Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11259 

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 

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 

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 

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 


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: http://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 

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’’. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES