Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP15-003, 50379-50381 [2015-20380]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50379
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission
is in an application other than those
two, please indicate the name of the
application in the ‘‘Type Comment’’
field. For any comments submitted
electronically containing business
confidential information, the file name
of the business confidential version
should begin with the characters ‘‘BC’’.
Any page containing business
confidential must be clearly marked
‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ on the
top of that page. Filers of submissions
containing business confidential
information must also submit a public
version of their comments. The file
name of the public version should begin
with the character ‘‘P’’. The ‘‘BC’’ and
‘‘P’’ should be followed by the name of
the person or entity submitting the
comments or reply comments. Filers
submitting comments containing no
business confidential information
should name their file using the name
of the person or entity submitting the
comments. Please do not attach separate
cover letters to electronic submissions;
rather include any information that
might appear in a cover letter in the
comments themselves. Similarly to the
extent possible, please include any
exhibits, annexes, or other attachments
in the same file as the submission itself,
not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges
submitters to file comments through
www.regulations.gov, if at all possible.
Any alternative arrangements must be
made with Ms. Jamison in advance of
transmitting a comment. Ms. Jamison
should be contacted at (202) 395–3475.
General information concerning USTR
is available at www.ustr.gov. Comments
will be placed in the docket and open
to public inspection, except confidential
business information. Comments may be
viewed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site by
entering the relevant docket number in
the search field on the home page.
Edward Gresser,
Acting Chair, Trade Policy Staff Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015–20524 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290–F5–P
Please see below for the date,
time, and location of the meetings.
DATES:
The
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration
Office, AFS–80, Federal Aviation
Administration at: 9-AFS-UASInquiries@faa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On August
6, 2015, the FAA published a notice of
meeting (80 FR 47021) to announce the
dates, times, and locations of seven
meetings to be held at UAS test sites
and the UAS Center of Excellence in
August and September, 2015. The FAA
incorrectly listed the point of contact for
the Griffiss UAS Test Site public
meeting. This notice corrects that error.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2015–3323]
Notice of Public Meetings for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Sites
and Center of Excellence; Correction
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of public meetings;
correction.
AGENCY:
Date, time, and
location of meeting
Site
On August 6, 2015, the FAA
published a notice of meeting to
announce that the FAA will support
seven public meetings during August
and September, 2015. These meetings
will be hosted by the six unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) Test Sites and
UAS Center of Excellence (COE). This
notice corrects the point of contact for
the Griffiss UAS Test Site.
SUMMARY:
Correction
In the notice published on August 6,
2015, at 80 FR 47021, the contact
information for the Griffiss UAS Test
Site contained in the table on page
47022 is corrected to read as follows:
Point of contact
Web site
UAS Test Sites
Griffiss International Airport Test
Site.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015,
2pm–4pm (local), Mohawk Valley Community College, 1101
Sherman Drive, Payne Hall
331, Utica, NY.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7,
2015.
William E. Crozier,
Acting Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Integration Office.
[FR Doc. 2015–20525 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
ACTION:
This notice states the reasons
for denying a petition (DP 15–003)
submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C.
30162, 49 CFR part 522, requesting that
the agency open an investigation into
delamination or separation of the back
glass from the convertible top material
on model year 2005 Chrysler Crossfire
vehicles.
SUMMARY:
Mr.
John Abbott, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366–5221.
Email: John.Abbott@dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP15–003
AGENCY:
Russell Stark, Commissioner,
Oneida County Department of
Aviation,
(315)
736–4171,
rstark@ocgov.net.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
www.nuairalliance.org.
I. Introduction
Interested persons may petition
NHTSA requesting that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine
whether a motor vehicle or item of
replacement equipment does not
comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a
defect that relates to motor vehicle
safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a) (2): 49 CFR
522.1. Upon receipt of a properly filed
petition, the agency conducts a
technical review of the petition,
material submitted with the petition,
and any additional information. 49
U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. After
considering the technical review and
taking into account appropriate factors,
which may include, among others,
allocation of agency resources, agency
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
50380
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
priorities, and the likelihood of success
in litigation that might arise from a
determination of noncompliance or a
defect related to motor vehicle safety,
the agency will grant or deny the
petition. 49 U.S.C. 30162(d): 49 CFR
552.8.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Petition Background Information
In a letter dated June 14, 2014, Mr.
Wayne DeVries petitioned NHTSA to,
‘‘. . . hold a hearing on whether this
manufacturer [Chrysler] has reasonably
met its obligation to notify and/or
remedy a safety defect or
noncompliance with a Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard.’’ The petition
request was in reference to model year
(MY) 2005 Chrysler Crossfire Roadster
vehicles in which the convertible top
back glass can delaminate or separate
from its adhesive bond to the
convertible top material.
Part 557 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), establishes
the procedures for conducting a hearing
to determine whether a manufacturer
has reasonably met its obligation to
notify owners of a safety related defect
and provide a remedy for that defect.
Before the agency can hold such a
hearing, a determination that a defect
exists must be made either by the
manufacturer or the agency. Because a
safety related defect has not been
determined by either Chrysler, or the
agency, regarding the convertible top
back glass in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadster vehicles, ODI interpreted Mr.
DeVries letter as a request for a Defect
Petition. In accordance with Title 49
CFR part 522, Petitions for Rulemaking,
Defects, and Noncompliance Orders,
NHTSA conducted a review of the
petition and other information to decide
whether to open a formal investigation
to determine if a safety related defect
exists in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadsters.
III. ODI Analysis of the Defect Petition
Request
To assess the petitioner’s request and
his complaint as to whether separation
of the convertible top back glass in MY
2005 Crossfire Roadster vehicles
demonstrates or presents an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle
safety, ODI reviewed and analyzed the
following information and conducted
telephone interviews with
complainants:
• A review of all of the petitioner’s
letters and VOQ’s;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
• A review of the petitioner’s vehicle
experience;
• A review of a Chrysler warranty
policy extension;
• A review of all potentially related
VOQs for all model year Crossfire
Roadsters;
• Telephone interviews with
complainants;
• A review of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS); and,
• A review and analysis of complaint,
claim, field report, and warranty
information from Chrysler LLC.
(Chrysler), and Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles US, LLC. (FCA) provided
in response to an ODI information
request.
corner. As a precaution, and to prevent
it from separating completely, the glass
was propped-up from the inside of the
vehicle and taped to the convertible top
material on the outside of the vehicle.
The petitioner’s attempts to have the
vehicle’s convertible top replaced at
Chrysler’s expense were unsuccessful.
According to the petitioner, replacement
of the entire convertible top is the only
viable remedy offered by Chrysler once
the rear glass separates from the top.
Ultimately, the petitioner paid to have
the top replaced.
Petitioner’s Complaint
Between May 2013 and August 2014,
the petitioner sent five letters to
NHTSA, and filed an additional five
Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQ),
concerning the convertible top back
glass in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadster
vehicles. The petitioner’s concern is that
the adhesive that bonds the back glass
to the inside of the convertible top fails.
When the adhesive fails, the glass falls
inside the vehicle and, if it separates
completely from the top, will no longer
be attached to any structure that
controls movement. His correspondence
offers many varied and different
scenarios of possible consequences from
delamination or separation of the glass
from the convertible top. The petitioner
believes that the design, construction,
and attachment of any window is
critical to the safe operation of the
vehicle as intended, under any
conditions such as inclement weather,
highway speeds, etc., and that the
separation of the rear glass in the subject
vehicles poses an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety. Finally, the
petitioner suggests that Chrysler’s
limited extended warranty policy
covering the glass is ‘‘unreasonable’’
because it is limited to vehicles that
were originally sold in certain states.
In September 2011 Chrysler notified
its dealer network via ‘‘Warranty
Bulletin’’ that it would extend the
warranty for convertible top back glass
adhesion in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadsters. The warranty extension
covers these vehicles for 10 years or
100,000 miles, whichever occurs first,
for vehicles shipped to dealers in the
states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
No other Crossfire Roadsters were
included in the extended warranty. For
vehicles subject to this extended
warranty, Chrysler will replace the
entire convertible top if the rear glass
separates from the top within 10 years
or 100,000 miles.
Petitioner’s Vehicle Experience
The petitioner owns a MY 2005
Crossfire Roadster and resides in
California. His vehicle was not included
in Chrysler’s extended warranty as his
vehicle was originally sold in California.
According to the petitioner, he noted
the convertible top back glass was
starting to delaminate/separate from the
convertible top at the driver’s side lower
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Summary of Chryslers Extended
Warranty
Summary of Related VOQ Reports
ODI reviewed all VOQ reports in its
database relating to convertible top back
glass separation in all MY Crossfire
Roadsters. The review encompassed
VOQ reports received from June 23,
2008 through July 8, 2015. As noted in
Table 1, ODI analyzed 273 VOQ reports
alleging some degree of rear glass
separation. None of the VOQs alleged
that rear glass separation was related to
crashes, injuries, or fatalities. Out of the
273 VOQ’s ODI reviewed, four alleged
that the back glass separated from the
vehicle onto the roadway.1 Table 1
provides a summary count of the VOQ
reports by model year.
1 ODI spoke with 47 of the complainants
including three that alleged a roadway incident.
Two of the roadway complainants had experienced
previous glass bonding issues prior to separation.
There is no factual evidence (police accident
reports, photos, repair invoices, etc.) for the
roadway reports that confirms these allegations.
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
50381
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 1—CROSSFIRE VOQ REPORTS BY MODEL YEAR
Model year
2005
2006
2007
2008
Reports
Crashes
Injuries
Fatalities
Roadway
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
211
44
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
Total ..............................................................................
273
0
0
0
4
FMVSS No. 212; Windshield Mounting
This standard establishes the
retention requirements for windshields
in motor vehicle crashes. The purpose
of the standard is to reduce injuries and
fatalities in crashes by providing
retention of a vehicles windshield
during a crash by utilizing the
penetration-resistance and injuryavoidance properties of the windshield
glazing material and preventing
occupant ejection from the vehicle. This
standard does not apply to the back
glass at issue in this petition. No other
FMVSS establishes a minimum level of
performance for back glass retention in
either convertible or hard top vehicles.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. ODI’s Assessment
The adhesive bond of the convertible
top back glass to the top material can
lose its bonding properties over time.
From complainant descriptions, it
appears that separation of the glass
generally starts in a small area, possibly
at a lower corner. Over time, the
separation can progress around the glass
to a point at which the glass is visibly
and physically loose from the top
material and in some cases can separate
completely from the top. Because of the
angle at which the glass is installed in
the top it will tend to fall inside of the
vehicle onto the tonneau cover, behind
the only two available seats for the
vehicle occupants. In addition, the glass
panel in question is larger than the rear
window opening in the convertible top.
Therefore, the glass would have to rotate
and move in several planes of motion to
pass through the rear window opening
after detaching from the top.
ODI has also previously examined
rear window separation in the subject
vehicles. Based on 11 VOQs reporting
some degree of rear glass separation,
ODI first examined rear glass separation
in MY 2005 Chrysler Crossfire Roadsters
in late 2009. Soon thereafter, ODI
contacted Chrysler seeking complaint
information concerning the issue.
Chrysler provided a confidential
response to ODI on January 29, 2010.
Chrysler’s response did not contain any
information indicating that the
separation of the rear glass in the subject
vehicles posed an unreasonable risk to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Aug 18, 2015
Jkt 235001
safety. However, Chrysler subsequently
provided a limited extended warranty to
some owners.
As part of this petition analysis, ODI
sent an information request 2 to FCA
requesting information for any reports
that resulted in any injury or fatality to
any person either in the vehicle or
outside of the vehicle; a vehicle crash or
loss of control incident; or a back glass
leaving the confines of the vehicle top.
FCA’s response to this request provided
one report in which it was alleged that
the back glass went off the back of the
vehicle while being driven. FCA’s
response letter 3 explains that the
Company believes that the back glass
did not separate and fall off the back of
the vehicle as alleged by the individual
submitting the complaint to FCA. ODI
also notes that FCA’s May 19, 2015
response letter answering our
information request for this petition
erroneously concludes that ODI
previously found that no safety defect
existed when we reviewed information
submitted by Chrysler on January 29,
2010. ODI’s decision not to take further
action at that time is not, as Chrysler
suggests, a finding that no safety defect
existed.
ODI’s analysis, our second
examination of Crossfire Roadster rear
window separations, indicates that there
are not any crashes, deaths or injuries
related to this issue. The configuration
of the window opening and the size of
the window glass itself indicate that it
is unlikely that the glass would pass
through the window opening once the
rear glass has completely separated from
the convertible top. Further, although
the petitioner states that Chrysler’s
extended warranty policy for these
vehicles is unreasonable, the question
that ODI must answer is whether the
separation of the rear glass from the
convertible top results in an
unreasonable risk to safety. The
evidence revealed by our analysis does
not presently support such a finding.
2 Please see ODI’s April 27, 2015 letter to FCA in
file DP15–003.
3 See FCA DP15–003 response letter of May 19,
2015 in file DP15–003.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
V. Conclusion
For the reasons presented in the
petition analysis, and after thorough
assessment of the potential risks to
safety, it is unlikely that an order
concerning the notification and remedy
of a safety-related defect would be
issued as a result of granting Mr. Devries
petition. After full consideration of the
potential for finding a safety related
defect in these vehicles and in view of
the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA’s limited resources to best
accomplish the agency’s mission, the
petition is respectfully denied.
This action does not constitute a
finding by NHTSA that a safety-related
defect does not exist. The Agency will
take further action if warranted by
future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Frank S. Borris, II,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015–20380 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 6 (Sub-No. 490X)]
BNSF Railway Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in King
County, Wash.
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has
filed a verified notice of exemption
under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
Exempt Abandonments to abandon
1,100 linear feet of rail line between
milepost 4.53 and the end of the line at
Engineering Station 258+07 in Seattle,
King County, Wash. (the Line). The Line
traverses United States Postal Service
Zip Code 98119.
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has been handled over the Line
since prior to 1995; (2) no overhead
traffic has been handled on the Line
since prior to 1995; (3) no formal
complaint filed by a user of rail service
on the Line (or by a state or local
government entity acting on behalf of
such user) regarding cessation of service
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50379-50381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP15-003
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice states the reasons for denying a petition (DP 15-
003) submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162, 49 CFR part 522,
requesting that the agency open an investigation into delamination or
separation of the back glass from the convertible top material on model
year 2005 Chrysler Crossfire vehicles.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Abbott, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5221. Email: John.Abbott@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item
of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a) (2): 49 CFR 522.1. Upon receipt of a
properly filed petition, the agency conducts a technical review of the
petition, material submitted with the petition, and any additional
information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. After considering the
technical review and taking into account appropriate factors, which may
include, among others, allocation of agency resources, agency
[[Page 50380]]
priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might
arise from a determination of noncompliance or a defect related to
motor vehicle safety, the agency will grant or deny the petition. 49
U.S.C. 30162(d): 49 CFR 552.8.
II. Petition Background Information
In a letter dated June 14, 2014, Mr. Wayne DeVries petitioned NHTSA
to, ``. . . hold a hearing on whether this manufacturer [Chrysler] has
reasonably met its obligation to notify and/or remedy a safety defect
or noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.'' The
petition request was in reference to model year (MY) 2005 Chrysler
Crossfire Roadster vehicles in which the convertible top back glass can
delaminate or separate from its adhesive bond to the convertible top
material.
Part 557 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
establishes the procedures for conducting a hearing to determine
whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to notify
owners of a safety related defect and provide a remedy for that defect.
Before the agency can hold such a hearing, a determination that a
defect exists must be made either by the manufacturer or the agency.
Because a safety related defect has not been determined by either
Chrysler, or the agency, regarding the convertible top back glass in MY
2005 Crossfire Roadster vehicles, ODI interpreted Mr. DeVries letter as
a request for a Defect Petition. In accordance with Title 49 CFR part
522, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defects, and Noncompliance Orders, NHTSA
conducted a review of the petition and other information to decide
whether to open a formal investigation to determine if a safety related
defect exists in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadsters.
III. ODI Analysis of the Defect Petition Request
To assess the petitioner's request and his complaint as to whether
separation of the convertible top back glass in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadster vehicles demonstrates or presents an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety, ODI reviewed and analyzed the following
information and conducted telephone interviews with complainants:
A review of all of the petitioner's letters and VOQ's;
A review of the petitioner's vehicle experience;
A review of a Chrysler warranty policy extension;
A review of all potentially related VOQs for all model
year Crossfire Roadsters;
Telephone interviews with complainants;
A review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS); and,
A review and analysis of complaint, claim, field report,
and warranty information from Chrysler LLC. (Chrysler), and Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles US, LLC. (FCA) provided in response to an ODI
information request.
Petitioner's Complaint
Between May 2013 and August 2014, the petitioner sent five letters
to NHTSA, and filed an additional five Vehicle Owner Questionnaires
(VOQ), concerning the convertible top back glass in MY 2005 Crossfire
Roadster vehicles. The petitioner's concern is that the adhesive that
bonds the back glass to the inside of the convertible top fails. When
the adhesive fails, the glass falls inside the vehicle and, if it
separates completely from the top, will no longer be attached to any
structure that controls movement. His correspondence offers many varied
and different scenarios of possible consequences from delamination or
separation of the glass from the convertible top. The petitioner
believes that the design, construction, and attachment of any window is
critical to the safe operation of the vehicle as intended, under any
conditions such as inclement weather, highway speeds, etc., and that
the separation of the rear glass in the subject vehicles poses an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety. Finally, the petitioner
suggests that Chrysler's limited extended warranty policy covering the
glass is ``unreasonable'' because it is limited to vehicles that were
originally sold in certain states.
Petitioner's Vehicle Experience
The petitioner owns a MY 2005 Crossfire Roadster and resides in
California. His vehicle was not included in Chrysler's extended
warranty as his vehicle was originally sold in California. According to
the petitioner, he noted the convertible top back glass was starting to
delaminate/separate from the convertible top at the driver's side lower
corner. As a precaution, and to prevent it from separating completely,
the glass was propped-up from the inside of the vehicle and taped to
the convertible top material on the outside of the vehicle. The
petitioner's attempts to have the vehicle's convertible top replaced at
Chrysler's expense were unsuccessful. According to the petitioner,
replacement of the entire convertible top is the only viable remedy
offered by Chrysler once the rear glass separates from the top.
Ultimately, the petitioner paid to have the top replaced.
Summary of Chryslers Extended Warranty
In September 2011 Chrysler notified its dealer network via
``Warranty Bulletin'' that it would extend the warranty for convertible
top back glass adhesion in MY 2005 Crossfire Roadsters. The warranty
extension covers these vehicles for 10 years or 100,000 miles,
whichever occurs first, for vehicles shipped to dealers in the states
of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. No other Crossfire Roadsters were
included in the extended warranty. For vehicles subject to this
extended warranty, Chrysler will replace the entire convertible top if
the rear glass separates from the top within 10 years or 100,000 miles.
Summary of Related VOQ Reports
ODI reviewed all VOQ reports in its database relating to
convertible top back glass separation in all MY Crossfire Roadsters.
The review encompassed VOQ reports received from June 23, 2008 through
July 8, 2015. As noted in Table 1, ODI analyzed 273 VOQ reports
alleging some degree of rear glass separation. None of the VOQs alleged
that rear glass separation was related to crashes, injuries, or
fatalities. Out of the 273 VOQ's ODI reviewed, four alleged that the
back glass separated from the vehicle onto the roadway.\1\ Table 1
provides a summary count of the VOQ reports by model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ODI spoke with 47 of the complainants including three that
alleged a roadway incident. Two of the roadway complainants had
experienced previous glass bonding issues prior to separation. There
is no factual evidence (police accident reports, photos, repair
invoices, etc.) for the roadway reports that confirms these
allegations.
[[Page 50381]]
Table 1--Crossfire VOQ Reports by Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Reports Crashes Injuries Fatalities Roadway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005............................ 211 0 0 0 3
2006............................ 44 0 0 0 1
2007............................ 9 0 0 0 0
2008............................ 9 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 273 0 0 0 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 212; Windshield Mounting
This standard establishes the retention requirements for
windshields in motor vehicle crashes. The purpose of the standard is to
reduce injuries and fatalities in crashes by providing retention of a
vehicles windshield during a crash by utilizing the penetration-
resistance and injury-avoidance properties of the windshield glazing
material and preventing occupant ejection from the vehicle. This
standard does not apply to the back glass at issue in this petition. No
other FMVSS establishes a minimum level of performance for back glass
retention in either convertible or hard top vehicles.
IV. ODI's Assessment
The adhesive bond of the convertible top back glass to the top
material can lose its bonding properties over time. From complainant
descriptions, it appears that separation of the glass generally starts
in a small area, possibly at a lower corner. Over time, the separation
can progress around the glass to a point at which the glass is visibly
and physically loose from the top material and in some cases can
separate completely from the top. Because of the angle at which the
glass is installed in the top it will tend to fall inside of the
vehicle onto the tonneau cover, behind the only two available seats for
the vehicle occupants. In addition, the glass panel in question is
larger than the rear window opening in the convertible top. Therefore,
the glass would have to rotate and move in several planes of motion to
pass through the rear window opening after detaching from the top.
ODI has also previously examined rear window separation in the
subject vehicles. Based on 11 VOQs reporting some degree of rear glass
separation, ODI first examined rear glass separation in MY 2005
Chrysler Crossfire Roadsters in late 2009. Soon thereafter, ODI
contacted Chrysler seeking complaint information concerning the issue.
Chrysler provided a confidential response to ODI on January 29, 2010.
Chrysler's response did not contain any information indicating that the
separation of the rear glass in the subject vehicles posed an
unreasonable risk to safety. However, Chrysler subsequently provided a
limited extended warranty to some owners.
As part of this petition analysis, ODI sent an information request
\2\ to FCA requesting information for any reports that resulted in any
injury or fatality to any person either in the vehicle or outside of
the vehicle; a vehicle crash or loss of control incident; or a back
glass leaving the confines of the vehicle top. FCA's response to this
request provided one report in which it was alleged that the back glass
went off the back of the vehicle while being driven. FCA's response
letter \3\ explains that the Company believes that the back glass did
not separate and fall off the back of the vehicle as alleged by the
individual submitting the complaint to FCA. ODI also notes that FCA's
May 19, 2015 response letter answering our information request for this
petition erroneously concludes that ODI previously found that no safety
defect existed when we reviewed information submitted by Chrysler on
January 29, 2010. ODI's decision not to take further action at that
time is not, as Chrysler suggests, a finding that no safety defect
existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Please see ODI's April 27, 2015 letter to FCA in file DP15-
003.
\3\ See FCA DP15-003 response letter of May 19, 2015 in file
DP15-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI's analysis, our second examination of Crossfire Roadster rear
window separations, indicates that there are not any crashes, deaths or
injuries related to this issue. The configuration of the window opening
and the size of the window glass itself indicate that it is unlikely
that the glass would pass through the window opening once the rear
glass has completely separated from the convertible top. Further,
although the petitioner states that Chrysler's extended warranty policy
for these vehicles is unreasonable, the question that ODI must answer
is whether the separation of the rear glass from the convertible top
results in an unreasonable risk to safety. The evidence revealed by our
analysis does not presently support such a finding.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons presented in the petition analysis, and after
thorough assessment of the potential risks to safety, it is unlikely
that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect would be issued as a result of granting Mr. Devries
petition. After full consideration of the potential for finding a
safety related defect in these vehicles and in view of the need to
allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish
the agency's mission, the petition is respectfully denied.
This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-
related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if
warranted by future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Frank S. Borris, II,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-20380 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
