Notice2022-05304
Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 14, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017-2019 Freightliner Cascadia motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated January 16, 2019. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on February 8, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of DTNA's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14325-14327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05304]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0008; Notice 2]
Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2017-2019 Freightliner Cascadia motor vehicles
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. DTNA
filed a noncompliance report dated January 16, 2019. DTNA subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on February 8, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces the grant of DTNA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6aaa3b4a9bfe8a7a8a1aaa3b586a2a9b2e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3bfb6a1bcaafdb2bdb4bfb6a093b7bca7fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
DTNA has determined that certain MY 2017-2019 Freightliner Cascadia
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S6.2.1 of FMVSS No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108). DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated January 16, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on February 8, 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 DTNA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 27, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 11450). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0008.''
II. Trucks Involved
Approximately 74,675 MY 2017-2019 Freightliner Cascadia motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 3, 2016, and December 17, 2018, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
DTNA described the noncompliance as automatic illumination of the
stop lamps when the low air pressure warning indicator light
illuminates. Since low air pressure does not necessarily activate the
brakes or result in braking without driver intervention, this
activation of the stop lamps does not meet the requirements of S6.2.1
of FMVSS No. 108.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S6.2.1 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. No additional lamp, reflective device, or
other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs
the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108.
V. Summary of DTNA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
DTNA.
DTNA described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
DTNA submitted the following background information on how their
air brake system affects the stop lamps:
DTNA's air brake system is comprised of two brake systems, primary
and secondary. The primary system controls the service brakes on the
drive axles, and the secondary system controls the service brakes on
the steer axle, in which the higher pressure of these two controls the
trailer service brakes. These two systems are isolated from each other
so that if there is an air loss in one system, the other system will
still be functional to control the vehicle service brakes. When either
one of the systems drops below 70 psi, the low air warning indicator
light on the dash turns ON and the stop lamps illuminate. However, if
this occurs, it does not mean that the drive axle parking brakes being
applied, since the other brake system may still be functional and
keeping the brake from applying. In such a situation, the air that
holds off the drive axle parking brakes would be the higher pressure of
either primary or secondary air brake. In other words, if the primary
air brake pressure falls below 70 psi, the indicator light and stop
lamps illuminate, but the parking brakes do not start to drag since the
secondary air (presumably unaffected) remains high and holds off the
parking springs. In the same manner, the trailer parking brakes are
held off by the higher of either primary or secondary air brake system.
Only when both air systems drop below about 70 psi will the trailer
parking brakes begin to apply.
DTNA submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
1. The normal operating air pressure of the vehicle is between 110
and 130
[[Page 14326]]
psi. There is a regulator that turns on the air compressor if the air
pressure is below 110 psi and turns off the air compressor when the
system pressure is above 130 psi. If the air pressure begins to drop
and reaches approximately 70 psi, the air system pressure is not
adequate to maintain optimum operation, so a warning indicator light
illuminates on the dash and a buzzer activates to alert the driver to
this condition. On these vehicles, the stop lamps illuminate when the
warning indiactor light illuminates on the dash. The events induced by
a low air condition after initial vehicle startup are rare and are not
expected in normal operation. If the condition were to occur during
operation, the driver would be alerted to the circumstances with
audible and visual low air warning signals and would be expected to
apply the service brakes and pull over in a safe manner. Additionally,
if the pressure in both air systems drops below 70 psi, the parking
brakes will slowly begin to apply.
2. The Freightliner Cascadia Driver's Manual states ``If the low
air pressure warning is activated, check the air pressure gauges to
determine which system has low air pressure. Although the vehicle's
speed can be reduced using the foot brake control pedal, either the
front or rear service brakes will not be operating at full capacity,
causing a longer stopping distance. Bring the vehicle to a safe stop
and have the air system repaired before continuing.''
3. Brakes are commonly applied causing the stop lamps to illuminate
when a driver sees a vehicle display warning or senses that the vehicle
is experiencing a problem. Reducing vehicle speed in relation to a
vehicle operational problem increases safety, providing following
drivers the opportunity to increase the following distance. A low air
warning indicator light would likely cause the vehicle driver to
immediately engage the brake system and bring the vehicle to a safe
stop. Stop lamp illumination for a brake system low air event would
help provide early warning to following drivers to slow down.
4. DTNA stated, in ``Motorcoach Brake Systems and Safety
Technologies,'' the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued
guidance, while directed toward motorcoach drivers, that supports the
expectation that a driver, upon receipt of a low-pressure warning,
would apply brakes and pull off the roadway. FMCSA stated: ``Low
Pressure Warning--In most cases, you should notice an air leak or
malfunction before getting a low-pressure warning; however, when a low-
pressure warning occurs, immediately bring the motorcoach to a safe
stop, off of the roadway. Continuing to operate the motorcoach could
result in an automatic application of the park brakes, possibly leading
to a loss of control or a stop in an unsafe position.''
5. DTNA is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints,
or field reports related to this condition on the subject vehicles.
6. DTNA also stated that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
decisions of inconsequential noncompliance for lighting requirements
where technical noncompliance exists, but does not create a negative
impact on safety:
<bullet> In General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 2001)
a petition for inconsequentiality by General Motors Corporation was
granted by NHTSA. In this instance, certain models could have
unintended CHMSL illumination briefly if the hazard warning lamp switch
is depressed to its limit of travel.
<bullet> In General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, a petition for inconsequentiality by
General Motors, LLC (GM) was granted by NHTSA. See 83 FR 7847 (February
22, 2018). In this instance, under certain conditions, the parking
lamps on the subject vehicles fail to meet the requirement that parking
lamps must be activated when headlamps are activated in a steady
burning state.
<bullet> In Grant of Application for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108, a petition for
inconsequentiality by General Motors Corporation was granted by NHTSA.
See 64 FR 48231 (September 2, 1999). In this instance, a certain model
equipped with an electronic turn signal was affected by random inputs
that cause the internal timing of the electronic circuit to become
unsynchronized causing the left front turn signal lamp to flash at a
rapid rate while the left rear turn signal lamp illuminates but does
not flash. These conditions can continue after the turn signal lever
automatically returns to the off position.
7. DTNA believes that a technical noncompliance exists but does not
create a negative impact on safety when the brake lamps illuminate
during a brake system low air warning event. The stop lamp illumination
serves to emphasize the message to following drivers that the vehicle
is experiencing trouble and they should pay close attention. The Brake
Air warning indicator light, on the driver's display panel, shows the
driver that there is an issue with the air brake system. This would
result in the driver bringing the vehicle to a safe stop and having the
air system repaired before continuing.
DTNA concluded by expressing its 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.
VI. 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 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 is
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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14327]]
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.\5\ These considerations are also relevant when
considering whether a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA notes that DTNA misquoted the decision language pertaining to
a prior inconsequential noncompliance petition (83 FR 7847) by adding
``The Agency agrees with GM that in this case'' prior to the original
statement. NHTSA does not consider this addition accurate.
The noncompliance, in the DTNA case currently being considered, is
that the stop lamp illuminates when a braking system low air pressure
warning indicator light is illuminated, regardless of whether the
service brakes are applied.\6\ As the subject trucks have two air brake
systems, which split the trailer brakes from the steer axle brakes, low
air pressure will cause a brake application only if air pressure is
lost in both systems. Should only one of the two air brake systems
report low air pressure, the parking brakes would not engage but the
stop lamps would illuminate in addition to the low air warning
indicator light, which includes an audible alarm. The Agency believes
that an alert would prompt the operator to safely pull over and/or
attempt to slow/stop the truck soon after the warnings appear. In that
case, the noncompliance would only result in a momentary illumination
of the stop lamps without the brakes being applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Per FMVSS No. 108, stop lamps should only be activated upon
activation of the service brakes, or a device intended to retard the
movement of the vehicle. See FMVSS No. 108, Table I-a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the driver of a subject vehicle did not apply the brakes
immediately after receiving a low air pressure warning, following
drivers would be presented with a false indication that the subject
truck was braking. Further, should there be an air leak, application of
the service brakes will cause the air pressure to further drop, braking
performance may be impacted, and it is also possible that the system
will no longer be able to achieve proper pressure, which subsequently
may cause the parking brakes to engage. As the function of a stop lamp
is to notify other road users that a vehicle is stopping and/or slowing
down, a vehicle equipped with an air braking system where the low air
pressure warning on the instrument cluster along with an audible
warning has been activated will likely prompt the driver to immediately
pull over and/or attempt to slow/stop the vehicle.
A previous NHTSA interpretation concerning trailer stop lamp
illumination, requested by Wabash National Corporation, explained that
the stop lamps were permitted to be illuminated in the event that the
emergency braking system was activated when significant deceleration
could occur.\7\ NHTSA does not agree with DTNA's argument that the
activation of the stop lamps when the low air pressure warning occurs
would be helpful for a warning other drivers of the brake malfunction.
Nonetheless, NHTSA still believes this noncompliance would be
inconsequential to safety. This is because when a vehicle with air
brakes experiences a low-air event and notifies the driver of a brake
system malfunction, NHTSA believes that the driver would likely respond
by pulling over to the side of the road and taking the vehicle out of
service until the brake system can be repaired. Because the act of
pulling over to the side of the road would result in the intentional
activation of the stop lamps and this sequence of events would likely
occur only once before the vehicle is repaired, NHTSA believes that the
activation of the brake lamps due to the low air pressure event would
be inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22036.ztv.html">https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22036.ztv.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that DTNA has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
in the affected trucks is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, DTNA's petition is hereby granted and DTNA 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 trucks that DTNA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve truck 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 DTNA 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. 2022-05304 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 14, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.