Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 20571-20572 [2015-08691]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices
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 tires that CTA 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 tires
under their control after CTA notified
them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire
must be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in S5.5(a) through (d)
and on one sidewall with the information
specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this
standard . . .
(f) The actual number of plies in the
sidewall, and the actual number of plies in
the tread area, if different;
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
‘‘Tread 4 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel +
1 Polyamide.’’ The correct labeling and
stamping should have been ‘‘Tread 5
Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2
Polyamide.’’ The Continental
ExtremeContact DW size 225/45R17
91W tires were manufactured with
‘‘Tread 4 Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel +
1 Polyamide.’’ The correct labeling and
stamping should have been ‘‘Tread 5
Plies: 1 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2
Polyamide.’’ The General G-Max AS–03
size 225/45R17 91W tires were
manufactured with ‘‘Plies: Tread: 1
Polyester + 2 Steel + 1 Polyamide.’’ The
correct labeling and stamping should
have been ‘‘Plies: Tread: 1 Polyester +
2 Steel + 2 Polyamide.’’
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of
FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent
part:
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8).
V. Summary of CTA’s Analyses: CTA
stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
(A) CTA believes that the mislabeling
of the number of plies on the subject
tires has no impact on the operational
performance of the subject tires or on
the safety of vehicles on which these
tires are to be mounted. CTA states that
the subject tires also meet or exceed all
of the performance requirements
specified by FMVSS No. 139.
(B) CTA states that they are unaware
of any accidents or injuries that have
occurred as a result of this
noncompliance.
(C) CTA states that NHTSA has
previously granted similar petitions for
Inconsequential Noncompliance’s in the
past.
CTA has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the subject
noncompliance.
In summation, CTA believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
CTA 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compiance.
[FR Doc. 2015–08692 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0029; Notice 1]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
(MBUSA) on behalf of itself and its
parent company Daimler AG (DAG),
collectively referred to as ‘‘Mercedes’’
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205
Platform) passenger vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S10.18.4 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment.
Mercedes has filed an appropriate report
dated February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is May 18, 2015.
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20571
this notice and 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, selfaddressed 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 the 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. Mercedes’ Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
Mercedes submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
20572
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Notices
V. Summary of MBUSA’s Analyses:
Mercedes stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
customers brought their vehicles in for
service by Mercedes repair shops, who know
how to perform a headlamp readjustment
properly, without using the horizontal
adjustment screw.
(C) Mercedes’ says they provide service
instructions to U.S. repair shops that specify
that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not
permitted and do not even mention that a
horizontal headlamp adjustment screw even
exists. Similarly, the vehicle owner’s manual
does not include information about
performing headlamp illumination
adjustment. Thus, since the horizontal
headlamp screw’s existence is not mentioned
in any sales or service instructions or
manuals, use of the screw by the customer or
repair facilities would be extremely unlikely.
(D) Mercedes also stated that even if the
screw were to be used, such adjustment
would result in only minimal differences in
illumination levels compared to the original
levels because it provides only a minimal
range of adjustment. Mercedes elaborated by
stating that when the horizontal adjustment
screw is turned to the far left or far right endposition, only a few measuring points are
slightly above or below the FMVSS No. 108
required levels. Specifically, when the
horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the
maximum left end-position (¥2.8°), only 4
out of 24 measuring points are above (3) or
under (1) the required illumination levels.
And when the horizontal adjustment screw is
turned to the maximum right end-position
(+3.2°), only 2 out of 24 measuring points are
under the required illumination levels. Thus,
the difference between these worst-case
levels and the required minimum or
maximum levels are very small. According to
Mercedes’ headlamp development engineers,
a difference of 300 cd [candela] is unlikely
to be noticed by a driver and would not affect
oncoming traffic or visibility in any material
way. In addition, the subject headlamps rely
on a reflection-based system which
Mercedes’ believes leads to less glare then
projection-based system.
(A) Mercedes believes that new
manufacturing methods, including the use of
optical image processing to adjust the
horizontal and the vertical illumination
levels of headlamps in addition to the
reduction in assembly tolerances for
headlamp assemblies has resulted in optimal
headlamp adjustments on vehicles leaving
their manufacturing plants. As a result, onvehicle aiming devices are no longer
common in the industry. Mercedes believes
that this has led to the elimination of the
need for horizontal headlamp adjustment on
in-use vehicles. Regarding the subject
vehicles, Mercedes says there is generally no
need for customers or repair shops to adjust
the horizontal aim of headlamps.
(B) Mercedes states that they have only
received five customer complaints in the
United States, relating to alleged headlamp
mis-aiming in the subject vehicles. None of
the complaints relate to horizontal misaiming of the headlamps. In all instances
Mercedes has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the subject
noncompliance.
In summation, Mercedes believes that
the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt Mercedes 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,
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of MBUSA’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. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 9,137 MY 2015
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform)
passenger cars manufactured between
June 18, 2014 through September 5,
2015 at Mercedes’ Tuscaloosa, Alabama
plant.
III. Noncompliance: Mercedes
explains that the subject vehicles were
manufactured with horizontal
adjustment-visually aimed headlamps
that have a lower beam and a horizontal
adjustment mechanism that was not
made inoperative at the factory.
Specifically, the horizontal adjustment
screw was not properly sealed off with
non-removable sealing caps as necessary
to fully meet the requirements of
paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108.
Rule Text: Paragraph S10.18.4 of
FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent
part:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually
aimed headlamp. A visually/optically
amiable headlamp that has a lower beam
must not have a horizontal adjustment
mechanism unless such mechanism meets
the requirements of this standard for on
vehicle aiming as specified in S10.18.8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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 vehicles that Mercedes no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on 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 Mercedes 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–08691 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF
PEACE
Notice of Meeting
Friday, April 24, 2015 (10:00
a.m.–1:45 p.m.)
LOCATION: 2301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20037.
STATUS: Open Session—Portions may
be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of
Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States
Code, as provided in subsection
1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute
of Peace Act, Public Law 98–525.
AGENDA: April 24, 2015 Board Meeting;
Approval of Minutes of the One
Hundred Fifty-Fourth Meeting (January
23, 2015) of the Board of Directors;
Chairman’s Report; Vice Chairman’s
Report; President’s Report; Reports from
USIP Board Committees; Update on
Afghanistan and Pakistan; Countering
Violent Extremism Review; Other
General Issues.
CONTACT: Denson Staples, Assistant to
the Board Liaison Email: dstaples@
usip.org.
DATE/TIME:
Dated: April 9, 2015.
Michael Graham,
Senior Vice President for Management and
Chief Financial Officer, United States
Institute of Peace.
[FR Doc. 2015–08608 Filed 4–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–AR–M
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20571-20572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0029; Notice 1]
Mercedes-Benz USA, 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: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (MBUSA) on behalf of itself and its
parent company Daimler AG (DAG), collectively referred to as
``Mercedes'' has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015 Mercedes-
Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S10.18.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Mercedes has
filed an appropriate report dated February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 18, 2015.
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
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-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 the 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. Mercedes' Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Mercedes submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C.
[[Page 20572]]
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of MBUSA'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. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 9,137 MY 2015
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars manufactured
between June 18, 2014 through September 5, 2015 at Mercedes'
Tuscaloosa, Alabama plant.
III. Noncompliance: Mercedes explains that the subject vehicles
were manufactured with horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamps
that have a lower beam and a horizontal adjustment mechanism that was
not made inoperative at the factory. Specifically, the horizontal
adjustment screw was not properly sealed off with non-removable sealing
caps as necessary to fully meet the requirements of paragraph S10.18.4
of FMVSS No. 108.
Rule Text: Paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in
pertinent part:
S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamp. A
visually/optically amiable headlamp that has a lower beam must not
have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets
the requirements of this standard for on vehicle aiming as specified
in S10.18.8.
V. Summary of MBUSA's Analyses: Mercedes stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
(A) Mercedes believes that new manufacturing methods, including
the use of optical image processing to adjust the horizontal and the
vertical illumination levels of headlamps in addition to the
reduction in assembly tolerances for headlamp assemblies has
resulted in optimal headlamp adjustments on vehicles leaving their
manufacturing plants. As a result, on-vehicle aiming devices are no
longer common in the industry. Mercedes believes that this has led
to the elimination of the need for horizontal headlamp adjustment on
in-use vehicles. Regarding the subject vehicles, Mercedes says there
is generally no need for customers or repair shops to adjust the
horizontal aim of headlamps.
(B) Mercedes states that they have only received five customer
complaints in the United States, relating to alleged headlamp mis-
aiming in the subject vehicles. None of the complaints relate to
horizontal mis-aiming of the headlamps. In all instances customers
brought their vehicles in for service by Mercedes repair shops, who
know how to perform a headlamp readjustment properly, without using
the horizontal adjustment screw.
(C) Mercedes' says they provide service instructions to U.S.
repair shops that specify that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not
permitted and do not even mention that a horizontal headlamp
adjustment screw even exists. Similarly, the vehicle owner's manual
does not include information about performing headlamp illumination
adjustment. Thus, since the horizontal headlamp screw's existence is
not mentioned in any sales or service instructions or manuals, use
of the screw by the customer or repair facilities would be extremely
unlikely.
(D) Mercedes also stated that even if the screw were to be used,
such adjustment would result in only minimal differences in
illumination levels compared to the original levels because it
provides only a minimal range of adjustment. Mercedes elaborated by
stating that when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the
far left or far right end-position, only a few measuring points are
slightly above or below the FMVSS No. 108 required levels.
Specifically, when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the
maximum left end-position (-2.8[deg]), only 4 out of 24 measuring
points are above (3) or under (1) the required illumination levels.
And when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the maximum
right end-position (+3.2[deg]), only 2 out of 24 measuring points
are under the required illumination levels. Thus, the difference
between these worst-case levels and the required minimum or maximum
levels are very small. According to Mercedes' headlamp development
engineers, a difference of 300 cd [candela] is unlikely to be
noticed by a driver and would not affect oncoming traffic or
visibility in any material way. In addition, the subject headlamps
rely on a reflection-based system which Mercedes' believes leads to
less glare then projection-based system.
Mercedes has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
subject noncompliance.
In summation, Mercedes believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Mercedes 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 vehicles that Mercedes no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on 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
Mercedes 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-08691 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P