Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP12-003, 44486-44487 [2014-17984]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44486
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Use of Certain
Personal Oxygen Concentrator (POC)
Devices on Board Aircraft
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval to renew an information
collection. A Special Federal Aviation
Regulation requires passengers who
intend to use an approved POC to
present a physician statement before
boarding. The flight crew must then
inform the pilot-in-command that a POC
is on board.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by September 29, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by
email at: Kathy.DePaepe@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2120–0702.
Title: Use of Certain Personal Oxygen
Concentrator (POC) Devices on Board
Aircraft.
Form Numbers: There are no FAA
forms associated with this collection.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: A pilot in command is
required to be apprised when a
passenger brings a POC on board the
aircraft, and passengers who have a
medical need to use a POC during flight
are required to possess a signed
physician statement describing the
oxygen therapy needed, to determine
whether an inflight diversion to an
airport may be needed in the event the
passenger’s POC fails to operate or the
aircraft experiences cabin pressurization
difficulties, and to verify the need for
the device, the oxygen therapy needed
to be provided by use of the POC, and
the oxygen needs of the passenger in
case of emergency.
Respondents: Approximately
1,690,555 passengers.
Frequency: Information is collected as
needed.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 6 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
169,046 hours.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Jul 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
Send comments to the FAA
at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation
Administration, ASP–110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK
73169.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
ADDRESSES:
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 28,
2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection
Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP–110.
[FR Doc. 2014–18062 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP12–003
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
AGENCY:
Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
ACTION:
This document denies a
petition from Mr. Peter J. Gonzalez (the
petitioner) of Fuquay Varina, NC,
requesting that the agency open an
investigation into headlamp failures on
the model year (MY) 2008 Saturn
Outlook and similar vehicles. After
reviewing the petition and other
information, NHTSA has concluded that
further investigation of MY 2007–2009
Saturn Outlook vehicles and the similar
GMC Acadia vehicles (subject vehicles)
is unlikely to result in a determination
that a safety-related defect exists. The
agency accordingly denies the petition.
SUMMARY:
Mr.
Steve Chan, Defects Assessment
Division, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–8537.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Alleged Problem
The petitioner alleges that his MY
2008 Saturn Outlook vehicle had
experienced a loss of low beam
headlamp illumination. The petitioner
found that the headlamp harness mating
to the headlamp had melted. He also
noted that there were other complaints
on NHTSA’s Web site related to the
same melting of the headlamp harness.
Loss of Headlamp Illumination
The United States Code for Motor
Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301)
defines motor vehicle safety as ‘‘the
performance of a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment in a way that
protects the public against unreasonable
risk of accidents occurring because of
the design, construction, or performance
of a motor vehicle, and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in
an accident, and includes
nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.’’
Over the last 25 years, ODI has
opened numerous defect investigations
of the loss of headlamp illumination.
Investigations that resulted in safety
recalls involved simultaneous loss of
illumination from both headlamps.
NHTSA does not consider the loss of a
single headlamp as presenting an
unreasonable safety risk—such failures
are readily detectable by the driver
while allowing the vehicle to retain
forward visibility and conspicuity from
the remaining headlamp. There is
typically enough time between the
failure of the first headlamp and the
second during which the vehicle
operator can obtain the needed repairs.
Subject Vehicle Complaints
As of July 16, 2014, out of a
population of 248,453 subject vehicles,
NHTSA identified 473 consumer
complaints of inoperative headlamp(s).
Many of these complaints indicated that
the headlamp harness suffered damage
from overheating. After reviewing the
complaints, ODI found:
—69% (328) Alleged that a single
headlamp was inoperative.
—18% (86) alleged that both headlamps
were inoperative but not at the same
time.
—9% (41) alleged that both headlamps
were inoperative but the complaints
did not indicate whether the failures
had occurred at the same time.
—4% (17) alleged that both headlamps
were inoperative at the same time.
—One additional complaint cited wire
harness damage to both sides but did
not specify an outage.
—No crashes or loss of vehicle control
were reported.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices
trend was not identified. The closing
resume summary of PE04–020 stated:
‘‘Nissan and Ford found that the
original equipment headlight stainless
steel bulb terminals may over time
cause elevated contact resistance and
overheat the electrical connector
housing. This can result in a headlight
flickering, bulb outage and heat
deformation to the headlight connector.
This problem can affect
independently either headlight but does
not cause simultaneous failure of both
headlights. The problem also does not
affect front parking lamps. As a result,
the complaints typically report single
failure of one headlight. There were no
crashes or loss of vehicle control
reported.’’
In another previous investigation of
headlamp harness failure (PE05–007),
the closing resume summary stated:
‘‘Improper installation of the original
equipment headlight connector can
cause increased terminal resistance and
overheat the headlight connector.
This problem can affect
independently either headlight but does
not cause simultaneous failure of both
headlights. The problem also does not
affect front parking lamps. As a result,
the complaints typically report single
failure of one headlight. There were no
crashes or loss of vehicle control
reported.’’
Technical Service Bulletin
In May of 2009, General Motors
Corporation (GM) issued Technical
Bulletin #09–08–42–004 applicable to
the MY 2007–2009 Saturn Outlook
vehicles. The Subject: ‘‘Low Beam
Headlamp Replacement/Diagnosis
(Inspect Fuse, Bulb, Harness, Replace
Harness and Fill Connector Cavity for
Low Beam Bulb Connector with Nyogel
Grease).’’ The bulletin provides
corrective actions to address the
condition that some customers describe
as the low beam headlamp bulb being
inoperative. A reduction of consumer
complaints accompanied release of this
bulletin, suggesting that the repair cost
concerns on the part of many of the
complainants were addressed.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
—Reported thermal damage was limited
to melting of the headlamp harness
and/or the headlamp housing.
—Frequently, a headlamp would
intermittently fail to illuminate or
flickered before becoming completely
inoperative.
For the seventeen complaints that
alleged simultaneous failure of both
headlamps while attempting to turn
them on or while driving, the headlamp
failures likely had occurred one at a
time—the subject vehicle’s headlamps
are connected in a parallel circuit and
each circuit is fused independently.
Therefore, failure of one headlamp or its
harness is very unlikely to affect the
other headlamp’s operation.
Furthermore, during the agency’s
headlamp failure investigation PE09–
019, a random sample of consumers was
contacted by ODI in a telephone survey
to verify their experiences. Though the
consumers stated in complaints to the
manufacturer that both headlamps
failed at the same time, ODI discovered
through its interviews of these
complainants that, in fact, one
headlamp would begin to flicker and
then cut off while the other headlamp
remained operational. In a few cases
where no action was taken by the
complainants, the second headlamp
failed several months later; however
none of those surveyed could confirm
that both headlamps failed to illuminate
simultaneously. There is no reason to
believe this is not applicable to the
subject vehicles as well.
In December of 2011, GM issued a
Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP),
Bulletin No. 11055 that applies to the
subject vehicles. GM notified the
owners to bring their vehicles to a GM
dealer to have the headlamp connectors
and the low beam headlamp bulbs
replaced at no charge through 2013.
Shortly after issuance of the more recent
GM bulletin, related complaints to
NHTSA decreased significantly from
over a hundred annually to 21 for
calendar year (CY) 2012, 33 for CY 2013
and only 11 (year-to-date) as of July 16,
2014.
Investigation Precedent
ODI previously opened two defect
investigations concerning inoperative
headlamps due to overheating and
melting of headlamp harness—failures
very similar to those described by owner
of the subject vehicle. Both
investigations were closed without a
recall because a safety-related defect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:56 Jul 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
Customer Satisfaction Program
Conclusion
Based on the information currently
available, NHTSA does not believe that
the headlamp condition as alleged by
the petitioner indicates the likelihood of
a safety-related defect that would
warrant a formal investigation.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44487
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014–17984 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP13–002
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
AGENCY:
This notice states the reasons
for denying a Defect Petition (DP) (DP
13–002) submitted under 49 CFR parts
552 by Ms. Jessie A. Powell of
Middleboro, MA (petitioner) in a
January, 2013 letter to the Administrator
of NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’). The
petitioner requested that the Agency
open an investigation into software and
brake failures on model year (MY) 2012
Toyota Prius C vehicles (the ‘‘Subject
Vehicles’’).
After reviewing materials in-hand,
those furnished by the petitioner, and
upon completing an inspection of her
vehicle, NHTSA sees no indication that
additional investigation would lead to a
finding that a defect related to motor
vehicle safety exists. NHTSA has
concluded that further investigation of
the issue raised in the petition is not
warranted. The Agency accordingly has
denied the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jeff Price, Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–5410. Email:
jeffrey.price@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Introduction
Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested
persons may petition NHTSA requesting
that the Agency initiate an investigation
to determine whether a motor vehicle or
item of replacement equipment does not
comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a
defect that relates to motor vehicle
safety. Upon receipt of a properly filed
petition, the Agency conducts a
technical review (§ 552.6) of the
petition, material submitted with the
petition, and any appropriate additional
information. After considering the
technical review and taking into
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44486-44487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17984]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP12-003
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Mr. Peter J. Gonzalez
(the petitioner) of Fuquay Varina, NC, requesting that the agency open
an investigation into headlamp failures on the model year (MY) 2008
Saturn Outlook and similar vehicles. After reviewing the petition and
other information, NHTSA has concluded that further investigation of MY
2007-2009 Saturn Outlook vehicles and the similar GMC Acadia vehicles
(subject vehicles) is unlikely to result in a determination that a
safety-related defect exists. The agency accordingly denies the
petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Chan, Defects Assessment
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-8537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Alleged Problem
The petitioner alleges that his MY 2008 Saturn Outlook vehicle had
experienced a loss of low beam headlamp illumination. The petitioner
found that the headlamp harness mating to the headlamp had melted. He
also noted that there were other complaints on NHTSA's Web site related
to the same melting of the headlamp harness.
Loss of Headlamp Illumination
The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter
301) defines motor vehicle safety as ``the performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public
against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design,
construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes
nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.''
Over the last 25 years, ODI has opened numerous defect
investigations of the loss of headlamp illumination. Investigations
that resulted in safety recalls involved simultaneous loss of
illumination from both headlamps. NHTSA does not consider the loss of a
single headlamp as presenting an unreasonable safety risk--such
failures are readily detectable by the driver while allowing the
vehicle to retain forward visibility and conspicuity from the remaining
headlamp. There is typically enough time between the failure of the
first headlamp and the second during which the vehicle operator can
obtain the needed repairs.
Subject Vehicle Complaints
As of July 16, 2014, out of a population of 248,453 subject
vehicles, NHTSA identified 473 consumer complaints of inoperative
headlamp(s). Many of these complaints indicated that the headlamp
harness suffered damage from overheating. After reviewing the
complaints, ODI found:
--69% (328) Alleged that a single headlamp was inoperative.
--18% (86) alleged that both headlamps were inoperative but not at the
same time.
--9% (41) alleged that both headlamps were inoperative but the
complaints did not indicate whether the failures had occurred at the
same time.
--4% (17) alleged that both headlamps were inoperative at the same
time.
--One additional complaint cited wire harness damage to both sides but
did not specify an outage.
--No crashes or loss of vehicle control were reported.
[[Page 44487]]
--Reported thermal damage was limited to melting of the headlamp
harness and/or the headlamp housing.
--Frequently, a headlamp would intermittently fail to illuminate or
flickered before becoming completely inoperative.
For the seventeen complaints that alleged simultaneous failure of both
headlamps while attempting to turn them on or while driving, the
headlamp failures likely had occurred one at a time--the subject
vehicle's headlamps are connected in a parallel circuit and each
circuit is fused independently. Therefore, failure of one headlamp or
its harness is very unlikely to affect the other headlamp's operation.
Furthermore, during the agency's headlamp failure investigation PE09-
019, a random sample of consumers was contacted by ODI in a telephone
survey to verify their experiences. Though the consumers stated in
complaints to the manufacturer that both headlamps failed at the same
time, ODI discovered through its interviews of these complainants that,
in fact, one headlamp would begin to flicker and then cut off while the
other headlamp remained operational. In a few cases where no action was
taken by the complainants, the second headlamp failed several months
later; however none of those surveyed could confirm that both headlamps
failed to illuminate simultaneously. There is no reason to believe this
is not applicable to the subject vehicles as well.
Technical Service Bulletin
In May of 2009, General Motors Corporation (GM) issued Technical
Bulletin 09-08-42-004 applicable to the MY 2007-2009 Saturn
Outlook vehicles. The Subject: ``Low Beam Headlamp Replacement/
Diagnosis (Inspect Fuse, Bulb, Harness, Replace Harness and Fill
Connector Cavity for Low Beam Bulb Connector with Nyogel Grease).'' The
bulletin provides corrective actions to address the condition that some
customers describe as the low beam headlamp bulb being inoperative. A
reduction of consumer complaints accompanied release of this bulletin,
suggesting that the repair cost concerns on the part of many of the
complainants were addressed.
Investigation Precedent
ODI previously opened two defect investigations concerning
inoperative headlamps due to overheating and melting of headlamp
harness--failures very similar to those described by owner of the
subject vehicle. Both investigations were closed without a recall
because a safety-related defect trend was not identified. The closing
resume summary of PE04-020 stated: ``Nissan and Ford found that the
original equipment headlight stainless steel bulb terminals may over
time cause elevated contact resistance and overheat the electrical
connector housing. This can result in a headlight flickering, bulb
outage and heat deformation to the headlight connector.
This problem can affect independently either headlight but does not
cause simultaneous failure of both headlights. The problem also does
not affect front parking lamps. As a result, the complaints typically
report single failure of one headlight. There were no crashes or loss
of vehicle control reported.''
In another previous investigation of headlamp harness failure
(PE05-007), the closing resume summary stated: ``Improper installation
of the original equipment headlight connector can cause increased
terminal resistance and overheat the headlight connector.
This problem can affect independently either headlight but does not
cause simultaneous failure of both headlights. The problem also does
not affect front parking lamps. As a result, the complaints typically
report single failure of one headlight. There were no crashes or loss
of vehicle control reported.''
Customer Satisfaction Program
In December of 2011, GM issued a Customer Satisfaction Program
(CSP), Bulletin No. 11055 that applies to the subject vehicles. GM
notified the owners to bring their vehicles to a GM dealer to have the
headlamp connectors and the low beam headlamp bulbs replaced at no
charge through 2013. Shortly after issuance of the more recent GM
bulletin, related complaints to NHTSA decreased significantly from over
a hundred annually to 21 for calendar year (CY) 2012, 33 for CY 2013
and only 11 (year-to-date) as of July 16, 2014.
Conclusion
Based on the information currently available, NHTSA does not
believe that the headlamp condition as alleged by the petitioner
indicates the likelihood of a safety-related defect that would warrant
a formal investigation. 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.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-17984 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
