Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 72875-72876 [E5-6916]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Notices should be effective as soon as this notice is published in the Federal Register. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2005. H. Keith Brewer, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards. [FR Doc. E5–6917 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted by Ms. Miriam Schneider to NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), received on August 2, 2005, under 49 U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety with respect to the performance of the tie rod ends on certain model year (MY) 1999 Volkswagen Passat vehicles not included in two previous safety recall campaigns. After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency’s investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition is herein after identified as DP05–003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kyle Bowker, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–9597. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 2, 2005, ODI received a petition submitted by Ms. Miriam Schneider of Olney, MD requesting an investigation of allegedly defective tie rods in certain MY 1999 Volkswagen Passat vehicles not included in two previous safety recall campaigns (identified henceforth as the subject vehicles). In a September 1999 letter, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) notified the agency that an undetermined percentage of MY 1998– 1999 Volkswagen Passat and Audi A4, A6, and A8 vehicles contained a safetyrelated defect affecting the tie rods in the steering system. VW indicated that it was possible that some tie rods would not seal properly which could allow VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:01 Dec 06, 2005 Jkt 208001 moisture and dust particles to enter the swivel bearing mechanism, resulting in premature wear. The approximately 22,200 Volkswagen and 29,700 Audi vehicles affected by this recall (identified by NHTSA Recall No. 99V– 248) were built from January 1998 through July 1998 and fell within a specific Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) range. In November 2000, VW chose to expand the scope of the recall (identified by NHTSA Recall No. 00V– 414) after it determined that some potentially defective tie rods may have been installed in an additional 44,000 Volkswagen and 39,000 Audi vehicles built from August 1998 through April 1999. These subject recall actions were not influenced by ODI. Instead, VW made an independent determination to conduct a recall after German vehicle inspection authorities notified it of ‘‘worn’’ tie rods and factory inspection of some ‘‘worn’’ tie rods revealed improper sealing. According to a December 2004 report, the petitioner brought her MY 1999 Passat to an authorized Volkswagen dealer for an unrelated recall repair where she was notified by service personnel that, after 59,000 miles traveled, the tie rods ‘‘have too much play,’’ and the recommended repairs would not be covered free of charge because her VIN (WVWNA63B1XE499116) was outside the recall range. In June 2005, after 65,400 miles traveled, the petitioner paid $588.59 to replace worn inner and outer tie rod ends on both sides of the vehicle. The petition letter specifically requests that the scope of VW’s recall be expanded to include the petitioner’s vehicle and that she be reimbursed for the cost of the repairs. There are a total of 191 nonduplicative complaints to ODI and VW that allege premature wear of either one or both outer tie rod ends in the subject vehicles. As of November 18, 2005, ODI is not aware of any allegations of tie rod separations resulting in a loss of vehicle control, crash or injury in the subject vehicles. The steering system converts rotary motion of the steering wheel (input) into a turning motion of the vehicle’s steered wheels to effect directional control (output). In the subject vehicles tie rods are used to transmit force from both ends of the rack and pinion gearbox to the steering arm at each front wheel. Each tie rod is affixed to the steering arm via a spherical bearing enclosed in a steel body (known as the outer tie rod end) and a bolt. The bearing is protected by a rubber boot that is intended to prevent the intrusion of dirt, dust, PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 72875 water, and other environmental particles that could contaminate the bearing and cause corrosion and accelerated wear of the ball and socket joint. In February 1998, VW began using aluminum tie rod ends for both vehicle production and service replacement parts in an effort to reduce weight. VW initiated recall 99V–248 after it determined that the aluminum tie rod ends used in certain MY 1998–99 vehicles were defective. The manufacturer identified a specific production range of vehicles built using aluminum tie rod ends and later expanded the scope (00V–414) to include vehicles built two months before and after this range to ensure that any vehicle that may have been built using defective aluminum tie rod ends was included in the recall action. Due to aluminum’s low inherent material hardness, rapid and excessive wear of the bearing could result if the integrity of the seal is compromised and the bearing is left exposed to the elements. VW reports that damage to the protective rubber boot may be caused by external forces such as impact or in-use damage, or by improper assembly. Design changes intended to improve sealing (revised boot material) and ease of assembly (introduction of stop ring) were implemented. Additionally, the tie rod end was changed from aluminum to a steel body to improve bearing wear characteristics in the event of boot damage. This revised steel tie rod end entered vehicle production in March 1999 and was the replacement part used in the recall remedy. According to VW, aluminum tie rod ends show a very different pattern for replacement than the steel parts, as evidenced by analysis of consumer complaints and warranty claims. The defective aluminum tie rod ends were replaced at a much lower mileage range, whereas the steel parts are being replaced at a significantly higher mileage after years of service. Steel tie rod ends show a progression of failure symptoms which is clearly demonstrated and confirmed by the complaint reports identified in response to this petition, the vast majority of which include allegations limited to noise and/or excessive wear necessitating replacement during the course of routine maintenance. The manufacturer recommends periodic inspection of the steering system on the subject vehicles, including the tie rods, every 12 months. Furthermore, VW recommends a more detailed inspection of the tie rod ends (and replacement, if necessary) every 4 years or 40,000 miles traveled. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1 72876 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Notices The petitioner’s vehicle was manufactured on June 8, 1999 using the revised steel tie rod ends and therefore was already equipped with the tie rod ends used to remedy defective vehicles in the subject recalls. Analysis indicates that there does not appear to be a safetyrelated defect trend with respect to the steel tie rod ends used in the subject vehicles. In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by the petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the petition is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: December 1, 2005. Daniel Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E5–6916 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub–No. 229X)] Union Pacific Railroad Company— Abandonment Exemption—in Ellis County, TX Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 4.57-mile line of railroad known as the Waxahachie Industrial Lead extending from milepost 798.03, near Waxahachie, to milepost 802.60, near Nena, in Ellis County, TX. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 75165.1 UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the 1 Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(2), the railroad must file a verified notice with the Board at least 50 days before the abandonment or discontinuance is to be consummated. The applicant initially indicated a proposed consummation date of January 5, 2006, but because the verified notice was filed on November 17, 2005, consummation may not take place prior to January 6, 2006. By facsimile received on November 28, 2005, applicant’s representative confirmed that the proposed consummation date will be on or after January 6, 2006. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:01 Dec 06, 2005 Jkt 208001 Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under Oregon Short Line R. Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on January 6, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,2 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),3 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by December 16, 2005. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by December 27, 2005, with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP’s representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. UP has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by December 12, 2005. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by 2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption’s effective date. 3 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1,200. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 calling SEA, at (202) 565–1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 800–877–8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP’s filing of a notice of consummation by December 7, 2006, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at https:// www.stb.dot.gov. Decided: November 30, 2005. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5–6896 Filed 12–6–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of Proposed New Privacy Act System of Records. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of a proposed new system of records entitled ‘‘Treasury/IRS 50.222—Tax Exempt/ Government Entities (TE/GE) Case Management Records.’’ DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 6, 2006. This new system of records will be effective January 17, 2006 unless the IRS receives comments which would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be available for inspection and copying E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.SGM 07DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72875-72876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6916]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted by Ms. Miriam Schneider to NHTSA's Office of Defects 
Investigation (ODI), received on August 2, 2005, under 49 U.S.C. 30162, 
requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the 
existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety with respect to 
the performance of the tie rod ends on certain model year (MY) 1999 
Volkswagen Passat vehicles not included in two previous safety recall 
campaigns. After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA 
has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative 
resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be 
warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition 
is herein after identified as DP05-003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kyle Bowker, Vehicle Control 
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-9597.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 2, 2005, ODI received a petition 
submitted by Ms. Miriam Schneider of Olney, MD requesting an 
investigation of allegedly defective tie rods in certain MY 1999 
Volkswagen Passat vehicles not included in two previous safety recall 
campaigns (identified henceforth as the subject vehicles). In a 
September 1999 letter, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW) notified the 
agency that an undetermined percentage of MY 1998-1999 Volkswagen 
Passat and Audi A4, A6, and A8 vehicles contained a safety-related 
defect affecting the tie rods in the steering system. VW indicated that 
it was possible that some tie rods would not seal properly which could 
allow moisture and dust particles to enter the swivel bearing 
mechanism, resulting in premature wear. The approximately 22,200 
Volkswagen and 29,700 Audi vehicles affected by this recall (identified 
by NHTSA Recall No. 99V-248) were built from January 1998 through July 
1998 and fell within a specific Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 
range.
    In November 2000, VW chose to expand the scope of the recall 
(identified by NHTSA Recall No. 00V-414) after it determined that some 
potentially defective tie rods may have been installed in an additional 
44,000 Volkswagen and 39,000 Audi vehicles built from August 1998 
through April 1999. These subject recall actions were not influenced by 
ODI. Instead, VW made an independent determination to conduct a recall 
after German vehicle inspection authorities notified it of ``worn'' tie 
rods and factory inspection of some ``worn'' tie rods revealed improper 
sealing.
    According to a December 2004 report, the petitioner brought her MY 
1999 Passat to an authorized Volkswagen dealer for an unrelated recall 
repair where she was notified by service personnel that, after 59,000 
miles traveled, the tie rods ``have too much play,'' and the 
recommended repairs would not be covered free of charge because her VIN 
(WVWNA63B1XE499116) was outside the recall range. In June 2005, after 
65,400 miles traveled, the petitioner paid $588.59 to replace worn 
inner and outer tie rod ends on both sides of the vehicle. The petition 
letter specifically requests that the scope of VW's recall be expanded 
to include the petitioner's vehicle and that she be reimbursed for the 
cost of the repairs.
    There are a total of 191 non-duplicative complaints to ODI and VW 
that allege premature wear of either one or both outer tie rod ends in 
the subject vehicles. As of November 18, 2005, ODI is not aware of any 
allegations of tie rod separations resulting in a loss of vehicle 
control, crash or injury in the subject vehicles.
    The steering system converts rotary motion of the steering wheel 
(input) into a turning motion of the vehicle's steered wheels to effect 
directional control (output). In the subject vehicles tie rods are used 
to transmit force from both ends of the rack and pinion gearbox to the 
steering arm at each front wheel. Each tie rod is affixed to the 
steering arm via a spherical bearing enclosed in a steel body (known as 
the outer tie rod end) and a bolt. The bearing is protected by a rubber 
boot that is intended to prevent the intrusion of dirt, dust, water, 
and other environmental particles that could contaminate the bearing 
and cause corrosion and accelerated wear of the ball and socket joint.
    In February 1998, VW began using aluminum tie rod ends for both 
vehicle production and service replacement parts in an effort to reduce 
weight. VW initiated recall 99V-248 after it determined that the 
aluminum tie rod ends used in certain MY 1998-99 vehicles were 
defective. The manufacturer identified a specific production range of 
vehicles built using aluminum tie rod ends and later expanded the scope 
(00V-414) to include vehicles built two months before and after this 
range to ensure that any vehicle that may have been built using 
defective aluminum tie rod ends was included in the recall action.
    Due to aluminum's low inherent material hardness, rapid and 
excessive wear of the bearing could result if the integrity of the seal 
is compromised and the bearing is left exposed to the elements. VW 
reports that damage to the protective rubber boot may be caused by 
external forces such as impact or in-use damage, or by improper 
assembly. Design changes intended to improve sealing (revised boot 
material) and ease of assembly (introduction of stop ring) were 
implemented. Additionally, the tie rod end was changed from aluminum to 
a steel body to improve bearing wear characteristics in the event of 
boot damage. This revised steel tie rod end entered vehicle production 
in March 1999 and was the replacement part used in the recall remedy.
    According to VW, aluminum tie rod ends show a very different 
pattern for replacement than the steel parts, as evidenced by analysis 
of consumer complaints and warranty claims. The defective aluminum tie 
rod ends were replaced at a much lower mileage range, whereas the steel 
parts are being replaced at a significantly higher mileage after years 
of service. Steel tie rod ends show a progression of failure symptoms 
which is clearly demonstrated and confirmed by the complaint reports 
identified in response to this petition, the vast majority of which 
include allegations limited to noise and/or excessive wear 
necessitating replacement during the course of routine maintenance. The 
manufacturer recommends periodic inspection of the steering system on 
the subject vehicles, including the tie rods, every 12 months. 
Furthermore, VW recommends a more detailed inspection of the tie rod 
ends (and replacement, if necessary) every 4 years or 40,000 miles 
traveled.

[[Page 72876]]

    The petitioner's vehicle was manufactured on June 8, 1999 using the 
revised steel tie rod ends and therefore was already equipped with the 
tie rod ends used to remedy defective vehicles in the subject recalls. 
Analysis indicates that there does not appear to be a safety-related 
defect trend with respect to the steel tie rod ends used in the subject 
vehicles.
    In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an 
order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined 
by the petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in 
the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize 
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety 
mission, the petition is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 1, 2005.
Daniel Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E5-6916 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.