94-11921. Chrysler Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-11921]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: May 17, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    [Docket No. 94-38; Notice 1]
    
     
    
    Chrysler Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Determination of 
    Inconsequential Noncompliance
    
        The Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) of Auburn Hills, Michigan, has 
    determined that some of its vehicles fail to comply with the outside 
    mirror requirements of 49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
    Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' and has filed an 
    appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and 
    Noncompliance Reports.'' Chrysler has 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.) on the basis that 
    the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
    safety.
        This notice of receipt of a petition is published under Section 157 
    of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) 
    and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of 
    judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
        In FMVSS No. 111, paragraph S7.1 states that trucks with gross 
    vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds shall have 
    outside mirrors of unit magnification.
        During the 1989 through early-1994 model years, Chrysler 
    manufactured an estimated total of 26,700 Dodge Ram 350 and 3500 pickup 
    trucks and cab/chassis with convex, passenger-side, outside, rearview 
    mirrors.
        Chrysler supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance 
    with the following. (Chrysler also submitted two figures which compared 
    the fields of view of the noncompliant mirrors to two types of 
    complaint mirrors. This material is available in the NHTSA docket.)
        (1) The affected vehicles are also equipped with a driver side 
    outside rear view mirror of unit magnification and, except for the less 
    than 100 cab/chassis models, an inside rear view mirror of unit 
    magnification.
        (2) The installed 6'' x 9'' convex passenger side mirror meets all 
    requirements of S5 of FMVSS 111 [passenger car requirements], and 
    provides increased field of view capability when compared to the same 
    size mirror of unit magnification or the optional 10'' x 7'' unit 
    magnification mirror.
        (3) Other than the passenger side mirror being convex rather than 
    unit magnification, the rear view mirror system on the affected 
    vehicles meets or exceeds all performance and location requirements of 
    FMVSS 111. The system capability is adequate in all regards, 
    specifically including provision for both overall system and passenger 
    side field of view.
        (4) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports or 
    allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to performance of the 
    passenger side mirror on the affected vehicles.
        (5) The subject condition occurred as the result of the upgrading 
    of a model for the 1989 model year to more than 10,000 pounds GVWR. 
    That model for prior model years had been equipped with a convex 
    passenger side mirror and unit magnification driver side and inside 
    rear view mirrors. The same mirror system was carried over on the 
    vehicles for which the GVWR was upgraded. Rear view adequacy of the 
    convex mirror was not affected by the GVWR increase, and the need to 
    instead release a unit magnification mirror for compliance to the FMVSS 
    111 requirement at the upgraded GVWR was inadvertently overlooked at 
    the time and thereafter.
        (6) From a practical vehicle operation and motor vehicle safety 
    standpoint, the mirror system which fully compiled to all FMVSS 111 
    requirements on earlier model year vehicles was equivalently effective 
    and capable on the upgraded GVWR vehicles.
        (7) Existence of the variance was detected during an engineering 
    analysis resulting from a question of mirror size adequacy on certain 
    1994 subject models. Size was determined to not be a concern, but the 
    analysis uncovered the convex mirror issue. Chrysler than took 
    immediate, expedited action to correct the condition by specifying and 
    installing the optional 10'' x 7'' unit magnification mirrors on 
    affected vehicles.
        Chrysler summarizes its rationale for granting its petition with 
    the following.
        Existence of the subject condition was totally inadvertent and not 
    a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
    requirements. Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by 
    Chrysler, some vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds were 
    manufactured and shipped with a convex passenger side outside rear view 
    mirror. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler took immediate action 
    to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles 
    produced with the convex mirror.
        Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
    arguments on the petition of Chrysler, 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.
        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 
    petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
    Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
        Comment closing date: June 16, 1994.
    
    (15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 
    501.8)
    
        Issued on: May 11, 1994.
    Barry Felrice,
    Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 94-11921 Filed 5-16-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/17/1994
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-11921
Dates:
June 16, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: May 17, 1994, Docket No. 94-38, Notice 1