AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., Grant of Petition For Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11521-11522 [2015-04311]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices
11521
REPORTING BURDEN—BUY AMERICA ACT REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average
time per
response
n/a ................................
12,090 ..........................
n/a ................................
Item No.
Totals ...........................................................
Total Estimated Annual Burden:
40,865 hours.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5
CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that it may
not conduct or sponsor, and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25,
2015.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–04351 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0078; Notice 2]
AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition For Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
AGC Flat Glass North
America, Inc., dba AGC Automotive
Americas Co. (AGC) has determined that
certain glazing that it manufactured as
replacement equipment for model year
2003–2008 Toyota Matrix vehicles, do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.1 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials.
AGC has filed an appropriate report
dated May 23, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Luis Figueroa,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. AGC’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at
49 CFR part 556, AGC submitted a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
petition 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 AGC’s petition
was published, with a 30-Day public
comment period, on August 14, 2014 in
the Federal Register (79 FR 47722). One
comment was received from Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
North America, Inc. (Toyota). To view
the petition, comment and 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–2014–
0078.’’
II. Replacement Equipment Involved:
Affected are approximately 1,435
replacement back windows (backlites)
for model year 2003–2008 Toyota
Matrix vehicles that AGC manufactured
on February 28, 2012. The subject
glazing is labeled ‘‘AGC Automotive,
DOT–376 M2H5 AS2, 30B, Temperlite.’’
In the associated Defect and
Noncompliance Report that AGC
submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, AGC indicated that, as of
May 23, 2014, approximately 941 of the
affected 1,435 backlites have already
been removed from the stream of
commerce, leaving 494 of the backlites
subject to notification and recall.
III. Noncompliance: AGC explains
that the noncompliance is that the
affected glazing does not fully comply
with Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205
because some portions of the glass
located in the wing area of the affected
backlites may not fragment into pieces
that are small enough to meet the
standard set forth in Section 5.7 of ANSI
Z26.1–1996 (fragment must weigh less
than 4.25 g).
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1 of
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by
reference ANSI Z26.1–1996 and other
industry standards. Specifically, Section
S5.7 (Fracture Test) of ANSI Z26.1–1996
requires that no individual fragment free
of cracks and obtained within 3 minutes
subsequent to testing shall weigh more
than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.).
V. Summary of AGC’s Analyses: AGC
stated its belief that the noncompliance
exhibited by some glass fragments
breaking into pieces that weighing more
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Total annual
burden
hours
11,326
than 4.25 g does not create a risk to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. AGC testing demonstrates that the
noncompliant fragments have no
adverse impact on the characteristics of
the glass performing as tempered glass.
2. The design of the 2003–2008
Toyota Matrix leaves it unlikely to cause
any safety risks to any vehicle occupant
if the ARG backlite breaks.
3. AGC’s destructive testing
confirmed all noncompliant fragments
do not impact the safety of the vehicle
or its occupants.
AGC stated that while it recognizes
that its tests were static and that the
actual results in a crash might be
somewhat different. For example, AGC
stated its belief that in a rear or partial
rear collision, if the glass breaks, most
of that glass will fall and remain in the
general area of the breakage since the
remainder of the vehicle will be
propelled forward in the later phases of
the crash. This makes it even less likely
that any glass will enter or be propelled
forward enough to reach the passenger
compartment of a vehicle. ARG expects
that the subject backlites will react no
differently.
Refer to AGC’s petition for more
detailed descriptions of the data and
analyses that it provided in support of
its reasoning.
AGC has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production of the subject glazing will
fully comply with FMVSS No. 205.
In summation, AGC believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
glazing is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt AGC from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: FMVSS No. 205
specifies labeling and performance
requirements for automotive glazing. As
related to the subject noncompliance,
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI
Z26.1 (1996) and other industry
standards by reference (S.5.1).
Paragraph 4.1 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11522
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices
specifies the grouping of tests applicable
to each item of glazing. The groupings
are also summarized in Table I.
Fracture, Test No. 7 (par. 5.7), is part of
a grouping of tests specified for item of
glazing 2 (AS–2). The purpose of the
fracture test is to ensure that resulting
fragments are light enough to minimize
risk of injury after a glazing fracture. Six
production glazing items must be tested
(paragraph 3.2.1(3) of ANSI Z26.1
(1996)) and upon fracture no individual
piece is to weigh more than 4.25 g
(paragraph 5.7.4 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)).
In the subject petition AGC states that
it was alerted to a possible
noncompliance by a customer
concerning replacement backlites that it
manufactured for 2003–2008 Toyota
Matrix vehicles. In response, AGC
conducted fracture testing in accordance
with paragraph 5.7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)
and other testing. The fracture testing
produced fragments weighting over the
maximum allowed 4.25 g.
AGC stated its belief that the backlites
‘‘broke like tempered safety glass and
exhibited all the characteristics of safety
glazing material required in ANSI
Z26.1.’’ The fact that there were
fragments that weigh over the required
4.25 g and some fragments weighing
over 10 g contradicts AGC’s statement.
A variation in the size of the fragmented
material points to tempering that is not
completely consistent with the intent of
Test No. 7, ‘‘verify that the fragments
produced by fracture of safety glazing
materials are such as to minimize risk
of injury.’’ As stated in ANSI Z26.1 this
minimization of risk is afforded by
fragments weighing 4.25 g or less.
AGC also explains that the failures are
constrained to the winged side edges of
the backlites and that 90% of the glass
meets the 4.25 g requirement. In
addition, AGC claims that since
‘‘virtually all’’ of the black ceramic
painted portion of the winged side
edges is covered by the door frame and
on the exterior of the car this portion of
the backlite curves out towards the sides
of the vehicle, and that the chances of
passengers being injured by broken glass
during a crash are small.
NHTSA also reviewed Toyota’s
comment that it submitted to the docket
in response to the publication of the
notice of petition. In summary, Toyota
states that it does not believe that the
noncompliance poses an unreasonable
risk to safety due to the small number
of vehicles with the noncompliant
glazing installed and because 90% of
each backlite complies with the fracture
test requirements.
The agency does not agree with
Toyota’s reasoning. The purpose of
FMVSS No. 205 is to ‘‘reduce injuries’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
without regard to the number of
vehicles involved. However, AGC has
shown that the noncompliance is
limited to the winged black ceramic area
of the backlite. In the vehicle’s interior
this area sits on top of the frame and is
not exposed to passengers, and in the
outside it faces away from the vehicle.
Therefore, NHTSA concludes that in
this specific case, due to the location of
the noncompliant winged section of the
backlite in conjunction with the shape
of the subject vehicle, there is a low
probability that fragments would be
propelled to the inside of the vehicle in
the event of a glazing fracture.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
AGC has met its burden of persuasion
that the subject FMVSS No. 205
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
AGC’s petition is hereby granted and
AGC 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 subject
noncompliant glazing that AGC no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this
petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant glazing under their
control after AGC notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–04311 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Additional Designations, Foreign
Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names
of five individuals and 14 entities
whose property and interests in
property have been blocked pursuant to
the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin
Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21
U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
DATES: The designation by the Director
of OFAC of the five individuals and 14
entities identified in this notice
pursuant to section 805(b) of the
Kingpin Act is effective on February 24,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Assistant Director, Sanctions
Compliance & Evaluation, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220,
Tel: (202) 622–2490.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Electronic and Facsimile Availability
This document and additional
information concerning OFAC are
available on OFAC’s Web site at https://
www.treasury.gov/ofac or via facsimile
through a 24-hour fax-on-demand
service at (202) 622–0077.
Background
The Kingpin Act became law on
December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act
establishes a program targeting the
activities of significant foreign narcotics
traffickers and their organizations on a
worldwide basis. It provides a statutory
framework for the imposition of
sanctions against significant foreign
narcotics traffickers and their
organizations on a worldwide basis,
with the objective of denying their
businesses and agents access to the U.S.
financial system and the benefits of
trade and transactions involving U.S.
companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property
and interests in property, subject to U.S.
jurisdiction, owned or controlled by
significant foreign narcotics traffickers
as identified by the President. In
addition, the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Attorney
General, the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11521-11522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0078; Notice 2]
AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., Grant of Petition For
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., dba AGC Automotive
Americas Co. (AGC) has determined that certain glazing that it
manufactured as replacement equipment for model year 2003-2008 Toyota
Matrix vehicles, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. AGC
has filed an appropriate report dated May 23, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Luis
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5298, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. AGC's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, AGC
submitted a petition 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 AGC's petition was published, with a 30-Day
public comment period, on August 14, 2014 in the Federal Register (79
FR 47722). One comment was received from Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota). To view the petition,
comment and 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-2014-0078.''
II. Replacement Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately
1,435 replacement back windows (backlites) for model year 2003-2008
Toyota Matrix vehicles that AGC manufactured on February 28, 2012. The
subject glazing is labeled ``AGC Automotive, DOT-376 M2H5 AS2, 30B,
Temperlite.''
In the associated Defect and Noncompliance Report that AGC
submitted to NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, AGC indicated that, as
of May 23, 2014, approximately 941 of the affected 1,435 backlites have
already been removed from the stream of commerce, leaving 494 of the
backlites subject to notification and recall.
III. Noncompliance: AGC explains that the noncompliance is that the
affected glazing does not fully comply with Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No.
205 because some portions of the glass located in the wing area of the
affected backlites may not fragment into pieces that are small enough
to meet the standard set forth in Section 5.7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996
(fragment must weigh less than 4.25 g).
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by
reference ANSI Z26.1-1996 and other industry standards. Specifically,
Section S5.7 (Fracture Test) of ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that no
individual fragment free of cracks and obtained within 3 minutes
subsequent to testing shall weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.).
V. Summary of AGC's Analyses: AGC stated its belief that the
noncompliance exhibited by some glass fragments breaking into pieces
that weighing more than 4.25 g does not create a risk to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
1. AGC testing demonstrates that the noncompliant fragments have no
adverse impact on the characteristics of the glass performing as
tempered glass.
2. The design of the 2003-2008 Toyota Matrix leaves it unlikely to
cause any safety risks to any vehicle occupant if the ARG backlite
breaks.
3. AGC's destructive testing confirmed all noncompliant fragments
do not impact the safety of the vehicle or its occupants.
AGC stated that while it recognizes that its tests were static and
that the actual results in a crash might be somewhat different. For
example, AGC stated its belief that in a rear or partial rear
collision, if the glass breaks, most of that glass will fall and remain
in the general area of the breakage since the remainder of the vehicle
will be propelled forward in the later phases of the crash. This makes
it even less likely that any glass will enter or be propelled forward
enough to reach the passenger compartment of a vehicle. ARG expects
that the subject backlites will react no differently.
Refer to AGC's petition for more detailed descriptions of the data
and analyses that it provided in support of its reasoning.
AGC has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of the subject glazing will
fully comply with FMVSS No. 205.
In summation, AGC believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject glazing is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt AGC from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: FMVSS No. 205 specifies labeling and performance
requirements for automotive glazing. As related to the subject
noncompliance, FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI Z26.1 (1996) and other
industry standards by reference (S.5.1). Paragraph 4.1 of ANSI Z26.1
(1996)
[[Page 11522]]
specifies the grouping of tests applicable to each item of glazing. The
groupings are also summarized in Table I. Fracture, Test No. 7 (par.
5.7), is part of a grouping of tests specified for item of glazing 2
(AS-2). The purpose of the fracture test is to ensure that resulting
fragments are light enough to minimize risk of injury after a glazing
fracture. Six production glazing items must be tested (paragraph
3.2.1(3) of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)) and upon fracture no individual piece is
to weigh more than 4.25 g (paragraph 5.7.4 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996)).
In the subject petition AGC states that it was alerted to a
possible noncompliance by a customer concerning replacement backlites
that it manufactured for 2003-2008 Toyota Matrix vehicles. In response,
AGC conducted fracture testing in accordance with paragraph 5.7 of ANSI
Z26.1 (1996) and other testing. The fracture testing produced fragments
weighting over the maximum allowed 4.25 g.
AGC stated its belief that the backlites ``broke like tempered
safety glass and exhibited all the characteristics of safety glazing
material required in ANSI Z26.1.'' The fact that there were fragments
that weigh over the required 4.25 g and some fragments weighing over 10
g contradicts AGC's statement. A variation in the size of the
fragmented material points to tempering that is not completely
consistent with the intent of Test No. 7, ``verify that the fragments
produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to
minimize risk of injury.'' As stated in ANSI Z26.1 this minimization of
risk is afforded by fragments weighing 4.25 g or less.
AGC also explains that the failures are constrained to the winged
side edges of the backlites and that 90% of the glass meets the 4.25 g
requirement. In addition, AGC claims that since ``virtually all'' of
the black ceramic painted portion of the winged side edges is covered
by the door frame and on the exterior of the car this portion of the
backlite curves out towards the sides of the vehicle, and that the
chances of passengers being injured by broken glass during a crash are
small.
NHTSA also reviewed Toyota's comment that it submitted to the
docket in response to the publication of the notice of petition. In
summary, Toyota states that it does not believe that the noncompliance
poses an unreasonable risk to safety due to the small number of
vehicles with the noncompliant glazing installed and because 90% of
each backlite complies with the fracture test requirements.
The agency does not agree with Toyota's reasoning. The purpose of
FMVSS No. 205 is to ``reduce injuries'' without regard to the number of
vehicles involved. However, AGC has shown that the noncompliance is
limited to the winged black ceramic area of the backlite. In the
vehicle's interior this area sits on top of the frame and is not
exposed to passengers, and in the outside it faces away from the
vehicle. Therefore, NHTSA concludes that in this specific case, due to
the location of the noncompliant winged section of the backlite in
conjunction with the shape of the subject vehicle, there is a low
probability that fragments would be propelled to the inside of the
vehicle in the event of a glazing fracture.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that AGC has met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, AGC's petition is hereby granted and AGC 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 subject noncompliant glazing that AGC no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant glazing under their control after AGC
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-04311 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
