10618 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

The motor vehicle equipment in issue

are Accu-Forge 22.5 & 24.5×8.25 inch

15° Drop Center, One-piece, Tubeless

Aluminum Dual Wheels, produced by

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical

Corporation at its Erie, Pennsylvania,

forging plant and machined at Ultra

Forge, Inc. at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio,

were misstamped on the marking of the

rim. The symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and the

designation which indicates the source

of the rim’s published nominal

dimensions, in this case ‘‘T’’ were not

included. All other stampings specified

by FMVSS 120 and by Accuride,

including the part number and the

loading rating, were correctly stamped

on the product.

Accuride provides the following

information in support of its petition:

‘‘1. Accuride Corporation is a Delaware

corporation and is a subsidiary of Phelps

Dodge Corporation. Accuride is

headquartered in Henderson, Kentucky and

is a major manufacturer of truck rims and

wheels.

‘‘2. The motor vehicle equipment in

question are a small number of Accu-Forge

22.5 & 24.5×8.25 inch, 15° drop center, onepiece tubeless dual wheels produced by

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation

at its Erie, Pennsylvania forging plant and

machined at Ultra Forge, Inc. in Cuyahoga

Falls, Ohio. In issue are an estimated 478 of

the total 1,256 wheels of this size produced

between January 6, 1997 and January 10,

1997. Six wheels manufactured December 23,

1996 were also stamped during this time

frame. The non-compliance relates to the

mis-stamping of the marking of the rim. The

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and the designation which

indicates the source of the rim’s published

nominal dimensions, in this case ‘‘T’’, were

not included. All other stampings and

markings required by FMVSS 120 and

Accuride, including the part number and

load rating, are correctly identified on each

of the components in questions.

‘‘3. The rim marking is for information

only and there is no safety-related issue

potentially arising from the exclusion of

these symbols on the wheels.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of

Accuride, described above. Comments

should refer to the docket number and

be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C.,

20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: April 7, 1997.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: March 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–5720 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 97–113; Notice 1]

General Motors Corporation; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that certain of its 1996 J/L/

N model cars fail to comply with the

requirements of 49 CFR 571.101,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 101, ‘‘Controls and

Displays,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Information Report.’’ GM has also

applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety’’ on the basis that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49 CFR

Part 573 and does not represent any

agency decision or other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the

application.

Paragraph S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101

requires that sources of illumination

forward of a transverse vertical plane

4.35 inches rearward of the manikin

‘‘H’’ point, with the driver’s seat in its

rearmost driving position, that are not

used for controls and displays, are not

a telltale, and are capable of being

illuminated while a vehicle is in

motion, have either (1) light intensity

which is manually or automatically

adjustable to provide at least two levels

of brightness, (2) a single intensity that

is barely discernible to a driver who has

adapted to dark ambient roadway

conditions, or (3) a means of being

turned off.

The purpose of this requirement is to

ensure the accessibility and visibility of

motor vehicle controls and displays and

to facilitate their selection under

daylight and nightitme conditions, in

order to reduce the safety hazards

caused by the diversion of the driver’s

attention from the driving task, and by

mistakes in selecting controls.

GM’s description of the noncompliance follows:

‘‘Vehicles involved: Certain of these

1996 makes and models (with estimated

number of cars): Chevrolet Cavalier and

Pontiac Sunfire (J cars) coupes and

convertibles from start of production to

January 16, 1996 (115,351 cars); Pontiac

Grand Am, Oldsmobile Achieva, and

Buick Skylark (N cars) from start of

production to October 31, 1995 (74,902

cars); and Chevrolet Corsica and

Chevrolet Beretta (L cars) from start of

production to November 13, 1995

(61,738 cars).

Noncompliance: ‘‘These vehicles are

equipped with interior lights that

illuminate when a door is opened or

when the driver activates a switch.

Power to the lights is turned on and off

by a control module, rather than by

direct action of the door or light

switches. One of the parts in the control

module is a field effect transistor (FET).

‘‘Because of manufacturing variances

in the FETs, the condition of the FET in

some modules, in combination with the

programming of the module, can cause

a situation where the module will not

turn on the lights when the door is

opened. Five minutes later, there is a

fifty percent chance that the lights will

turn on. If that does not happen, there

is an increasing chance at ten, fifteen,

twenty, twenty-five, and thirty minutes

that the lights will turn on. If the lights

are turned on at one of those five minute

increments, they will then remain on for

up to thirty minutes, unless the fuse is

removed to cut power to the module.

Moving the light switch or ignition to

‘‘off’’ will not cause the module to turn

off the lights.

‘‘In August 1995, GM found on 1996

N car in which the interior lights failed

to turn on when a door was opened. In

September, GM determined the cause of

the problem and its supplier of FETs

began inspecting 10% of them. In

October, GM started its own screening

of all incoming FETs. In January 1996,

GM learned of and began investigating

the potential for the lights to come on

and stay on.

‘‘Even in the affected cars, this

condition is intermittent. The incidence

is higher during cold weather and in

vehicles with interior light

configurations that place a higher load

on the circuit.

‘‘This table identifies the lights in

these vehicles that are forward of a

transverse vertical plane 4.35 inches

rearward of the mannequin ‘‘H’’ point

with the driver’s seat in its rearmost

driving position:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices 10619

Chassis Body type and options Dome lamp

Map lights in

rearview

mirror

Footwell

lamps

J ............................................................................................... Coupe ..................................... X ........................ ........................

Coupe and GT w/sunroof ....... ........................ X ........................

N .............................................................................................. Convertible .............................. ........................ X ........................

Base trim ................................ ........................ ........................ X

Uplevel trim ............................. X ........................ X

With sunroof ........................... ........................ X X

L .............................................................................................. All ............................................ ........................ ........................ X

‘‘Based on GM’s examination of cars

and modules, no more than 9.5% of the

vehicles with modules built before

100% inspection of FETs began have a

FET that could lead to this problem.

‘‘Field experience indicates the actual

incidence is much lower. Within the

total estimated population of 251,991

cars that are potentially affected, GM

has paid for replacement of the modules

in just under one percent (2,464) under

warranty (through October 31, 1996).

For cars with modules made after the

100% inspection of FETs began, the rate

is about 0.5%. Because the module

performs several functions, there are

other unrelated malfunctions that could

lead to replacement of the module and,

absent the FET problem, the rate of

warranty replacements for cars of

comparable age is 0.3%. Therefore the

rates attributable to the FET estimated to

be approximately 0.7 and 0.2%

respectively.

‘‘GM has received no reports of

accidents or injuries related to this

condition.

‘‘To help assess the magnitude of the

interior light during nighttime driving,

GM measured the luminance values

(light on windshield surface) from the

driver’s eye position in representative

vehicles, with the exterior lights on (low

beam) and with the interior lights both

off and on. The test setup is shown in

Attachment B.’’

‘‘The measurements were made in a

darkened laboratory with a flat black

surface ten feet ahead of the cars. A

white paper target was placed on the

windshield, so that the total light

impinging on the windshield was

measured, not just what was reflected

from the glass surface. The instrument

panel illumination was at the maximum

setting. A Minolta Luminance Meter,

Model LS–1200 (range:0.001 to 299900

cd/m(2), was used.

‘‘These values are in foot-lamberts

and are the average of two readings for

each car:

Car Interior

lights off

Interior

lights on

J coupe with sunroof .03 .16

N coupe with sunroof .03 .16

Car Interior

lights off

Interior

lights on

J convertible .............. .05 .12

N with base trim ........ .05 .23

J coupe ..................... .03 .21

N with uplevel trim .... .04 .38

L ................................ .07 .14

Average ..................... .04 .20

‘‘Attachment C shows the range of

luminance levels for human vision and

the zones of photopic, mesopic, and

scotopic vision. Adaptation occurs

when the luminance changes from one

zone to another. The levels with the

interior lights both off and on within the

mesopic (‘‘rod and cone’’) zone.’’

[Attachments B and C are on file with

the application in NHTSA’s Docket

Room.]

GM supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘1. Driving in total darkness, with no

lights from other vehicles, no street

lighting, and no light from buildings is

the worst case, but it is also infrequent.

Daylight is half of the day, but only

18.3% of vehicle trips and 20.2% of

vehicle miles occur from 7:00 p.m.

through 6:00 a.m. (From 1990 NPTS

Databook, Nationwide Personal

Transportation Survey, vol. II, figure

5.27). Based on 1993 data from the

Federal Highway Administration, 1.045

billion of the annual 1.623 billion

passenger car miles traveled were on

‘‘urban’’ roads, streets, and highways

(from Highway Statistics 1993, Table

VM–1).

‘‘2. As measured in GM’s test, the

change in luminance level that a driver

would experience is small and,

significantly, does not cross one of the

adaptation boundaries.

‘‘3. Glare is an undesirable, but

inevitable feature of night-time driving

and drivers can successfully adapt to it.

A recent report for NHTSA by Jan

Theeuwes and John Alferdinck, The

Relationship Between Discomfort Glare

and Driving Behavior, DOT HS 808 452

(1996), shows that adaptation includes

driving more slowly and investing more

effort. Major sources of glare include the

lights of other vehicles, street lights, and

lights on building, parking lots, signs,

and billboards adjoining streets and

highways. The headlights of a nearby

vehicle can easily be many times

brighter than any of these interior lights.

‘‘4. On some of these cars, the only

affected lights are in the footwells,

below the instrument panel. While they

are in the area covered by the standard,

they are not in the driver’s forward field

of view and, as a matter of common

sense, are less likely to be a source of

troublesome glare. On other cars, map

lights mounted in the rearview mirror

assembly are involved. These lights

point downward and are also much less

likely to be a source of troublesome

glare.

‘‘5. This condition cannot occur in

90.5% of the cars. Field data shows that

the actual incidence is much lower.

‘‘6. Many drivers will be alerted to the

presence of a problem because they will

notice that the interior lights are not on

when they enter their cars. Because the

absence of interior lights when entering

the cars at night is an inconvenience,

drivers will be likely to return the cars

to dealers for repair. Many cars are

likely to be repaired before the driver

experience illumination of the interior

lights during night-time driving.

‘‘7. GM has received no reports

associating this condition with any kind

of an accident or injury.

‘‘To reach the worst case condition,

several low probability events have to

coincide—the car has to be one of the

9.5% potentially affected, the car has to

be driven at night, the illumination from

external sources must be unusually low,

and the condition must manifest itself.

Further, even if this series of unlikely

events occurs, data indicate the driver

should be able to successfully adapt to

the increased light, as he/she does on a

regular basis to other sources of light.

Therefore, because the expected

coincidence of these events is extremely

low and the effects on the driver are

minimal; this condition is

inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of GM,
10620 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Section, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room

5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC., 20590. It is requested

but not required that six copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: April 7, 1997.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: March 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–5719 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–119; Notice 2]

Michelin North America, Inc.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

This notice grants the application by

Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin)

of Greenville, South Carolina, to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120 for a noncompliance with 49

CFR 571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119,

‘‘New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars.’’ The basis

of the petition is that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on November 22, 1996,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (Vol. 61, No. 227, CFR 59487).

Paragraph S6.5, Tire markings, of

Standard No. 119, requires that tires be

marked on each sidewall with specific

information. The markings shall be

placed between the maximum section

width (exclusive of sidewall decorations

or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one

sidewall, unless the maximum section

width of the tire is located in an area

which is not more than one-fourth of the

distance from the bead to the shoulder

of the tire. If the maximum section

width falls within that area, the

markings shall appear between the bead

and a point one-half the distance from

the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on

at least one sidewall.

Michelin’s description of noncompliance follows:

‘‘During the period of the 48th week of

1995 through the 1st week of 1996, the

Opelika, Alabama, plant of Uniroyal

Goodrich Tire Manufacturing, a division of

Michelin North America, Inc., produced tires

with the markings required by 49 CFR

571.119 S6.5 (f) and (g) marked only on one

side of the tire. Additionally, on the same

side of the tire as the missing information,

the word ‘‘Radial’’ as required by S6.5(i)

appears above the maximum section width

instead of between the maximum section

width and the bead. However, all marking on

the opposite side of the tire meets the

requirements of S6.5. Furthermore, all

performance requirements of FMVSS #119

are met or exceeded.

‘‘Approximately 1,041 LT245/75R16

Uniroyal Laredo LTL LR E tires were

produced without the aforementioned

information on one sidewall of the tire. Of

this total, as many as 559 were shipped to an

Original Equipment Vehicle Manufacturer or

to the replacement market. The remaining

482 tires have been isolated in our

warehouses and will be brought into full

compliance with the marking requirements of

FMVSS #119 or scrapped.’’

Michelin supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘[Michelin] does not believe that this

minor error on the one tire sidewall will

impact motor vehicle safety:

‘‘1. The marking of number and

composition of ply cord material required by

S6.5(f) is contained on one side of the tire

instead of both sides. When previously

granting a petition for inconsequential

noncompliance (see e.g., Bridgestone, IP82–

8, 47 FR 51269, November 12, 1982) NHTSA

has concluded that ‘‘. . . the number of plies,

and the composition of the ply material had

an inconsequential relationship to motor

vehicle safety . . .’’ and has stated that ‘‘. . .

the failure to state the number of plies and

composition of ply material is an

informational failure and does not affect the

ability of the tires to meet the performance

requirements . . . .’’

‘‘2. The absence of the word ‘‘tubeless’’ on

one tire sidewall (as required by S6.5(g) for

both sidewalls) will not impact motor vehicle

safety since it is merely an informational

failure on one sidewall and does not impact

tire performance. The tires in question are

only produced in a ‘‘tubeless’’ configuration.

However, should these tires be mounted with

a tube, performance of the tires would be

perfectly satisfactory.

‘‘3. The word ‘‘radial’’ on one sidewall of

the tire appears above the maximum section

width instead of between the bead and

maximum section width. Again, this does not

affect the ability of the tire to perform.

Additionally, the ‘‘R’’ located in the size

designation LT245/75R16 which is marked

between the bead and sidewall is recognized

by the International Standards Organization,

the Tire and Rim Association, the Rubber

Manufacturers Association and others,

including the general public, as being the

standard designation for a radial tire. Thus it

would be obvious to anyone looking at either

sidewall of this tire that it was indeed a

radial tire.’’

No comments were received on the

application.

Michelin has acknowledged

noncompliance in manufacturing

approximately 1,041 LT245/75R16

Uniroyal Laredo LTL FR E tires at the

plant of Uniroyal Goodrich Tire

Manufacturing, a division of Michelin

North America, Inc.. The tires in

question were produced with specified

tire markings on only one tire sidewall

instead of both tire sidewalls as the

Standard requires. Also, the word

‘‘Radial’’ appears on the tire sidewall in

a location not specified by the Standard.

Safety Performance Standards agrees

that the noncompliance reported by

Michelin is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety. The informational tire

markings that appear on the tire

sidewall meets the requirements of the

Standard. Absence of this information

on both tire sidewalls will not affect the

performance of the tire or compromise

motor vehicle safety.

Michelin has assured the agency that

if a decision is made to bring the

remaining 482 tires into compliance, an

after-branding procedure used

throughout the tire industry known as

‘‘hot branding,’’ will be used to bring

the tires into compliance. This branding

procedure will not affect the

performance of the tires or compromise

motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, for the reasons

expressed above, the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential as it relates to motor

vehicle safety, and the agency grants

Michelin’s application for exemption

from notification of the noncompliance

as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from

remedy as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: March 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–5717 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review;

Comment Request

February 25, 1997.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public