AM General Corporation, Mootness of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Barry Felrice Date: 26 September 1994 Subject: American Government • Safety Topic: AM General

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23733]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 26, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 94-26; Notice 2]

 

AM General Corporation, Mootness of Petition for Determination of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    AM General Corporation of Livonia, Michigan determined that some of 
its vehicles failed to comply with Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of 49 CFR 
571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, ``Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' and filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573 ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports''. AM General also petitioned to be exempted from 
the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (now 49 U.S.C. 30118 
and 30120) on the basis that the noncompliance was inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published on April 13, 1994, 
and an opportunity afforded for comment (59 FR 17635). The reader is 
referred to the notice for further information. No comments were 
received. This notice announces NHTSA's determination that the petition 
has been mooted.
    The noncompliance reported was with the photometric requirements 
for a single test point on rear identification lamps. Representatives 
of NHTSA contacted the petitioner to verify that a noncompliance 
existed, and learned that the petition had been based on petitioner's 
assumption that a noncompliance existed because a small portion of the 
lamp was obscured. Petitioner then performed photometric tests on the 
lamps and found that their light output exceeded the minimum 
requirements by 100% at the test points concerned. Because the lamps 
do, in fact, comply, petitioner is under no legal obligation to notify 
and remedy a noncompliance and its petition is moot.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 
49 CFR 501.8)

    Issued on: September 21, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-23733 Filed 9-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P