Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 76230-76233 [2022-26959]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
76230
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Notices
their flight. SAPT is a web-based tool to
assist aircraft operators in achieving
compliance with the requirements of 14
CFR 91.103, 91.225. and 91.227, and/or
AC 90–100A Change 2, Paragraph 10a.
(5). To ensure that they will meet the
performance requirements for the
duration of the flight, pilots may use the
FAA-provided pre-flight Service
Availability Prediction Tool (SAPT) to
determine predicted navigation or
surveillance availability before a flight.
The SAPT has three main components:
the Receiver Autonomous Integrity
Monitoring (RAIM) SAPT, the ADS–B
SAPT, and the ADS–B Deviation
Authorization Pre-Flight Tool (ADAPT).
The SAPT models the GPS constellation
in order to assess the predicted accuracy
and integrity of GPS position
information used in navigation and
surveillance for a few GPS receiver
Technical Standard Orders (TSOs).
The RAIM SAPT is intended mainly
for pilots, dispatchers, and commercial
operators using TSO–C129 equipment to
check their predicted navigation
horizontal protection level (HPL). It
incorporates TSO–C129 GPS RAIM
predictions to check the availability of
GPS RAIM satisfying the RNAV
requirements of AC 90–100A Change 2,
Paragraph 10(5)).
The ADS–B SAPT is provided to help
operators comply with 14 CFR 91.225
and 91.227 by predicting whether
operators will meet regulatory
requirements, and to advise holders of
FAA Exemption 12555 whether back-up
surveillance will be available for any
waypoints where installed aircraft
avionics are not predicted to meet the
requirements of 14 CFR 91.227(c)(1)(i)
and (iii).
Information collected via ADS–B
SAPT is comparable to that provided by
pilots when they file flight plans, with
some additional information about
aircraft position source TSO and related
capabilities. The ADS–B SAPT
prediction is based on the ability of the
aircraft’s position source (i.e., GPS
receiver) to meet performance
requirements specified in FAA TSOs
C129, C129a, C145c/C146c, and C196,
as well as the predicted status of the
GPS constellation.
The ADS–B SAPT predicts whether
GPS position information will be
sufficient throughout the flight to meet
the performance requirements of 14 CFR
91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii). If a waypoint is
in rule airspace and the aircraft’s
position source is not predicted to meet
the performance requirements of 14 CFR
91.227, the ADS–B SAPT checks for the
availability of back-up surveillance at
that waypoint.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Dec 12, 2022
Jkt 259001
Operators of aircraft equipped with
TSO–C129 (SA-On) GPS receivers must
run a pre-flight prediction. The operator
may use their own prediction tool.
Although Exemption 12555 does not
require operators with SA-On to use the
ADS–B SAPT for pre-flight availability
prediction, if the operator does use their
own tool and receives an indication that
performance will fall below rule
requirements, the operator cannot
obtain back-up surveillance information
from that tool and must either replan
the flight or use ADS–B SAPT to
determine whether back-up surveillance
is available along the planned route of
flight per Exemption 12555.
ADAPT is mandatory for operators
desiring to apply for an ATC
authorization, per 14 CFR 91.225(g), to
fly in ADS–B Out rule airspace using
aircraft with avionics that do not meet
the ADS–B equipage requirements.
ADAPT allows operators to create an air
traffic authorization request to operate
in ADS–B Out rule airspace when either
(1) the aircraft is without ADS–B
equipment; (2) that equipment is
inoperative; or (3) their avionics are not
expected to meet the ADS–B
performance requirements as identified
in 14 CFR 91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii).
Operators who wish to submit an
ADAPT request must complete the
ADS–B SAPT analysis using
information entered into the flight
information entry form before filing the
ADAPT request.
Respondents: These prediction tools
are primarily intended for pilots and
dispatchers; and for anyone who is
planning a flight which passes through
U.S. sovereign airspace, using an aircraft
whose GPS receiver(s) is/are not
guaranteed to meet certain performance
requirements or whose aircraft is not
equipped to meet the requirements of 14
CFR 91.225.
Frequency: As part of the flight
planning process, as required by FAA
policy. For some users, this could be
every flight. For others it will depend on
the specific conditions and performance
requirements.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response:
RAIM SAPT and ADS–B SAPT can be
automated as part of the dispatch
process by operators or flight service
providers, thus eliminating manual
data-entry.
RAIM SAPT—Insignificant, as all
transactions are automated in flight
planning systems.
ADS–B SAPT—5 minutes or less for
transactions input via the flight plan
form, including 1 minute or less to note
the transaction id.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ADAPT—7 minutes or less (includes
up to 2 minutes to check FAA email
response).
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
RAIM SAPT—Insignificant additional
burden.
ADS–B SAPT—Approximately 2159
hours.
ADAPT—Approximately 590 hours.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 7,
2022.
Jamal Wilson,
SAPT Project Lead | In-Service Performance
and Sustainment (AJM–4220), Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022–26972 Filed 12–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0125; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:
Mercedes-Benz AG (MB AG)
and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
(collectively, ‘‘Mercedes-Benz’’),
formerly known as Daimler AG has
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG GT
motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection
in Interior Impact. Mercedes-Benz filed
a noncompliance report dated October
18, 2019, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on November 7, 2019, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This notice announces
the denial of Mercedes-Benz’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Nuschler, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202)
366–5829.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Overview
Mercedes-Benz has determined that
certain MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG
GT motor vehicles do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No.
201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact (49 CFR 571.201).
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance
report dated October 18, 2019, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Notices
Reports, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on November 7, 2019, 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 Mercedes-Benz’s
petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on May 21,
2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
31023). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management Systems (FDMS) website
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019–
0125.’’
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 12 MY 2019
Mercedes-Benz GT63, GT53, and GT63S
AMG motor vehicles, manufactured
between August 29, 2017, and March 4,
2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Mercedes-Benz explains that an
interior compartment door assembly in
the subject vehicles does not meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.3.1(c) of
FMVSS No. 201. Specifically, the front
center console storage compartment
sliding lid may open briefly in certain
types of forward crashes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1(a) and
S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201, include the
requirements relevant to this petition.
Each interior compartment door
assembly located in an instrument
panel, console assembly, seat back, or
side panel adjacent to a designated
seating position shall remain closed
when tested in accordance with either
S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) or S5.3.1(a) and
S5.3.1(c). S5.3.1(a) subjects the interior
compartment door latch system to an
inertia load of 10g in a horizontal
transverse direction and an inertia load
of 10g in a vertical direction in
accordance with the procedure
described in section 5 of SAE
Recommended Practice J839b (1965)
(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5),
or an approved equivalent. Further,
S5.3.1(c) subjects the interior
compartment door latch system to a
horizontal inertia load of 30g in a
longitudinal direction in accordance
with the procedure described in section
5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Dec 12, 2022
Jkt 259001
(1965) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 571.5), or an approved equivalent.
V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz’s
Petition
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Mercedes-Benz’s Petition,’’ are the
views and arguments provided by
Mercedes-Benz. They do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Mercedes-Benz
describes the subject noncompliance
and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
Background: Prior to the introduction
of the MY 2019 AMG GT vehicles to the
United States market, MB AG found that
the lid of the front center console could
open for a matter of milliseconds and
that the supplier of the compartment
had tested the locking mechanism of the
door with 24g of force, instead of the
30g force requirement contained in
S5.3.1(c). The crash lock was updated in
production, prior to introduction to the
U.S. market, to ensure conformance to
the force requirements in S5.3.1(c) and
vehicles in the company’s possession
were reworked.1 MB AG later identified
12 vehicles that had not received the
improved crash lock mechanism prior to
being released into the field and made
a determination to submit a part 573
Noncompliance Information Report on
October 11, 2019. In support of its
petition, Mercedes-Benz submits the
following reasoning:
1. At issue in this petition are a total
of 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG GT
vehicles. MB AG previously determined
that the interior compartment door
located within the vehicle’s center
console does not fully meet the
requirement in FMVSS No. 201,
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,
when tested to the demonstration
procedure for frontal crash set forth in
the standard. In a frontal crash scenario,
there is a possibility for the lid of the
interior compartment door in the center
console to open for a matter of
milliseconds, after which the door will
automatically close again.
2. Mercedes-Benz states that due to
the location and geometry of the
compartment door, there is no risk of
injury even if it were to open in a frontal
crash. Mercedes-Benz states that the
door is located in the center console,
below the invehicle display, and does
not present an opportunity to strike
1 The crash lock mechanism is not installed on
vehicles offered for sale outside of the United
States, Canada and South Korea, where FMVSS 201
or its equivalent has been adopted. According to the
petition, MB AG is not aware of any claims or
reports of injuries due to the performance of the
interior compartment door in any market.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76231
vehicle occupants when opened.
Further, because the design of the door
slides forward and into the center
console when it opens, there is similarly
no risk of injury from the performance
of the door. Finally, although the
purpose and objective of the standard is
to protect against injury from hard and
sharp surfaces in the event of a crash,
because the compartment door will
automatically close within an extremely
short period of time (a matter of
milliseconds) from opening and because
the door may only open during a frontal
crash in which case any objects within
the compartment would only move in a
forward direction and not rearward into
the occupant compartment, there is no
risk of harm from objects inside the
compartment escaping into the
occupant space.
3. The Performance of the
Compartment Door Does Not Create an
Increased Safety Risk: Mercedes-Benz
cites the provisions of the Safety Act, 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
basis upon which NHTSA evaluates an
inconsequentiality petition ‘‘whether an
occupant who is affected by the
noncompliance is likely to be exposed
to a significantly greater risk than an
occupant in a compliant vehicle.’’ See
69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004)
(emphasis added).
As described below, the issue here
does not impact the operational safety of
the vehicle and will not create an
enhanced risk to vehicle occupants
because, in the limited, frontal crash
scenario in which the door could
potentially open, neither the door itself
nor any objects within the compartment
could cause injury to vehicle occupants.
4. Description of the Compartment
Door: Mercedes-Benz explains that the
interior compartment door at issue in
this petition is a storage compartment
used in vehicles with the Wireless
Media Interface (WMI) package. The
WMI feature allows users to wirelessly
charge cell phones within the
compartment and the compartment can
also be used to store small objects like
coins and accessories. The compartment
is located within the center console
between the driver and front passenger’s
seat and the storage portion of the
compartment is approximately 15 cm/6
inches long and 13 cm/5 inches deep.
In normal use, the door remains shut
until an occupant pushes the door
forward. The door moves forward in an
upward direction, towards the front of
the vehicle. When reaching the top, the
door is enclosed within the housing of
the compartment itself and, with an
additional push is snapped into place to
remain open. Once it is snapped into
place, in order to close the door an
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
76232
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Notices
occupant can pull the door slightly from
the housing. The door then closes
automatically. As a result, if the door
does open briefly during a frontal crash
and is not pushed fully into the latched
open position, Mercedes-Benz states it
will quickly and automatically close.
5. It is Not Possible for the
Compartment Door to Strike Occupants:
Mercedes-Benz states that the
performance of the interior
compartment door does not present any
of the safety risks contemplated by
FMVSS No. 201 because there is no risk
of vehicle occupants coming into
contact with or striking the
compartment door. When originally
promulgated, the interior compartment
door provisions in FMVSS No. 201 were
focused on preventing injuries that
could occur from hard interior doors,
such as the glove compartment door,
striking an occupant. See 33 FR 15794
(October 24, 1968) (considering ‘‘the
potential injury that can be caused by an
open interior compartment door because
. . . [prior requirements] do not afford
protection against the type of protrusion
created by an open interior
compartment door’’) (emphasis added);
see also Letter to M. Smith, August 26,
1988 (‘‘the purpose of the requirement
is to prevent a door from flying open
and striking an occupant in a crash.’’)
The standard, which was also
promulgated at a time when seat belt
use was substantially lower than it is
today, was directed toward mitigating
injuries that can be caused by interior
doors with hard and sharp surfaces
opening unexpectedly. That risk is not
present here.
The location, geometry, and operation
of the compartment door prevent it from
causing or contributing to an injury in
the event of a crash. The door is located
in the bottom of the center console, in
the area between the driver and front
passenger seats. Mercedes-Benz states
that the door is installed in a location
where it could not strike a vehicle
occupant should it open in a crash. The
door, moreover, does not have any sharp
edges and is not comprised of a hard,
metal surface.
Further, Mercedes-Benz states that
because of the manner in which the
door opens, there is no opportunity for
the door to strike a vehicle occupant.
The door covering slides forwards and
into the housing of the compartment
itself, it does not extend outwards into
the passenger compartment which is the
concern that the standard is intended to
address. In typical use, the operator
slides the door covering away towards
the front of the vehicle, away from the
occupant compartment and into the
center console where it becomes fully
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Dec 12, 2022
Jkt 259001
enclosed within the housing. By
contrast, glove box doors and other
interior compartment doors on hinges
that open outwards and into the
occupant compartment are the
traditional types of doors that FMVSS
No. 201 was designed to address
because the door’s surface could come
into contact with a vehicle occupant if
it opened in a crash. Mercedes-Benz
contends that this same risk does not
exist with the door covering in the AMG
vehicles based on its geometry and
design.
Additionally, the compartment door
will automatically close after opening if
it has not been snapped into place to
stay open. In the event of a frontal crash
force that is severe enough to cause the
door to open, the door would open for
an extremely short period of time, a
matter of milliseconds, and then would
automatically pull back into place and
the door will close again. Because of the
design and operation of the door, it
remains open for a matter of
milliseconds seconds after which it will
retreat back into its fully closed
position.
6. There is No Risk of Injury to
Occupants from Objects Escaping the
Compartment: Mercedes-Benz states
there is no potential for items inside the
storage compartment to escape and
injure vehicle occupants. Although the
scope of the standard has always been
focused on risks of injury presented by
the hard surface of vehicle doors
opening in a crash, Mercedes-Benz
claims that there is similarly no
enhanced risk to safety from items
escaping the compartment and causing
injury. The compartment door has the
potential to open only in specific
situations, a frontal crash with loads
exceeding 24 g of force. Mercedes-Benz
states that the compartment door
operates within the requirements of the
standard at all other times.2 MercedesBenz states that even in a crash where
the load force was severe enough, the
compartment lid would open and
completely close again within
approximately 250 ms of the crash.
Mercedes-Benz claims that even in a
front end crash that was severe enough
to open the compartment door, the
direction of the crash forces precludes
objects from escaping. In a front end
collision with high vehicle deceleration,
any objects inside the storage
compartment at the time would shift
forward, in the same direction in which
the vehicle is moving. According to
Mercedes-Benz, because the force of
deceleration causes the items to shift
2 The vehicles fully meet the performance
requirements when tested to S5.3.l(a) and S5.3.l(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
forward, they will move forward and
deeper into the compartment and will
remain enclosed within the
compartment during the crash event.
During the intervening moments
following the crash, the door will
automatically close and secure the items
within the compartment.
7. Mercedes-Benz states that the above
described discrepancy does not create a
safety risk and that it is not aware of any
warranty claims, field reports, customer
complaints, legal claims, or injuries
related to this noncompliance. Even if
the compartment door was to open in
the event of a severe crash, there is no
increased risk of injury due to the
location of the door covering itself, its
operation and design that allows it to
retract into the console housing and the
fact that it will automatically close after
an extremely short period of time.
Mercedes-Benz states that vehicle
occupants are not at risk of coming into
contact with the door itself (when
opened or closed) and there is no risk
of objects stored inside the compartment
from escaping into the occupant space.
Mercedes-Benz concludes that the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety and that 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
FMVSS No. 201 establishes
performance requirements designed to
reduce the risk of injury in the event an
occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle
during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201
specifies that doors to interior
compartments must remain latched
when subjected to certain forces that
might be experienced in a crash.
NHTSA notes first that a petitioner
seeking relief from the notification and
remedy requirements must, when
requesting the Agency to grant a petition
for inconsequential noncompliance,
meet the burden of persuasion to obtain
relief. Further, the burden of
establishing the inconsequentiality of a
failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard—as opposed
to a labeling requirement—is more
substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found
many such noncompliances
inconsequential.3 Potential performance
3 Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition
for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14,
2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was
expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to
vehicle occupants or approaching drivers).
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2022 / Notices
failures of safety-critical equipment, like
seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
An important issue to consider in
determining inconsequentiality based
upon NHTSA’s prior decisions on
noncompliance issues was the safety
risk to individuals who experience the
type of event against which the recall
would otherwise protect.4 NHTSA also
does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries to show that the
issue is inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most
importantly, the absence of a complaint
does not mean there have not been any
safety issues, nor does it mean that there
will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 5
‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases
good luck and swift reaction have
prevented many serious injuries does
not mean that good luck will continue
to work.’’ 6
Arguments that only a small number
of vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment are affected have also not
justified granting an inconsequentiality
petition.7 Similarly, NHTSA has
rejected petitions based on the assertion
that only a small percentage of vehicles
or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that
could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the
question of inconsequentiality. Rather,
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
4 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).
5 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR
21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
6 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’’).
7 See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 2001)
(rejecting argument that noncompliance was
inconsequential because of the small number of
vehicles affected); Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.;
Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016)
(noting that situations involving individuals
trapped in motor vehicles—while infrequent—are
consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.;
Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21664 (Apr. 12,
2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very
low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited
basis).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:56 Dec 12, 2022
Jkt 259001
the issue to consider is the consequence
to an occupant who is exposed to the
consequence of that noncompliance.8
These considerations are also relevant
when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Mercedes-Benz states that the door is
located in the center console, below the
in-vehicle display, and does not present
an opportunity to strike vehicle
occupants when opened. Further,
Mercedes-Benz states the design of the
door slides forward and into the center
console when it opens and presents
little or no opportunity for any contact
between the vehicle’s occupants and the
door. Finally, although the purpose and
objective of the standard are to protect
against injury from hard and sharp
surfaces in the event of a crash,
Mercedes-Benz states the compartment
door will automatically close within 250
ms.
Without presenting any test data or
other information supporting this thesis,
Mercedes-Benz argues that in a frontal
crash there is the possibility that the
center console door will open for a
matter of milliseconds then
automatically close. Specifically,
Mercedes-Benz represents that there is
‘‘no risk of injury to occupants from
objects escaping the compartment . . .
only opening in crash loads exceeding
24 g of force . . . and would open and
completely close within approximately
250 ms.’’ NHTSA notes that frontal
crash events, such as seen in NHTSA
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection compliance tests or New Car
Assessment Program Tests, terminate in
150 ms or less and can exceed 24 g.
NHTSA finds that in the instant case,
the mere assertion that the center
console door will open for up to 250 ms
and then automatically close is not
sufficiently persuasive to justify
granting the relief Mercedes-Benz seeks.
In addition, the Agency has never made
a distinction between sliding interior
compartment doors and other, pivoting
or hinged doors that project outward
when opened. Mercedes-Benz asserts
that an open sliding compartment door
does not present a potential for
occupant injury because an open sliding
compartment door does not project
outward into the interior of the vehicle.
S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 requires that
doors in the console or a side panel
remain closed regardless of the method
by which a manufacturer chooses to
open or close them. The concern that an
8 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76233
open door could cause occupant injury
is not limited to a protrusion created by
an open door. Rather, the concern
addressed by the requirement is that a
sharp or rigid surface does not expose
an occupant to undue risk of injury. In
other words, we do not consider the risk
posed by the sharp edges of the door
itself to be the only risk addressed by
FMVSS No. 201. Surfaces that should be
masked by a door may themselves pose
risks to occupants during a crash.9
Finally, Mercedes-Benz represents
that it is ‘‘not aware of any warranty
claims, field reports, customer
complaints, legal claims, or injuries
related to this noncompliance.’’ As
noted above, NHTSA does not consider
the absence of complaints or injuries to
show that the issue is inconsequential to
safety.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has
not met its burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 201 noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, the petition
is hereby denied and Mercedes-Benz is
not exempt from the obligation to
provide notification of, and remedy for,
the subject noncompliance in the
affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30018
and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022–26959 Filed 12–12–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Electronic Tax Administration
Advisory Committee; Meeting
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of Meeting.
AGENCY:
The Electronic Tax
Administration Advisory Committee
(ETAAC) will hold a public meeting via
telephone conference line on
Wednesday, January 11, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alec Johnston, Office of National Public
Liaison, at (202) 317–4299, or send an
email to publicliaison@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given pursuant to section
SUMMARY:
9 See Agency Interpretation to D. Haenchen,
Volkswagen of America, Inc., February 12, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76230-76233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0125; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (MB AG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz''), formerly known as Daimler AG has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG GT motor
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Mercedes-Benz
filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces the denial of Mercedes-Benz's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nuschler, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5829.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG
GT motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS
No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201).
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and
[[Page 76231]]
Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 2019, 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 Mercedes-Benz's petition was published, with a
30-day public comment period, on May 21, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 31023). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management Systems
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0125.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz GT63, GT53, and GT63S AMG
motor vehicles, manufactured between August 29, 2017, and March 4,
2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Mercedes-Benz explains that an interior compartment door assembly
in the subject vehicles does not meet the requirements of paragraph
S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201. Specifically, the front center console
storage compartment sliding lid may open briefly in certain types of
forward crashes.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201, include
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each interior compartment
door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat
back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall
remain closed when tested in accordance with either S5.3.1(a) and
S5.3.1(b) or S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c). S5.3.1(a) subjects the interior
compartment door latch system to an inertia load of 10g in a horizontal
transverse direction and an inertia load of 10g in a vertical direction
in accordance with the procedure described in section 5 of SAE
Recommended Practice J839b (1965) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
571.5), or an approved equivalent. Further, S5.3.1(c) subjects the
interior compartment door latch system to a horizontal inertia load of
30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedure
described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b (1965)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 571.5), or an approved
equivalent.
V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Mercedes-Benz. They do not reflect the views of the Agency.
Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Background: Prior to the introduction of the MY 2019 AMG GT
vehicles to the United States market, MB AG found that the lid of the
front center console could open for a matter of milliseconds and that
the supplier of the compartment had tested the locking mechanism of the
door with 24g of force, instead of the 30g force requirement contained
in S5.3.1(c). The crash lock was updated in production, prior to
introduction to the U.S. market, to ensure conformance to the force
requirements in S5.3.1(c) and vehicles in the company's possession were
reworked.\1\ MB AG later identified 12 vehicles that had not received
the improved crash lock mechanism prior to being released into the
field and made a determination to submit a part 573 Noncompliance
Information Report on October 11, 2019. In support of its petition,
Mercedes-Benz submits the following reasoning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The crash lock mechanism is not installed on vehicles
offered for sale outside of the United States, Canada and South
Korea, where FMVSS 201 or its equivalent has been adopted. According
to the petition, MB AG is not aware of any claims or reports of
injuries due to the performance of the interior compartment door in
any market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. At issue in this petition are a total of 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-
Benz AMG GT vehicles. MB AG previously determined that the interior
compartment door located within the vehicle's center console does not
fully meet the requirement in FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, when tested to the demonstration procedure for frontal
crash set forth in the standard. In a frontal crash scenario, there is
a possibility for the lid of the interior compartment door in the
center console to open for a matter of milliseconds, after which the
door will automatically close again.
2. Mercedes-Benz states that due to the location and geometry of
the compartment door, there is no risk of injury even if it were to
open in a frontal crash. Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located
in the center console, below the invehicle display, and does not
present an opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened.
Further, because the design of the door slides forward and into the
center console when it opens, there is similarly no risk of injury from
the performance of the door. Finally, although the purpose and
objective of the standard is to protect against injury from hard and
sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, because the compartment door
will automatically close within an extremely short period of time (a
matter of milliseconds) from opening and because the door may only open
during a frontal crash in which case any objects within the compartment
would only move in a forward direction and not rearward into the
occupant compartment, there is no risk of harm from objects inside the
compartment escaping into the occupant space.
3. The Performance of the Compartment Door Does Not Create an
Increased Safety Risk: Mercedes-Benz cites the provisions of the Safety
Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the basis upon which NHTSA
evaluates an inconsequentiality petition ``whether an occupant who is
affected by the noncompliance is likely to be exposed to a
significantly greater risk than an occupant in a compliant vehicle.''
See 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004) (emphasis added).
As described below, the issue here does not impact the operational
safety of the vehicle and will not create an enhanced risk to vehicle
occupants because, in the limited, frontal crash scenario in which the
door could potentially open, neither the door itself nor any objects
within the compartment could cause injury to vehicle occupants.
4. Description of the Compartment Door: Mercedes-Benz explains that
the interior compartment door at issue in this petition is a storage
compartment used in vehicles with the Wireless Media Interface (WMI)
package. The WMI feature allows users to wirelessly charge cell phones
within the compartment and the compartment can also be used to store
small objects like coins and accessories. The compartment is located
within the center console between the driver and front passenger's seat
and the storage portion of the compartment is approximately 15 cm/6
inches long and 13 cm/5 inches deep.
In normal use, the door remains shut until an occupant pushes the
door forward. The door moves forward in an upward direction, towards
the front of the vehicle. When reaching the top, the door is enclosed
within the housing of the compartment itself and, with an additional
push is snapped into place to remain open. Once it is snapped into
place, in order to close the door an
[[Page 76232]]
occupant can pull the door slightly from the housing. The door then
closes automatically. As a result, if the door does open briefly during
a frontal crash and is not pushed fully into the latched open position,
Mercedes-Benz states it will quickly and automatically close.
5. It is Not Possible for the Compartment Door to Strike Occupants:
Mercedes-Benz states that the performance of the interior compartment
door does not present any of the safety risks contemplated by FMVSS No.
201 because there is no risk of vehicle occupants coming into contact
with or striking the compartment door. When originally promulgated, the
interior compartment door provisions in FMVSS No. 201 were focused on
preventing injuries that could occur from hard interior doors, such as
the glove compartment door, striking an occupant. See 33 FR 15794
(October 24, 1968) (considering ``the potential injury that can be
caused by an open interior compartment door because . . . [prior
requirements] do not afford protection against the type of protrusion
created by an open interior compartment door'') (emphasis added); see
also Letter to M. Smith, August 26, 1988 (``the purpose of the
requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an
occupant in a crash.'') The standard, which was also promulgated at a
time when seat belt use was substantially lower than it is today, was
directed toward mitigating injuries that can be caused by interior
doors with hard and sharp surfaces opening unexpectedly. That risk is
not present here.
The location, geometry, and operation of the compartment door
prevent it from causing or contributing to an injury in the event of a
crash. The door is located in the bottom of the center console, in the
area between the driver and front passenger seats. Mercedes-Benz states
that the door is installed in a location where it could not strike a
vehicle occupant should it open in a crash. The door, moreover, does
not have any sharp edges and is not comprised of a hard, metal surface.
Further, Mercedes-Benz states that because of the manner in which
the door opens, there is no opportunity for the door to strike a
vehicle occupant. The door covering slides forwards and into the
housing of the compartment itself, it does not extend outwards into the
passenger compartment which is the concern that the standard is
intended to address. In typical use, the operator slides the door
covering away towards the front of the vehicle, away from the occupant
compartment and into the center console where it becomes fully enclosed
within the housing. By contrast, glove box doors and other interior
compartment doors on hinges that open outwards and into the occupant
compartment are the traditional types of doors that FMVSS No. 201 was
designed to address because the door's surface could come into contact
with a vehicle occupant if it opened in a crash. Mercedes-Benz contends
that this same risk does not exist with the door covering in the AMG
vehicles based on its geometry and design.
Additionally, the compartment door will automatically close after
opening if it has not been snapped into place to stay open. In the
event of a frontal crash force that is severe enough to cause the door
to open, the door would open for an extremely short period of time, a
matter of milliseconds, and then would automatically pull back into
place and the door will close again. Because of the design and
operation of the door, it remains open for a matter of milliseconds
seconds after which it will retreat back into its fully closed
position.
6. There is No Risk of Injury to Occupants from Objects Escaping
the Compartment: Mercedes-Benz states there is no potential for items
inside the storage compartment to escape and injure vehicle occupants.
Although the scope of the standard has always been focused on risks of
injury presented by the hard surface of vehicle doors opening in a
crash, Mercedes-Benz claims that there is similarly no enhanced risk to
safety from items escaping the compartment and causing injury. The
compartment door has the potential to open only in specific situations,
a frontal crash with loads exceeding 24 g of force. Mercedes-Benz
states that the compartment door operates within the requirements of
the standard at all other times.\2\ Mercedes-Benz states that even in a
crash where the load force was severe enough, the compartment lid would
open and completely close again within approximately 250 ms of the
crash. Mercedes-Benz claims that even in a front end crash that was
severe enough to open the compartment door, the direction of the crash
forces precludes objects from escaping. In a front end collision with
high vehicle deceleration, any objects inside the storage compartment
at the time would shift forward, in the same direction in which the
vehicle is moving. According to Mercedes-Benz, because the force of
deceleration causes the items to shift forward, they will move forward
and deeper into the compartment and will remain enclosed within the
compartment during the crash event. During the intervening moments
following the crash, the door will automatically close and secure the
items within the compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The vehicles fully meet the performance requirements when
tested to S5.3.l(a) and S5.3.l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Mercedes-Benz states that the above described discrepancy does
not create a safety risk and that it is not aware of any warranty
claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or injuries
related to this noncompliance. Even if the compartment door was to open
in the event of a severe crash, there is no increased risk of injury
due to the location of the door covering itself, its operation and
design that allows it to retract into the console housing and the fact
that it will automatically close after an extremely short period of
time. Mercedes-Benz states that vehicle occupants are not at risk of
coming into contact with the door itself (when opened or closed) and
there is no risk of objects stored inside the compartment from escaping
into the occupant space.
Mercedes-Benz concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that 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
FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to
reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior
of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors
to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain
forces that might be experienced in a crash.
NHTSA notes first that a petitioner seeking relief from the
notification and remedy requirements must, when requesting the Agency
to grant a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, meet the burden
of persuasion to obtain relief. Further, the burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\3\ Potential
performance
[[Page 76233]]
failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are
rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\4\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \5\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\6\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\7\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\8\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located in the center
console, below the in-vehicle display, and does not present an
opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened. Further, Mercedes-
Benz states the design of the door slides forward and into the center
console when it opens and presents little or no opportunity for any
contact between the vehicle's occupants and the door. Finally, although
the purpose and objective of the standard are to protect against injury
from hard and sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, Mercedes-Benz
states the compartment door will automatically close within 250 ms.
Without presenting any test data or other information supporting
this thesis, Mercedes-Benz argues that in a frontal crash there is the
possibility that the center console door will open for a matter of
milliseconds then automatically close. Specifically, Mercedes-Benz
represents that there is ``no risk of injury to occupants from objects
escaping the compartment . . . only opening in crash loads exceeding 24
g of force . . . and would open and completely close within
approximately 250 ms.'' NHTSA notes that frontal crash events, such as
seen in NHTSA FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection compliance tests
or New Car Assessment Program Tests, terminate in 150 ms or less and
can exceed 24 g.
NHTSA finds that in the instant case, the mere assertion that the
center console door will open for up to 250 ms and then automatically
close is not sufficiently persuasive to justify granting the relief
Mercedes-Benz seeks. In addition, the Agency has never made a
distinction between sliding interior compartment doors and other,
pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. Mercedes-
Benz asserts that an open sliding compartment door does not present a
potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door
does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of
FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain
closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open
or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant
injury is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather,
the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid
surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury. In other
words, we do not consider the risk posed by the sharp edges of the door
itself to be the only risk addressed by FMVSS No. 201. Surfaces that
should be masked by a door may themselves pose risks to occupants
during a crash.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Agency Interpretation to D. Haenchen, Volkswagen of
America, Inc., February 12, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mercedes-Benz represents that it is ``not aware of any
warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or
injuries related to this noncompliance.'' As noted above, NHTSA does
not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the
issue is inconsequential to safety.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 201 noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the petition is hereby denied and
Mercedes-Benz is not exempt from the obligation to provide notification
of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles
under 49 U.S.C. 30018 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26959 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
