Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 55066-55067 [2014-21882]

Download as PDF 55066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 2014 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 6. Thor also stated its belief that NHTSA has previously stated (72 FR 68442–68466, December 4, 2007) that the most important time for RV purchasers to receive the CCC information is at the point-of-sale. Thor has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production of these trailers will fully comply with FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. In summation, Thor believes that the described noncompliance of the subject trailers is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt Thor 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 Decision NHTSA Analysis: Thor reported a noncompliance with FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. However, the specifications listed on Livin Lite’s Web site for the models identified in Thor’s report that it filed under 49 CFR part 573 show a maximum GVWR of 10,000 lbs. As such, the noncompliance is limited only to the requirements of paragraph S9.3 of FMVSS No. 110. The 3,465 affected RV trailers do not have the required cargo carrying capacity label. As noted above, FMVSS No. 110, S9 requires an RV label to state the vehicle’s VIN, maximum weight of cargo, and, if applicable, the weight of a full load of potable water. FMVSS No. 110, S4.3(a) requires the vehicle’s capacity weight to be stated on the vehicle placard, i.e., the weight of cargo should not exceed XXX kg or XXX lbs. The placard is located adjacent to the 49 CFR 567 certification label which contains the VIN. So the missing information is the water weight. Livin Lite’s specifications for the affected vehicles list water volumes of 20–63 gallons. Thor provided a sample of the missing label in its petition stating the water weight in kg and lbs, which the label indicates is calculated using the conversions 1 kg/liter and 8.3 lbs/ gallon. Therefore, the water weights are 20 gallons = 166 lbs to 63 gallons = 523 lbs. The model 11FDB trailer has a 20 gallon fresh water capacity which relates to 24 percent of its load capacity of 705 lbs. This appears to be the model with the highest percentage of water weight within its cargo carrying capacity weight. However, it is a very small trailer with limited storage space. Specifications for the other RVs indicate a water weight of 17 percent or less. We confirmed that the owner’s manual on Livin Lite’s Web site VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Sep 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 provides warnings to not overload its RVs. The manual advises against loading an RV with maximum liquid capacities including the holding tanks, and filling the full volume of storage compartments and cupboards. An additional prominent warning in the manual states ‘‘Never overload your trailer. Do not exceed the rated load of the RV or the rated load of any axle!’’ Furthermore, the Livin Lite Web site has a link to the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association’s publication ‘‘Trailer Life, 2012 Towing Guide.’’ It states on page 7: ‘‘The only surefire way to find out what your trailer weighs is to load it as usual for a trip and weigh it at a public scale,’’ making sure not to exceed the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or a Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). We believe Livin Lite’s warnings and additional information are sufficient guidance to owners of the affected RVs. NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Thor has met its burden of persuasion that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Thor’s petition is hereby granted and Thor 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 subject noncompliant vehicles that Thor no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Thor notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8) Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–21884 Filed 9–12–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0093; Notice 1] Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: Grote Industries, LLC (Grote), has determined that certain Grote bulk nylon air brake tubing manufactured during the period December 2013 to March 2014 does not fully comply with paragraph S11.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106; Brake Hoses. Grote has filed an appropriate report dated June 13, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. SUMMARY: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 15, 2014. ADDRESSES: 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: Send comments 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. • Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand 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. • Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to (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 confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, selfDATES: E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 178 / Monday, September 15, 2014 / Notices addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// 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 https:// 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Grote’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Grote submitted a petition 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. II. Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 869 spools of Grote nylon air brake tubing that was manufactured during the period December 2013 to March 2014. III. Noncompliance: Grote explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a production error, the affected air brake tubing is not properly marked in accordance with paragraph S11.2.1(a) of FMVSS No. 106, which requires plastic air brake tubing to be marked with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the tubing. In addition, some of the tubing also does not comply with paragraph S11.2.1(e) of FMVSS No. 106 which requires plastic air brake tubing to be marked with the letter ‘‘A’’ to indicate intended use in air brake systems. Specifically, all of the subject brake tubing was mismarked with the number ‘‘1913’’ in addition to ‘‘GROTE’’ and some of the tubing was also mismarked with the letter ‘‘B,’’ instead of the letter ‘‘A.’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:10 Sep 12, 2014 Jkt 232001 IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S11.2 of FMVSS No. 106 requires in pertinent part: S11.2 Labeling S11.2.1 Plastic air brake tubing. Plastic air brake tubing shall be labeled, or cut from bulk tubing that is labeled, at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. The information need not be present on tubing that is sold as part of a motor vehicle. (a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the hose manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. . . . (e) The letter ‘‘A’’ shall indicate intended use in air brake systems. V. Summary of Grote’s Analyses: Grote stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: Grote believes that these labeling noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because both the manufacturer designation and the intended use are otherwise clearly marked on the tubing. Grote stated its belief that the purpose of the manufacturer identification requirement is to permit identification of products in the event of a product recall. If a recall of the subject air brake tubing was to become necessary the affected tubing could easily be identified by the GROTE name, which is conspicuously marked on all of the affected tubing. Grote also stated its belief that the manufacturer associated with the identification number ‘‘1913’’ has not existed since 1977 and are are not aware of any manufacturer currently marketing air brake tubing under the ‘‘Samuel Moore’’ brand.1 The purpose of the ‘‘A’’ letter designation requirement is to indicate that the product is intended for use in air brake applications. As noted above, some of the products are marked as ‘‘SAE J844 Type B’’ instead of the letter ‘‘A.’’ Type B tubing is an SAE J844 designation that identifies reinforced air brake tubing. This designation is widely recognized among truck maintenance and service personnel. Regardless, the subject hose is also clearly and prominently marked with the phrase, ‘‘GROTE AIR BRAKE,’’ eliminating any possible confusion or misunderstanding 1 After receiving Grote’s petition, based on a submission from Eaton Corporation, NHTSA revised its records to indicate that the brake hose manufacturer identification ‘‘1913’’ ceded to Eaton Corporation due to its acquisition of Moore, Samuel, and Company, Synflex Division. PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 55067 as to the intended application of the product. In addition, Grote stated its belief that NHTSA has made analogous inconsequentiality determinations in similar situations related to other products where a required label was missing, but the product contained other markings that conveyed the same or similar information. See Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35357 (June 12, 2013); Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 2006); and Delphi Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 41331 (July 8, 2004). Grote also informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production nylon air brake tubing will comply with FMVSS No. 106. In summation, Grote believes that the described noncompliance of the subject nylon air brake tubing is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt Grote 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. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject equipment that Grote no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control after Grote notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–21882 Filed 9–12–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55066-55067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0093; Notice 1]


Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Grote Industries, LLC (Grote), has determined that certain 
Grote bulk nylon air brake tubing manufactured during the period 
December 2013 to March 2014 does not fully comply with paragraph S11.2 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106; Brake Hoses. 
Grote has filed an appropriate report dated June 13, 2014, pursuant to 
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 15, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: 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: Send comments 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.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand 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.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (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 confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-

[[Page 55067]]

addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to https://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 https://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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Grote's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) 
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Grote submitted a petition 
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.
    II. Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 869 spools of 
Grote nylon air brake tubing that was manufactured during the period 
December 2013 to March 2014.
    III. Noncompliance: Grote explains that the noncompliance is that, 
due to a production error, the affected air brake tubing is not 
properly marked in accordance with paragraph S11.2.1(a) of FMVSS No. 
106, which requires plastic air brake tubing to be marked with a 
designation that identifies the manufacturer of the tubing. In 
addition, some of the tubing also does not comply with paragraph 
S11.2.1(e) of FMVSS No. 106 which requires plastic air brake tubing to 
be marked with the letter ``A'' to indicate intended use in air brake 
systems. Specifically, all of the subject brake tubing was mismarked 
with the number ``1913'' in addition to ``GROTE'' and some of the 
tubing was also mismarked with the letter ``B,'' instead of the letter 
``A.''
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S11.2 of FMVSS No. 106 requires in 
pertinent part:

S11.2 Labeling

    S11.2.1 Plastic air brake tubing. Plastic air brake tubing shall 
be labeled, or cut from bulk tubing that is labeled, at intervals of 
not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the 
beginning of the next, in block capital letters and numerals at 
least one-eighth of an inch high, with the information listed in 
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. The information need not 
be present on tubing that is sold as part of a motor vehicle.
    (a) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the hose 
manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable motor vehicle 
safety standards. . . .
    (e) The letter ``A'' shall indicate intended use in air brake 
systems.

    V. Summary of Grote's Analyses: Grote stated its belief that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for 
the following reasons:
    Grote believes that these labeling noncompliances are 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because both the manufacturer 
designation and the intended use are otherwise clearly marked on the 
tubing.
    Grote stated its belief that the purpose of the manufacturer 
identification requirement is to permit identification of products in 
the event of a product recall. If a recall of the subject air brake 
tubing was to become necessary the affected tubing could easily be 
identified by the GROTE name, which is conspicuously marked on all of 
the affected tubing.
    Grote also stated its belief that the manufacturer associated with 
the identification number ``1913'' has not existed since 1977 and are 
are not aware of any manufacturer currently marketing air brake tubing 
under the ``Samuel Moore'' brand.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ After receiving Grote's petition, based on a submission from 
Eaton Corporation, NHTSA revised its records to indicate that the 
brake hose manufacturer identification ``1913'' ceded to Eaton 
Corporation due to its acquisition of Moore, Samuel, and Company, 
Synflex Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the ``A'' letter designation requirement is to 
indicate that the product is intended for use in air brake 
applications. As noted above, some of the products are marked as ``SAE 
J844 Type B'' instead of the letter ``A.'' Type B tubing is an SAE J844 
designation that identifies reinforced air brake tubing. This 
designation is widely recognized among truck maintenance and service 
personnel. Regardless, the subject hose is also clearly and prominently 
marked with the phrase, ``GROTE AIR BRAKE,'' eliminating any possible 
confusion or misunderstanding as to the intended application of the 
product.
    In addition, Grote stated its belief that NHTSA has made analogous 
inconsequentiality determinations in similar situations related to 
other products where a required label was missing, but the product 
contained other markings that conveyed the same or similar information. 
See Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35357 (June 12, 2013); 
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 2006); 
and Delphi Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 41331 (July 8, 2004).
    Grote also informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance 
so that all future production nylon air brake tubing will comply with 
FMVSS No. 106.
    In summation, Grote believes that the described noncompliance of 
the subject nylon air brake tubing is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety, and that its petition, to exempt Grote 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. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject equipment that Grote no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control 
after Grote notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-21882 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.