National Highway Traffic Safety Administration April 17, 2013 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Sidump'r Trailer Company, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Document Number: 2013-08958
Type: Notice
Date: 2013-04-17
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
Sidump'r Trailer Company, Inc. (Sidump'r) has determined that the rear impact guards on certain trailers that it manufactured between January 10, 2006 and April 13, 2007 do not comply with paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.224, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. Sidump'r has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated April 20, 2007. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 (d) and 30120 (h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Sidump'r 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 a petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on August 16, 2007, in the Federal Register (72 FR 46127). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) received no comments. 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-2007-28927.'' For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Luis Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5298, facsimile (202) 366-1002. Trailers Involved: Affected are approximately 416 model 223, 325 and 425 side dump bulk material hauling trailers manufactured by Sidump'r between January 10, 2006 and April 13, 2007. Summary of Sidump'r's Analysis and Arguments: Sidump'r first became aware of the noncompliance of these trailers when Sidump'r received a customer inquiry on or about February 27, 2007 regarding the rear impact guards installed on the subject trailers. As a result of this inquiry, Sidump'r stated that it commenced a thorough engineering evaluation of the rear end of the subject trailers to determine whether they meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 224. Following this engineering evaluation and after consultation with its counsel, Sidump'r determined that the trailers do not comply with FMVSS No. 224. Specifically, Sidump'r has determined that the location of those guards does not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 224 because there is a ``push block'' located at the rear of the trailer chassis extending 23.62 inches (600 mm) to the rear of the rear impact guard. Sidump'r stated that it considered the ``push blocks'' to be the ``rear extremities'' of the subject trailers. Therefore, it concluded that the rearmost surface of the horizontal members of the rear impact guards are located 11.62 inches (295 mm) too far forward of the ``rear extremity'' of the trailers to conform with the requirements of paragraph S5.1.3. Sidump'r also examined the possibility of the ``push block'' itself serving as the rear impact guard. It determined that the ``push block'' itself does not constitute a compliant rear impact guard as originally installed because it exceeds the maximum ground clearance of 22 inches (560 mm) allowed by paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 224 by 1.5 inches (38 mm). Sidump'r stated that it has corrected the problem that caused the noncompliance in the trailers they produced after April 20, 2007 by modifying the design of the trailers to incorporate an additional horizontal member mounted to the underside of the ``push block'' assembly. Sidump'r also stated that it believes this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no further corrective action is warranted due to the geometric characteristics of the trailers and the nature of their field usage. Specifically, Sidump'r makes the arguments that the overall level of safety of the subject trailers is equivalent to a compliant trailer because their ``push block'' is equipped with a guard-like structure that is comparable to a compliant rear impact guard based on dimensional considerations, and on a simulation of the guard performance \1\ when subjected to the loads required under FMVSS No. 223. Sidump'r additionally supported its position that the overall level of safety of the noncompliant trailers is equivalent to comparable trailers by comparing them to road construction controlled horizontal discharge trailers and by citing several previous decisions where NHTSA granted temporary exemptions from compliance with FMVSS No. 224 as the result of petitions filed under 49 CFR Part 555 Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards for noncompliances that it considers similar in consequence to those covered in this petition.
Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1991 Volkswagen Transporter Multi-Purpose Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation
Document Number: 2013-08957
Type: Notice
Date: 2013-04-17
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
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.
OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Document Number: 2013-08956
Type: Notice
Date: 2013-04-17
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
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 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 sourceor vice versawill 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\
Pilkington North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Document Number: 2013-08955
Type: Notice
Date: 2013-04-17
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington) has determined that certain replacement rear windows manufactured for model year 2006 through 2009 Honda Civic two-door coupe passenger cars manufactured on April 16, 2008, do not fully comply with paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing Materials. Pilkington 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 (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 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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.