OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 22943-22944 [2013-08956]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 17, 2013 / Notices
has filed an appropriate report pursuant
to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports, dated February 4, 2009.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions at 49 CFR part 556,
Pilkington 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. Notice of receipt of
Pilkington’s petition was published,
with a 30-day public comment period,
on May 20, 2009, in the Federal
Register (74 FR 23775). No comments
were received. To view the petition, and
all supporting documents log onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate
docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2009–0092.’’
For further information on this
decision, contact Mr. Luis Figueroa,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
NHTSA, telephone (202) 366–5298,
facsimile (202) 366–7002.
Equipment Involved: Affected are
approximately 206 replacement rear
windows (National Auto Glass
Specifications (NAGS) part number
FB22692GTY) for model year 2006
through 2009 Honda Civic two-door
coupe passenger cars that were
manufactured at Pilkington’s Versailles,
Kentucky plant on April 16, 2008.
Summary of Pilkington’s Analysis and
Arguments: Pilkington explains that the
noncompliance for the 205 replacement
rear windows exists due to Pilkington’s
failure to label the replacement rear
windows with the marks required by
section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996, the
symbol ‘‘DOT,’’ and its NHTSA assigned
manufacturer code mark. As of the time
of the petition,
Paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of FMVSS
No. 205 require 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. NHTSA
will assign a code mark to a
manufacturer after the manufacturer
submits a written request to the Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
* * *
S6.3 A manufacturer or distributor
who cuts a section of glazing material to
which this standard applies, for use in
a motor vehicle or camper, must (a)
Mark that material in accordance with
section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1 1996; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Apr 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
(b) Certify that its product complies
with this standard in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 30115.
Pilkington states that it believes that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
(1) The noncompliances relate solely
to product monograms or markings and
the noncompliant rear windows.
Pilkington has tested a number of the
parts in its possession and confirmed
that they meet or exceed all other
applicable performance requirements in
FMVSS No. 205.
(2) NHTSA has previously granted
other exemptions for noncompliant
product labeling. In the past, the agency
has recognized that the failure to meet
labeling requirements often is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
(3) The information contained in the
noncompliant product markings is not
required in order for consumers to
operate their vehicles safely.
Pilkington also stated its belief that
the noncompliance will not interfere
with any future tracing of the windows
because Pilkington is only one of three
manufacturers of rear windows for this
particular Honda Civic, the other two
being PGW (Pittsburgh Glass Works,
formerly known as PPG) and Auto
Temp, Inc. Given that the windows
produced by the two other
manufacturers will be properly marked,
Pilkington’s unlabeled rear windows
should easily be identified and traced,
if necessary, should any future defects
or noncompliances be discovered.
Discussion: NHTSA has reviewed and
accepts Pilkington’s analyses that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Pilkington has
provided documentation that the
windows do comply with all other
safety performance requirements of the
standard, except the labeling. This
documentation is a surrogate for the
certification labeling. NHTSA believes
that the lack of labeling would not result
in inadvertent replacement of the
windows with the wrong glazing.
Broken tempered glass can readily be
identified as tempered glass, rather than
plastic or laminated glass. Anyone who
intended to replace the window with an
identical tempered glass window would
have to contact Pilkington for the proper
part, since tempered glass windows
cannot be easily manufactured by small
field facilities. At that point, Pilkington,
or their representative, would be able to
provide the correct replacement
window by use of their parts system.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
Pilkington has met its burden of
persuasion that the FMVSS No. 205
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22943
noncompliance in the noncompliant
windows described in Pilkington’s
Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Pilkington’s petition is
hereby granted and the petitioner is
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a remedy
for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
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. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the 206
noncompliant windows that Pilkington
no longer controlled at the time that it
determined that a noncompliance
existed in the subject vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued On: April 11, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–08955 Filed 4–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0177; Notice 2]
OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.;
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
OSRAM SYLVANIA
Products, Inc., (OSRAM SYLVANIA),
has determined that certain Type ‘‘H11
C’’ light sources that it manufactured
fail to meet the requirements of
paragraph S7.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. OSRAM
SYLVANIA has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, dated
August 24, 2010.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), OSRAM SYLVANIA has
petitioned for an exemption from the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22944
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 17, 2013 / Notices
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt
of the petition was published, with a 30day public comment period, on January
25, 2011 in the Federal Register (76 FR
4420). No comments were received. To
view the petition, and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2010–
0177.’’
For further information on this
decision contact Mr. Michael Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–2334, facsimile (202) 366–
7002.
Lamps Involved: OSRAM SYLVANIA
estimates that approximately 28,412
‘‘H11 C’’ light sources (bulbs) that it
manufactured on June 23 and 24, 2010
are affected. All of the affected light
sources were manufactured by OSRAM
GmbH, Industriestrasse, Herbrechtingen,
Germany.
Summary of Osram Sylvania’s
Analysis and Arguments: OSRAM
SYLVANIA described the
noncompliance as the mismarking of
type ‘‘H11 C’’ lighting sources as type
‘‘H11.’’
In its petition OSRAM SYLVANIA
argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
(1) The noncompliance in this case
pertains solely to the failure of the
subject light sources to meet the
applicable marking requirements.
(2) ‘‘H11 C’’ light sources are designed
to be completely interchangeable with
the original ‘‘H11’’ light sources. When
Philips Lighting B.V., submitted its
modification to the ‘‘H11’’ light source
specification that became the ‘‘H11 C’’
specification it certified that use of the
‘‘H11 C’’ light source will not create a
noncompliance with any requirement of
FMVSS No. 108 when used to replace
an ‘‘H11’’ light source in a headlamp
certified by its manufacturer as
conforming to all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. Subject
‘‘H11 C’’ light sources are designed to
conform to Part 564 Docket NHTSA 98–
3397–81 including the additional
requirements under paragraph IX. In
other words, inadvertent installation of
a subject ‘‘H11 C’’ light source in place
of an ‘‘H11’’ light source—or vice
versa—will not create a noncompliance
with any of the performance or
interchangeability requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 (including beam pattern
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Apr 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
photometrics) or otherwise present an
increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
(3) ‘‘H11 C’’ light sources have the
same filament position, dimension and
tolerances, capsule and capsule support
dimensions, bulb base
interchangeability dimensions, seal
specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ‘‘H11.’’ The only
difference between the ‘‘H11’’ light
source and the ‘‘H11 C’’ light source is
that the ‘‘H11 C’’ provides for the light
transmitting portion of the glass wall to
incorporate a color controlling optical
filter in order to improve visibility.1
(4) The agency has concluded in
previous similar petitions that a
noncompliance is inconsequential when
mismarked light sources are otherwise
fully compliant with the performance
requirements of the standard.
Supported by the above stated
reasons, OSRAM SYLVANIA believes
that the described FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and 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.
Discussion: NHTSA has reviewed and
accepts OSRAM SYLVANIA’s analyses
that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
The ‘‘H11 C’’ light source is a design
that is completely interchangeable with
the original ‘‘H11’’ light source. The
‘‘H11 C’’ light sources have the same
filament position, dimension and
tolerances, capsule and capsule support
dimensions, bulb base
interchangeability dimensions, seal
specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ‘‘H11.’’ As such,
NHTSA agrees that inadvertent
installation of a mismarked ‘‘H11 C’’
light source in place of an ‘‘H11’’ light
source—or vice versa—would not create
a noncompliance with any of the
headlamp performance requirements of
FMVSS 108 or otherwise present an
increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
OSRAM SYLVANIA has met its burden
of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance in the lamps identified
in OSRAM SYLVANIA’s
Noncompliance Information Report and
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, OSRAM
SYLVANIA’s petition is granted and the
petitioner is exempted from the
1 Petition for ‘‘H11 C’’ Replaceable Light Sources
Listing, Docket NHTSA 98–3397–81, November 1,
2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the lamps that
OSRAM SYLVANIA no longer
controlled at the time that it determined
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject vehicles.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Issued On: April 11, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–08956 Filed 4–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0031, Notice 1]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for
Decision That Nonconforming 1991
Volkswagen Transporter Multi-Purpose
Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
This document announces
receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a
petition for a decision that
nonconforming 1991 Volkswagen
Transporter Multi-Purpose Passenger
Vehicles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
importation into the United States
because they are substantially similar to
vehicles that were originally
manufactured for sale in the United
States and that were certified by their
manufacturer as complying with the
safety standards (1991 Volkswagen
Vanagon Multi-Purpose Passenger
Vehicles) and they are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the
standards.
SUMMARY:
The closing date for comments
on the petition is May 17, 2013.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22943-22944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08956]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0177; Notice 2]
OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc., (OSRAM SYLVANIA), has
determined that certain Type ``H11 C'' light sources that it
manufactured fail to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.7 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment. OSRAM SYLVANIA has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated August 24, 2010.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), OSRAM SYLVANIA has petitioned for an exemption
from the
[[Page 22944]]
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 25, 2011 in the Federal Register (76
FR 4420). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0177.''
For further information on this decision contact Mr. Michael Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile
(202) 366-7002.
Lamps Involved: OSRAM SYLVANIA estimates that approximately 28,412
``H11 C'' light sources (bulbs) that it manufactured on June 23 and 24,
2010 are affected. All of the affected light sources were manufactured
by OSRAM GmbH, Industriestrasse, Herbrechtingen, Germany.
Summary of Osram Sylvania's Analysis and Arguments: OSRAM SYLVANIA
described the noncompliance as the mismarking of type ``H11 C''
lighting sources as type ``H11.''
In its petition OSRAM SYLVANIA argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
(1) The noncompliance in this case pertains solely to the failure
of the subject light sources to meet the applicable marking
requirements.
(2) ``H11 C'' light sources are designed to be completely
interchangeable with the original ``H11'' light sources. When Philips
Lighting B.V., submitted its modification to the ``H11'' light source
specification that became the ``H11 C'' specification it certified that
use of the ``H11 C'' light source will not create a noncompliance with
any requirement of FMVSS No. 108 when used to replace an ``H11'' light
source in a headlamp certified by its manufacturer as conforming to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Subject ``H11 C''
light sources are designed to conform to Part 564 Docket NHTSA 98-3397-
81 including the additional requirements under paragraph IX. In other
words, inadvertent installation of a subject ``H11 C'' light source in
place of an ``H11'' light source--or vice versa--will not create a
noncompliance with any of the performance or interchangeability
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (including beam pattern photometrics) or
otherwise present an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
(3) ``H11 C'' light sources have the same filament position,
dimension and tolerances, capsule and capsule support dimensions, bulb
base interchangeability dimensions, seal specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ``H11.'' The only difference between the ``H11''
light source and the ``H11 C'' light source is that the ``H11 C''
provides for the light transmitting portion of the glass wall to
incorporate a color controlling optical filter in order to improve
visibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petition for ``H11 C'' Replaceable Light Sources Listing,
Docket NHTSA 98-3397-81, November 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The agency has concluded in previous similar petitions that a
noncompliance is inconsequential when mismarked light sources are
otherwise fully compliant with the performance requirements of the
standard.
Supported by the above stated reasons, OSRAM SYLVANIA believes that
the described FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and 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.
Discussion: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts OSRAM SYLVANIA's
analyses that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. The ``H11 C'' light source is a design that is completely
interchangeable with the original ``H11'' light source. The ``H11 C''
light sources have the same filament position, dimension and
tolerances, capsule and capsule support dimensions, bulb base
interchangeability dimensions, seal specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ``H11.'' As such, NHTSA agrees that inadvertent
installation of a mismarked ``H11 C'' light source in place of an
``H11'' light source--or vice versa--would not create a noncompliance
with any of the headlamp performance requirements of FMVSS 108 or
otherwise present an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that OSRAM SYLVANIA has met its burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance in the lamps identified in OSRAM SYLVANIA's
Noncompliance Information Report and is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, OSRAM SYLVANIA's petition is granted and
the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
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. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the lamps that OSRAM SYLVANIA no longer controlled at
the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject
vehicles.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Issued On: April 11, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-08956 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
