Document ID: NHTSA-2022-0015-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: AGC Automotive Americas Co.
Posted Date: 2023-06-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38588-38590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0015; Notice 1]

AGC Automotive Americas Co., Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: AGC Automotive Americas Co., (AGC), has determined that 
certain

[[Page 38589]]

glass backlites and sidelites manufactured as replacement parts do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
205, Glazing Materials. AGC filed an original noncompliance report 
dated March 11, 2020. AGC petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2020, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of 
AGC's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Safety Compliance 
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-0661.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: AGC determined that certain glass backlites and 
sidelites manufactured as replacement parts do not fully comply with 
paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).
    AGC filed an original noncompliance report dated March 11, 2020, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. AGC petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2020, 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.
    This notice of receipt of AGC's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Equipment Involved: Approximately 1,843 glass backlites and 
sidelites manufactured as replacement parts between February 1, 2008, 
and July 31, 2018, were reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: AGC explains that the subject replacement glass 
does not have the required ``DOT'' certification marking and 
manufacturer code, and therefore does not comply with paragraph S6.2 of 
FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, the subject equipment is missing the 
marking ``DOT 24'' indicating DOT certification and AGC's assigned 
manufacturer code.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the 
requirements relevant to this petition. A prime glazing manufacturer 
must certify its glazing by adding to the marks required by section 7 
of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in letters and numerals of the same size, the 
symbol ``DOT'' and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned to the 
manufacturer. NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the 
manufacturer submits a written request that must include the company 
name, address, and a statement from the manufacturer certifying its 
status as a prime glazing manufacturer.
    V. Summary of AGC's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of AGC's Petition,'' are the 
views and arguments provided by AGC. They have not been evaluated by 
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. AGC describes 
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    AGC explains that the subject replacement glass inadvertently 
entered the U.S. market through Automotive Replacement Glass (ARG), a 
business unit in Europe. The shipment was made to satisfy a replacement 
glass order for the U.S. market. AGC states that the subject 
replacement glass was manufactured without the ``DOT'' certification 
marking and manufacturer code because they were not intended to be sold 
in the U.S.
    After investigating the issue, AGC states that it blocked shipments 
of the noncompliant replacement glass, tested the affected replacement 
glass to confirm that it met the applicable FMVSS performance 
requirements, and destroyed extant stock. AGC believes that the missing 
``DOT'' symbol on glazing does not create a risk to motor vehicle 
safety and is therefore, inconsequential, based on its finding that no 
test indicated any issue with the glass.
    AGC believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety because the subject replacement glass met the 
performance requirements as stated in FMVSS No. 205. Furthermore, AGC 
states that it has not received ``reports of any noncompliance either 
for any of these parts produced during this time including parts 
shipped with and without the required DOT number,'' nor have there been 
any customer complaints related to the subject replacement glass.
    AGC claims that the following petitions for similar noncompliances 
have previously been granted by NHTSA:

[[Page 38590]]

     Pilkington North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 22942 (April 17, 2003)
     Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 59088 (September 25, 
2013)
     Toyota Motor Corporation., Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 68 FR 10307 (March 4, 2003)
     Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Grant of Petition 
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 72482 (August 27, 
2015) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AGC included the incorrect date of the cited Federal 
Register notice. 80 FR 72482 was published on November 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corp., Grant of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 3737 
(January 23, 2015)
     Supreme Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 81 FR 72850 (October 21, 2016)
     Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 32531 (May 30, 2013)
     Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 11259 (March 2, 2015)
     General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 79 FR 23402 (September 25, 2015) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AGC included the incorrect date of the cited Federal 
Register notice. 79 FR 23402 was published on April 28, 2014.

    AGC concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its 
petition 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.
    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 equipment that AGC no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 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 equipment under their control after 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. 2023-12566 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P