Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, on Behalf of Daimler AG, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Mercedes-Benz C-Class
|
Claude H. Harris
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
July 22, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43967-43968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0115; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, on Behalf of Daimler AG, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of petition .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), \1\ on behalf of itself and
its parent company Daimler AG (DAG),\2\ has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2012 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (204 platform) passenger
cars manufactured between March and August 2011, do not fully comply
with paragraph S4.3(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle
trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. MBUSA has filed an
appropriate report dated May 4, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a U.S. company that manufacturers
and imports motor vehicles.
\2\ Daimler AG is a German company that manufactures motor
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MBUSA has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on
September 13, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 56698). No comments
were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0115.''
Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Ms. Amina Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-1018, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,479 MY 2012
Mercedes-Benz C-Class (204 platform) passenger vehicles manufactured
between March and August 2011.
Rule Text: Section S4.3(d) of FMVSS No. 110 specifically states:
S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3(a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar.* * *
(b) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size,'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase
for purposes other than resale. * * *
Summary of MBUSA'S Analyses: MBUSA explains that the noncompliance
is that the vehicle placard on the affected vehicles incorrectly
identifies the tire size designation of the spare tire in the vehicle.
MBUSA explains that while the vehicle placard incorrectly
identifies the designated spare tire size corresponding to the actual
size of the spare tire originally installed in the vehicle, the
recommended cold tire inflation pressure for the spare tire is
correctly stated. In addition, all information required under S4.3 for
maintaining and replacing the front and rear tires, as well as vehicle
weight and seating capacity, is correct.
MBUSA also stated that if a vehicle owner were to question the
correct spare tire size they would be able to check the size by
comparing it with the size stamped on the sidewall of the originally
provided spare tire. If the vehicle owner were to attempt to put a
spare tire of the size indicated on the vehicle placard on the spare
tire rim originally provided with the vehicle, it would be immediately
apparent that the tire is too large to be installed on the rim and hold
any inflation pressure. Both the actually provided spare tire and a
tire of the size indicated on the vehicle placard for the spare tire
meet the FMVSS No. 110 loading requirements at the recommended cold
inflation pressure stated on the vehicle placard. Both the originally
installed spare tire and a spare tire of the size listed on the vehicle
placard, when inflated to the labeled recommended cold inflation
pressure, are appropriate to handle the vehicle maximum loads.
MBUSA has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected future
production and that all other required markings are present and
correct.
MBUSA is not aware of any incidents or customer complaints related
to the noncompliant vehicle placard.
MBUSA also expressed its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
similar petitions.
In summation, MBUSA believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts MBUSA's analyses
that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
MBUSA has provided sufficient documentation that other than the vehicle
placard error, the vehicles comply with all other safety performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 110. Since the correct information is
provided in other locations, MBUSA has met its burden of persuasion.
Accordingly, MBUSA's petition is hereby granted, and MBUSA is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for,
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
[[Page 43968]]
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 1,479 vehicles that MBUSA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that a noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve 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 MBUSA 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)
Issued on: July 9, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-17438 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P