Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Topics:  Mitsubishi Outlander Sport

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 22, 2014

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49833-49834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19967]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0047; Notice 2]


Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (MMNA) has determined 
that certain model year (MY) 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) do not fully comply with 
paragraph S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. FMVSS 
205, Glazing Materials. MMNA has filed an appropriate report dated 
April 3, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mr. Luis 
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5298, 
facsimile (202) 366-7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. MMNA's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, MMNA has 
petitioned 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 June 6, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 
32814). One comment was received from Joseph Poley. Mr. Poley stated 
his belief that in the notice of receipt NHTSA incorrectly referred to 
the subject glazing as ``laminated'' when it was actually ``tempered.'' 
Mr. Poley is correct. In its petition, MMNA referred to the glazing as 
``tempered.'' NHTSA inadvertently referred to the glazing as 
``laminated'' in the notice of receipt. To view the petition, the 
comment, 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-
2014-0047.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 311 MY 2014 
Mitsubishi Outlander Sport MPVs manufactured from February 12, 2014 
through February 21, 2014 that contained mislabeled tempered rear door 
glazing manufactured by Pilkington North America, Inc. (PNA).
    III. Noncompliance: MMNA explains that the noncompliance is that 
the tempered rear door glazing in the subject vehicles was labeled with 
the incorrect manufacturer's model number. Specifically, the glazing 
was labeled with PNA model number ``M-131'' instead of the correct 
model number ``M-129.''
    IV. Rule Text: 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 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 a model number which will identify the type of construction of 
the glazing material.
    V. Summary of MMNA's Analyses: MMNA stated its belief that the 
subject noncompliance relates solely to the product monograms or 
markings, specifically the use of model number ``M-131'' instead of 
``M-129''. These rear door windows otherwise meet all other marking and 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1. MMNA also 
stated its belief that NHTSA previously noted that ``The stated 
purposes of FMVSS No. 205 are 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'' (64 FR 70116). MMNA believes that because the affected 
glazing fully meets all of the applicable performance requirements of 
FMVSS No. 205 that the absence of the correct model number on the 
glazing has no effect upon the ability of the glazing to satisfy those 
purposes and thus perform in the manner intended by FMVSS No. 205.
    MMNA also stated its belief that NHTSA has previously granted other 
petitions that MMNA believes were similar to the subject petition.
    MMNA is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer complaints, or 
field reports associated with this condition.
    MMNA has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the

[[Page 49834]]

noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with 
FMVSS No. 205.
    In summation, MMNA believes that the described noncompliance of the 
subject vehicles 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. 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 markings required, the 
manufacturer shall include a model number which will identify the type 
of construction of the glazing material.
    According to the petition, the nature of the noncompliance is the 
incorrect model number as required in FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 
(1996). Mitsubishi has certified that the window complies with all 
other safety performance requirements of FMVSS No. 205. NHTSA believes 
that the incorrect model number is inconsequential to vehicle safety 
since the unmarked glazing complies with the other labeling and 
performance requirements of the standard. Also, NHTSA believes that the 
noncompliance would not result in inadvertent replacement of the 
windows with the wrong glazing because the population with the labeling 
noncompliance will not be available as replacement/service parts. 
Mitsubishi has returned all affected glazing to the glazing 
manufacturer, with the exception of the 311 glazing units that were 
installed in vehicles destined to be sold in the USA, and the 
manufacturer scrapped the remainder of the affected population.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has 
decided that MMNA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 
205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, MMNA's petition is hereby granted and MMNA 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, this decision 
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that MMNA no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle 
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 MMNA 
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. 2014-19967 Filed 8-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P