Rivian Automotive, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 19 May 2023 Subjects: American Government , Safety Topic: Rivian EDV

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32275-32277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0112; Notice 1]


Rivian Automotive, 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: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian) has determined that certain 
model year (MY) 2022 Rivian Electric Delivery Van (EDV) motor vehicles 
do not fully comply with Federal Motor

[[Page 32276]]

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. 
Rivian filed a noncompliance report dated October 24, 2022, and amended 
the report on November 14, 2022. Rivian subsequently petitioned NHTSA 
(the ``Agency'') on November 15, 2022, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This document announces receipt of Rivian's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 20, 2023.

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 may be 
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 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 dockets. 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).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Syed Rahaman, General Engineer, NHTSA, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Rivian determined that certain MY 2022 Rivian EDV 
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.5.1(b)(5)(i) of 
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208).
    Rivian filed a noncompliance report dated October 24, 2022, and 
amended the report on November 14, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Rivian petitioned 
NHTSA on November 15, 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.
    This notice of receipt of Rivian's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 1,278 MY 2022 Rivian EDV motor 
vehicles, manufactured between December 10, 2021, and September 27, 
2022, were reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: Rivian explains that a label displaying the 
subject vehicle's clearance height is affixed to the same side of the 
sun visor containing the air bag warning label, therefore, the subject 
vehicles do not comply with paragraph S4.5.1(b)(5)(i) of FMVSS No. 208.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(5)(i) of FMVSS No. 208 
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. S4.5.1(b)(5)(i) 
requires that except for the information on an air bag maintenance 
label placed on the sun visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208, 
or on a utility vehicle warning label placed on the sun visor that 
conforms in content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 
of FMVSS No. 105, no other information shall appear on the same side of 
the sun visor to which the sun visor air bag warning label is affixed.
    V. Summary of Rivian's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Rivian's Petition,'' are the 
views and arguments provided by Rivian. They have not been evaluated by 
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Rivian describes 
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Rivian states that the air bag warning label that is affixed to the 
sun visor in the subject vehicles meets the FMVSS No. 208 content 
requirements and is displayed as intended by the standard. In addition 
to this compliant label, there is another label affixed to the sun 
visor that indicates the clearance height of the subject vehicle. 
Rivian believes that the vehicle clearance height label included on the 
sun visor is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the 
subject vehicles are exclusively used in a single fleet of delivery 
vehicles that are driven by professional drivers. Rivian explains that 
the subject vehicles are walk-in vans in which the driver's seat is the 
only designated seating position and drivers are required to wear their 
seatbelts when operating the subject vehicle. Because of the vehicle's 
intended usage, Rivian believes that the subject noncompliance does not 
affect the efficacy of the information provided by the air bag warning 
label.
    Furthermore, Rivian contends that the purpose of the requirement 
that no other information be present with the air bag warning label is 
to mitigate ``the potential for children to be placed at a seating 
position that is equipped with an air bag and also inform of the 
precautions the vehicle occupant may take to protect themselves from 
being injured by a deploying air bag'' Rivian believes that this is not 
a risk because there is no expectation that a child would be present in 
or around the subject vehicle. Rivian states that if a child were to 
occupy the driver's seat, the brake transmission shift interlock that 
is required by FMVSS No. 114 would prevent the child from operating the 
vehicle, thus there would be no way for the air bags to be deployed.

[[Page 32277]]

    Additionally, Rivian says that the drivers of the subject vehicles 
are required to use the seatbelt at all times and the information 
provided by the air bag warning label is visible, easy to read, and not 
positioned near the vehicle clearance height label. Therefore, Rivian 
believes that there is no indication that the addition of the 
noncompliant vehicle clearance height label would cause a driver of the 
subject vehicle to confuse the message of the air bag warning label.
    Rivian believes that the reason NHTSA determined that no other 
types of information are allowed to be displayed on the same side of 
the sun visor as the air bag warning label was to maximize the 
effectiveness of the label's content by ensuring that there is 
consistent and uniform messaging to consumers. Rivian quotes NHTSA's 
decision on a similar petition from Maserati: ``The purpose of [the air 
bag warning label in] 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.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Grant of Petition of Maserati, 87 FR 54749, September 7, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rivian contends that in past inconsequentiality petitions, NHTSA 
determined ``that the manner in which a particular subset of vehicles 
is used bears upon the inconsequential nature of the air bag warning 
label noncompliance.'' Further, Rivian says that NHTSA has previously 
granted inconsequentiality for a noncompliance involving the placement 
of the air bag warning label in a vocational vehicle and found that due 
to the nature and intended use of the affected vehicles, it would be 
unlikely for children to be placed in the front passenger seating 
area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Grant of Petition of Spartan Motors, 81 FR 87654, 
December 5, 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rivian adds that NHTSA granted prior petitions in which the air bag 
warning label deviated from the exact language that is required by the 
standard.\3\ Although those petitions related to the language that was 
used in the advanced air bag warning label, Rivian contends that 
NHTSA's rationale for those determinations still applies in the present 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Grant of Petition to Bentley Motors, 72 FR 71734, 
December 12, 2007; see also Grant of Petition to BMW, 71 FR 78511, 
December 29, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rivian states that the subject noncompliance has been corrected for 
vehicles in production. Rivian says it is not aware of any crash, 
death, injury, field report, or claims related to the subject 
noncompliance.
    Rivian concludes by stating its belief 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.
    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 Rivian no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
vehicles 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 Rivian 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. 2023-10704 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P