Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 54749-54751 [2022-19234]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Notices
considered revenue adequate under 49
U.S.C. 10704(a) if it achieves a rate of
return on net investment (ROI) equal to
at least the current cost of capital for the
railroad industry. For 2020, this number
was determined to be 10.37% in R.R.
Cost of Capital—2021, EP 558 (Sub-No.
25) (STB served Aug. 2, 2022). The
Board then applied this revenue
adequacy standard to each Class I
railroad. Five Class I carriers (BNSF
Railroad Company, CSX Transportation,
Inc., Norfolk Southern Combined
Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line
Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad
Company) were found to be revenue
adequate for 2021.
The decision in this proceeding is
posted at www.stb.gov.
Decided: August 31, 2022.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs,
Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022–19321 Filed 9–6–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. 2013–0259]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Advisory
Circular: Reporting of Laser
Illumination of Aircraft
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval renew information collection.
Advisory Circular 70–2A provides
guidance to civilian air crews on the
reporting of laser illumination incidents
and recommended mitigation actions to
be taken in order to ensure continued
safe and orderly flight operations.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by November 1, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Please send written
comments:
By Electronic Docket:
www.regulations.gov (Enter docket
number into search field).
By mail: Barbara Hall by email at:
Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation
Administration, ASP–110, 10101
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Sep 06, 2022
Jkt 256001
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbra Hall by email at: Barbra.L.Hall@
faa.gov; phone: 940–594–5913.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
OMB Control Number: 2120–0698
Title: Advisory Circular (AC):
Reporting of Laser Illumination of
Aircraft.
Form Numbers: Advisory Circular 70–
2A, Reporting of Laser Illumination of
Aircraft.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: Advisory Circular 70–2A
provides guidance to civilian air crews
on the reporting of laser illumination
incidents and recommended mitigation
actions to be taken in order to ensure
continued safe and orderly flight
operations. Information is collected
from pilots and aircrews that are
affected by an unauthorized
illumination by lasers. The requested
reporting involves an immediate
broadcast notification to Air Traffic
Control (ATC) when the incident
occurs, as well as a broadcast warning
of the incident if the aircrew is flying in
uncontrolled airspace. In addition, the
AC requests that the aircrew supply a
written report of the incident and send
it by fax or email to the Washington
Operations Control Complex (WOCC) as
soon as possible.
Respondents: Approximately 1,100
pilots and crewmembers.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 10 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 183
hours.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 1,
2022.
Sandra Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, Aviation Safety,
Safety Standards, AFS–260.
[FR Doc. 2022–19318 Filed 9–6–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54749
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0079; Notice 2]
Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Maserati North America, Inc.,
(MNA), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2014–2021 Maserati
Ghibli, Quattroporte, and Levante motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection. MNA filed a noncompliance
report dated August 5, 2021. MNA
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
August 30, 2021, and amended its
petition on January 13, 2022, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of MNA’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Syed Rahaman, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 306–7018, Syed.Rahaman@
dot.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
MNA has determined that certain MY
2014–2021 Maserati Levante, Ghibli,
and Quattroporte motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph
S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR
571.208).
MNA filed a noncompliance report
dated August 5, 2021, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. MNA subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and
amended its petition on January 13,
2022, 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 MNA’s petition
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on January 31, 2022,
in the Federal Register (87 FR 4991). No
comments were received. To view the
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
54750
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Notices
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2021–
0079.’’
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 78,588 MY 2014–2021
Maserati Levante, Ghibli, and
Quattroporte motor vehicles,
manufactured between April 30, 2013,
and July 13, 2021, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance
MNA explains that the subject
vehicles are equipped with air bag
warning labels that are affixed to the
headliner, rather than either side of the
sun visor, as required by S4.5.1(b)(3) of
FMVSS No. 208.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No.
208, includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. Vehicles certified to
meet the requirements specified in S19,
S21, or S23 on or after September 1,
2003, shall have a label permanently
affixed to either side of the sun visor, at
the manufacturer’s option, at each front
outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
V. Summary of MNA’s Petition
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of MNA’s Petition,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by MNA. They do
not reflect the views of the Agency.
MNA describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
MNA says that the sun visor is affixed
with an air bag alert label that informs
‘‘passengers to flip the sun visor to the
down position’’ to view the warning
label. MNA also says that although the
air bag warning label is affixed to the
headliner, the label is clearly visible
when the sun visor is in the down
position. In its petition, MNA provides
computer-aided design (CAD)
illustrations of the air bag alert label and
noncompliant air bag warning label.
MNA states its belief that although the
air bag warning label is not positioned
on the sun visor, the combination with
the air bag alert label on the sun visor
with the warning label on the headliner
provides a prominent display as
intended by FMVSS No. 208. In support
of this argument, MNA cites a 2016
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
on Vehicle Defect Reporting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Sep 06, 2022
Jkt 256001
Requirements 1 in which MNA says
NHTSA assessed ‘‘the suitability of the
headliner for safety warning labels in
Section IV, Alternatives Considered and
Proposed for the Label, and finds the
headliner to be an effective location for
a safety warning label.’’ MNA cites
NHTSA as stating that it recognizes ‘‘the
headliner as an effective location for
safety warning labels.’’ MNA further
states that NHTSA has found the
headliner to be of similar benefit as the
sun visor for the placement of the air
bag warning label. Id.
MNA says it ‘‘is not aware of any
crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this
condition’’ and that production is being
updated to correct the noncompliance
in future vehicles.
MNA concludes 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.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis
In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which a recall would otherwise
protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries when determining if a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety. The absence of complaints does
not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it
mean that there will not be safety issues
in the future.3
NHTSA focuses on the consequence
to an occupant who is exposed to the
1 See
81 FR 85478 (November 28, 2016)
Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR
35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had
no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect
on the proper operation of the occupant
classification system and the correct deployment of
an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013)
(finding occupant using noncompliant light source
would not be exposed to significantly greater risk
than occupant using similar compliant light
source).
3 See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect
poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in
hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine
fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some
such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be
expected to occur in the future’’).
2 See
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consequence of that noncompliance.4
The Safety Act is preventive, and
manufacturers cannot and should not
wait for deaths or injuries to occur in
their vehicles before they carry out a
recall.5 Indeed, the very purpose of a
recall is to protect individuals from risk.
Id.
FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(b)(3) requires
air bag warning labels to be affixed to
either side of the sun visor. The purpose
of FMVSS No. 208 is to reduce the
adverse effects of air bags by attracting
the attention of vehicle occupants to
look for the air bag warning label on the
sun visor. In its petition, MNA explains
that the subject vehicles are equipped
with air bag warning labels that are
affixed to the headliner, rather than
either side of the sun visor
FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(c) requires an
air bag alert label to be permanently
affixed to the sun visor so that the label
is visible when the visor is in the
stowed position if the air bag warning
label required by S4.5.1(b) is not visible
when the sun visor is in the stowed
position. The alert label must contain
the content of the sun visor label as
shown in Figure 6(c) of FMVSS No. 208.
This requirement specifies that
manufacturers, who place the label
required by S4.5.1(b)(3) on the side of
the visor that is hidden from the
occupant when stowed, must place an
air bag alert label on the visible part of
the sun visor. MNA has done this and
used the correct Figure 6(c) label.
NHTSA believes this to be adequate
notice to the occupant instructing them
to ‘‘flip visor over’’ and view the full air
bag warning label. In the case of the
subject vehicles, the occupant would
clearly see the required warning label
on the headliner directly above the sun
visor.
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of
the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by MNA and has
determined that this particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees
with MNA that the noncompliant
placement of the air bag warning label
in the subject vehicles is
inconsequential. Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3)
allows for placement of the air bag
warning label on either side of the sun
visor, including the side that is hidden
from the driver when stowed. Paragraph
S4.5.1(c) requires an instructional alert
4 See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 2004); Cosco Inc.;
Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408,
29409 (June 1, 1999).
5 See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565
F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2022 / Notices
label informing the occupant to flip the
visor over, placing the visor in the down
position, for more information. MNA
explained that the label is clearly visible
when the sun visor is in the down
position and is displayed as intended by
FMVSS No. 208.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA finds that MNA has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 208 noncompliance in the
affected vehicles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
MNA’s petition is hereby granted and
MNA is consequently exempted from
the obligation of providing notification
of, and a free 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
vehicles that MNA 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 MNA 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. 2022–19234 Filed 9–6–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
[Docket No. OST–2022–0074]
Privacy Act of 1974; Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT/FAA 811, FAA
Health Information Records
Office of the Departmental
Chief Information Officer, Office of the
Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of a modified Privacy Act
system of records.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Sep 06, 2022
Jkt 256001
In accordance with the
Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) proposes to
rename, update, and reissue an existing
system of records notice currently titled
DOT Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) system of records DOT/FAA 811,
‘‘Employee Health Record System.’’
This system of records notice (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘Notice’’) previously
covered FAA employees only. FAA
employee occupational health care
records and Health Awareness Program
records are currently covered under the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)/
Government (GOVT)—10 Employee
Medical File System Records SORN (80
FR 74815—November 30, 2015). The
updated Notice covers the FAA’s
collection, use, and maintenance of nonoccupational health records on federal
employees, as well as FAA contractors
and members of the public, such as
students, interns and training and
research participants, who receive
emergency medical services at either the
Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
(CAMI) Occupational Health Clinic
located at the Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center (MMAC) in
Oklahoma City, OK, or the FAA
Headquarters (HQ) Health Unit located
in the HQ building in Washington, DC.
Additionally, it covers FAA’s collection
of participation status (i.e., eligible,
ineligible) on members of the public
who engage in research and training
programs at the agency. Any medical
records collected in the course of these
research or training programs is outside
the scope of this Notice. The data
collected in the system is a combination
of health information and Personally
Identifiable Information (PII) which is
used to provide proper medical care and
case management.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted on or before October 7, 2022.
The Department may publish an
amended Systems of Records Notice in
light of any comments received. This
new system will be effective October 7,
2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number OST–
2022–0074 by any of the following
methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54751
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251. Instructions:
You must include the agency name and
docket number Docket No. OST–2022–
0074. All comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act
statement in the Federal Register
published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR
3316–3317), or you may visit https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions, please contact Karyn
Gorman, Acting Departmental Chief
Privacy Officer, Privacy Office,
Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590; privacy@
dot.gov; or 202–366–3140.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice Updates
This Notice update includes
substantive changes to system name,
system location, system manager,
purpose, categories of individuals,
categories of records, record source
categories, routine uses of records
maintained in the system, policies and
practices for retrieval of records,
policies and practices for retention and
disposal of records, policies and
practices for storage of records, and
record access procedures; and nonsubstantive changes to administrative,
technical and physical safeguards,
contesting record procedures, and
notification procedures. Updates also
include editorial changes to simplify
and clarify language, formatting, and
text of the previously published Notice,
to align with the requirements of Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
Memoranda A–108, and to ensure
consistency with other Notices issued
by the Department of Transportation.
I. Background
In accordance with the Privacy Act of
1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of
Transportation (DOT)/Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) proposes to
modify a DOT system of records titled
E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM
07SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54749-54751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19234]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0079; Notice 2]
Maserati 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: Maserati North America, Inc., (MNA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2014-2021 Maserati Ghibli, Quattroporte, and
Levante motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. MNA filed a
noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021. MNA subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its petition on January 13, 2022,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of
MNA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Syed Rahaman, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 306-7018, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
MNA has determined that certain MY 2014-2021 Maserati Levante,
Ghibli, and Quattroporte motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49
CFR 571.208).
MNA filed a noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
MNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its
petition on January 13, 2022, 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 MNA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 31, 2022, in the Federal Register (87
FR 4991). No comments were received. To view the
[[Page 54750]]
petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2021-0079.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 78,588 MY 2014-2021 Maserati Levante, Ghibli, and
Quattroporte motor vehicles, manufactured between April 30, 2013, and
July 13, 2021, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
MNA explains that the subject vehicles are equipped with air bag
warning labels that are affixed to the headliner, rather than either
side of the sun visor, as required by S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Vehicles certified to meet the requirements
specified in S19, S21, or S23 on or after September 1, 2003, shall have
a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint.
V. Summary of MNA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
MNA. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. MNA describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
MNA says that the sun visor is affixed with an air bag alert label
that informs ``passengers to flip the sun visor to the down position''
to view the warning label. MNA also says that although the air bag
warning label is affixed to the headliner, the label is clearly visible
when the sun visor is in the down position. In its petition, MNA
provides computer-aided design (CAD) illustrations of the air bag alert
label and noncompliant air bag warning label.
MNA states its belief that although the air bag warning label is
not positioned on the sun visor, the combination with the air bag alert
label on the sun visor with the warning label on the headliner provides
a prominent display as intended by FMVSS No. 208. In support of this
argument, MNA cites a 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
Vehicle Defect Reporting Requirements \1\ in which MNA says NHTSA
assessed ``the suitability of the headliner for safety warning labels
in Section IV, Alternatives Considered and Proposed for the Label, and
finds the headliner to be an effective location for a safety warning
label.'' MNA cites NHTSA as stating that it recognizes ``the headliner
as an effective location for safety warning labels.'' MNA further
states that NHTSA has found the headliner to be of similar benefit as
the sun visor for the placement of the air bag warning label. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 81 FR 85478 (November 28, 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MNA says it ``is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition'' and that production is
being updated to correct the noncompliance in future vehicles.
MNA concludes 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to
the consequence of that noncompliance.\4\ The Safety Act is preventive,
and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or injuries to
occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall.\5\ Indeed, the
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
\5\ See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754,
759 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(b)(3) requires air bag warning labels to be
affixed to either side of the sun visor. The purpose of FMVSS No. 208
is to reduce the adverse effects of air bags by attracting the
attention of vehicle occupants to look for the air bag warning label on
the sun visor. In its petition, MNA explains that the subject vehicles
are equipped with air bag warning labels that are affixed to the
headliner, rather than either side of the sun visor
FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(c) requires an air bag alert label to be
permanently affixed to the sun visor so that the label is visible when
the visor is in the stowed position if the air bag warning label
required by S4.5.1(b) is not visible when the sun visor is in the
stowed position. The alert label must contain the content of the sun
visor label as shown in Figure 6(c) of FMVSS No. 208. This requirement
specifies that manufacturers, who place the label required by
S4.5.1(b)(3) on the side of the visor that is hidden from the occupant
when stowed, must place an air bag alert label on the visible part of
the sun visor. MNA has done this and used the correct Figure 6(c)
label. NHTSA believes this to be adequate notice to the occupant
instructing them to ``flip visor over'' and view the full air bag
warning label. In the case of the subject vehicles, the occupant would
clearly see the required warning label on the headliner directly above
the sun visor.
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by MNA and has determined that this particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees
with MNA that the noncompliant placement of the air bag warning label
in the subject vehicles is inconsequential. Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3)
allows for placement of the air bag warning label on either side of the
sun visor, including the side that is hidden from the driver when
stowed. Paragraph S4.5.1(c) requires an instructional alert
[[Page 54751]]
label informing the occupant to flip the visor over, placing the visor
in the down position, for more information. MNA explained that the
label is clearly visible when the sun visor is in the down position and
is displayed as intended by FMVSS No. 208.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that MNA has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 208 noncompliance in
the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MNA's petition is hereby granted and MNA is consequently
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a free
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 vehicles that MNA 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 MNA 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. 2022-19234 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
