Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11259-11260 [2015-04151]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices
construction that were parts-marked.
Based on the performance of the PASSKey, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III
devices on other GM models, and the
advanced technology utilized in PASSKey III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key
III+ device will be more effective in
deterring theft than the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
Additionally, GM stated that the
PASS-Key III+ is installed as standard
equipment on the GMC Terrain vehicle
line. The agency notes that the GMC
Terrain vehicle line has been equipped
with the device since introduction of its
MY 2010 vehicles. GM was granted an
exemption from the parts-marking
requirements by the agency for the GMC
Terrain vehicle line beginning with the
2010 MY (See 74 FR 3132, January 16,
2009). The average theft rate for the
GMC Terrain vehicle line, based on
NHTSA’s theft data, using 3 MYs theft
data (MYs 2010- 2012) is 0.3235, which
is substantially below the median theft
rate established by the agency.
GM further stated that it believes that
PASS-Key III+ devices will be more
effective in deterring theft than the
parts-marking requirements and that the
agency should find that inclusion of the
PASS-Key III+ device on the Chevrolet
Spark vehicle line is sufficient to qualify
it for full exemption from the partsmarking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by
GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Spark
vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a
petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541 either
in whole or in part, if it determines that,
based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that GM has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the Chevrolet Spark vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
This conclusion is based on the
information GM provided about its
device.
The agency concludes that the device
will provide the four of the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; preventing defeat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Feb 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
GM’s proposed device lacks an
audible or visible alarm. Therefore, this
device cannot perform one of the
functions listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3),
that is, to call attention to unauthorized
attempts to enter or move the vehicle.
Based on comparison of the reduction in
the theft rates of Chevrolet Corvettes
using a passive antitheft device along
with an audible/visible alarm system to
the reduction in theft rates for the
Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac
Firebird models equipped with a
passive antitheft device without an
alarm, GM finds that the lack of an
alarm or attention-attracting device does
not compromise the theft deterrent
performance of a device such as PASSKey III+ device. In these instances, the
agency has concluded that the lack of an
audible or visible alarm has not
prevented these antitheft devices from
being effective protection against theft.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full GM’s petition for
exemption for the Chevrolet Spark
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The
agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
Appendix A–1, identifies those lines
that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model
year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all Part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release
of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is
necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
If GM decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully
marked according to the requirements
under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking
of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the
future to modify the device on which
this exemption is based, the company
may have to submit a petition to modify
the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that
a Part 543 exemption applies only to
vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line’s
exemption is based. Further, Part
543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11259
of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to
permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one
specified in that exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend in drafting Part
543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change
to the components or design of an
antitheft device. The significance of
many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests
that if the manufacturer contemplates
making any changes, the effects of
which might be characterized as de
minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a
petition to modify.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015–04161 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0054; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2010–2014 Transit Connect
vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Glazing Materials. Ford has filed an
appropriate report dated March 31,
2014, 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) 366–5287, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at
49 CFR part 556, Ford submitted a
petition for an exemption from the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11260
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices
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 Ford’s petition
was published, with a 30-Day public
comment period, on June 19, 2014 in
the Federal Register (79 FR 35224). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all 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–
0054.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 174,453 Transit Connect
vehicles built from March 20, 2009
through September 2, 2013 at the plant
in Kocaeli, Turkey as well those built
from August 1, 2013 through February
28, 2014 at the plant in Valencia, Spain.
III. Noncompliance: Ford explains
that the noncompliance is that subject
vehicles do not fully meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.1 of
FMVSS No. 205 because the
windshields installed in the vehicles do
not include the ‘‘A↓S1’’ upper boundary
markings specified in Section 7 of
ANSI/SAE Z 26.1–1996 Marking of
Safety Glazing Materials which is
incorporated by reference in FMVSS No.
205.
IV. Rule Requirements: FMVSS No.
205 incorporates ANSI Z26.1–1996 and
other industry standards in paragraph
S.5.1 by reference. Paragraph S6 of
FMVSS No. 205 specifically requires
manufacturers to mark the glazing
material in accordance with Section 7 of
ANSI Z26.1–1996 and to add other
markings required by NHTSA. With
respect to the subject noncompliance,
Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1–1996 specifies
that in addition to the item of glazing
number and other required markings,
the manufacturer shall include the
‘‘A↓S1’’ upper boundary which will
identify the item of glazing, and the area
that meets Test 2 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996).
The direction of the arrow will point to
the direction of the area that complies
with Test 2 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996).
V. Summary of Ford’s Analyses: Ford
stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
(A) The windshield glazing of the
affected vehicles otherwise meets all
marking and performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1–
1996. Because all transparent sections of
the affected glazing fully meet all of the
applicable performance requirements,
Ford does not believe the absence of the
‘‘A↓S1’’ upper boundary markings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Feb 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
impact the ability of the glazing to
satisfy the stated purpose or affect the
performance of the glazing intended by
FMVSS No. 205.
(B) No other related FMVSSs are
affected. The vision zones used for all
other related FMVSSs are all in clear
areas of the glazing and the vehicles are
fully compliant to FMVSS No. 103
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems and FMVSS No. 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems.
(C) The windshields are appropriately
marked with the AS1 marking adjacent
to the Manufacturer’s Trademark, as
required by ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996.
(D) Ford made reference to a previous
petition for inconsequential
noncompliance that addressed labeling
issues that NHTSA granted.
Ford also stated that it is not aware of
any field or owner complaints,
accidents, or injuries attributed to this
condition.
Ford has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 205.
In summation, Ford believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt Ford 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.
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI
Z26.1 (1996) and other industry
standards by reference (S.5.1).
Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205
requires manufacturers to mark glazing
material in accordance with Section 7 of
ANSI Z26.1 (1996) and to add other
specific markings required by NHTSA.
Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996) specifies
that in addition to other required
markings, glazing which in a single
sheet of material are intentionally made
with an area having a luminous
transmittance of not less than 70% (Test
2—Luminous Transmittance) adjoining
an area that has less than 70% luminous
transmittance, shall be permanently
marked at the edge of the area that
complies with Test 2 with the item of
glazing number and an arrow pointing
in the direction of the area that is
intended to comply with Test 2, e.g.,
‘‘AS↓1’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
According to the petition, Ford
manufactured the affected MY 2010–
2014 Transit Connect vehicles with
windshields that lack the arrow marking
designating the area intended to comply
with Test 2. NHTSA believes that the
missing arrow is inconsequential to
vehicle safety since Ford has certified
that the glazing complies with all other
labeling and performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 205, including the item
of glazing number. Ford has also
informed NHTSA that all future Transit
Connect vehicles will fully comply with
FMVEE No. 205.
NHTSA believes that the absence of
the ‘‘A↓S1’’ upper boundary markings,
poses little if any risk to motor vehicle
safety because in this particular instance
the area having a luminous
transmittance of less than 70% is
readily apparent without the upper
boundary markings.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
Ford has met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Ford’s petition is
hereby granted and Ford 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, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of this petition does not
relieve Ford distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Ford 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. 2015–04151 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11259-11260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04151]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0054; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2010-2014 Transit Connect vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
205, Glazing Materials. Ford has filed an appropriate report dated
March 31, 2014, 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) 366-5287, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Ford's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Ford
submitted a petition for an exemption from the
[[Page 11260]]
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 Ford's petition was published, with a 30-Day
public comment period, on June 19, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR
35224). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
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-2014-0054.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 174,453 Transit
Connect vehicles built from March 20, 2009 through September 2, 2013 at
the plant in Kocaeli, Turkey as well those built from August 1, 2013
through February 28, 2014 at the plant in Valencia, Spain.
III. Noncompliance: Ford explains that the noncompliance is that
subject vehicles do not fully meet the requirements of paragraph S5.1
of FMVSS No. 205 because the windshields installed in the vehicles do
not include the ``A[darr]S1'' upper boundary markings specified in
Section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z 26.1-1996 Marking of Safety Glazing Materials
which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 205.
IV. Rule Requirements: FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI Z26.1-1996
and other industry standards in paragraph S.5.1 by reference. Paragraph
S6 of FMVSS No. 205 specifically requires manufacturers to mark the
glazing material in accordance with Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996 and to
add other markings required by NHTSA. With respect to the subject
noncompliance, Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996 specifies that in addition
to the item of glazing number and other required markings, the
manufacturer shall include the ``A[darr]S1'' upper boundary which will
identify the item of glazing, and the area that meets Test 2 of ANSI
Z26.1 (1996). The direction of the arrow will point to the direction of
the area that complies with Test 2 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996).
V. Summary of Ford's Analyses: Ford stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
(A) The windshield glazing of the affected vehicles otherwise meets
all marking and performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI
Z26.1-1996. Because all transparent sections of the affected glazing
fully meet all of the applicable performance requirements, Ford does
not believe the absence of the ``A[darr]S1'' upper boundary markings
impact the ability of the glazing to satisfy the stated purpose or
affect the performance of the glazing intended by FMVSS No. 205.
(B) No other related FMVSSs are affected. The vision zones used for
all other related FMVSSs are all in clear areas of the glazing and the
vehicles are fully compliant to FMVSS No. 103 Windshield Defrosting and
Defogging Systems and FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems.
(C) The windshields are appropriately marked with the AS1 marking
adjacent to the Manufacturer's Trademark, as required by ANSI/SAE
Z26.1-1996.
(D) Ford made reference to a previous petition for inconsequential
noncompliance that addressed labeling issues that NHTSA granted.
Ford also stated that it is not aware of any field or owner
complaints, accidents, or injuries attributed to this condition.
Ford has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 205.
In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt Ford 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. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI
Z26.1 (1996) and other industry standards by reference (S.5.1).
Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 requires manufacturers to mark glazing
material in accordance with Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 (1996) and to add
other specific markings required by NHTSA. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1
(1996) specifies that in addition to other required markings, glazing
which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area
having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test 2--Luminous
Transmittance) adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous
transmittance, shall be permanently marked at the edge of the area that
complies with Test 2 with the item of glazing number and an arrow
pointing in the direction of the area that is intended to comply with
Test 2, e.g., ``AS[darr]1''.
According to the petition, Ford manufactured the affected MY 2010-
2014 Transit Connect vehicles with windshields that lack the arrow
marking designating the area intended to comply with Test 2. NHTSA
believes that the missing arrow is inconsequential to vehicle safety
since Ford has certified that the glazing complies with all other
labeling and performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including the
item of glazing number. Ford has also informed NHTSA that all future
Transit Connect vehicles will fully comply with FMVEE No. 205.
NHTSA believes that the absence of the ``A[darr]S1'' upper boundary
markings, poses little if any risk to motor vehicle safety because in
this particular instance the area having a luminous transmittance of
less than 70% is readily apparent without the upper boundary markings.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Ford has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No.
205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Ford's petition is hereby granted and Ford 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, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve Ford
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford
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. 2015-04151 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
