[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39673-39675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14211]



[[Page 39673]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0098; Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0101; Docket No. 
NTHSA-2019-0049; Notice 2]


FCA US, LLC and AGC Glass Company North America, Grant of 
Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: FCA US, LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC (FCA) has determined 
that the rear liftgate privacy glass equipped in certain model year 
(MY) 2013-2017 Jeep Compass and certain MY 2018 Jeep Wrangler motor 
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Similarly, AGC Glass Company North 
America, d.b.a. AGC Automotive Americas Co. (AGC) determined that the 
same liftgate privacy glass sold as replacement parts for MY 2013-2017 
Jeep Compass motor vehicles do not fully comply with FMVSS No. 205. The 
petitioners have requested that NHTSA deem the subject noncompliance 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As the issues involved in both 
petitions are identical, NHTSA is addressing both petitions in this 
single notice, which announces the grant of both petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5304, facsimile (202) 
366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: FCA has determined that certain 
MY 2013-2017 Jeep Compass and MY 2018 Jeep Wrangler motor vehicles do 
not fully comply with paragraphs S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 205, 
Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FCA filed noncompliance reports 
dated October 10, 2017, and April 25, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FCA 
petitioned NHTSA on November 2, 2017, and May 15, 2019, for an 
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 
Noncompliance. FCA later submitted supplemental petitions to their 
November 2, 2017, and May 15, 2019, petitions on June 3, 2019 and May 
31, 2019, respectively. Notices of receipt of FCA's petitions were 
published with a 30-day public comment period on April 16, 2018, and 
September 12, 2019, in the Federal Register (83 FR 16430 and 84 FR 
48209). No comments were received.
    In addition, AGC has determined that the rear privacy glass 
manufactured as replacement glass for certain MY 2013-2017 Jeep Compass 
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 
205, Glazing Materials. AGC filed a report dated October 13, 2017, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. AGC also petitioned NHTSA on November 8, 2017, for an 
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 
Noncompliance. Notice of receipt of AGC's petition was published with a 
30-day public comment period on April 11, 2018, in the Federal Register 
(83 FR 15676). No comments were received.
    II. Vehicles and Equipment Involved: Approximately 287,064 MY 2013-
2017 Jeep Compass motor vehicles, manufactured between January 18, 
2013, and December 23, 2016, and approximately 1,804 MY 2018 Jeep 
Wrangler motor vehicles, manufactured between October 13, 2018, and 
October 19, 2018, are potentially involved.
    In addition, approximately 5,000 replacement privacy glass parts 
manufactured for replacement of the rear liftgate glass in MY 2013-2017 
Jeep Compass motor vehicles, manufactured between January 16, 2013, and 
June 30, 2017, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: The petitioners explain that the noncompliance 
is that the rear liftgate privacy glass equipped in or sold as 
replacement glass for certain MY 2013-2017 Jeep Compass and MY 2018 
Jeep Wrangler motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.1.1 
and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the liftgate glass has the 
AS2 glazing marking when it should have been marked with the AS3 
glazing marking.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 
205 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Except as 
otherwise specifically provided by FMVSS No. 205, glazing for use in 
multipurpose passenger vehicles shall conform to the requirements for 
glazing for use in trucks as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Glazing 
intended for aftermarket replacement is required to meet the 
requirements of this standard or the requirements of 49 CFR 571.205(a) 
applicable to the glazing being replaced.
    V. Summary of FCA's Petitions: FCA described the subject 
noncompliance and stated their belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of their petition, FCA submitted the following 
arguments:
    1. NHTSA recently described the glazing materials certification and 
marking requirements as follows: ``A prime glazing manufacturer 
certifies its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 of 
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996.'' American National Standard Institute (``ANSI''), 
standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, requires privacy glass to meet AS3 
requirements for light transmissibility and requires labeling the glass 
with an AS3 marking.
    2. FCA stated that the liftgate glass glazing of the affected 
vehicles otherwise meets all marking and performance requirements of 
FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1-1996. FCA cited NHTSA as previously 
noting, ``The purpose of this standard (FMVSS No. 205) is to ensure a 
necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver 
visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown 
through the vehicle windows in collisions.'' Since all transparent 
sections of the affected glazing fully meet all the applicable 
performance requirements, FCA does not believe the incorrect AS2 
marking impacts the applicable performance requirements. FCA also does 
not believe that the incorrect AS2 marking impacts the ability of the 
glazing to satisfy the stated purpose or affect the performance of the 
glazing as required by FMVSS No. 205.
    3. FCA also stated that the subject glazing meets all applicable 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and FCA believes there is no 
safety performance implication associated with this technical 
noncompliance.
    4. In addition to meeting all the component level performance 
requirements of FMVSS No. 205, the subject glazing also fully meets the 
vehicle level installation requirements as specified by FMVSS No. 205. 
The subject glazing at 22% light transmissibility, is permitted in the 
liftgate glass location on the affected Jeep Compass and Jeep Wrangler 
vehicles.
    5. The actual transmissibility of the subject liftgate glass 
glazing (approximately 22%) is consistent with

[[Page 39674]]

all the other glazing rearward of the driver (i.e. left and right side 
windows, and the left and right rear quarter window glazing) on the 
affected Jeep Compass and Jeep Wrangler vehicles. Accordingly, there is 
no reason for the customer, state inspection authorities, service 
personnel or anyone else to focus on or detect any distinction 
involving the subject liftgate glass.
    6. In the extremely unlikely event that a glazing corresponding to 
the incorrect markings (i.e. solar glazing with 70% transmittance) was 
installed on the affected vehicles, this would also be fully compliant 
with all requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including component level and 
vehicle level marking requirements of the standard.
    7. FCA is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer 
complaints associated with this condition.
    8. NHTSA has previously granted similar inconsequential treatment 
for FMVSS No. 205 marking noncompliances. Examples of similar granted 
inconsequentiality petitions for incorrect markings related to glazing 
include:
    [cir] Supreme Corporation, 81 FR 72850, (October 21, 2016).
    [cir] Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., 80 FR 72482, (November 
19, 2015).
    [cir] Ford Motor Company, 80 FR 11259, (March 2, 2015).
    [cir] Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corp., 80 FR 3737, 
(January 23, 2015).
    [cir] General Motors, LLC, 81 FR 23402, (April 28, 2014).
    [cir] Fiji Heavy Industries U.S.A. Inc., 78 FR 59088, (September 
25, 2013).
    [cir] Ford Motor Company, 78 FR 32531, (May 30, 2013).
    [cir] Pilkington North America, Inc., 78 FR 22942, (April 17, 
2013).
    [cir] Pilkington Glass of Canada LTD., 71 FR 39141, (July 11, 
2006).
    [cir] General Motors, 70 FR 49973, (August 25, 2005).
    [cir] Freightliner LLC, 68 FR 65991, (November 24, 2003).
    [cir] Toyota Motors North America Inc, 68 FR 10307, (March 4, 
2003).
    [cir] Guardian Ind. Corp., 67 FR 65185, (October 23, 2002).
    [cir] Ford Motor Company, 64 FR 70115, (December 15, 1999).
    [cir] Western Star Trucks Inc, 63 FR 66232, (December 1, 1998).
    VI. Summary of AGC's Petition: AGC described the subject 
noncompliance and stated their belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, AGC submitted the following arguments:
    1. The only error in the logo mark was including the incorrect AS 
standard. The logo and the parts were otherwise fully compliant. All 
other information was correct. The AS3 mark relates to meeting certain 
light transmission requirements for privacy glass. The glass met those 
requirements as confirmed by both AGC and its primary customer, FCA. 
The glass also met all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards. This error did not change the character of the glass or its 
performance. It was a simple marking error and will not in any way 
impact or affect motor vehicle safety. AGC produced up to 5,000 parts 
to be installed as replacement glass over the relevant time period. As 
soon as AGC found the potential error, it was immediately corrected by 
replacing the print screen that included the incorrect AS2 mark and 
instead used a print screen which included the correct AS3 mark in the 
logo. No parts are produced today for these model vehicles for 
replacement glass without the correct AS3 mark in the logo. All parts, 
which AGC had in its possession and which were confirmed a customer 
still had that were not already installed, were destroyed or returned 
to AGC.
    There is nothing that would affect or impact vehicle safety 
resulting from this erroneous AS2 mark being included in the logo and 
this error should be classified as inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    2. The logo error will not mislead or affect consumers. Consumers 
would never look at a logo and know or understand that privacy glass 
with an AS2 logo should have an AS3 mark instead in that logo. Only 
someone trained in the intricate requirements of ANSI and the 
differences in light transmission between a part meeting the AS3 
standard versus a part meeting the AS2 standard would know whether 
including the AS2 mark was an error or not. Therefore, the fact that 
there are vehicles on the road which have the incorrect AS2 mark in the 
logo will not be misleading, nor should it require any of those parts 
to be replaced since the consumer will not know the difference, will 
not be misled by looking at the logo mark for this part, there will be 
no confusion about the performance or compliance of the parts with all 
applicable FMVSSs, and the error does not affect the safety of the 
vehicle. Every consumer that had their rear liftgate replaced with 
privacy glass that included the logo with the incorrect AS2 mark still 
has exactly what they expected to receive and paid for regardless of 
this error as the rear privacy glass for their Jeep Compass does not 
pose any safety risk to them or others who may ride on their vehicle.
    Both FCA and AGC concluded by expressing the belief that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing 
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and 
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should 
be granted.
    FCA and AGC's complete petitions and all supporting documents are 
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 
website at https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search 
instructions to locate the associated docket number listed in the title 
of this notice.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has evaluated the merits of AGC and 
FCA's petitions for inconsequential noncompliance.
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 205 is to reduce injuries resulting from 
impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of 
transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to 
minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle 
windows in collisions.
    The subject replacement glazing in AGC's petition and the subject 
vehicles in FCA's petition pertain to liftgate glass that was 
incorrectly marked as AS2 glazing material when it should have been 
marked as AS3 glazing material.
    The difference in performance requirements between AS2 and AS3 
glazing is that AS2 glazing is required to have a luminous 
transmittance of at least 70% while AS3 has no luminous transmittance 
requirement. Because AS3 glazing does not have a luminous transmittance 
requirement, it is typically darker in tint. The luminous transmittance 
for the subject glazing, which was incorrectly marked as AS2, is 22%.
    The first factor NHTSA considered in its evaluation was if the 
liftgate glass sold as replacement glazing by AGC and equipped in the 
subject vehicles by FCA is compliant with FMVSS No. 205 requirements. 
Both AGC and FCA stated that the subject liftgate glass meets all 
marking and performance requirements for AS3 glazing in accordance with 
FMVSS No. 205, other than the incorrect AS marking. NHTSA reviewed the 
test data provided by the petitioners and believes the data supports 
the petitioners' statements that the subject glazing meets the 
applicable requirements for AS3 glazing stated in FMVSS No. 205.
    Furthermore, NHTSA recognizes that FMVSS No. 205 allows AS2 glazing 
to be installed anywhere in motor vehicles

[[Page 39675]]

except windshields, and AS3 glazing to be installed anywhere in motor 
vehicles except windshields and certain specified locations. AS3 
glazing is permitted to be installed in liftgates of the subject 
vehicles.
    AGC believes that most consumers likely would not recognize the 
marking error while individuals highly trained in glazing standards 
would recognize the marking error. NHTSA does not find these arguments 
compelling and believes that it is reasonable for someone in the repair 
industry to rely on the incorrect AS markings located on the 
noncompliant glazing material and replace it with glazing material 
corresponding to those markings. This would mean that the individual 
making the vehicle repair would replace the liftgate with AS2 glazing 
instead of AS3 glazing.
    However, because compliant AS2 glazing will always meet the 
performance requirements of compliant AS3 glazing, no impact to safety 
is anticipated.
    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, 
NHTSA finds that FCA and AGC have met their burden of persuasion that 
the FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, the FCA and AGC petitions are hereby granted. FCA 
and AGC are exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, 
and a remedy for, the subject 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 vehicles and equipment that FCA and AGC no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, the granting of these petitions does not relieve 
vehicle and equipment 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 and equipment 
under their control after FCA and 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)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-14211 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


