17608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

1While Koenigsegg also petitioned for an 

exemption from the 49 CFR Part 581 Bumper 

Standard, it subsequently withdrew that portion of 

its petition (see Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25546–

4). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27437; Notice 1] 

Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Grote Industries, LLC (Grote) has 

determined that the amber reflex 

reflectors on certain trucks 

manufactured between 2004 through 

2007 do not comply with S5.1.5 of 49 

CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 

‘‘Lamps, reflective devices, and 

associated equipment.’’ Grote has filed 

an appropriate report pursuant to 49 

CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and 

Noncompliance Reports.’’

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h), Grote 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. 

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. 

Affected are approximately 137,050 

reflex reflectors that have been sold for 

installation as original equipment on 

trucks and were manufactured between 

December 28, 2004 and January 22, 

2007. S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 requires: 

The color in all lamps, reflective devices, 

and associated equipment to which this 

standard applies shall comply with SAE 

Standard J578c, Color Specification for 

Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 

1977. 

The reflex reflectors do not contain 

the correct reflective material required 

to meet the requirements of S5.1.5. 

Grote has corrected the problem that 

caused these errors so that they will not 

be repeated in future production. Grote 

believes that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

and that no corrective action is 

warranted. 

Grote first became aware of the 

noncompliance of these reflex reflectors 

when a report was received from one of 

its customers who noticed a shipment of 

reflex reflectors it had received from 

Grote were a different color than 

previous shipments. The customer was 

supposed to receive amber reflex 

reflectors that met the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108 for use as front sidemounted and intermediate sidemounted reflex reflectors. 

This noncompliance pertains solely to 

the failure of these reflectors to meet the 

applicable color requirements. The 

subject reflex reflectors were 

manufactured for Grote by a third-party 

supplier. The third-party supplier 

incorporated reflective tape that it 

purchased from a reflective material 

supplier. Based on the results of tests 

conducted for Grote, Grote believes the 

intermediate supplier had been using 

retroreflective tape that was 

manufactured to the specification for 

‘‘selective yellow,’’ instead of the 

correct specification for ‘‘amber,’’ as set 

forth in the SAE J578c requirement. The 

intermediate supplier was operating 

under a certification letter from the 

reflective material supplier, which 

erroneously listed the material as 

compliant. 

Grote believes the failure of these 

reflex reflectors to meet the color 

specification does not reduce their 

effectiveness in providing proper 

visibility to allow identification of the 

front and (where applicable) 

intermediate side points of a vehicle. 

Grote believes the difference between 

compliant amber reflex reflectors and 

the subject noncompliant selective 

yellow colored reflex reflectors is barely 

discernible to the naked eye when 

reflected with ‘‘Illuminant A’’ light 

under conditions of ambient darkness. 

Such conditions are intended to imitate 

nighttime driving conditions when 

reflex reflectors serve their primary 

purpose. 

Grote states that it knows of no 

accidents or other issues associated with 

this noncompliance. The noncompliant 

reflex reflectors continue to perform 

their intended function without any 

identifiable reduction in safety. 

Therefore, Grote believes that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that all other 

requirements under FMVSS No. 108 are 

met. 

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: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand 

Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It 

is requested, but not required, that two 

copies of the comments be provided. 

The Docket Section is open on 

weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except 

Federal Holidays. Comments may be 

submitted electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing 

the document electronically. Comments 

may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 

may be submitted to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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. 

Comment closing date: May 9, 2007. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: April 3, 2007. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E7–6462 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–25546, Notice 2] 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Response 

to Application for a Temporary 

Exemption From the Headlamp 

Requirements of FMVSS No. 108; 

Advanced Air Bag Requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of application for 

temporary exemption from certain 

provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, and from 

certain provisions of FMVSS No. 108, 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment. 

SUMMARY: This document grants the 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB 

(‘‘Koenigsegg’’) application 1 for 

temporary exemption from certain 

advanced air bag requirements of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES