversco (Hamsar), its lighting supplier, 

conducted a series of compliance testing 

for Generations 1 to 6. In order to 

accurately execute the testing, Hamsar 

used CAD drawings of the Gillig LowFloor to construct an aluminum test 

stand fixture. The test stand precisely 

matched the orientation and angle at 

which the turn signal would have been 

installed on a Gillig Low-Floor bus. 

Hamsar then conducted a series of tests 

measuring the PI output using samples 

of each of the available generations of 

turn signals. A summary of test data 

shows: 

(a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest 

generations), the assemblies meet the 

minimum photometric intensity (PI) 

requirements for 3 of 5 groups and allowable 

60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual 

test points. The turn signal’s overall PI 

output of 1271 candelas is approximately 

25% below the combined minimum 

requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). 

(b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements of 3 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 3 turn signals of 

2506 candelas is 47% greater than the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas).2

(c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements for 3 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 4 turn signals of 

2120 candelas is 24% greater than the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas). 

(d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI 8 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 5 turn signals of 

1403 candelas is only 18% below the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas). 

(e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 

6, the assemblies also meet the minimum 

photometric intensity for 3 of 5 test groups 

and allowable 60% of minimum photometric 

intensity for 12 of 19 individual test points. 

The overall photometric intensity output for 

Generation 6 turn signals of 4201 candelas is 

146% greater than the combined minimum 

requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). 

Gillig states that for the test groups in 

each generation that meets the PI 

requirements, the values for those 

groups well exceed the minimum values 

for the group. The PI output for groups 

exceeding the minimum values in 

Generations 1 and 2 achieve 119%– 

242% of minimum values. The PI 

output for Generation 3 turn signals 

achieve 105%–575% of minimum 

values. The PI output for Generation 4 

turn signals achieve 109%–386% of 

minimum values. The PI output for 

Generation 5 turn signals achieve 

224%–267% of minimum values. 

Finally, the PI output for Generation 6 

turn signals achieve 114%–1022% of 

minimum values. 

Gillig further contends that the turn 

signals are sufficiently bright and visible 

overall and there is little if any 

perceptible difference in light output 

when compared with a compliant turn 

signal. The comparisons also illustrate 

how visually similar the performance of 

the earlier generations of the assemblies 

are to the FMVSS No. 108 standard, and 

why their noncompliance garnered no 

attention, by Gillig or its customers, in 

over twenty years of production. 

2. NHTSA has Previously Granted 

Petitions Where Lighting Equipment Did 

Not Meet the Photometry Requirements: 

Gillig contends that from its inception, 

the Safety Act has included a provision 

recognizing that some noncompliances 

pose little or no safety risk. In applying 

this recognition to particular fact 

situations, the agency considers whether 

the noncompliance gives rise to ‘‘a 

significantly greater risk than . . . in a 

compliant vehicle.’’ See 69 FR 19897– 

19900 (April 14, 2000). 

Relying on this same principle, Gillig 

contends that despite the technical 

noncompliance with the PI 

requirements, the light output in 

Generation 1–6 turn signals is 

sufficiently bright and does not create a 

greater risk than turn signal assemblies 

that fully meet the photometric 

parameters. Gillig states that NHTSA 

has considered deviations from these 

photometric parameters on numerous 

occasions, frequently finding that there 

is no need for a recall remedy campaign 

when there are other factors 

contributing to the overall brightness of 

the equipment. 

For example, the agency granted a 

petition by General Motors 3 where its 

turn signals met the photometry 

requirements in 3 of 4 test groups and 

produced, on average, 90% of the 

required PI output. For the three 

complying groups of turn signals, the 

assemblies exceeded the light intensity 

requirements by at least 20%. 

Gillig further states that the agency 

granted similar petitions for 

inconsequential noncompliance where 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

4 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013); 55 FR 37602 

(September 12, 1990); 61 FR 1663 (January 22, 

1996). 

5 63 FR 70179 (December 18, 1998); 61 FR 1663– 

1664 (January 22, 1996. 

6 66 FR 38340 (July 23, 2001). 

7 59 FR 65428 (December 19, 1994). 

8 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001). 

9The Typical life cycle for a public transit bus is 

either 12 years or 500,000 miles, meaning that the 

majority of the vehicles with Generation 1–6 turn 

signals may no longer be in service. 

10 64 FR 44575 (August 16, 1999). 

11 In addition, the integrated side markers for 

Generation 3 turn signals were tested and meet all 

photometric requirements. 

the product did not meet the 

photometric intensity requirements.4

Here, because the PI output of the 

compliant test groups within 

Generations 3, 4 and 6 exceeds the 

candela requirements by a substantial 

margin, a range of 24%–146% above the 

additional candela offsets the overall 

performance of the turn signals.5

Gillig observes that in some instances, 

involving reduced photometric output, 

NHTSA has denied the petition on the 

basis that the condition created a 

measurable impact on the driver’s 

ability to see objects on or above the 

road.6 In contrast, the only indication of 

such an impact involves the Generation 

7 assemblies for which Gillig is in the 

process of conducting a recall remedy 

campaign. There is no indication that 

the deviation in performance for 

Generations 1–6 has led to any difficulty 

in seeing and responding to the turn 

signals, and as supported by the field 

history, the turn signal assemblies have 

operated successfully for years and in 

some cases decades. 

Gillig states that the agency has long 

considered changes in light output in 

the range presented here as being 

visually imperceptible to vehicle 

occupants or other drivers.7 Gillig also 

states that the agency has noted that 

turn signals, unlike head lamps, do not 

affect road illumination so that a 

reduced amount of light output would 

not, by itself, create an increased risk to 

the public.8

Finally, according to Gillig, the 

environment in which the Gillig turn 

signals are used diminishes any 

potential risk to safety. Because the 

buses in which the subject turn signals 

are installed are predominantly public 

transit buses, they are managed by fleet 

operators and undergo regular 

maintenance and reviews by skilled 

technicians.9 Part of that process 

includes a pre-trip inspection. That 

protocol requires a review of the bus’s 

operating systems, including a review of 

the turn signals. Consequently, if the 

photometric intensity of the Generations 

1–6 lights were inadequate, trained 

professional service personnel and 

drivers would have identified this over 

the years, and in some cases, decades of 

pre-trip inspections.10 Gillig has never 

received a complaint, notice or report 

related to visibility concerns with the 

Generation 1–6 turn signals, 

underscoring the overall visibility of the 

turn signals. 

Gillig concluded by expressing the 

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. 

3. Supplemental Petition: In April 

2017, and as part of its ongoing quality 

review process, Gillig contracted with 

an independent lighting certification 

laboratory (Calcoast-ITL) to conduct a 

series of additional compliance tests for 

the turn signals included in Generations 

1–6. In order to accurately execute the 

testing, CAD drawings of the front of the 

Gillig Low-Floor bus were used to 

construct an aluminum test stand 

fixture. The test stand precisely 

matched the orientation and angles at 

which the right and left front turn 

signals would have been installed on 

the bus. The laboratory then conducted 

a series of tests measuring the PI output 

using samples of each of the available 

generations of turn signals. The testing 

was certified to have been conducted in 

accordance with the FMVSS 108 Test 

Procedure (TP–108–13). A summary of 

the test data provides: 

(a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest 

generations), the assemblies meet the 

minimum photometric intensity (PI) 

requirements for 3 of 5 groups and allowable 

60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual 

test points. The turn signal’s overall PI 

output of 1364 candelas is approximately 

20% below the combined minimum 

requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). 

(b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements of 3 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 3 turn signals of 

2387 candelas is 40% greater than the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas).11

(c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements for 4 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI at 15 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 4 turn signals of 

3307 candelas is 93% greater than the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas). 

(d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the 

assemblies meet the minimum PI 

requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and 

allowable 60% of minimum PI 12 of 19 

individual test points. However, the overall 

PI output for Generation 5 turn signals of 

2385 candelas is only 39% below the 

combined minimum requirements for all 5 

groups (1710 candelas). 

(e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 

6, the assemblies also meet the minimum 

photometric intensity for 4 of 5 test groups 

and allowable 60% of minimum photometric 

intensity for 17 of 19 individual test points. 

The overall photometric intensity output for 

Generation 6 turn signals of 5655 candelas is 

231% greater than the combined minimum 

requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas). 

Thus, the new PI output for groups 

that exceed the minimum values are: 

• Generations 1 and 2 achieve 122%– 

267% of minimum values. 

• Generation 3 achieves 192%–428% 

of minimum values. 

• Generation 4 achieves 125%–598% 

of minimum values. 

• Generation 5 achieves 367%–445% 

of minimum values. 

• Generation 6 achieves 143%– 

1185% of minimum values. 

As a result, the groups that exceed the 

minimum values in each lamp 

compensate for the groups that are 

below the minimums to the extent that 

the overall PI outputs of the most recent 

four generation of lights (Generations 3– 

6) significantly exceed the overall PI 

output required for a front turn signal 

lamp (1710 candelas). 

As part of Gillig’s supplemental 

petition, they submitted a video which 

shows a side-by-side comparison of 

Generation 1–6 turn signal assemblies 

with a newer generation of turn signal 

that exceeds all FMVSS No. 108 

minimum requirements for photometry. 

Gillig says that the comparisons were 

performed with the lights in their 

various generations installed on the 

same bus as it is driven through a 

turning maneuver (filmed indoors to 

control ambient lighting throughout the 

comparisons). Gillig believes that it is 

evident from the multiple angles in the 

video that the lights from Generation 1– 

6 are so bright and large that they are 

virtually indistinguishable from the 

newer version. 

To view Gillig’s petition analyses, test 

data and video in its entirety you can 

visit https://www.regulations.gov by 

following the online instructions for 

accessing the dockets and by using the 

docket ID number for this petition 

shown in the heading of this notice. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46349 

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 buses that Gillig 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 under their 

control after Gillig 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) 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21257 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Form 637 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS), 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 637, Application for Registration 

(For Certain Excise Tax Activities). 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before December 4, 2017 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the form and instructions 

should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, 

Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 

1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20224 or through the 

Internet at Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Application for Registration (For 

Certain Excise Tax Activities). 

OMB Number: 1545–0014. 

Form Number: Form 637. 

Abstract: Form 637 is used to apply 

for excise tax registration. The 

registration applies to a person required 

to be registered under Revenue code 

section 4101 for purposes of the federal 

excise tax on taxable fuel imposed 

under Code sections 4041 and 4071; and 

to certain manufacturers or sellers and 

purchasers that must register under 

Code section 4222 to be exempt from 

the excise tax on taxable articles. The 

data is used to determine if the 

applicant qualifies for the exemption. 

Taxable fuel producers are required by 

Code section 4101 to register with the 

Service before incurring any tax 

liability. 

Current Actions: Section B, line 8 is 

removed because it was a burdensome 

to applicants to request their tax 

returns/financials at this stage of the 

process. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations, and not-for-profit 

institutions, and farms. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

2,000. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 11 

hr., 19 min. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 22,620. 

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: September 28, 2017. 

L. Brimmer, 

Senior Tax Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21260 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Regulation Project 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS), 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 

Low-income Housing Credit for 

Federally-assisted Buildings. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before December 4, 2017 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the regulations should be 

directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal 

Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20224, or through the Internet at 

Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Low-income Housing Credit for 

Federally-assisted Buildings. 

OMB Number: 1545–1005. 

Regulation Project Number: T.D. 8302. 

Abstract: The regulation provides 

state and local housing credit agencies 

and owners of qualified low-income 

buildings with guidance regarding 

compliance with the waiver 

requirement of section 42(d)(6) of the 

Internal Revenue Code. The regulation 

requires documentary evidence of 

financial distress leading to a potential 

claim against a Federal mortgage 

insurance fund in order to get a written 

waiver from the IRS for the acquirer of 

the qualified low-income building to 

properly claim the low-income housing 

credit. 

Current Actions: There is no change to 

this existing regulation. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES