Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Mercedes-Benz A Class
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
12 June 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35990-35992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0021; Notice 1]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (``MBAG'') and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
(``MBUSA'') (collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'') have determined that
certain model year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicles do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated February 24, 2020, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on March 12, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before July 13, 2020.
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 in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://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
[[Page 35991]]
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 comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019
Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping
and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104). Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated February 24, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and noncompliance responsibility and reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 12, 2020, 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.
This notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz'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. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 4,145 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz
A220 and A220 4MATIC motor vehicles manufactured between August 3,
2018, and November 26, 2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance
is that the windshield wiping systems in the subject vehicles do not
wipe the percentage of the windshield as required by paragraph S4.1.2
of FMVSS No. 104. Specifically, the windshield wiping system may only
wipe 93.8% of the windshield instead of the 94% required.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. When tested wet in
accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a (1966), each passenger
car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B,
and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that
(1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following
subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter
line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the
daylight opening.
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
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Mercedes-Benz described the subject noncompliance and
stated their belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Mercedes-Benz submitted the following
reasoning:
1. Mercedes-Benz cited the definition of motor vehicle safety as
cited in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and
their belief that this matter is appropriate for a decision that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as it does not
present any increased risk to vehicle occupants.
2. They state that, in the subject vehicles, the portion of the
windshield that just falls below the minimum wiped area is located at
the outer edge of the windshield. In the worst-case scenario, only
93.8%, instead of the minimum 94%, of the Area B portion of the
windshield remains unwiped. The affected portion of Area B is located
at the outer edge of the passenger's side of the windshield and not in
the area located directly in front of the driver's field of view.
3. Mercedes-Benz asserts that NHTSA has previously considered the
performance of windshield wiper systems in the context of interpreting
the meaning of the term ``daylight opening'' in FMVSS No. 104.
Mercedes-Benz says that in 2003, in response to a request from a
manufacturer, NHTSA interpreted that opaque coatings located around the
edge of the windshield would not be considered part of the daylight
opening for purposes of calculating the starting point of the wiped
area. See Letter to Reed, May 6, 2003. This interpretation was an
apparent change in approach for several manufacturers. In a request for
reconsideration, the industry reported that many vehicles would not
meet the minimum wiped portion of Area B based on the Agency's new
interpretation. In supporting comments, two manufacturers reported that
there were multiple vehicle models that would not meet the 94% minimum
requirement for Area B. For one of the manufacturers, all of its
vehicles were no more than 93.2% of the Area B minimum, while the other
manufacturer did not provide specific information on how far its system
deviated from the Area B minimum. After considering the substantial
resources necessary to redesign the wiper systems outside of the normal
vehicle refresh schedule, the Agency delayed the date on which it would
begin enforcement of FMVSS No. 104 based on its updated interpretation.
See Letter to Strassburger, January 7, 2005.
4. Thus, while the Agency was alerted to the fact that certain
vehicles would not be able to comply with the minimum wiped area
requirements of FMVSS No. 104, the Agency delayed implementing
enforcement of the new interpretation for several years. While the
delay was based, in part on the additional complexities needed to
update the vehicle, fundamentally, the small deviation in the minimum
wiped area requirement appears to not have been considered one that
adversely impacted driver visibility or increased the safety risk to
vehicle occupants. In that case, the deviation from the minimum wiped
portion of Area B was more than what exists in the subject vehicles.
While it is unclear from the interpretation letters what portion of
Area B did not meet the minimum wiped requirements, in the subject
vehicles, only a narrow strip of a portion of the outer edge of the
passenger side of the windshield is affected by the deviation. Due to
the location and small size of the unwiped
[[Page 35992]]
area, the deviation would not affect the visibility of the driver or
their ability to safely operate the vehicle and would not lead to an
overall increased safety risk to the vehicle occupants.
5. Mercedes-Benz stated that the windshield wiper systems installed
in the subject vehicles otherwise meet or exceed the remaining
requirements in FMVSS No. 104 for the wiped portion of Areas A and C,
for wiper frequency, and the windshield washing system. Mercedes-Benz
has not received any reports related to a lack of visibility due to the
performance of the windshield wiping system at issue here.
Mercedes-Benz concluded by expressing the belief 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.
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 vehicles that Mercedes-Benz
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on 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
Mercedes-Benz 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. 2020-12718 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P