22016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 

The FAA is not accepting oral 

presentations at this meeting due to 

time constraints. Written statements 

submitted by the deadline will be 

provided to the NAC members before 

the meeting. Any member of the public 

may submit a written statement to the 

committee at any time. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 8 day of 

April 2022. 

Kimberly Noonan, 

Manager, Stakeholder and Collaboration 

Division (A), NextGen Office of Collaboration 

and Messaging, ANG–M, Office of the 

Assistant Administrator for NextGen, Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07939 Filed 4–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0015; Notice 2] 

Arai Helmet, Inc., Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Arai Helmet, Inc. (Arai), has 

determined that certain Arai Corsair X 

Mamola Edge motorcycle helmets, do 

not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, 

Motorcycle Helmets. Arai filed a 

noncompliance report dated March 6, 

2019, and later amended it on March 28, 

2019. Arai subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on March 28, 2019, and later 

amended its petition on July 9, 2020, for 

a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces the grant of Arai’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paloma Lampert, Office of Vehicle 

Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366– 

5299, Paloma.Lampert@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Arai has determined that certain Arai 

Corsair X Mamola Edge helmets, size 

small, do not comply with paragraph 

S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle 

Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Arai filed a 

noncompliance report dated March 6, 

2019, and later amended it on March 28, 

2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Arai 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

March 28, 2019, and later amended its 

petition on July 9, 2020, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirement 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 Arai’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period on September 12, 2019, 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 48211). 

One comment was received. To view the 

petition, all supporting documents, and 

the comment received from the public, 

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– 

0015.’’ 

II. Equipment Involved 

Approximately 24 Arai Corsair X 

Mamola Edge helmets, size small, 

manufactured between June 29, 2018, 

and January 31, 2019, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Arai explains that the noncompliance 

is that the discrete size label may not be 

permanently attached as required by 

S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 218. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

218, provides the requirements relevant 

to this petition. Each helmet must be 

labeled permanently and legibly, in a 

manner such that the label can be read 

easily without removing padding or any 

other permanent part, with ‘‘discrete 

size.’’ 

V. Summary of Arai’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Arai’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by Arai and do not 

reflect the views of the agency. Arai 

describes the subject noncompliance 

and contends that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Arai submits 

the following reasoning: 

1. Arai states that the subject 

motorcycle helmets comply with all the 

performance requirements under 

FMVSS No. 218 and all labeling 

requirements of FMVSS No. 218, except 

that the discrete size label does not 

appear to be permanent as required by 

paragraph S5.6.1(b). Arai cites FMVSS 

No. 218, which says the discrete size 

means ‘‘a numerical value that 

corresponds to the diameter of an 

equivalent circle representing the 

helmet interior in inches (±0.25 inch) or 

to the circumference of the equivalent 

circle in centimeters (±0.64 

centimeters).’’ 

2. Arai believes NHTSA’s reason for 

requiring the helmet’s discrete size is 

primarily to determine the appropriate 

headform for conducting the 

performance testing of paragraph S6.1 of 

FMVSS No. 218. In promulgating the 

discrete size label, Arai cites the agency 

as saying that it added the discrete size 

requirement to the standard to 

‘‘eliminate enforcement problems.’’ See 

73 FR 57297, 57304 (October 2, 2008). 

Arai says that the agency had previously 

permitted generic head sizes on helmet 

labels, however, they lacked the 

precision the agency desired for 

enforcing the helmet standard, raising 

potential problems with the objective 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Arai 

says that NHTSA explained its 

reasoning in the rulemaking for 

specifying the discrete size and cited the 

following: 

a. The reason for this is to eliminate 

enforcement problems that arise when 

helmets are labeled only with a generic 

size specification (e.g., Small, Medium, 

or Large). 

b. Enforceability problems can arise 

because while S6.1 specifies which 

headform is used to test helmets with a 

particular ‘‘designated discrete size or 

size range,’’ a helmet’s generic size may 

not correspond to the same size ranges 

that the agency uses to determine which 

headform to use for testing. 

3. Arai states that in the final rule, 

NHTSA further elaborated that defining 

the discrete size ‘‘would have two 

benefits.’’ First, it would provide 

certainty as to the headform on which 

the helmet would be tested by NHTSA, 

thereby, improving the enforceability of 

the standard. Second, it would provide 

more precise information to customers. 

Arai further notes that the requirement 

would in no way preclude 

manufacturers from specifying a generic 

size in addition to the discrete size on 

the size label. 

4. Arai believes that the primary 

reason for requiring the discrete size is 

related to enforceability of the 

performance tests and that a label that 

is present on the helmet at the time of 

NHTSA’s testing, but that may not be 

permanently attached to the helmet 

does not expose the user of the 

noncompliant helmet to a ‘‘significantly 

greater risk’’ than to a user of a 

compliant helmet. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 22017 

1See 76 FR 28145 (May 13, 2011). 

2Arai states that it certifies its helmets through 

the Snell Foundation, a not-for-profit organization 

dedicated to research, education, testing, and 

development of helmet safety standards. Additional 

information about the Snell Foundation can be 

found at https://www.smf.org/about. 

3The headliners are snapped into the helmet and 

may be removed. Arai does sell replacement 

headliners, which would have a sewn-in label 

containing the helmet thickness, the generic helmet 

size, and the country of origin. The liners are 

snapped into the helmet, and replacement 

headliners must have corresponding snaps. 

Accordingly, a size small headliner would not fit 

into a size MIL shell and vice versa. Arai is not 

aware of any third-party headliners for its helmets. 

4See Letter to Todd Mitchell, 19 Mar. 2001, 

https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22512.rbm.html 

Letter to R. Mark Willingham, 1 Apr 1994; https:// 

isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/9640.html (specifying 

precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed 

would be design restrictive). 

5See Letter to Todd Mitchell; see also Letter to 

Tony Dosmann, 15 Apr 2005, https://

isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF002565.html (stating that 

the rim label ‘‘must be affixed in a manner that 

would make it likely to stay attached and legible 

during the lifetime of the vehicle, under normal 

conditions’’). 

5. Arai states that NHTSA tested the 

subject Arai Helmet under FMVSS No. 

218, and that the testing demonstrated 

that these helmets meet the performance 

standards. The discrete label on the 

helmet tested by NHTSA permitted the 

Agency to select the correct headform 

for the size small Arai Corsair-X helmet 

that was tested. 

6. Arai believes that in the FMVSS 

No. 218 final rule, NHTSA explained 

that while the discrete label would 

provide ‘‘more precise information to 

customers,’’ NHTSA acknowledged that 

generic sizes could also be used on 

helmets. Arai believes this indicates that 

the value to customers of a ‘‘more 

precise’’ helmet size serves limited 

safety benefits. Arai says that NHTSA 

did not claim the discrete size served a 

safety purpose, but stated that ‘‘discrete 

size labeling requirements will both 

improve customer information regarding 

the size of the helmet and avert 

potential enforceability problems.’’ 1

7. Arai states that the noncompliance 

arose from the nonpermanency of the 

label, not the content and that the label 

would be present, at a minimum, to the 

first purchaser. Further, Arai states that 

another label showing the discrete size 

of the helmet is sewn into a tag in the 

headliner; moreover, the helmet’s 

packaging provides the size information 

and secondhand purchasers could try 

on the helmet to determine whether it 

properly fits; accordingly, the consumer 

would have sizing information available 

to determine the correct helmet size for 

purchase. 

8. Arai says that in a petition related 

to a noncompliance that resulted from a 

goggle strap potentially obscuring the 

DOT label of a motorcycle helmet, 

NHTSA agreed that the noncompliance 

was inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. See 79 FR 47720. Arai went on 

to write that NHTSA reasoned that ‘‘the 

presence of the strap holder which 

obscures the DOT label does not affect 

the helmet’s ability to protect the wearer 

in the event of a crash if that helmet 

meets or exceeds the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 218.’’ Arai 

believes the same reasoning applies here 

as well. 

9. Arai stated their belief that the 

helmets’ potential failure to 

permanently provide ‘‘customer 

information’’ does not pose a 

‘‘significantly greater risk’’ to the user of 

a noncompliant helmet compared to the 

user of a compliant helmet. Arai says 

they are not aware of any warranty 

claims, field reports, customer 

complaints, legal claims, or any 

incidents or injuries related to the 

subject noncompliance. 

In response to a request from NHTSA, 

Arai submitted a supplement to the 

subject petition to include additional 

information regarding how consumers 

would identify helmets subject to a 

potential recall in the event of a future 

performance-related concern. Arai 

describes the general approach it would 

use in the event a recall becomes 

necessary to address a future safety 

concern. 

Arai explains that to assist consumers 

in identifying Arai helmets, every Arai 

helmet is labeled with a unique 

serialized number on a Snell label,2

which is cross-referenced to the helmet 

model, the date of manufacture, the 

outer shell size, the corresponding fit of 

the helmet, and the distributor to whom 

Arai sold the helmet—or for directconsumer sales, the customer 

information for the first retail sale. 

Further, Arai states that while NHTSA 

does not require Snell certification and 

the Snell label, these labels are 

permanently affixed to the helmet and 

removing these labels leaves evidence of 

tampering. 

In the event of a recall, Arai would 

direct consumers to the Snell label to 

determine whether a specific helmet 

was subject to the recall. Depending on 

the scope and context of the recall, Arai 

may also rely on other information on 

the helmet to guide consumers. This 

additional information that is on every 

helmet includes the helmet model and 

style, the graphics package on the shell 

of the helmet, the date code laser-etched 

into the chinstrap’s D-ring, and the 

information listed on the label sewn 

into the headliner.3 To the extent 

necessary, Arai would provide this 

information in the owner notification 

letter required by 49 Part 577 to assist 

consumers. For example, photographs of 

the Snell label and other relevant 

identifying information would be 

included to assist consumers. Arai 

would also provide a customer service 

line staffed by agents prepared to 

explain to consumers how to locate the 

relevant identifying information. 

With respect to equipment such as 

motorcycle helmets, the scope of any 

potential recall would be determined 

based on identifying information 

available to the consumers. If any Arai 

helmet is involved in a future recall, 

Arai would follow the general approach 

explained above, looking first to the 

serial number on the Snell label and, if 

necessary, to the other information 

depending on the context of the recall. 

Arai states that FMVSS No. 218 does not 

define an objective test for the label’s 

permanency and Arai claims that 

NHTSA has not generally defined the 

meaning of ‘‘permanently affixed’’ in 

other contexts within the safety 

standards themselves. Rather, NHTSA 

has generally dealt with the question of 

permanency through various legal 

interpretations.4 Further, Arai states that 

within the context of the labels required 

under FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA 

determined ‘‘that a label is permanent if 

it cannot be removed without destroying 

or defacing it and that the label should 

remain legible for the expected life of 

the product under normal conditions.’’ 5

Based on these interpretations, Arai 

contends, the permanency of the label 

depends on the purpose of the label. For 

these determinations, the underlying 

purposes of these labeling requirements 

were to provide useful safety 

information to users over the life of the 

equipment or vehicle. Thus, it is 

understandable that ‘‘permanency’’ in 

these contexts would mean that the 

label could not be easily removed 

throughout the life of the product. 

With respect to the discrete size label, 

Arai reiterated its argument that the 

label’s primary purpose is to assist 

NHTSA in selecting the correct 

headform to test a new helmet. The 

content of the subject labels met this 

primary purpose, as NHTSA was able to 

select the correct headform for the 

subject helmets. Moreover, the label did 

not (and would not likely have) become 

detached from the helmet prior to the 

final sale of the helmets. Indeed, 

removal of the label would require a 

deliberate act; these labels would not 

fall off on their own and, therefore, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
22018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 

6Arai’s March 28, 2019 petition erroneously 

stated that the label sewn into the headliner of the 

subject helmets included the discrete size. Further 

investigation revealed that the size small headliners 

that are used in the subject helmets do not include 

the discrete size information. 

would remain in place at the time of any 

NHTSA compliance test. 

Likewise, the secondary purpose of 

the label—to provide more precise 

information to consumers—would 

remain satisfied as, again, the label 

would be in place on the helmet at the 

time of purchase. Size information is 

also available to consumers on the 

helmet’s packaging and on a label sewn 

into the helmet’s headliner providing 

the generic size.6 Moreover, Arai 

explains, that consumers are more likely 

to rely on the fit of the helmet by trying 

it on, rather than the discrete size listed 

on the label. And, as noted, this labeling 

issue does not affect the helmet’s ability 

to protect the wearer in the event of a 

crash. 

Arai concludes by again contending 

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. Public Comment 

NHTSA received one comment 

concerning Arai’s petition, from Mr. 

Zach Robertson. Mr. Robertson was of 

the opinion that Arai’s subject helmets 

were likely noncompliant with the letter 

of the regulation. He believes, however, 

that the helmet is mostly, if not 

completely, meeting the intent of the 

regulation since the discrete size is 

included on the headliner and helmet 

packaging and there were no 

performance failures during NHTSA’s 

testing. NHTSA appreciates Mr. 

Robertson’s input and agrees that there 

were no performance failures during 

testing but disagrees that a discrete size 

on the removable comfort liner 

(headliner) or packaging is sufficient to 

meet the labeling requirements since 

FMVSS No. 218 states the helmet shall 

be labeled permanently with the 

discrete size. 

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis 

Discrete size labels on motorcycle 

helmets offer important information to 

consumers, sellers, testing laboratories, 

and regulatory entities. For NHTSA’s 

enforcement purposes, the discrete size 

label provides precise information 

necessary to determine the appropriate 

headform for conducting performance 

testing per FMVSS No. 218. For 

consumers and sellers, the discrete size 

label provides specific information to 

help them determine the size of the 

helmet to aid them in selling or 

purchasing a helmet that fits properly, 

which is important to realizing the 

safety benefits a helmet offers in the 

event of a crash. Furthermore, the 

discrete size label may be useful to 

determine if a particular motorcycle 

helmet falls within the scope of a recall 

when a remedy campaign is being 

conducted. It is worth reiterating that 

the noncompliance in this case is not 

that the helmet lacked a discrete size 

label, but that the discrete size label was 

not permanent. All labels on a 

motorcycle helmet are required to be 

permanent. This permanency 

requirement is related to the safety of 

the helmet in that the labels, including 

the discrete size label, provide a safety 

benefit for the life of the motorcycle 

helmet. 

Arai raises several points in support 

of its request to be exempt from the 

notification and remedy requirements 

for this helmet. Arai believes the 

primary reason for NHTSA requiring the 

discrete size is related to enforceability 

of the performance tests in FMVSS No. 

218 and that a label that is present on 

the helmet at the time of NHTSA’s 

testing, but that may not be permanently 

attached to the helmet, does not expose 

the user of the noncompliant helmet to 

a ‘‘significantly greater risk’’ than to a 

user of a compliant helmet. NHTSA 

responds that the discrete size label has 

other critical roles besides enforceability 

of performance tests. It is important for 

motorcycle helmets to be labeled 

permanently and legibly with a discrete 

size in a manner that the label can be 

read easily without removing padding 

or any other permanent part for the 

duration of the life of the product. 

NHTSA disagrees with Arai’s claim that 

the reason for requiring the helmet’s 

discrete size is restricted to determining 

the appropriate headform for 

conducting the performance testing, and 

that therefore having a permanent label 

is not necessary. Motorcyle helmets are 

safety equipment and the ability of a 

consumer to select a well-fitting helmet 

is a safety goal. Arai’s claim that 

consumers are more likely to rely on the 

fit of the helmet by trying it on, rather 

than the discrete size listed on the label 

is not supported by data. Additionally, 

a permanent discrete size label on a 

motorcycle helmet is important in the 

event a recall is filed. A recall is 

necessary when a motor vehicle or item 

of motor vehicle equipment does not 

comply with an FMVSS or when there 

is a safety-related defect in the vehicle 

or equipment. A motorcycle helmet 

with a discrete size label that is not 

permanent may hinder the user from 

being able to determine if the 

motorcycle helmet is part of a remedy 

campaign that includes a specific range 

of sizes. 

Regarding how permanency is 

assessed, NHTSA has published a test 

procedure titled Laboratory Test 

Procedure for FMVSS No. 218 (TP–218– 

07), which explains how permanency of 

the discrete size label (as well as the 

other required labels) is evaluated as 

part of its motorcycle helmet 

compliance program. That information 

follows: 

OVSC compliance labs shall attempt 

to remove labels without tools and 

inspect for the following: 

(a) Labels according to S5.6.1(a) 

through (c) would be determined to be 

permanent if they are located in a place 

such that it is intended to remain there 

for the life of the product (i.e. not on the 

visor or a removable padding) and at 

least one of the following five 

conditions: 

(1) It cannot be removed without the 

aid of tools or solvents, or 

(2) Attached by a seam, or 

(3) Tears into at least 3 or more pieces 

with no single piece being larger than 

50% of the total area of the label when 

removed, or 

(4) Removal damages the surface to 

which it is attached and the size of the 

damage is greater than 50% of the size 

of the label, or 

(5) Removal creates physical evidence 

that an affixation was originally present 

or required to be present. Physical 

evidence may include such things as 

adhesive residue or an area of 

contrasting color showing some 

information is missing. 

The tested helmets had a discrete size 

label, but the label failed permanency 

requirements because it was removed 

without the aid of tools or solvents, it 

was not attached by a seam, it did not 

tear into at least 3 or more pieces, the 

removal did not damage the surface to 

which it was attached, and the removal 

did not create physical evidence that an 

affixation was originally present. 

Arai stated in its petition that another 

label showing the discrete size of the 

helmet is sewn into a tag in the 

headliner and that the helmet’s 

packaging provides the size information. 

The Arai Corsair X motorcycle helmets 

tested by NHTSA did not contain an 

additional discrete size label sewn onto 

a tag in the headliner (removable 

comfort liner). Furthermore, an 

additional size label sewn onto a 

removable comfort liner (headliner) or 

placed on the packaging is not a suitable 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2022 / Notices 22019 

replacement for a permanent discrete 

size label since the removable comfort 

liner (headliner) is made to be 

exchanged for a new liner that may not 

contain a size label (or may have an 

incorrect size label), and expecting a 

consumer to rely on the original 

packaging is unrealistic since product 

packaging is often discarded. 

Arai refers to a petition related to a 

noncompliance that resulted from a 

goggle strap potentially obscuring the 

DOT label of a motorcycle helmet and 

that NHTSA agreed that the 

noncompliance was inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. See 79 FR 47720. 

NHTSA responds that the agency 

determines whether a particular 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety based on the 

specific facts of each case. NHTSA does 

not agree that this petition supports 

granting Arai’s petition because the 

goggle strap petition does not seem 

related. For example, (1) the 

noncompliance in the case referenced 

by Arai resulted from a goggle strap 

potentially obscuring the DOT symbol 

which is completely unrelated to a 

discrete size label; (2) the issue of 

permanency was not examined; and (3) 

the purposes of the DOT symbol are 

significantly different than the purposes 

for discrete size labels. NHTSA is not 

persuaded to grant the Arai petition 

based on facts concerning the goggle 

strap petition (79 FR 47720). 

However, Arai states, and NHTSA 

agrees, that the discrete label on the 

helmet tested by NHTSA permitted the 

agency to select the correct headform 

and that the Arai Corsair-X helmet 

samples tested by NHTSA met the 

performance standards under FMVSS 

No. 218. In this instance, NHTSA agrees 

the discrete size label non-permanency 

did not affect the helmet’s ability to be 

tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 

218. 

The key issue in determining 

inconsequentiality is whether the 

noncompliance in question is likely to 

increase the safety risk to the individual 

persons who experience the type of 

injurious event against which the 

standard is designed to protect. 

In response to Arai’s statement that 

NHTSA tested the subject Arai Helmet 

under FMVSS No. 218, and that the 

testing ‘‘demonstrated that these 

helmets meet the performance 

standards,’’ NHTSA is clarifying that 

testing performed on behalf of NHTSA 

is neither sufficient nor intended to 

ensure that the item tested, nor similar 

products, meet or exceed FMVSS. The 

burden to certify products and ensure 

every product manufactured and 

imported into the United States meets or 

exceeds all applicable FMVSS, falls 

squarely on the manufacturer. Arai has 

provided NHTSA with its basis for 

certification of the Arai Corsai-X 

motorcycle helmet. 

In this specific case, the subject 

helmets are labeled with a unique serial 

number which helps satisfy the safety 

need associated with the discrete size 

being permanent. In addition to 

certifying its helmets to FMVSS No. 

218, Arai also certifies its helmets 

through the Snell Foundation. Every 

Arai helmet is permanently labeled with 

a unique serialized number on a Snell 

label, which is cross-referenced to the 

helmet model, the date of manufacture, 

the outer shell size, the corresponding 

fit of the helmet, and the distributor to 

whom Arai sold the helmet. Arai stated 

that in the event of a recall, it would 

direct consumers to the Snell label to 

determine whether a specific helmet 

was subject to the recall. 

Therefore, in this specific instance, 

NHTSA agrees that, because the helmet 

was labeled with the discrete size and 

had additional permanent labeling, the 

safety needs of consumers would be met 

despite the discrete size label not being 

permanent. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Arai has met its 

burden of persuasion that the FMVSS 

No. 218 noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, Arai’s 

petition is hereby granted, and Arai is 

exempted from the obligation to provide 

notification of and remedy for the 

subject 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 

equipment that Arai 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 

equipment under their control after Arai 

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. 2022–07824 Filed 4–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0063; Notice 1] 

Daimler Trucks North America, 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: Daimler Trucks North 

America, LLC, (DTNA) has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2020–2021 

Freightliner Cascadia heavy 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 May 12, 2020, and amended the 

report on December 23, 2021. DTNA 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

June 4, 2020, and later amended its 

petition on July 22, 2020, and January 

19, 2022, for a decision that the subject 

noncompliances are inconsequential as 

it relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces receipt of DTNA’s 

petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

May 13, 2022. 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1