Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 69727 [E7-23853]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2007 / Notices
original EIS, and reconsider them, if
appropriate.
Because public scoping meetings for
the Saddle Road Improvements project
were held in Hilo, Kona and Waimea
during the development of the original
EIS, no additional scoping is required
for an ongoing project, where an SEIS is
prepared that does not involve a
reassessment of the entire action.
However, letters describing the
proposed action and soliciting
comments will be sent to appropriate
Federal, State and local agencies, and to
private organizations and citizens who
have previously expressed or are known
to have interest in this proposal. Public
hearings will be held in both West and
East Hawai‘i. Public notice will be given
of the time and place of the hearings.
The draft SEIS will be available for
public and agency review and comment
prior to the public hearing. To ensure
that the full range of issues related to
this proposed action are addressed and
that all significant issues are identified,
comments and suggestions are invited
from all interested parties. Comments or
questions concerning this proposed
action and the SEIS should be directed
to the FHWA–CFLHD or the HDOT at
the addresses provided above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal Programs and activities apply to this
program)
Issued on: November 27, 2007.
Ricardo Suarez, P.E.,
Division Engineer, CFLHD.
[FR Doc. 07–5988 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M
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.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the
reasons for the denial of a petition
submitted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162
by Mr. Richard H. McSwain of McSwain
Engineering Inc. to NHTSA’s Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI), received
June 29, 2007, requesting that the
agency commence a proceeding to
determine the existence of a defect
related to motor vehicle safety with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Dec 07, 2007
Jkt 214001
respect to the manual seatback recliner
mechanism in model year 1989–1992
Ford Probe vehicles (subject vehicles).
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
hereinafter identified as DP07–001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Steve Chan, Safety Defects Engineer,
Defects Assessment Division, Office of
Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–8537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
29, 2007, NHTSA received a petition
from Mr. Richard H. McSwain of
McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting
that the agency investigate the failure of
the seatback recliner mechanisms in the
subject vehicles. The petition is based
on an examination of a passenger side
front seat recliner mechanism from a
subject vehicle involved in a multivehicle collision, of an exemplar seat, as
well as mechanical testing of a seat from
a subject vehicle. The petitioner
identified a failure mode involving
bypass of the seatback stop pin (inside
the recliner mechanism) during forward
movement of the seatback, such as when
entering and exiting the rear seat. The
petition stated that stop pin bypass
allows the recliner mechanism sector
gear to over-travel with respect to the
pawl. Return of the seatback to the
upright position may then bend the first
tooth of the pawl, resulting in a false or
partial engagement of the sector and
pawl teeth. This false engagement
condition is transmitted to the opposing
recliner mechanism via a mechanical
communication cable. According to the
petition, the ultimate result is the
inability of the recliner mechanism to
support the seatback during a collision
event. The petitioner concluded that the
stop pin bypass that initiated the failure
mode is a result of inadequate height of
the pin and the resulting inadequate
contact between the pin and seatback
stop.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 207 ‘‘Seating
Systems,’’ specifies that seats in
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet
certain static force test requirements.
However, for seats that hinge on folding
seatbacks, the restraining device, once
engaged, shall not release when a force
equal to twenty times the weight of the
seatback is applied through the center of
gravity for the seat in the direction the
seat is facing. It is not uncommon to see
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69727
the seatbacks of new vehicles moved
from their initial positions after a
FMVSS simulated vehicular collision.
The identified failure mode may be
the result of progressive wear and tear
of the seatback stop pin, the seatback
stop, and other seat components in
vehicles that are, on average, 17 years
old. Available data do not suggest that
this has occurred with a notable
frequency. ODI reviewed its consumer
complaint data received over the last
nineteen years and found no complaints
of seatback collapse (with or without a
vehicle collision) in the subject
vehicles.
In view of the foregoing, and
considering the advanced age of the
subject vehicles, 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. The statutory
requirement that the manufacturer
provide a free remedy does not apply if
the vehicle was bought by the first
purchaser more than 10 calendar years
before an order is issued. 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 4, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7–23853 Filed 12–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0042; Notice 1]
General Motors Corporation, Receipt
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM) has
determined that certain model year
2005, 2006 & 2007 Cadillac STS
passenger cars equipped with sunroofs
do not fully comply with paragraph
S4(e) of 49 CFR 571.118, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
118 Power-Operated Window, Partition,
and Roof Panel Systems. GM has filed
an appropriate report pursuant to 49
CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), GM has petitioned for an
exemption from the notification and
E:\FR\FM\10DEN1.SGM
10DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 69727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23853]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Mr. Richard H.
McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc. to NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), received June 29, 2007, requesting that the agency
commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to
motor vehicle safety with respect to the manual seatback recliner
mechanism in model year 1989-1992 Ford Probe vehicles (subject
vehicles). 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 hereinafter identified as DP07-001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Chan, Safety Defects
Engineer, Defects Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366-8537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2007, NHTSA received a petition
from Mr. Richard H. McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting
that the agency investigate the failure of the seatback recliner
mechanisms in the subject vehicles. The petition is based on an
examination of a passenger side front seat recliner mechanism from a
subject vehicle involved in a multi-vehicle collision, of an exemplar
seat, as well as mechanical testing of a seat from a subject vehicle.
The petitioner identified a failure mode involving bypass of the
seatback stop pin (inside the recliner mechanism) during forward
movement of the seatback, such as when entering and exiting the rear
seat. The petition stated that stop pin bypass allows the recliner
mechanism sector gear to over-travel with respect to the pawl. Return
of the seatback to the upright position may then bend the first tooth
of the pawl, resulting in a false or partial engagement of the sector
and pawl teeth. This false engagement condition is transmitted to the
opposing recliner mechanism via a mechanical communication cable.
According to the petition, the ultimate result is the inability of the
recliner mechanism to support the seatback during a collision event.
The petitioner concluded that the stop pin bypass that initiated the
failure mode is a result of inadequate height of the pin and the
resulting inadequate contact between the pin and seatback stop.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207 ``Seating
Systems,'' specifies that seats in passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet certain static force
test requirements. However, for seats that hinge on folding seatbacks,
the restraining device, once engaged, shall not release when a force
equal to twenty times the weight of the seatback is applied through the
center of gravity for the seat in the direction the seat is facing. It
is not uncommon to see the seatbacks of new vehicles moved from their
initial positions after a FMVSS simulated vehicular collision.
The identified failure mode may be the result of progressive wear
and tear of the seatback stop pin, the seatback stop, and other seat
components in vehicles that are, on average, 17 years old. Available
data do not suggest that this has occurred with a notable frequency.
ODI reviewed its consumer complaint data received over the last
nineteen years and found no complaints of seatback collapse (with or
without a vehicle collision) in the subject vehicles.
In view of the foregoing, and considering the advanced age of the
subject vehicles, 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. The statutory requirement that the manufacturer provide a
free remedy does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first
purchaser more than 10 calendar years before an order is issued.
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 4, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-23853 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
