Mitsubishi Motor Sales Caribbean, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 3764-3765 [05-1432]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3764
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 610; E.O. 12866, 58 FR
51735, Oct. 4, 1993.)
Issued this 14th day of January, 2005, in
Washington, DC.
Jeffrey A. Rosen,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05–1431 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–62–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Intent To Release Certain
Properties From all Terms, Conditions,
Reservation and Restrictions of a
Quitclaim Deed Agreement Between
the City of Fernandina Beach and the
Federal Aviation Administration for the
Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport,
Fernandina Beach, FL
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides
notice of intent to release certain airport
properties (approximately 28.43 acres)
at the Keystone Airpark, Starke, FL from
the conditions, reservations, and
restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim
Deed agreement between the FAA and
the Town of Keystone Heights, dated
August 21, 1947. The release of property
will allow the Keystone Airpark
Authority to dispose of the property for
other than aeronautical purposes. The
property is located in the southwest
corner of the airport west of State Road
100 in proximity to the approach of
Runway 4. The parcel is currently
designated as non-aeronautical use. The
property will be disposed of for the
purpose of conveying title to the United
States Department of the Interior for the
protection of the Florida National
Scenic Trail. The fair market value of
the property has been determined by
appraisal to be $410,000. The airport
will receive fair market value for the
property, which will be subsequently
reinvested in another eligible airport
improvements project.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor’s
request are available, by appointment
only, for inspection at the Airpark
Clerk’s office and the FAA Airports
District Office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:33 Jan 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR–21) requires the FAA to
provide an opportunity for public notice
and comment prior to the ‘‘waiver’’ or
’’modification‘‘of a sponsor’s Federal
obligation to use certain airport land for
non-aeronautical purposes.
DATE: February 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Documents are available for
review at the Airport Clerk’s office,
Keystone Airpark Authority, 7100
Airport Road, Starke, FL 32091–9347,
and the FAA Airports District Office,
5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written
comments on the Sponsor’s request
must be delivered or mailed to: Richard
M. Owen, Program Manager, Orlando
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL
32822–5024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard M. Owen, Program Manager,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950
Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, FL 32822–5024.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office,
Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 05–1409 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19217; Notice 2]
Mitsubishi Motor Sales Caribbean, Inc.,
Ruling on Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Mitsubishi Motor Sales Caribbean,
Inc. (MMSC) has determined that
certain vehicles that it imported and
distributed in 1997 through 2004 do not
comply with S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii), (c)(1) and
(e)(1)(ii) of 49 CFR 571.208, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 208, ‘‘Occupant Crash Protection.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), MMSC 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. Notice of receipt of
MMSC’s petition was published, with a
30 day comment period, on October 8,
2004, in the Federal Register (69 FR
60458). NHTSA received no comments.
A total of approximately 85,065
model year 1998 to 2005 Mitsubishi
vehicles are affected. Approximately
70,592 Monteros, Nativas, Diamantes,
Mirages, Lancers, and Outlanders
covering model years from 1998 to 2005
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
do not comply with S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii),
‘‘Sun visor air bag warning label.’’
Approximately 10,761 Nativas covering
model years 2000–2004 do not comply
with S4.5.1(c)(1), ‘‘Air bag alert label.’’
Approximately 85,065 Monteros,
Nativas, Diamantes, Mirages, Lancers,
3000 GTs, Outlanders, Galants, Eclipses,
Eclipse Spyders, and Endeavors
covering model years 1998–2005 do not
comply with S4.5.1(e)(1)(ii), ‘‘Label on
the dashboard.’’
The relevant requirements of FMVSS
No. 208, S4.5.1, ‘‘Labeling and owner’s
manual information,’’ are as follows:
‘‘(b)(2)(ii) The message area [of the
permanent sun visor air bag warning
label] * * * shall be no less than 30
cm2. * * * (c)(1) The message area [of
the permanent sun visor air bag alert
label] * * * shall be no less than 20
square cm. * * * (e)(1)(ii) The message
area [of the temporary label on the
dashboard] * * * shall be no less than
30 cm2.’’
On the affected vehicles, the actual
measurement of the English message
area for the sun visor air bag warning
label is 27 cm2 rather than the required
minimum of 30 cm2, for the sun visor
alert label is 12 cm2 rather than the
required minimum of 20 cm2, and for
the dash label is 19 cm2 rather than the
required minimum of 30 cm2. MMSC
explains that these noncompliances
resulted from reducing the English
message areas when the respective
Spanish translations were added.
MMSC believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. In
support of its petition, MMSC states the
following:
The likelihood consumers will perceive the
presence of the labels is enhanced since the
overall sizes of the bilingual labels are larger
than the English-only labels while the
understandability performance of the
warnings is enhanced since the message
reaches a wider audience than an Englishonly version.
The legibility of the labels at the required
distance (i.e., from all front seating positions)
is not degraded since the font size, font color,
and letter spacing remain the same as our
English-only versions that meet the message
area requirements.
The labels meet all other requirements in
every respect including heading content,
heading color, message content, message area
color, message text color, alert symbol
content, and alert symbol color. * * *
Mitsubishi believes the percentage of
vehicles actually fitted today with the noncompliant temporary dash labels is for all
intents and purposes zero, considering in all
likelihood they have already been removed
by customers after purchase.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices
MMSC has received no customer
complaints related to the bilingual
labels.
NHTSA has reviewed the petitioner’s
arguments. The air bag warning labels
are the agency’s primary method for
obtaining the owner’s attention and
conveying important safety information.
The agency believes that these air bag
warning labels are necessary to make
owners aware of the safest way to use
their air bag equipped vehicles. In
NHTSA’s occupant crash protection rule
published on May 12, 2000 (65 FR
30680), the agency stated ‘‘* * * as
with the current labels, manufacturers
may provide translations of the required
English language message as long as all
the requirements for the English label
are met, including size’’ (65 FR 30722)
(emphasis added). Thus, the agency
reconfirmed the importance of the
message area requirement in the
advanced air bag final rule.
The intent of FMVSS No. 208 is that
the warning or alert message fill the
message area (see 61 FR 60206 at 60210
(November 27, 1996)). Not filling the
message area would make purposeless
the specification. The label on the
dashboard has a message area that is 37
percent below the required 30 cm2. The
air bag alert label on the sun visor has
a message area that is 40 percent below
the required 20 cm2. These are
significant reductions in message area.
Having reductions of this magnitude
is equivalent to not filling the message
area. The agency has provided figures in
FMVSS No. 208 that show the message
text covers the majority of the message
area.
MMSC hypothesized that there is
enhanced label perception by the
consumer because the size of the
bilingual label is larger than the Englishonly label. The bilingual label is
addressed in the Federal Register notice
quoted above. In addition, the message
area requirements in FMVSS No. 208
enhance the effectiveness of labels by
not only impacting the label size, but
also the appearance of the text message.
If the agency were only concerned with
the size of the label, we would have
limited our requirement to label size.
Second, it states that the bilingual
label will reach a larger audience. This
is not relevant to the message area
requirement. The label can still be
bilingual but the minimum English
message area is specified in the
regulatory text. Had the Agency
required a bilingual label, it would have
been logical to specify the same 30 cm2
message area for both languages.
Third, it states the font size, font
color, and letter spacing remains the
same as the English-only complying
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:33 Jan 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
version. The font size and letter spacing
are not covered by regulation and thus
are not relevant to the message area
requirement. The black font color is
required, but it is not relevant to the
message area requirement. NHTSA
intended the message area to be filled.
Therefore, the font and spacing should
be chosen with that as a consideration
along with owner ease of use.
Fourth, it states that the labels meet
all other label requirements. This is not
relevant to the message area
requirement.
Fifth, it believes dash labels have
already been removed. Again this is not
relevant to the message area
requirement.
Finally, it states it has received no
customer complaints. NHTSA is not
surprised that there are no customer
complaints since the labels do not affect
the operation of the vehicle.
The sun visor alert label is a
permanent label that will still be on the
vehicles when they enter the used
vehicle market. New owners, as well as
the current owners, should be afforded
the opportunity to have the air bag
warning labels in the minimum format
specified by FMVSS No. 208, which was
deemed to be the most effective through
focus group testing.
The label on the dashboard, although
temporary on a new vehicle, is
important to NHTSA. Since all the
labels had insufficient message area, a
remedy for this label will help reinforce
the air bag message for the owners.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has not met its burden of persuasion
that the noncompliance it describes is
inconsequential to safety for the sun
visor air bag alert label or for the label
on the dashboard. Accordingly, in
regard to these two labels, its petition is
hereby denied. MMSC must now fulfill
its obligation to notify and remedy
under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).
The sun visor air bag warning label
has a message area that is 10 percent
below the required 30 cm2. Even though
the label minimum format is not met,
NHTSA believes in this case that the
owner and future owners will have a
message size that is acceptable. Since
this label contains the actual owner
guidance, NHTSA prefers to keep the
current label intact rather than require
a 10 percent increase in message area.
In addition, the label on the dashboard
will have to be remedied and it contains
the same information as the sun visor
air bag warning label. NHTSA expects
the remedy will have the effect of
reemphasizing the warning on the visor
label.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3765
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has met its burden of persuasion that
the sun visor air bag warning labeling
noncompliance portion of its petition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, we grant its petition on
this issue.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 19, 2005.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05–1432 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–17679; Notice 2]
General Motors Corporation, Denial of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM), has
determined that certain 2004 model year
vehicles that it produced do not comply
with S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.124, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 124, ‘‘Accelerator control systems.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), GM 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 a petition was
published, with a 30-day comment
period, on May 19, 2004, in the Federal
Register (69 FR 28977). NHTSA
received no comments.
Approximately 19,924 model year
2004 Cadillac SRX, Cadillac XLR, and
Pontiac Grand Prix vehicles are affected.
S5.1 and S5.3 of FMVSS No. 124 require
that there shall be at least two sources
of energy capable of returning the
throttle to the idle position from any
accelerator position or speed whenever
the driver removes the opposing
actuating force. In the event of failure of
one source of energy by a single
severance or disconnection, the return
to idle shall occur within three seconds
for any vehicle that is exposed to
ambient air at ¥18 °C to ¥40 °C.
However, for the subject vehicles, in
the event of failure of either of the two
Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Pedal
return springs at ambient temperatures
of ¥30 °C to ¥40 °C for the Grand Prix
and XLR and ¥10 °C to ¥40 °C for the
SXR, the engine in some of these
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3764-3765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19217; Notice 2]
Mitsubishi Motor Sales Caribbean, Inc., Ruling on Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Mitsubishi Motor Sales Caribbean, Inc. (MMSC) has determined that
certain vehicles that it imported and distributed in 1997 through 2004
do not comply with S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii), (c)(1) and (e)(1)(ii) of 49 CFR
571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
``Occupant Crash Protection.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), MMSC 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. Notice of
receipt of MMSC's petition was published, with a 30 day comment period,
on October 8, 2004, in the Federal Register (69 FR 60458). NHTSA
received no comments.
A total of approximately 85,065 model year 1998 to 2005 Mitsubishi
vehicles are affected. Approximately 70,592 Monteros, Nativas,
Diamantes, Mirages, Lancers, and Outlanders covering model years from
1998 to 2005 do not comply with S4.5.1(b)(2)(ii), ``Sun visor air bag
warning label.'' Approximately 10,761 Nativas covering model years
2000-2004 do not comply with S4.5.1(c)(1), ``Air bag alert label.''
Approximately 85,065 Monteros, Nativas, Diamantes, Mirages, Lancers,
3000 GTs, Outlanders, Galants, Eclipses, Eclipse Spyders, and Endeavors
covering model years 1998-2005 do not comply with S4.5.1(e)(1)(ii),
``Label on the dashboard.''
The relevant requirements of FMVSS No. 208, S4.5.1, ``Labeling and
owner's manual information,'' are as follows: ``(b)(2)(ii) The message
area [of the permanent sun visor air bag warning label] * * * shall be
no less than 30 cm\2\. * * * (c)(1) The message area [of the permanent
sun visor air bag alert label] * * * shall be no less than 20 square
cm. * * * (e)(1)(ii) The message area [of the temporary label on the
dashboard] * * * shall be no less than 30 cm\2\.''
On the affected vehicles, the actual measurement of the English
message area for the sun visor air bag warning label is 27 cm\2\ rather
than the required minimum of 30 cm\2\, for the sun visor alert label is
12 cm\2\ rather than the required minimum of 20 cm\2\, and for the dash
label is 19 cm\2\ rather than the required minimum of 30 cm\2\. MMSC
explains that these noncompliances resulted from reducing the English
message areas when the respective Spanish translations were added.
MMSC believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. In support
of its petition, MMSC states the following:
The likelihood consumers will perceive the presence of the
labels is enhanced since the overall sizes of the bilingual labels
are larger than the English-only labels while the understandability
performance of the warnings is enhanced since the message reaches a
wider audience than an English-only version.
The legibility of the labels at the required distance (i.e.,
from all front seating positions) is not degraded since the font
size, font color, and letter spacing remain the same as our English-
only versions that meet the message area requirements.
The labels meet all other requirements in every respect
including heading content, heading color, message content, message
area color, message text color, alert symbol content, and alert
symbol color. * * *
Mitsubishi believes the percentage of vehicles actually fitted
today with the non-compliant temporary dash labels is for all
intents and purposes zero, considering in all likelihood they have
already been removed by customers after purchase.
[[Page 3765]]
MMSC has received no customer complaints related to the bilingual
labels.
NHTSA has reviewed the petitioner's arguments. The air bag warning
labels are the agency's primary method for obtaining the owner's
attention and conveying important safety information. The agency
believes that these air bag warning labels are necessary to make owners
aware of the safest way to use their air bag equipped vehicles. In
NHTSA's occupant crash protection rule published on May 12, 2000 (65 FR
30680), the agency stated ``* * * as with the current labels,
manufacturers may provide translations of the required English language
message as long as all the requirements for the English label are met,
including size'' (65 FR 30722) (emphasis added). Thus, the agency
reconfirmed the importance of the message area requirement in the
advanced air bag final rule.
The intent of FMVSS No. 208 is that the warning or alert message
fill the message area (see 61 FR 60206 at 60210 (November 27, 1996)).
Not filling the message area would make purposeless the specification.
The label on the dashboard has a message area that is 37 percent below
the required 30 cm\2\. The air bag alert label on the sun visor has a
message area that is 40 percent below the required 20 cm\2\. These are
significant reductions in message area.
Having reductions of this magnitude is equivalent to not filling
the message area. The agency has provided figures in FMVSS No. 208 that
show the message text covers the majority of the message area.
MMSC hypothesized that there is enhanced label perception by the
consumer because the size of the bilingual label is larger than the
English-only label. The bilingual label is addressed in the Federal
Register notice quoted above. In addition, the message area
requirements in FMVSS No. 208 enhance the effectiveness of labels by
not only impacting the label size, but also the appearance of the text
message. If the agency were only concerned with the size of the label,
we would have limited our requirement to label size.
Second, it states that the bilingual label will reach a larger
audience. This is not relevant to the message area requirement. The
label can still be bilingual but the minimum English message area is
specified in the regulatory text. Had the Agency required a bilingual
label, it would have been logical to specify the same 30 cm\2\ message
area for both languages.
Third, it states the font size, font color, and letter spacing
remains the same as the English-only complying version. The font size
and letter spacing are not covered by regulation and thus are not
relevant to the message area requirement. The black font color is
required, but it is not relevant to the message area requirement. NHTSA
intended the message area to be filled. Therefore, the font and spacing
should be chosen with that as a consideration along with owner ease of
use.
Fourth, it states that the labels meet all other label
requirements. This is not relevant to the message area requirement.
Fifth, it believes dash labels have already been removed. Again
this is not relevant to the message area requirement.
Finally, it states it has received no customer complaints. NHTSA is
not surprised that there are no customer complaints since the labels do
not affect the operation of the vehicle.
The sun visor alert label is a permanent label that will still be
on the vehicles when they enter the used vehicle market. New owners, as
well as the current owners, should be afforded the opportunity to have
the air bag warning labels in the minimum format specified by FMVSS No.
208, which was deemed to be the most effective through focus group
testing.
The label on the dashboard, although temporary on a new vehicle, is
important to NHTSA. Since all the labels had insufficient message area,
a remedy for this label will help reinforce the air bag message for the
owners.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
it describes is inconsequential to safety for the sun visor air bag
alert label or for the label on the dashboard. Accordingly, in regard
to these two labels, its petition is hereby denied. MMSC must now
fulfill its obligation to notify and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h).
The sun visor air bag warning label has a message area that is 10
percent below the required 30 cm2. Even though the label
minimum format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the owner
and future owners will have a message size that is acceptable. Since
this label contains the actual owner guidance, NHTSA prefers to keep
the current label intact rather than require a 10 percent increase in
message area. In addition, the label on the dashboard will have to be
remedied and it contains the same information as the sun visor air bag
warning label. NHTSA expects the remedy will have the effect of
reemphasizing the warning on the visor label.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the sun visor air bag
warning labeling noncompliance portion of its petition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, we grant its
petition on this issue.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of
authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: January 19, 2005.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 05-1432 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
