Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3735 

In support of its belief that its 

antitheft device will be as or more 

effective in reducing and deterring 

vehicle theft than the parts-marking 

requirement, Honda referenced data 

showing several instances of the 

effectiveness of its proposed 

immobilizer device. Honda first 

installed an immobilizer device as 

standard equipment on its MY 2002 CR– 

V vehicles and referenced NHTSA’s 

theft rate data showing a decrease in 

thefts since the installation of its 

immobilizer device. NHTSA’s theft rates 

for MYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 are 

0.3195, 0.2742 and 0.2953 respectively. 

Using an average of 3 MYs theft data 

(2010–2012), the theft rate for the CR– 

V vehicle line is well below the median 

at 0.2963. 

Honda also referenced a September 

2005 Highway Loss Data Institute report 

showing an overall reduction in theft 

rates for the Honda CR–V vehicles after 

introduction of the immobilizer device. 

Honda stated that the data show that 

there was an immediate decrease in 

MY/calendar year 2002 thefts with its 

immobilizer-installed vehicles but also 

showed sustained lower theft rates in 

following years. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Honda on its antitheft device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the CR–V vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard. 

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 Honda has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Honda CR–V vehicle line 

is likely to be as effective in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. This conclusion is based on 

the information Honda provided about 

its device. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by Honda on its device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the CR–V vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

Promoting activation; attract attention to 

the efforts of an unauthorized person to 

enter or move a vehicle by means other 

than a key; preventing defeat 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Honda’s petition 

for exemption for the CR–V vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 

2016 model year vehicles. 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 

part 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If Honda decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency. If such a decision is 

made, the line must be fully marked 

according to the requirements under 49 

CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 

major component parts and replacement 

parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Honda 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 anti-theft device on which the 

line’s exemption is based. Further, Part 

543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission 

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 

part 1.95. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01117 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0093; Notice 2] 

Grote Industries, LLC, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Grote Industries, LLC (Grote), 

has determined that certain Grote bulk 

nylon air brake tubing manufactured 

during the period December 2013 to 

March 2014 does not fully comply with 

paragraph S11.2 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

106; Brake Hoses. Grote has filed an 

appropriate report dated June 13, 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) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Grote’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the 

rule implementing those provisions at 

49 CFR part 556, Grote 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 Grote’s petition 

was published, with a 30-Day public 

comment period, on September 15, 2014 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 55066). 

One comment was received but was 

removed from the docket because its 

content was not relevant to the petition. 

To view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

1After receiving Grote’s petition, based on a 

submission from Eaton Corporation, NHTSA 

revised its records to indicate that the brake hose 

manufacturer identification ‘‘1913’’ ceded to Eaton 

Corporation due to its acquisition of Moore, 

Samuel, and Company, Synflex Division. 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2014– 

0093.’’ 

II. Equipment Involved: Affected are 

approximately 869 spools of Grote 

nylon air brake tubing that was 

manufactured during the period 

December 2013 to March 2014. 

III. Noncompliance: Grote explains 

that the noncompliance is that, due to 

a production error, the affected air brake 

tubing is not properly marked in 

accordance with paragraph S11.2.1(a) of 

FMVSS No. 106, which requires plastic 

air brake tubing to be marked with a 

designation that identifies the 

manufacturer of the tubing. In addition, 

some of the tubing also does not comply 

with paragraph S11.2.1(e) of FMVSS No. 

106 which requires plastic air brake 

tubing to be marked with the letter ‘‘A’’ 

to indicate intended use in air brake 

systems. Specifically, all of the subject 

brake tubing was mismarked with the 

number ‘‘1913’’ in addition to ‘‘GROTE’’ 

and some of the tubing was also 

mismarked with the letter ‘‘B,’’ instead 

of the letter ‘‘A.’’ 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S11.2 of 

FMVSS No. 106 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S11.2 Labeling. 

S11.2.1 Plastic air brake tubing. Plastic air 

brake tubing shall be labeled, or cut from 

bulk tubing that is labeled, at intervals of not 

more than 6 inches, measured from the end 

of one legend to the beginning of the next, 

in block capital letters and numerals at least 

one-eighth of an inch high, with the 

information listed in paragraphs (a) through 

(e) of this section. The information need not 

be present on tubing that is sold as part of 

a motor vehicle. 

(a) The symbol DOT, constituting a 

certification by the hose manufacturer that 

the hose conforms to all applicable motor 

vehicle safety standards. . . . 

(e) The letter ‘‘A’’ shall indicate intended 

use in air brake systems. 

V. Summary of Grote’s Analyses: 

Grote stated its belief that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety for the following 

reasons: 

Grote believes that these labeling 

noncompliances are inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because both the 

manufacturer designation and the 

intended use are otherwise clearly 

marked on the tubing. 

Grote stated its belief that the purpose 

of the manufacturer identification 

requirement is to permit identification 

of products in the event of a product 

recall. If a recall of the subject air brake 

tubing was to become necessary the 

affected tubing could easily be 

identified by the GROTE name, which is 

conspicuously marked on all of the 

affected tubing. 

Grote also stated its belief that the 

manufacturer associated with the 

identification number ‘‘1913’’ has not 

existed since 1977 and are are not aware 

of any manufacturer currently marketing 

air brake tubing under the ‘‘Samuel 

Moore’’ brand.1

The purpose of the ‘‘A’’ letter 

designation requirement is to indicate 

that the product is intended for use in 

air brake applications. As noted above, 

some of the products are marked as 

‘‘SAE J844 Type B’’ instead of the letter 

‘‘A.’’ Type B tubing is an SAE J844 

designation that identifies reinforced air 

brake tubing. This designation is widely 

recognized among truck maintenance 

and service personnel. Regardless, the 

subject hose is also clearly and 

prominently marked with the phrase, 

‘‘GROTE AIR BRAKE,’’ eliminating any 

possible confusion or misunderstanding 

as to the intended application of the 

product. 

In addition, Grote stated its belief that 

NHTSA has made analogous 

inconsequentiality determinations in 

similar situations related to other 

products where a required label was 

missing, but the product contained 

other markings that conveyed the same 

or similar information. See Bridgestone 

Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 35357 (June 12, 

2013); Bridgestone Americas Tire 

Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 

2006); and Delphi Corporation, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 69 FR 41331 (July 8, 

2004). 

Grote also informed NHTSA that it 

has corrected the noncompliance so that 

all future production nylon air brake 

tubing will comply with FMVSS No. 

106. 

In summation, Grote believes that the 

described noncompliance of the subject 

nylon air brake tubing is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

and that its petition, to exempt Grote 

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. 106 

specifies labeling and performance 

requirements for brake hoses and plastic 

air brake tubing. Paragraph S11.2 of the 

standard requires, in addition to other 

labeling requirements, that the 

manufacturer label air brake tubing with 

a designation that identifies the 

manufacturer (this designation is filed 

in writing with the NHTSA’s Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance,) and the 

letter ‘‘A’’ to indicate intended use in air 

brake systems. 

Grote states that the affected is 

marked with the manufacturer’s 

designation ‘‘GROTE’’ along with the 

digits ‘‘1913.’’ In addition, some of the 

affected tubing is also marked with the 

letter ‘‘B’’ as opposed to the letter ‘‘A’’ 

to indicate use in air brake systems. 

The purpose of the manufacturer 

designation label is to identify the 

manufacturer in the event of safety 

related issues with the brake hose. In 

this case the manufacturer’s 

designation, ‘‘GROTE’’ is printed next to 

the following words ‘‘AIR BRAKE 

TUBING.’’ NHTSA believes that this 

labeling should make it readily apparent 

that Grote is the manufacturer of the 

tubing. Should someone attempt to use 

the ‘‘1913’’ number to identify the 

manufacturer of the tubing, the 

manufacturer identified by that 

designation in NHTSA’s publically 

available manufacturer database, Eaton 

Corporation, should be able to verify 

that it was not the manufacturer of the 

tubing leaving Grote as the 

manufacturer to be contacted. 

For those brake hoses printed with the 

letter ‘‘B’’ instead of ‘‘A’’, the words 

‘‘AIR BRAKE TUBING’’ printed on the 

tubing indicates that the tubing is 

intended for use in air brake systems. In 

addition, FMVSS No. 106 does not 

associate any meaning to a ‘‘B’’ marking 

on brake hoses or tubes. 

NHTSA Decision: In consideration of 

the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that 

Grote has met its burden of persuasion 

that the FMVSS No. 106 noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, Grote’s petition is 

hereby granted and Grote 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 air brake tubing that Grote 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3737 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, the granting of this 

petition does not relieve Grote 

distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant air brake tubing under 

their control after Grote 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. 2015–01037 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0124; Notice 2] 

Custom Glass Solutions Upper 

Sandusky Corporation, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Custom Glass Solutions 

Upper Sandusky Corporation (Custom 

Glass), a subsidiary of Guardian 

Industries Corporation, has determined 

that certain laminated glass panes, other 

than windscreens, do not fully comply 

with paragraph S6 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials. Custom 

Glass has filed an appropriate report 

dated September 17, 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, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Custom Glass’s Petition: Pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the 

rule implementing those provision at 49 

CFR part 556, Custom Glass 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 the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on September 25, 2014 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 57654). 

No comments were received. To view 

the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2013– 

0124.’’ 

II. Glazing Involved: Approximately 

160 laminated glass panes, other than 

windscreens, intended for the cabs of 

approximately twenty mining vehicles 

being manufactured by Atlas Copco in 

Australia. The panes consist of two 4.0 

mm tempered panes manufactured by 

Auto Temp, Inc. (ATI) that were bonded 

together with a 0.76 mm PVB layer by 

Custom Glass and then shipped to 

Angus Palm, Watertown, South Dakota 

between August 1, 2013 and September 

4, 2013. 

III. Noncompliance: Custom Glass 

explains that the noncompliance is that 

the labeling on the subject laminated 

glass panes does not fully meet the 

requirements of paragraph S6 of FMVSS 

No. 205. The panes were labeled with 

the incorrect manufacturer’s code mark, 

incorrect manufacturer’s trademark, and 

incorrect manufacturer’s model number, 

and were incorrectly marked as 

Tempered. 

IV. Rule Text: Refer to the entire text 

of Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 for 

requirements and contextual 

restrictions. 

V. Summary of Custom Glass’s 

Analyses: Custom Glass stated its belief 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

based on the following reasoning: 

The parts are incorrectly labeled with 

the manufacturer’s code mark and 

manufacturer’s trademark belonging to 

the tempered glazing supplier, ATI. The 

correct manufacturer’s code mark, 

which should have been affixed to the 

parts at issue, is DOT 22. The correct 

manufacturer’s model number is M85L2 

(which identifies laminated glass 

construction with an 8.5 mm nominal 

thickness, from which Guardian 

fabricates automotive parts for use 

anywhere in a motor vehicle except 

windshields). The panes are marked 

with the correct item-of-glazing number. 

Although the subject laminated glass 

panes are affixed with the incorrect 

manufacturer’s code mark, 

manufacturer’s model number and 

manufacturer’s trademark, the 

laminated glass parts were fabricated is 

in full compliance with the technical 

requirements of FMVSS No. 205 that 

currently apply to laminated glass for 

use anywhere in a motor vehicle except 

windshields (item-of-glazing number 

‘‘2,’’ i.e., ‘‘AS–2’’) 

Custom Glass also asserts that the 

subject noncompliance could not result 

in the wrong part being used in an OEM 

or ARG application given that the part 

would be ordered by its unique part 

number and not the manufacturer’s 

model number (which corresponds to 

the glass construction from which the 

part is fabricated). The parts are also 

easily traceable back to Custom Glass 

since they are the only glazing supplier 

for this particular vehicle. 

Custom Glass has additionally 

informed NHTSA that it has corrected 

the noncompliance so that all future 

production vehicles delivered with 

laminated glass will comply with 

FMVSS No. 205. 

In summation, Custom Glass believes 

that the described noncompliance of the 

subject laminated glass parts is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

and that its petition, to exempt 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. 

Paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205 

requires glazing material manufacturers 

to certify, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30115, each piece of glazing material to 

which this standard applies. A prime 

glazing material manufacturer certifies 

its glazing by adding to the marks 

required in Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 

(1996), the symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and a 

manufacturer’s code mark assigned by 

the NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 

(1996) requires manufacturers to mark 

automotive glazing with the item of 

glazing number, e.g., ‘‘AS–1’’, the 

manufacturer’s distinctive designation 

or trademark, and a model number that 

will identify the type of construction of 

the glazing material. Section 7 of ANSI 

Z26.1 (1996) states that the item of 

glazing number is to be placed in close 

proximity to other required markings. 

In its petition Custom Glass stated 

that labeling on the affected glazing that 

did meet all applicable requirements of 

FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 (1996). 

Specifically, the glazing was marked 

with the incorrect manufacturer’s code 

mark, incorrect manufacturer’s 

trademark, and incorrect manufacturer’s 

model number (i.e., M number). The 

glazing was also incorrectly marked 

‘‘Tempered’’ as opposed to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES