ArvinMeritor, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 43507-43508 [05-14863]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Notices
and Performance Requirements for
Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft.
i. ASTM Designation F 2356–05,
titled: Standard Specification for
Production Acceptance Testing System
for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport
Aircraft.
j. ASTM Designation F 2415–05,
titled: Standard Practice for Continued
Airworthiness System for Light Sport
Gyroplane Aircraft.
k. ASTM Designation F 2425–05,
titled: Standard Specification for
Continued Airworthiness System for
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
l. ASTM Designation F 2426–05,
titled: Standard Guide on Wing Interface
Documentation for Powered Parachute
Aircraft.
m. ASTM Designation F 2427–05,
titled: Standard Specification for
Required Product Information to be
Provided with Lighter-Than-Air Light
Sport Aircraft.
n. ASTM Designation F 2447–05,
titled: Standard Practice for Production
Acceptance Test Procedures for WeightShift-Control Aircraft.
o. ASTM Designation F 2448–04,
titled: Standard Practice for
Manufacturer Quality Assurance System
for Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
p. ASTM Designation F 2449–05,
titled: Standard Specification for
Manufacturer Quality Assurance
Program for Light Sport Gyroplane
Aircraft.
q. ASTM Designation 2457–05, titled:
Standard Specification for Required
Product Information to be Provided with
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
Availability
These consensus standards are
copyrighted by ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959.
Individual reprints of this standard
(single or multiple copies, or special
compilations and other related technical
information) may be obtained by
contacting ASTM at this address, or at
(610) 832–9585 (phone), (610) 832–9555
(fax), through service@astm.org (e-mail),
or through the ASTM Web site at
https://www.astm.org. To inquire about
standard content and/or membership, or
about ASTM International Offices
abroad, contact Daniel Schultz, Staff
Manager for Committee F37 on Light
Sport Aircraft: (610) 832–9716,
dschultz@astm.org.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 19,
2005.
William J. Timberlake,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–14762 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:40 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21925; Notice 1]
Continental Tire North America, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Continental Tire North America, Inc.
(Continental Tire) has determined that
certain tires that it produced do not
comply with S6.5 of 49 CFR 571.119,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires
for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’
Continental Tire 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), Continental Tire 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 Continental
Tire’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.
Affected are a total of approximately
430 tires produced on May 24, 2005.
One requirement of S6.5 of FMVSS No.
119, tire markings, is that the tire
identification shall comply with 49 CFR
Part 574, ‘‘Tire Identification and
Recordkeeping,’’ which includes the
marking requirements of 574.5(b) DOT
size code, and 574.5(c) DOT tire type.
The subject tires are incorrectly marked
for both size code and tire type. The
markings read ‘‘A3 3T 1WP XXXX’’
when they should read ‘‘A3 55 1N1
XXXX.’’
Continental Tire explains:
[T]he curing mold used in the production
of the tires was being serviced. During the
service, the interchangeable plugs that
contain the DOT size and type information
came out of the mold. The individual
replacing the plugs inserted plugs engraved
with the incorrect information. The
noncompliance was discovered after 430 tires
had been cured in this mold.
Continental Tire believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
Continental Tire states that ‘‘[a]ll other
sidewall identification markings and
safety information are correct, referring
to recognizable size markings and load
carrying capacities. A consumer or
dealer examining the DOT Code could
still determine the correct
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43507
manufacturing plant and correct
manufacturing date.’’
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: August 26,
2005.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: July 21, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–14856 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21192; Notice 2]
ArvinMeritor, Inc., Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
ArvinMeritor Inc. (ArvinMeritor) has
determined that certain automatic slack
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
43508
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 2005 / Notices
adjusters assembled by the petitioner in
2004 do not comply with S5.1.8(a) and
S5.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.121, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 121, ‘‘Air brake systems.’’ Pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h),
ArvinMeritor 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 May 17, 2005 in the Federal
Register (70 FR 28352). NHTSA
received two comments.
Affected are a total of approximately
187 automatic slack adjusters assembled
between October 13, 2004 and
December 20, 2004. S5.1.8(a) is
applicable to trucks and buses, and
S5.2.2(a) is applicable to trailers. Both
sections are titled ‘‘Brake adjuster,’’ and
both require that:
Wear of the service brakes shall be
compensated for by means of a system of
automatic adjustment. When inspected
pursuant to S5.9, the adjustment of the
service brakes shall be within the limits
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
ArvinMeritor states that the
noncompliant automatic slack adjusters
were assembled with housings supplied
by TaeJoo Ind. Co., Ltd., and these
housings were below the dimensional
specifications. The petitioner states that
as a result, there is interference between
the automatic slack adjuster pawl and
the housing cavity in which the pawl is
positioned, preventing the pawl from
properly engaging the actuator, which
can result in a reduction or elimination
of the automatic adjustment function as
required by S5.1.8(a) and S5.2.2(a).
ArvinMeritor believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
ArvinMeritor states that it has
conducted dynamic testing of vehicles
simulating the affected automatic slack
adjusters and based on the results of this
testing, ArvinMeritor is satisfied that the
braking systems will still halt a vehicle
within the stopping distances required
by FMVSS No. 121.
NHTSA has reviewed the petition and
has determined that the noncompliance
is not inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons.
First, we believe that out-ofadjustment brakes present a significant
safety concern. As indicated in
NHTSA’s October 20, 1992 final rule
establishing automatic brake adjuster
requirements, ‘‘When brakes are underadjusted, stopping ability is reduced
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:40 Jul 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
and the probability of a crash is
increased. When brakes are overadjusted,* * *the possibility of a crash
[is] increased as a result of excessive
lining wear, wheel lock, or brake drum
cracking. Such improper brake
adjustment contributes to a significant
number of crashes, including those in
which vehicles are unable to stop in
time and those in which there are
‘runaways’ on steep mountain grades’’
(57 FR 47793 at 47794).
Second, ArvinMeritor’s testing
showed no major degradation in
stopping distance of trucks with
temporarily disabled slack adjusters.
However, their data did not address
long-term effects of non-functioning
slack adjusters on braking performance.
Because automatic slack adjusters are
designed to address degradation of
braking performance over time, we
believe that the petitioner’s test results
are not persuasive.
The agency received two public
comments. The first commenter,
Freightliner LLC (Freightliner), supports
the petitioner’s belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety based on three points.
First, Freightliner says that the
potential failure rate for these automatic
slack adjusters is below Freightliner’s
warranty rate for this type of
component.
NHTSA cannot determine that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because a
potentially serious safety failure occurs
relatively infrequently.
Second, Freightliner states that it
instructs drivers of the vehicles to
conduct a visual inspection of the slack
adjuster, brake free stroke, and brake
adjustment on all axles daily; thus any
failure of the slack adjuster would be
identified through this daily inspection.
NHTSA cannot determine that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety because of recommended
maintenance procedures or instructions
established in response to a potential
safety hazard. Among other things, we
have no assurances that drivers would
in fact follow Freightliner’s visual
inspection instructions.
Third, Freightliner states that it agrees
with ArvinMeritor’s contention that the
affected vehicles will continue to meet
the stopping distance requirements of
FMVSS No. 121 even in the out-ofadjustment condition.
As explained above, we cannot accept
Freightliner’s argument because the
tests conducted by the petitioner did not
show that the noncompliance would not
negatively affect braking performance
over time.
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The second comment suggested that
the agency deny the petition but did not
elaborate.
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, ArvinMeritor’s petition is
hereby denied.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: July 21, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–14863 Filed 7–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;
Systems of Records
Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Treasury.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice of systems of records.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,
as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Bureau
of Engraving and Printing is publishing
its inventory of Privacy Act systems of
records.
Pursuant
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.
552a) and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–130,
Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)
has completed a review of its Privacy
Act systems of records notices to
identify minor changes that will more
accurately describe these records.
The changes throughout the
document are editorial in nature and
consist principally of changes to system
locations and system manager addresses
and revisions to organizational titles. In
addition, the title to BEP .027 is being
changed from ‘‘Programmable Access
Security System (PASS)’’ to ‘‘Access
Control and Alarm Monitoring Systems
(ACAMS).’’
One new system of records was
established by BEP entitled ‘‘BEP .047—
Employee Emergency Notification
System’’ on August 18, 2003, and
published at 68 FR 49544.
The systems notices are reprinted in
their entirety following the Table of
Contents.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43507-43508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14863]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21192; Notice 2]
ArvinMeritor, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
ArvinMeritor Inc. (ArvinMeritor) has determined that certain
automatic slack
[[Page 43508]]
adjusters assembled by the petitioner in 2004 do not comply with
S5.1.8(a) and S5.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.121, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, ``Air brake systems.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), ArvinMeritor 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 May 17, 2005 in the Federal
Register (70 FR 28352). NHTSA received two comments.
Affected are a total of approximately 187 automatic slack adjusters
assembled between October 13, 2004 and December 20, 2004. S5.1.8(a) is
applicable to trucks and buses, and S5.2.2(a) is applicable to
trailers. Both sections are titled ``Brake adjuster,'' and both require
that:
Wear of the service brakes shall be compensated for by means of
a system of automatic adjustment. When inspected pursuant to S5.9,
the adjustment of the service brakes shall be within the limits
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
ArvinMeritor states that the noncompliant automatic slack adjusters
were assembled with housings supplied by TaeJoo Ind. Co., Ltd., and
these housings were below the dimensional specifications. The
petitioner states that as a result, there is interference between the
automatic slack adjuster pawl and the housing cavity in which the pawl
is positioned, preventing the pawl from properly engaging the actuator,
which can result in a reduction or elimination of the automatic
adjustment function as required by S5.1.8(a) and S5.2.2(a).
ArvinMeritor believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
ArvinMeritor states that it has conducted dynamic testing of vehicles
simulating the affected automatic slack adjusters and based on the
results of this testing, ArvinMeritor is satisfied that the braking
systems will still halt a vehicle within the stopping distances
required by FMVSS No. 121.
NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that the
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons.
First, we believe that out-of-adjustment brakes present a
significant safety concern. As indicated in NHTSA's October 20, 1992
final rule establishing automatic brake adjuster requirements, ``When
brakes are under-adjusted, stopping ability is reduced and the
probability of a crash is increased. When brakes are over-adjusted,* *
*the possibility of a crash [is] increased as a result of excessive
lining wear, wheel lock, or brake drum cracking. Such improper brake
adjustment contributes to a significant number of crashes, including
those in which vehicles are unable to stop in time and those in which
there are `runaways' on steep mountain grades'' (57 FR 47793 at 47794).
Second, ArvinMeritor's testing showed no major degradation in
stopping distance of trucks with temporarily disabled slack adjusters.
However, their data did not address long-term effects of non-
functioning slack adjusters on braking performance. Because automatic
slack adjusters are designed to address degradation of braking
performance over time, we believe that the petitioner's test results
are not persuasive.
The agency received two public comments. The first commenter,
Freightliner LLC (Freightliner), supports the petitioner's belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety based on three points.
First, Freightliner says that the potential failure rate for these
automatic slack adjusters is below Freightliner's warranty rate for
this type of component.
NHTSA cannot determine that a noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because a potentially serious safety failure
occurs relatively infrequently.
Second, Freightliner states that it instructs drivers of the
vehicles to conduct a visual inspection of the slack adjuster, brake
free stroke, and brake adjustment on all axles daily; thus any failure
of the slack adjuster would be identified through this daily
inspection.
NHTSA cannot determine that a noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety because of recommended maintenance procedures or instructions
established in response to a potential safety hazard. Among other
things, we have no assurances that drivers would in fact follow
Freightliner's visual inspection instructions.
Third, Freightliner states that it agrees with ArvinMeritor's
contention that the affected vehicles will continue to meet the
stopping distance requirements of FMVSS No. 121 even in the out-of-
adjustment condition.
As explained above, we cannot accept Freightliner's argument
because the tests conducted by the petitioner did not show that the
noncompliance would not negatively affect braking performance over
time.
The second comment suggested that the agency deny the petition but
did not elaborate.
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,
ArvinMeritor's petition is hereby denied.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 21, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-14863 Filed 7-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
