Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

PACCAR, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Trucking Topics:  Peterbilt, Kenworth

PACCAR, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Jeffrey Giuseppe
Federal Highway Administration
September 25, 2015


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57911-57912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24454]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0075; Notice 1]


PACCAR, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), has determined that certain Peterbilt 
and Kenworth trucks do not fully comply with paragraph S9.3.2 of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. PACCAR filed an 
appropriate report dated June 12, 2015 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on June 11, 2015 
and revised that report on June 12, 2015.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 26, 
2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), PACCAR submitted a petition 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.
    This notice of receipt of PACCAR's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Trucks Involved: Affected are approximately 197 MY 2015-2016 
Kenworth K270 and K370 manufactured between November 11, 2014 and March 
18, 2015 and MY 2015-2016 Peterbilt 220 manufactured between November 
10, 2014 and March 18, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: PACCAR explains that due to a programming error 
in the cab controller software in the subject trucks, the turn signal 
pilot indicator located on the instrument panel, flashes twice as fast 
as the turn signals flash and therefore do not meet the requirements of 
paragraph S9.3.2 of FMVSS No. 108.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S9.3.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in 
pertinent part:

    S9.3.2 The indicator must consist of one or more lights flashing 
at the same frequency as the turn signal lamps.

    V. Summary of PACCAR's Position: PACCAR stated its belief that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
PACCAR states that the purpose of the turn signal pilot indicator is to 
assure that the vehicle operator can determine whether the turn signal 
system is activated. Thus, PACCAR believes that the pilot indicators in 
the subject trucks fully accomplishes that purpose; i.e., they flash 
when the turn signal is activated, and they cease flashing when the 
turn signal is deactivated (either manually or automatically).
    PACCAR reviewed the agency's decisions on petitions for 
inconsequentiality in connection with various noncompliances with turn 
signal requirements. While PACCAR did not find any prior decisions that 
are similar to this noncompliance, PACCAR believes that NHTSA has 
granted previous petitions in connection with turn signal 
noncompliances that carried potentially greater safety risks.
    PACCAR is not aware of any crashes or injuries associated with the 
noncompliance and it has not received any consumer complaints or 
warranty claims related to this issue.
    PACCAR additionally informed NHTSA that after the noncompliance was 
discovered, all production of the noncompliant trucks in PACCAR's 
possession was put on hold until the software error can be corrected.
    In summation, PACCAR believes that the described noncompliance of 
the subject trucks is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that 
its petition, to exempt PACCAR 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 notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject trucks that PACCAR no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance

[[Page 57912]]

existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant trucks under their control 
after PACCAR 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-24454 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute