Nissan Motor Company and Nissan North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 49972-49973 [05-16861]

Download as PDF 49972 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22118; Notice 1] Eaton Aeroquip, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Eaton Aeroquip, Inc. (Eaton) has determined that the end fittings that it produced for nylon air brake hoses do not comply with S7.2.2(d) of 49 CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, ‘‘Brake hoses.’’ Eaton 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), Eaton 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 Eaton’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 7,784,614 end fittings produced from 2001 to June 30, 2005, plus an indeterminate number of end fittings produced prior to 2001 for which records are not available (Eaton acquired the end fitting manufacturing business on November 1, 2002). S7.2.2(d) of FMVSS No. 106 requires that each fitting shall be etched, embossed, or stamped with (d) The * * * outside diameter of the plastic tubing to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches or in millimeters followed by the letters OD * * * The subject end fittings are missing the letters OD from their labels. Eaton believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Eaton states that the purpose of the letters OD on the label is to indicate that the measurement refers to the outside diameter of a plastic tube as opposed to the inside diameter. Eaton points out that if the end user was to assume that the measurement referred to the inside diameter because of the absence of the letters OD, it ‘‘would be physically impossible, for example, to insert a 1⁄2 inch inside diameter hose into an end fitting made for 1⁄2 inch outside diameter plastic tubing.’’ According to Eaton, ‘‘if an end-user were to VerDate jul<14>2003 15:58 Aug 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 mistakenly attempt to use the mislabeled end fittings with a hose, instead of plastic tubing, the incompatibility would be obvious because the diameters would not match.’’ Eaton states that therefore, ‘‘there is no potential that the mislabeled end fittings could be used improperly, and there could be no resulting issue of motor vehicle safety.’’ 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 http://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 http:// 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: September 26, 2005. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. The lower anchorage bars in the subject vehicles do not comply with this requirement. Nissan states that tests performed for NHTSA by MGA, Inc. revealed a noncompliance in a 2005 Infiniti FX, and Nissan subsequently investigated its vehicle models on this issue. Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no Issued on: August 19, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–16860 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22176; Notice 1] Nissan Motor Company and Nissan North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) have determined that certain vehicles that they produced in 2004 through 2005 do not comply with S9.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems.’’ Nissan 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), Nissan 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 Nissan’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 24,655 model year (MY) 2005 Infiniti FX vehicles manufactured from September 1, 2004 to July 13, 2005; 167 MY 2005 Infiniti Q45 vehicles with rear power seats manufactured from September 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005; and 65,361 MY 2005 Nissan Maxima vehicles manufactured from September 1, 2004 to July 11, 2005. S9.2.2 of FMVSS No. 225 requires: With adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.2.3, each lower anchorage bar shall be located so that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the front surface of the bar is (a) Not more than 70 mm behind the corresponding point Z of the CRF [child restraint fixture], measured parallel to the bottom surface of the CRF and in a vertical longitudinal plane, while the CRF is pressed against the seat back by the rearward application of a horizontal force of 100 N at point A on the CRF. E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Notices corrective action is warranted. Nissan provides several bases for this assertion. First, Nissan states that the vehicles do comply with the alternative requirements S15 of FMVSS No. 225, which were available as a compliance option until September 1, 2004. Second, Nissan states that the extent of the noncompliance is not significant. Specifically, it says: The left and right lower anchorages in the MY 2005 FX vehicle were located 76 mm and 83 mm behind Point Z, respectively, when tested by MGA under the procedures of S9.2.2. During its subsequent investigation using the MGA CRF, Nissan measured the lower anchorage location in the left and right rear seats in five other FX vehicles. The average distance from Point Z was 78 mm, and the greatest distance was 81 mm. The average distance for the four 5-seat Nissan Maxima vehicles tested was 76 mm, and the greatest distance was 81 mm. The average distance for the three 4-seat Maxima vehicles tested was 92 mm, and the greatest distance was 94 mm. At most, this reflects a distance of less than an inch beyond the distance specified in the standard, and the difference is less than one-half of an inch for the FX and the 5-seat Maxima models. Third, Nissan conducted a survey program to assess the ease of installing CRSs in these vehicles, and set out the results as an attachment to its petition. Nissan points out that there were few unsuccessful attempts and says that the results ‘‘clearly demonstrate that the noncompliance * * * does not adversely affect the ease of installation of the CRSs * * *’’ Nissan also indicates that the latchings were accomplished in an average time of between 22 seconds and 39 seconds. Fourth, Nissan states that ‘‘other vehicle characteristics in these models compensate for the lower anchorage location to allow for ease of installation,’’ including seat foam that compresses easily and suppleness of leather seats. 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 15:58 Aug 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://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 http:// 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: September 26, 2005. 49973 certification and marking, of FMVSS No. 205 and the referenced Section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996 specify that the required identification and certification markings must be located on the glazing. On the subject vehicles, the required markings are present, but they are located on the frame of the Targa roof assembly, rather than on the glazing portion of the roof assembly. General Motors believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. The petitioner states: General Motors Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance —The subject glazing meets all applicable performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205. There is no safety performance implication associated with this technical noncompliance. —The certifications markings required by FMVSS No. 205 are provided on the frame of the subject Corvette Targa roof assemblies. This noncompliance relates only to the location of the required markings, not to their presence. —Once assembled, the Targa roof frame and glazing are indivisible. For in-service repair, the roof assembly (glazing mounted in frame) is serviced as a unit. There is no service provision to replace only the frame or only the glazing. As a practical matter, therefore, marking the frame is functionally equivalent to marking the glazing. —Given the small volume of service parts that will be needed and the high investment cost required to manufacture the subject Corvette roof assemblies, it is probable that all service parts will be manufactured by the same supplier as the original equipment parts. Accordingly, there is virtually no chance of uncertainty about the manufacturer of the subject parts, should a need to identify the manufacturer arise in the future. —GM is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer complaints or field reports associated with this condition. General Motors Corporation (General Motors) has determined that certain model year 2005 vehicles that it produced do not comply with S6 of 49 CFR 571.205, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, ‘‘Glazing materials.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), General Motors 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 June 30, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 37893). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 7,326 model year 2005 Chevrolet Corvette coupes equipped with removable transparent Targa roofs. S6, General Motors also states that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential noncompliance petitions involving the omission of FMVSS No. 205 markings and provides the following examples: Western Star Trucks (63 FR 66232, 12/1/1998), Ford Motor Company (64 FR 70116, 12/15/ 1999), Toyota Motor Corporation (68 FR 10307, 3/4/2003), and Freightliner LLC (68 FR 65991, 11/24/2003). NHTSA agrees with General Motors that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The glazing meets all applicable performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The certifications markings required by FMVSS No. 205 are provided on the frame of the subject Corvette Targa roof assemblies. The roof frame and glazing are indivisible, and for in-service repair, the roof assembly (glazing mounted in frame) is serviced Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: August 19, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–16861 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21675; Notice 2] PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49972-49973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16861]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22176; Notice 1]


Nissan Motor Company and Nissan North America, Receipt of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) 
have determined that certain vehicles that they produced in 2004 
through 2005 do not comply with S9.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage 
systems.'' Nissan 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), Nissan 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 Nissan'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 24,655 model year (MY) 2005 
Infiniti FX vehicles manufactured from September 1, 2004 to July 13, 
2005; 167 MY 2005 Infiniti Q45 vehicles with rear power seats 
manufactured from September 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005; and 65,361 MY 
2005 Nissan Maxima vehicles manufactured from September 1, 2004 to July 
11, 2005.
    S9.2.2 of FMVSS No. 225 requires:

    With adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.2.3, each 
lower anchorage bar shall be located so that a vertical transverse 
plane tangent to the front surface of the bar is (a) Not more than 
70 mm behind the corresponding point Z of the CRF [child restraint 
fixture], measured parallel to the bottom surface of the CRF and in 
a vertical longitudinal plane, while the CRF is pressed against the 
seat back by the rearward application of a horizontal force of 100 N 
at point A on the CRF.

    The lower anchorage bars in the subject vehicles do not comply with 
this requirement. Nissan states that tests performed for NHTSA by MGA, 
Inc. revealed a noncompliance in a 2005 Infiniti FX, and Nissan 
subsequently investigated its vehicle models on this issue.
    Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no

[[Page 49973]]

corrective action is warranted. Nissan provides several bases for this 
assertion.
    First, Nissan states that the vehicles do comply with the 
alternative requirements S15 of FMVSS No. 225, which were available as 
a compliance option until September 1, 2004.
    Second, Nissan states that the extent of the noncompliance is not 
significant. Specifically, it says:

    The left and right lower anchorages in the MY 2005 FX vehicle 
were located 76 mm and 83 mm behind Point Z, respectively, when 
tested by MGA under the procedures of S9.2.2. During its subsequent 
investigation using the MGA CRF, Nissan measured the lower anchorage 
location in the left and right rear seats in five other FX vehicles. 
The average distance from Point Z was 78 mm, and the greatest 
distance was 81 mm. The average distance for the four 5-seat Nissan 
Maxima vehicles tested was 76 mm, and the greatest distance was 81 
mm. The average distance for the three 4-seat Maxima vehicles tested 
was 92 mm, and the greatest distance was 94 mm. At most, this 
reflects a distance of less than an inch beyond the distance 
specified in the standard, and the difference is less than one-half 
of an inch for the FX and the 5-seat Maxima models.

    Third, Nissan conducted a survey program to assess the ease of 
installing CRSs in these vehicles, and set out the results as an 
attachment to its petition. Nissan points out that there were few 
unsuccessful attempts and says that the results ``clearly demonstrate 
that the noncompliance * * * does not adversely affect the ease of 
installation of the CRSs * * *'' Nissan also indicates that the 
latchings were accomplished in an average time of between 22 seconds 
and 39 seconds.
    Fourth, Nissan states that ``other vehicle characteristics in these 
models compensate for the lower anchorage location to allow for ease of 
installation,'' including seat foam that compresses easily and 
suppleness of leather seats.
    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 http://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 http://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: September 26, 2005.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 19, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-16861 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P