Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 31839-31840 [2010-13402]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.’’ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: June 1, 2010. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2010–13466 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0060; Notice 1] srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance The Ford Motor Company (Ford) 1 has determined that certain model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger cars, built from June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009, and certain model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicles, built from June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, do not fully meet the windshield marking requirements of paragraph S6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing Materials. On November 12, 2009, Ford 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) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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. 1 Ford is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Jun 03, 2010 Jkt 220001 This notice of receipt of Ford’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. Ford estimates approximately 15,663 model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger car models, built from June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009, at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant, and approximately 3,565 model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle models, built from June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, at Ford’s Oakville Assembly Plant, a total of approximately 19,228 vehicles are not in compliance with paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 relating to windshield marking.2 Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires in pertinent part: S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996, in letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and a manufacturer’s code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. * * * Ford describes the noncompliance as the improper location of the ‘‘AS1’’ glazing marking. The standard requires that the ‘‘AS1’’ glazing marking be located in close proximity to the official designated trademark area (lower portion) of the windshield. However, Ford said that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol is marked in the upper portion of the windshield, on both sides of the affected windshields and that the windshields conform to all other FMVSS No. 205 requirements. Ford states the basis for why they believe this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as: No other Ford vehicles are affected by this condition and we are not aware of any field or owner complaints related to this condition. In our judgment, the condition does not present a risk to motor vehicle safety because the windshield fully meets the performance and physical requirements of FMVSS [No.] 205. Additionally repair service will be unaffected because the selection of replacement windshields is typically done utilizing a distributor, a catalog, or NAGS [National Auto Glass Specification] number. Furthermore, repairers will be able to determine the appropriate glazing because the upper portions of the windshield are properly labeled with the ‘‘AS1,’’ designation, the glazing is clearly marked as ‘‘Laminated,’’ and all other markings required by FMVSS [No.] 205 are properly labeled. 2 Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming windshields installed in the subject vehicles were manufactured by Zeledyne, Inc. (Zeledyne), at their facility located at 7200 W. Centennial Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209. PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 31839 Additionally, Ford stated that Zeledyne discovered the noncompliance during its trademark content project study in which its laboratory personnel noticed that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol was missing from the designated trademark location on the lower corner of the windshields for the affected vehicles. Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Therefore, Ford believes that the described noncompliance does not present a risk to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Ford requests that its petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. 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: a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to 1–202– 493–2251. Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1 31840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 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 6, 2010. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8). Issued on: May 27, 2010. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2010–13402 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. AGENCY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning an extension of OMB approval of the information collection titled, srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:01 Jun 03, 2010 Jkt 220001 ‘‘Disclosure of Financial and Other Information by National Banks (12 CFR 18).’’ OCC also gives notice that it has sent this collection to OMB for review. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 6, 2010. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0182, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874–4448, or by electronic mail to regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC’s Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling (202) 874–5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0182, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may request additional information or a copy of the collection and supporting documentation submitted to OMB by contacting: Mary H. Gottlieb, (202) 874– 5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Disclosure of Financial and Other Information by National Banks (12 CFR Part 18). OMB Control No.: 1557–0182. Type of Review: Extension, without revision, of a currently approved collection. Description: The collections of information are found in 12 CFR 18.3, 18.4, and 18.8. Section 18.3 requires the preparation of an annual disclosure statement and specifies how it must be made available. Section 18.4 details the required elements of the disclosure statement and permits a bank to supplement its annual disclosure statement with an optional narrative. Lastly, section 18.8 requires that a national bank promptly furnish its annual disclosure statement upon request. The regulation applies to approximately 1,535 national banks and 50 Federal branches and agencies. Most banks will use their Call Reports or information prepared for annual reports as their disclosure material. This program of periodic financial disclosure is necessary, not only to facilitate informed decision making by existing and potential customers and PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 investors, but also to improve public understanding of, and confidence in, the financial condition of individual national banks and the national banking system. Financial disclosure also reduces the likelihood that the market will overreact to incomplete information. Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit. Burden Estimates: Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,585. Estimated Number of Responses: 1,585. Estimated Annual Burden: 793 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Comments: OCC issued a 60-Day Federal Register notice on March 18, 2010. 75 FR 13205. No comments were received. Comments continue to be solicited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the OCC’s estimate of the information collection burden; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: May 27, 2010. Michele Meyer Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [FR Doc. 2010–13251 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–33–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31839-31840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0060; Notice 1]


Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    The Ford Motor Company (Ford) \1\ has determined that certain model 
year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger cars, built from June 1, 2009, through 
October 5, 2009, and certain model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose 
vehicles, built from June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, do not 
fully meet the windshield marking requirements of paragraph S6.2 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing 
Materials. On November 12, 2009, Ford filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ford is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles, 
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices 
at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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 Ford'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.
    Ford estimates approximately 15,663 model year 2010 Ford Taurus 
passenger car models, built from June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009, 
at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, and approximately 3,565 model year 
2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle models, built from June 29, 
2009, through October 8, 2009, at Ford's Oakville Assembly Plant, a 
total of approximately 19,228 vehicles are not in compliance with 
paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 relating to windshield marking.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming windshields 
installed in the subject vehicles were manufactured by Zeledyne, 
Inc. (Zeledyne), at their facility located at 7200 W. Centennial 
Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires in pertinent part:

    S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by 
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in 
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a 
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. * * 
*

    Ford describes the noncompliance as the improper location of the 
``AS1'' glazing marking. The standard requires that the ``AS1'' glazing 
marking be located in close proximity to the official designated 
trademark area (lower portion) of the windshield. However, Ford said 
that the ``AS1'' symbol is marked in the upper portion of the 
windshield, on both sides of the affected windshields and that the 
windshields conform to all other FMVSS No. 205 requirements.
    Ford states the basis for why they believe this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as:

    No other Ford vehicles are affected by this condition and we are 
not aware of any field or owner complaints related to this 
condition. In our judgment, the condition does not present a risk to 
motor vehicle safety because the windshield fully meets the 
performance and physical requirements of FMVSS [No.] 205. 
Additionally repair service will be unaffected because the selection 
of replacement windshields is typically done utilizing a 
distributor, a catalog, or NAGS [National Auto Glass Specification] 
number. Furthermore, repairers will be able to determine the 
appropriate glazing because the upper portions of the windshield are 
properly labeled with the ``AS1,'' designation, the glazing is 
clearly marked as ``Laminated,'' and all other markings required by 
FMVSS [No.] 205 are properly labeled.

    Additionally, Ford stated that Zeledyne discovered the 
noncompliance during its trademark content project study in which its 
laboratory personnel noticed that the ``AS1'' symbol was missing from 
the designated trademark location on the lower corner of the 
windshields for the affected vehicles.
    Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that 
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future 
production.
    Therefore, Ford believes that the described noncompliance does not 
present a risk to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Ford requests that its 
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    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:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed 
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive

[[Page 31840]]

confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a 
stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all 
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    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 6, 2010.

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

    Issued on: May 27, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-13402 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P