Continental Tire North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 34414-34415 [E6-9244]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34414
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Notices
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition
was published, with a 30-day comment
period, on April 7, 2006, in the Federal
Register (71 FR 17952). NHTSA
received no comments.
Affected are a total of approximately
2,641 model year 2006 Honda Ridgeline
vehicles. S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102
requires,
[I]f the transmission shift position sequence
includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in
relation to each other and the position
selected, shall be displayed in view of the
driver whenever any of the following
conditions exist: (1) The ignition is in a
position where the transmission can be
shifted; or (b) The transmission is not in
park.
Honda explains the noncompliance as
follows:
* * * American Honda offered, as an
optional part, through its dealers, a wiring
harness as part of a trailer towing kit. The
wiring harness included a circuit to provide
for back-up lights, if present on a trailer, to
illuminate when the transmission was shifted
into reverse gear. The Ridgeline utilizes an
electronic display in the instrument panel to
indicate transmission gear position. When
the wiring harness in question has been
installed, and the ignition key is turned to
the accessory position, the electronic display
indicates not only the actual position of the
selected gear, but also illuminates the reverse
position indicator in the display, such that
there are two indicator lights lighted at the
same time, unless the reverse position is the
gear selected, in which case only the reverse
position indicator will be lighted.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Honda has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not
be repeated in future production.
Honda believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Honda
states that neither the actual function of
the transmission nor the transmission
lockout will be affected. Honda states
that there is no possibility of danger
from the noncompliant display while
the key is in the accessory position.
Honda states:
The key cannot be removed, the vehicle
cannot start, and the actual gear position
would be illuminated, as well as the reverse
position. There are two possible scenarios to
consider.
In the first and most common scenario, if
the key had been removed, upon initial
insertion of the key, the vehicle would have
had to be in ‘‘PARK,’’ and turning the key to
the accessory position will illuminate both
the ‘‘PARK’’ and ‘‘REVERSE’’ indications, but
not allow the vehicle to be shifted from the
‘‘PARK’’ position. Then, when the key was
turned to the ‘‘on’’ position, allowing the
vehicle to be shifted from the ‘‘PARK’’
position, the gear position indicator would
function properly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:47 Jun 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
In the second scenario, if the key has been
left in the ignition while in a gear other than
‘‘PARK,’’ when the operator turns the key to
the accessory position, the electronic display
will indicate the correct gear, as well as
reverse. This would be a highly unusual
circumstance, and the vehicle would not start
unless the key was turned to the ‘‘on’’
position, in which case the gear position
indicator would function properly. Nor could
the key be removed until the shift lever was
placed in the ‘‘PARK’’ position. Even if this
highly unlikely situation were to occur,
movement of the shift lever would indicate
the correct gear, as well as the illumination
of the reverse gear. It would become readily
apparent to the operator that the illumination
of the reverse gear would be inappropriate
and not indicative of the actual gear being
engaged. Again, once the ignition is turned
to the ‘‘ON’’ position, the gearshift indicator
would function completely normally. At no
time would the engine operate while in the
‘‘ACCESSORY’’ position.
NHTSA agrees with Honda that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. In the ‘‘accessory’’
position, which is when the
noncompliant display appears, the key
cannot be removed and the vehicle
cannot start. When the key is turned to
the ‘‘on’’ position, the gear position
indication functions properly and is in
compliance. The noncompliance does
not affect the function of the
transmission or the transmission
lockout.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Honda’s petition is granted
and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the noncompliance.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: June 9, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–9278 Filed 6–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24928; Notice 1]
Continental Tire North America,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Continental Tire North America
(Continental) has determined that
certain tires it produced in 2004 and
2005 do not comply with S5.5(f) of 49
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CFR 571.139, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139,
‘‘New pneumatic radial tires for light
vehicles.’’ Continental 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 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’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
2,627 model 235/55R17 99H Conti Pro
Contact replacement tires manufactured
during 2004 and 2005. S5.5(f) of FMVSS
No. 139 requires the actual number of
plies in the tread area to be molded on
both sidewalls of each tire. The
noncompliant tires are marked on the
sidewall ‘‘TREAD PLIES 1 RAYON + 2
STEEL + 2 NYLON’’ whereas the correct
marking should be ‘‘TREAD PLIES 1
RAYON + 2 STEEL + 1 NYLON.’’
Continental Tire believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
Continental Tire states,
All other sidewall identification markings
and safety information are correct. This
noncompliant sidewall marking does not
affect the safety, performance and durability
of the tire; the tires were built as designed.
Continental has corrected the problem
that caused these errors so that they will
not be repeated in future production.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. 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
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Notices
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: July 14, 2006.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
Issued on: June 8, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–9244 Filed 6–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–24137; Notice 2]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
General Motors Corporation, Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM) has
determined that certain 2006 model year
Cadillac XLR vehicles do not comply
with S7.8.2.1(c) of 49 CFR 571.108,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment.’’
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 April 5, 2006, in the Federal
Register (71 FR 17159). NHTSA
received no comments.
Affected are a total of approximately
1,074 model year 2006 Cadillac XLR
vehicles produced between July 26,
2005 and November 3, 2005. S7.8.2.1(c)
of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if
visually/optically (VO) aimable
headlamps are equipped with a
horizontal adjustment mechanism, then
the mechanism must meet the
applicable headlamp aim requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:47 Jun 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
in S7.8.5.2. That standard requires that
a headlamp system that is capable of
being aimed include a Vehicle
Headlamp Aiming Device that includes
the necessary references and scales to
assure correct aim and that a label
containing aiming instruction be affixed
adjacent to the device. The
noncompliant headlamps are equipped
with a horizontal adjustment but do not
meet the S7.8.5.2 requirements. GM
explains that during the assembly
process the horizontal adjuster is
supposed to be disabled but in the case
of the subject lamps, the disabling was
not done. GM has corrected the problem
that caused these errors so that they will
not be repeated in future production.
GM believes that the noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety and that no corrective action is
warranted. GM offers several bases for
this assertion.
First, GM states that the location of
the horizontal adjuster makes it difficult
to access, because it is recessed six
inches behind the opening under the
top of the fender and there is no
information in the owner’s manual
indicating the location.
Second, GM states that the horizontal
adjuster requires a different tool than
the vertical adjuster, a tool which is not
commonly available to the public.
Third, GM states that the lamps are
properly aimed and the need for reaiming is unlikely. GM explains that VO
headlamps have a wider beam pattern,
making horizontal aiming unnecessary,
supported by the fact that GM is not
aware of warranty claims or customer
complaints regarding the headlamps’
horizontal aim.
Fourth, GM states that it is unlikely
that owners will try to adjust headlamp
aim for the following reasons. The
owner’s manual instructs drivers to take
the vehicle to the dealer if the lamps
need to be re-aimed, a four-year 50,000
mile warranty on the vehicle makes it
more likely that owners will seek to
have any adjustments performed by the
dealer, the wide beam reduces the need
for headlamp adjustment, and it is
unlikely that luxury car customers
would make their own repairs.
Fifth, GM asserts that it is unlikely
that dealers will try to horizontally
adjust the lamps because they are not
aware of the horizontal adjustment.
Instead, dealers are likely to replace
lamps that develop an incorrect
horizontal aim.
Sixth, GM states that the lamps are
designed to compensate for build
variation and vehicle repair, and it
conducted additional testing which it
believes validates that road vibration
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34415
will not result in the lamps being out of
aim.
Seventh, GM states that it is not aware
of crashes, injuries, complaints, or field
reports related to the noncompliance.
NHTSA agrees with GM that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. The only possible
safety risk is that someone could locate
and improperly adjust the horizontal
adjustment mechanism. That risk is
extremely small. The location of the
horizontal adjuster makes it difficult to
access and there is no information in the
owner’s manual or given to the dealer
which indicates the location. Further,
the lamps are properly aimed and the
need for re-aiming is unlikely since
these headlamps have a wider beam
pattern which makes horizontal aiming
unnecessary. In addition, as GM points
out, it is unlikely that owners will try
to adjust the headlamp aim since the
owner’s manual instructs drivers to take
the vehicle to the dealer if the lamps
need to be re-aimed, and a four-year,
50,000-mile warranty on the vehicle
makes it more likely that owners will
seek to have any adjustments performed
by the dealer. Because dealers are
generally not aware that the horizontal
aim can be adjusted, they are likely to
replace the lamps that may need
adjustment. Moreover, to the extent this
notice increases awareness on the part
of owners or dealers that the horizontal
adjustment mechanism is present on
these vehicles, the notice will also
inform them that any horizontal
adjustment issue should be addressed
by replacing the lamps and/or
contacting GM.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, GM’s petition is granted
and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the noncompliance.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: June 9, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–9279 Filed 6–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34414-34415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9244]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24928; Notice 1]
Continental Tire North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Continental Tire North America (Continental) has determined that
certain tires it produced in 2004 and 2005 do not comply with S5.5(f)
of 49 CFR 571.139, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, ``New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles.'' Continental 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 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'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 2,627 model 235/55R17 99H
Conti Pro Contact replacement tires manufactured during 2004 and 2005.
S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 requires the actual number of plies in the
tread area to be molded on both sidewalls of each tire. The
noncompliant tires are marked on the sidewall ``TREAD PLIES 1 RAYON + 2
STEEL + 2 NYLON'' whereas the correct marking should be ``TREAD PLIES 1
RAYON + 2 STEEL + 1 NYLON.''
Continental Tire believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
Continental Tire states,
All other sidewall identification markings and safety information
are correct. This noncompliant sidewall marking does not affect the
safety, performance and durability of the tire; the tires were built
as designed.
Continental has corrected the problem that caused these errors so
that they will not be repeated in future production.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. 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
[[Page 34415]]
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: July 14, 2006.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8).
Issued on: June 8, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-9244 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
