Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 17608 [E7-6462]
Download as PDF
17608
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27437; Notice 1]
Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Grote Industries, LLC (Grote) has
determined that the amber reflex
reflectors on certain trucks
manufactured between 2004 through
2007 do not comply with S5.1.5 of 49
CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
‘‘Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.’’ Grote 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), Grote 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 Grote’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 approximately 137,050
reflex reflectors that have been sold for
installation as original equipment on
trucks and were manufactured between
December 28, 2004 and January 22,
2007. S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 requires:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
The color in all lamps, reflective devices,
and associated equipment to which this
standard applies shall comply with SAE
Standard J578c, Color Specification for
Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February
1977.
The reflex reflectors do not contain
the correct reflective material required
to meet the requirements of S5.1.5.
Grote has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not
be repeated in future production. Grote
believes that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
and that no corrective action is
warranted.
Grote first became aware of the
noncompliance of these reflex reflectors
when a report was received from one of
its customers who noticed a shipment of
reflex reflectors it had received from
Grote were a different color than
previous shipments. The customer was
supposed to receive amber reflex
reflectors that met the requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 for use as front sidemounted and intermediate sidemounted reflex reflectors.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
This noncompliance pertains solely to
the failure of these reflectors to meet the
applicable color requirements. The
subject reflex reflectors were
manufactured for Grote by a third-party
supplier. The third-party supplier
incorporated reflective tape that it
purchased from a reflective material
supplier. Based on the results of tests
conducted for Grote, Grote believes the
intermediate supplier had been using
retroreflective tape that was
manufactured to the specification for
‘‘selective yellow,’’ instead of the
correct specification for ‘‘amber,’’ as set
forth in the SAE J578c requirement. The
intermediate supplier was operating
under a certification letter from the
reflective material supplier, which
erroneously listed the material as
compliant.
Grote believes the failure of these
reflex reflectors to meet the color
specification does not reduce their
effectiveness in providing proper
visibility to allow identification of the
front and (where applicable)
intermediate side points of a vehicle.
Grote believes the difference between
compliant amber reflex reflectors and
the subject noncompliant selective
yellow colored reflex reflectors is barely
discernible to the naked eye when
reflected with ‘‘Illuminant A’’ light
under conditions of ambient darkness.
Such conditions are intended to imitate
nighttime driving conditions when
reflex reflectors serve their primary
purpose.
Grote states that it knows of no
accidents or other issues associated with
this noncompliance. The noncompliant
reflex reflectors continue to perform
their intended function without any
identifiable reduction in safety.
Therefore, Grote believes that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that all other
requirements under FMVSS No. 108 are
met.
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 am to 5 pm except
Federal Holidays. Comments may be
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: May 9, 2007.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: April 3, 2007.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7–6462 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25546, Notice 2]
Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Response
to Application for a Temporary
Exemption From the Headlamp
Requirements of FMVSS No. 108;
Advanced Air Bag Requirements of
FMVSS No. 208
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of application for
temporary exemption from certain
provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, and from
certain provisions of FMVSS No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants the
Koenigsegg Automotive AB
(‘‘Koenigsegg’’) application 1 for
temporary exemption from certain
advanced air bag requirements of
1 While Koenigsegg also petitioned for an
exemption from the 49 CFR Part 581 Bumper
Standard, it subsequently withdrew that portion of
its petition (see Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25546–
4).
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6462]
[[Page 17608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27437; Notice 1]
Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Grote Industries, LLC (Grote) has determined that the amber reflex
reflectors on certain trucks manufactured between 2004 through 2007 do
not comply with S5.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment.'' Grote 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), Grote 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 Grote'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 approximately 137,050 reflex reflectors that have been
sold for installation as original equipment on trucks and were
manufactured between December 28, 2004 and January 22, 2007. S5.1.5 of
FMVSS No. 108 requires:
The color in all lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment to which this standard applies shall comply with SAE
Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting
Devices, February 1977.
The reflex reflectors do not contain the correct reflective
material required to meet the requirements of S5.1.5. Grote has
corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be
repeated in future production. Grote believes that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action
is warranted.
Grote first became aware of the noncompliance of these reflex
reflectors when a report was received from one of its customers who
noticed a shipment of reflex reflectors it had received from Grote were
a different color than previous shipments. The customer was supposed to
receive amber reflex reflectors that met the requirements of FMVSS No.
108 for use as front side-mounted and intermediate side-mounted reflex
reflectors.
This noncompliance pertains solely to the failure of these
reflectors to meet the applicable color requirements. The subject
reflex reflectors were manufactured for Grote by a third-party
supplier. The third-party supplier incorporated reflective tape that it
purchased from a reflective material supplier. Based on the results of
tests conducted for Grote, Grote believes the intermediate supplier had
been using retroreflective tape that was manufactured to the
specification for ``selective yellow,'' instead of the correct
specification for ``amber,'' as set forth in the SAE J578c requirement.
The intermediate supplier was operating under a certification letter
from the reflective material supplier, which erroneously listed the
material as compliant.
Grote believes the failure of these reflex reflectors to meet the
color specification does not reduce their effectiveness in providing
proper visibility to allow identification of the front and (where
applicable) intermediate side points of a vehicle. Grote believes the
difference between compliant amber reflex reflectors and the subject
noncompliant selective yellow colored reflex reflectors is barely
discernible to the naked eye when reflected with ``Illuminant A'' light
under conditions of ambient darkness. Such conditions are intended to
imitate nighttime driving conditions when reflex reflectors serve their
primary purpose.
Grote states that it knows of no accidents or other issues
associated with this noncompliance. The noncompliant reflex reflectors
continue to perform their intended function without any identifiable
reduction in safety. Therefore, Grote believes that this noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that all other
requirements under FMVSS No. 108 are met.
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 am to 5 pm 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: May 9, 2007.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: April 3, 2007.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-6462 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P