|
|---|
|
FCA US, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 5 December 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Tires
Topic: Chrysler Pacifica |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84393-84394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26604]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0097; Notice 2]
FCA US, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) (FCA) has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor vehicles do
not fully comply with 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. FCA filed a noncompliance
report dated August 27, 2019. FCA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
September 20, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of FCA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
FCA has determined that certain MY 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(a) and (b) of 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 (49 CFR 571.110). FCA
filed a noncompliance report dated August 27, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FCA
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 20, 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 FCA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 6, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 553). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0097.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 350 MY 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor vehicles,
manufactured between October 4, 2018, and July 3, 2019, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicle's
tire placard label erroneously states the seating capacity as seven
occupants rather than eight occupants, and shows a combined occupant
and cargo weight of 1,150 lbs. rather than 1,240 lbs. as required by
paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each vehicle, except for a
trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in
paragraphs S4.3(a), vehicle capacity weight expressed as the combined
weight of occupants and cargo and S4.3(b) designated seated capacity
(expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of
occupants for each front and rear seat location.
V. Summary of FCA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, are
the views and arguments provided by FCA.
FCA described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
1. While the number of occupants and the calculated weight are
incorrect on the vehicle placard label, the calculated weight for seven
occupants (1,150 lbs.) is below the calculated weight for eight
occupants (1,240 lbs.), and therefore, there is no risk of vehicle
overloading.
2. All information required for maintaining and/or replacing the
front and rear tires is correct on the vehicle placard of the affected
vehicles. In fact, the recommended cold tire inflation pressures for
both the seven occupants and the eight occupant vehicles are the same.
Therefore, there is no risk of under-inflation.
3. All other applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 110 have been
met.
4. The vehicle certification label is correct. Vehicles with seven
occupants and eight occupants share the same Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (6055 lbs.), and front and rear Gross Axle Weight Rating (2950
lbs. and 3200 lbs., respectively).
5. The number of seats and the number of safety belts installed in
the vehicle will clearly indicate to a vehicle owner the actual seating
capacity, the rear seating of the affected vehicles contains six seat
belt assemblies, and provides adequate space for six people to occupy
the rear seats. Further, the vehicle in fact does accommodate six
occupants and not five as labeled.
6. FCA is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition.
7. NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for FMVSS
110 noncompliance for incorrect vehicle placard seated capacity values.
Examples of the Agency granting a similar inconsequentiality petition
for vehicle placard incorrect seated capacity are:
General Motors, LLC, 79 FR 69557 (November 21, 2014)
Ford Motor Company, 74 FR 69373 (December 31, 2009)
BMW of North America, LLC, a subsidiary of BMW AG, 78 FR 43964
(July 22, 2013)
FCA seeks exemption 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.
VI. Comments
NHTSA received one comment from the general public. While the
Agency takes great interest in the public's concerns and appreciates
the commenter's feedback, the comment does not address the purpose of
this particular petition.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such
[[Page 84394]]
noncompliances inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of
safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely
deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.\2\ In general, NHTSA 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.'' \3\
``[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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
\3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\4\ 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.\5\ 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.\6\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles'
tire placard label erroneously states the seating capacity as seven
occupants rather than eight occupants, and shows a combined occupant
and cargo weight of 1,150 lbs. rather than 1,240 lbs. as required by
paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.
NHTSA has reviewed and accepts FCA's analyses and supporting
documentation that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. FCA has provided sufficient documentation that other
than the placard/labeling error, the vehicles comply with all other
safety performance requirements of FMVSS 110. If owners were to follow
the information on the label, there would be no risk of overloading the
vehicle's tires. While the tire and loading placards incorrectly
indicate the number of seating positions and the calculated weight
capacity, the subject labeling error alone poses little if any risk to
motor vehicle safety since the number of seating positions is readily
apparent in the subject vehicles. The rear seating of the affected
vehicles contains six seat belt assemblies and provides adequate space
for six people to occupy the rear seats. In addition, all information
required for maintaining and/or replacing the front and rear tires is
located on the vehicle placard of the affected vehicles.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that FCA has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 110 noncompliance in
the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FCA's petition is hereby granted and FCA is consequently
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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 subject vehicles that FCA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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 vehicles under their control after FCA 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. 2023-26604 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P