The Spares Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 2708-2709 [05-860]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2708
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19991; Notice 1]
Coupled Products, Inc., Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Coupled Products, Inc. (Coupled
Products) has determined that certain
hydraulic brake hose assemblies that it
produced do not comply with S5.3.4
and S5.3.6 of 49 CFR 571.106, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 106, ‘‘Brake hoses.’’ Coupled
Products has filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect
and Noncompliance Reports.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), Coupled Products has
petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Coupled
Product’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.
A total of approximately 7,417 brake
hose assemblies are affected, utilizing a
fitting identified as Part Number 12271
which was incorporated into 6,075
assemblies bearing Part Number 3381
and 1,244 assemblies bearing Part
Number 3381A; plus 98 assemblies
bearing a fitting with Part Number
380653.
S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 106, tensile
strength, requires that ‘‘a hydraulic
brake hose assembly shall withstand a
pull of 325 pounds without separation
of the hose from its end fittings.’’ S5.3.6
of FMVSS No. 106, water absorption
and tensile strength, requires that ‘‘a
hydraulic brake hose assembly, after
immersion in water for 70 hours, shall
not rupture when run continuously on
a flexing machine for 35 hours.’’
The potentially affected hoses were
manufactured during the time period of
January 30, 2004 through September 10,
2004, using a ‘‘straight cup’’ procedure
rather than the appropriate ‘‘step cup’’
procedure. Coupled Products states that
these hoses were sold for original
equipment applications. Compliance
testing by the petitioner of sample hose
assemblies from each of the affected part
numbers revealed that they failed the
tensile strength test, and also failed the
water absorption and tensile strength
test.
Coupled Products believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:36 Jan 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. The
petitioner states the following:
Part number 12217 is used in assemblies
for SUV and pick-up truck applications. Part
number 380653 is utilized for suspension lift
kits. * * * [T]he hose assemblies in these
applications are located in a location that is
above significant pieces of vehicle hardware
including the driveshaft, differential case,
and fuel tank (Hardware). This configuration
is such that a linear, end-to-end ‘‘straight
pull’’ on the hose assembly, as that contained
in the FMVSS No. 106 tensile strength test
procedure, is not a real-life scenario. Rather
than a ‘‘straight pull,’’ it is more likely (albeit
remote) that the free length of the hose itself
could be entangled or caught on a piece of
road debris or other obstruction, resulting in
a ‘‘side pull’’ on the assembly. This scenario
itself is remote because the underlying
hardware shields the hose assembly.
Therefore, if debris were to become entangled
in the hose assembly, it would first have to
bypass the Hardware. If that were to occur,
the impact would need to be so great as to
make the concern of braking potential
irrelevant.
Despite the fact that tensile stress on the
assembly is an unlikely real life scenario, to
assess the impact of this unlikely scenario,
petitioner conducted a side pull tensile test
on a sample of the subject brake hose
assemblies to simulate the possible effect of
a side pull on the integrity of the hose
assembly. * * * The ‘‘side pull’’ test results
show that the tensile load achieved prior to
the ends separating from the hose exceeded
538 pounds in each of the samples analyzed
for tensile results—well in excess of the 325
pound requirement.
Coupled Products states that in other
cases NHTSA determined that a FMVSS
No. 106 noncompliance is
inconsequential where, because of the
specific vehicle application involved,
the hose assembly would not be subject
to the type of forces specified in the
standard. Coupled Product says:
See, e.g., General Motors Grant of Petition
* * * 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 1992)
(granting petition with respect to adhesion
test noncompliance because, among other
reasons, the ‘‘end use of the hoses was such
that they were subject to pressure, not
vacuum applications’’), and Mitsubishi
Motors America Grant of Petition * * * 57
FR 45868 (October 5, 1992) (same).
Coupled Products further states:
Because the braking system on the vehicles
in question utilizes a dual chamber master
cylinder, any failure of the hose assembly
due to excessive tensile force—unlikely as
that may be—will not result in a loss of
braking capability of the vehicle. Depending
on the assembly affected, front or rear
braking capability would still exist, although
additional stopping distance might be
required. Furthermore, the vehicle’s
emergency braking system would also exist.
Couple Products indicates that the
problem has been corrected.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on the petition described
above. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the
beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following
methods. Mail: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Nassif Building, Room
PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand
Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It
is requested, but not required, that two
copies of the comments be provided.
The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal holidays. Comments may be
submitted electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System Web
site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing
the document electronically. Comments
may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or
may be submitted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated below will be filed and will be
considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied,
notice of the decision will be published
in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: February 14,
2005.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: January 10, 2005.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05–859 Filed 1–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19257; Notice 2]
The Spares Company, Denial of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
The Spares Company (Spares), has
determined that air brake hose
assemblies it manufactured from 2000 to
2004 do not comply with S7.2.3 of 49
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2005 / Notices
CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106,
‘‘Brake Hoses.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), Spares has
petitioned for a determination that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30 day
comment period, on October 8, 2004 in
the Federal Register (69 FR 60460).
NHTSA received two comments.
A total of approximately 17,000
aftermarket air brake hose assemblies
produced between November 2000 and
June 2004 are affected. S7.2.3 of FMVSS
No. 106 requires that ‘‘each air brake
hose assembly made with end fittings
that are attached by crimping or swaging
* * * shall be labeled by means of a
band around the brake hose assembly
* * * [with the DOT symbol and the
name of the manufacturer] or, at the
option of the manufacturer, by means of
labeling [of at least one end fitting
which is etched, stamped or embossed
with a designation that identifies the
manufacturer].’’ The affected brake
hoses do not have the manufacturer’s
label or a designation of the
manufacturer as required by S7.2.3.
Spares manufactured these brake hose
assemblies from its incorporation date
in November 2000 until June 2004,
when production was stopped because
Spares discovered the noncompliance.
Spares believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Spares
explains that the units are assembled by
Spares using Goodyear-labeled hoses
and RB Royal-labeled fittings. Spares
states that the ‘‘brake hose assemblies
meet all functional performance
requirements of the standard for the
hose, the fittings, and the assembly and
therefore will perform exactly as
intended.’’
Spares further states that there have
been no complaints from any distributor
or consumer concerning the functioning
of the brake hose assemblies. Spares has
begun notifying all of its distributors of
the labeling defect and will provide a
band for each noncomplying hose
currently remaining in the distributors’
possession. Also, Spares has corrected
the problem.
The agency received two public
comments. One was received from an
individual who stated he has many
years of experience in brake systems
and components for air braked vehicles.
He agreed with Spares’ assertion that
the lack of a labeling band is
inconsequential to safety as long as all
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:36 Jan 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 106 are met. The comment said in
part:
Spares appears to be doing the right thing
in supplying labeling bands to their
distributor for application onto existing
inventory. It would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to notify vehicle owners about
hoses sold in the aftermarket * * *.
However, the fact that it may be
difficult to notify vehicle owners does
not lessen the consequence of the
noncompliance to motor vehicle safety
and therefore is not persuasive.
A second comment was from a private
individual who supported not granting
the petition. However, this commenter
did not address the issue to be
considered in determining whether to
grant this petition, that is, is the effect
of the noncompliance on motor vehicle
safety. Therefore, this comment also was
considered not to be persuasive.
This matter presents an unusual and
unique notification issue. The air brake
hose assemblies are not labelled to
designate the manufacturer. NHTSA has
reviewed the petition and has
determined that the noncompliance is
not inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. All brake hose assembly
manufacturers are required to label their
assemblies by either a band around the
brake hose or by marking the end fitting
with a designation that identifies the
assembly manufacturer. This label is
critical, since in cases where the
assembly has a defect or a
noncompliance the label would be the
only way to identify and track the
affected assemblies. Thus, the agency
maintains a manufacturer identification
database to ensure that each
manufacturer has a unique identifier, so
that in the event of a defect or
noncompliance the manufacturer can be
easily identified and consumers will be
able to easily identify a product that
may be the subject of a recall.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has not met its burden of persuasion
that the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Spares’ petition is hereby
denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: January 10, 2005.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05–860 Filed 1–13–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
January 6, 2005.
The Department of Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be
received on or before February 14, 2005,
to be assured of consideration.
DATES:
Departmental Offices/Office of Foreign
Assets Control
OMB Number: 1505–0167.
Form Numbers: TD F 90–22.52.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Cuban Remittance Affidavit.
Description: Submissions will provide
the U.S. Government with information
to be used in enforcing the prohibitions
on the transmission of funds to Cuba by
persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Respondents: Individuals or
households, Business or other for-profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents/
Recordkeepers: 2,100,000.
Estimated Burden Hours Per
Respondent/Recordkeeper: 1 minute.
Frequency of Response: Other
(variable).
Estimated Total Reporting/
Recordkeeping Burden: 65,000 hours.
Clearance Officer: Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Offices, Room 2110, 1425
New York Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20220, (202) 622–1563.
OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr.,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, (202)
395–7316.
Lois K. Holland,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–823 Filed 1–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811–16–P
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2709
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2708-2709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19257; Notice 2]
The Spares Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
The Spares Company (Spares), has determined that air brake hose
assemblies it manufactured from 2000 to 2004 do not comply with S7.2.3
of 49
[[Page 2709]]
CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106,
``Brake Hoses.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Spares
has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.'' Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30
day comment period, on October 8, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR
60460). NHTSA received two comments.
A total of approximately 17,000 aftermarket air brake hose
assemblies produced between November 2000 and June 2004 are affected.
S7.2.3 of FMVSS No. 106 requires that ``each air brake hose assembly
made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging * * *
shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly * *
* [with the DOT symbol and the name of the manufacturer] or, at the
option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling [of at least one end
fitting which is etched, stamped or embossed with a designation that
identifies the manufacturer].'' The affected brake hoses do not have
the manufacturer's label or a designation of the manufacturer as
required by S7.2.3.
Spares manufactured these brake hose assemblies from its
incorporation date in November 2000 until June 2004, when production
was stopped because Spares discovered the noncompliance.
Spares believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Spares
explains that the units are assembled by Spares using Goodyear-labeled
hoses and RB Royal-labeled fittings. Spares states that the ``brake
hose assemblies meet all functional performance requirements of the
standard for the hose, the fittings, and the assembly and therefore
will perform exactly as intended.''
Spares further states that there have been no complaints from any
distributor or consumer concerning the functioning of the brake hose
assemblies. Spares has begun notifying all of its distributors of the
labeling defect and will provide a band for each noncomplying hose
currently remaining in the distributors' possession. Also, Spares has
corrected the problem.
The agency received two public comments. One was received from an
individual who stated he has many years of experience in brake systems
and components for air braked vehicles. He agreed with Spares'
assertion that the lack of a labeling band is inconsequential to safety
as long as all performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106 are met. The
comment said in part:
Spares appears to be doing the right thing in supplying labeling
bands to their distributor for application onto existing inventory.
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to notify vehicle
owners about hoses sold in the aftermarket * * *.
However, the fact that it may be difficult to notify vehicle owners
does not lessen the consequence of the noncompliance to motor vehicle
safety and therefore is not persuasive.
A second comment was from a private individual who supported not
granting the petition. However, this commenter did not address the
issue to be considered in determining whether to grant this petition,
that is, is the effect of the noncompliance on motor vehicle safety.
Therefore, this comment also was considered not to be persuasive.
This matter presents an unusual and unique notification issue. The
air brake hose assemblies are not labelled to designate the
manufacturer. NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that
the noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. All
brake hose assembly manufacturers are required to label their
assemblies by either a band around the brake hose or by marking the end
fitting with a designation that identifies the assembly manufacturer.
This label is critical, since in cases where the assembly has a defect
or a noncompliance the label would be the only way to identify and
track the affected assemblies. Thus, the agency maintains a
manufacturer identification database to ensure that each manufacturer
has a unique identifier, so that in the event of a defect or
noncompliance the manufacturer can be easily identified and consumers
will be able to easily identify a product that may be the subject of a
recall.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Spares' petition is hereby denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 10, 2005.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05-860 Filed 1-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
