23018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 

1The symbol used by Mack Trucks described in 

the petition is a parking light symbol that is not 

recognized in FMVSS No. 101. 

2The standard permits omission of a separate 

marker lamp identifier when the marker lamp 

control is included as part of the master lighting 

switch (see 49 CFR 571.101 Table 1, Note 8); 

however, the standard does not permit use of a 

marker lamp identifier (symbol or word) other than 

those specified in the standard. 

VI. Comment 

NHTSA received one comment from 

the 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 

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the inconsequential noncompliance 

petition and supplemental materials 

submitted by Mack Trucks and has 

determined that this particular 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the 

Agency considered the following when 

making its decision: 

1. Each of the noncompliances described in 

Mack Truck’s petition involve deviations 

from the identification requirements in 

FMVSS No.101, specifically mislabeled 

controls. Mislabeling may affect a driver’s 

recognition of a specific control, but it does 

not affect the function of a control. For each 

of the mislabeled controls described herein, 

the absence of a required label or use of an 

incorrect label does not otherwise affect 

FMVSS No. 101’s identification and 

illumination requirements because other 

identifying labels are present for each subject 

control, which assist the driver in selecting 

the appropriate control. 

2. Mack Trucks explained that the subject 

vehicles have a heating and air conditioning 

fan control that is missing the required label 

using the fan symbol or words specified in 

Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. While the subject 

rotary control is missing the required label, 

it includes labeling of numbers 0 through 4 

corresponding to increasing fan speed, and 

the rotary control is adjacent to and grouped 

with other labeled controls associated with 

heating and air conditioning functions on the 

same control panel; consequently, in this 

instance, it would be evident to a driver that 

the numbered rotary control is associated 

with fan speed for heating and air 

conditioning, and the noncompliance would 

not be consequential to safety. 

3. Mack Trucks explained that the subject 

vehicles have marker lamp controls that are 

labeled with a symbol 1 that does not match 

the symbol specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 

No. 101, and that the symbol is still a lighting 

symbol rather than an arbitrary symbol. Each 

subject vehicle’s marker lamp control is part 

of a master lighting control that includes 

multiple individually labeled positions as 

either a rotary control or three-position 

switch lever. For all subject vehicles except 

for the LR vehicles, the master lighting 

control is labeled with the master lighting 

switch label specified in Table 2 of FMVSS 

No. 101. The LR model vehicles are equipped 

with a master lighting toggle switch that is 

not labeled with the required symbol or word 

for identifying the master light control as 

specified in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. 

For the Anthem, Pinnacle, and Granite 

model vehicles, the incorrect marker lamp 

control label (which is an internationally 

recognized parking light symbol, similar in 

nature to the marker light symbol) would not 

be enough for a driver to confuse the function 

of the control because it is part of the master 

lighting switch; the master lighting switch 

otherwise includes the master lighting switch 

label specified by the standard and other 

commonly used lighting symbols. Notably, 

FMVSS No. 101 permits omission of the 

marker lamp label when it is part of the 

master lighting switch.2

For the LR model vehicle, the master 

lighting switch is not labeled with master 

lighting switch label, and the position for the 

marker lamps is labeled with the same 

incorrect symbol for the marker lamps. Still, 

all symbols that appear on the master lighting 

switch (marker lamps and head lamps) are 

commonly recognizable as lighting control 

symbols. Consequently, the specific control 

implementations described in Mack Truck’s 

petition and supplemental materials are 

unlikely to alter a driver’s understanding of 

the lighting controls in a manner that would 

be consequential to safety. 

4. As explained by Mack Trucks, the 

subject vehicles are trucks that may only be 

driven by a professional driver holding a 

commercial driver’s license (CDL). NHTSA 

believes that the qualifications required to 

drive these subject vehicles further mitigates 

any remaining safety risk from the 

noncompliance. 

VIII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA finds that Mack Trucks has met 

its burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mack 

Trucks’ petition is hereby granted and 

Mack Trucks 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 on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that Mack Trucks 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, the granting of 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 Mack Trucks 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. 2022–08228 Filed 4–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0110; Notice 2] 

Great Dane, LLC, Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Great Dane, LLC (Great Dane) 

has determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2019 Great Dane Freedom 

Platform trailers do not comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) No. 223, Rear Impact Guards, 

and FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact 

Protection. Great Dane filed a 

noncompliance report dated January 2, 

2019, and subsequently petitioned 

NHTSA on January 2, 2019, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the denial of Great Dane’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Natasha Iwegbu, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–2334. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Great Dane has determined that 

certain MY 2019 Great Dane Freedom 

Platform trailers do not fully comply 

with paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 223, 

Rear Impact Guards (49 CFR 571.223), 

and paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No 224, 

Rear Impact Protection (49 CFR 

571.224). Great Dane filed a 

noncompliance report dated January 2, 

2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 23019 

1See Docket Number ‘‘NHTSA–2018–0110– 

0003.’’ 2https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-002439as.htm. 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

January 2, 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 Great Dane’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on November 7, 

2019 in the Federal Register (84 FR 

60145). 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–2018– 

0110.’’ 

II. Trailers Involved 

Approximately 72 MY 2019 Great 

Dane Freedom Platform trailers, 

manufactured between July 10, 2018, 

and November 8, 2018, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance 

Great Dane explained that the 

noncompliance is that the subject 

trailers were manufactured with a rear 

impact guard (RIG) that does not contain 

the certification plate as required by 

paragraphs S5.3 of FMVSS No. 223 and 

S5.1 of FMVSS No. 224. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraphs S5.3 of FMVSS No. 223 

and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 224 include the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

49 CFR 571.223, S5.3 provides that each 

guard shall be permanently labeled with 

the information specified in paragraphs 

S5.3(a) through (c) of FMVSS No. 223. 

The information shall be in English and 

in letters that are at least 2.5 mm high. 

The label shall be placed on the forward 

or rearward facing surface of the 

horizontal member of the guard, 

provided that the label does not 

interfere with the retroreflective 

sheeting required by S5.7.1.4.1(c) of 

FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and 

is readily accessible for visual 

inspection and includes the following: 

(a) The guard manufacturer’s name and 

address, (b) the statement: 

‘‘Manufactured in ___’’ (inserting the 

month and year of guard manufacture), 

and (c) the letters ‘‘DOT,’’ constituting 

a certification by the guard 

manufacturer that the guard conforms to 

all requirements of this standard. 49 

CFR 571.224, S5.1 requires that each 

vehicle shall be equipped with a rear 

impact guard certified as meeting 

FMVSS No. 223. 

V. Summary of Great Dane’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Great Dane’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Great Dane. 

They do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. 

1. Great Dane believes that the lack of 

the impact guard certification plate is an 

inconsequential type of noncompliance 

as it relates to vehicle safety. The fact 

that the certification plate was not 

installed on the rear impact guard on 

this particular group of trailers does not 

make these trailers any less safe. 

2. Great Dane stated that these rear 

impact guards as manufactured and 

installed by Great Dane, are compliant 

as required by the Federal Standard. 

3. Great Dane stated that the subject 

trailers have affixed to them 

certification plates, certifying that the 

entire trailer, including the rear impact 

guard, meet and/or exceed all the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

in effect, on the date of manufacture as 

indicated. 

4. Great Dane stated that to meet the 

standards of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, 

it has never installed a third party 

produced rear impact guard on any of 

its trailers. 

5. Great Dane stated that the incident 

that led to these trailers being produced 

without the plate attached was an 

isolated incident. It has since been 

investigated, resolved, and should not 

occur again in the future. 

6. Great Dane believes that the extra 

certification plate required on the rear 

impact guard is redundant. 

Great Dane concluded by 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 Comments 

The Agency received one comment 

from the public. This comment was 

received from the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance (CVSA).1 CVSA 

supports the granting of Great Dane’s 

petition that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety and ‘‘agrees with Great 

Dane’s assessment that a rear impact 

guard with a certification label, that 

otherwise meets the requirements 

outlined in FMVSS No. 223, is not any 

less safe than a rear impact guard with 

a label.’’ In its comment, CVSA 

contends that because these certification 

labels ‘‘frequently wear, fade or are 

removed during repair’’ and ‘‘motor 

carriers are unable to obtain new 

certification labels from the original 

trailer manufacturers because they can 

no longer guarantee that the rear impact 

guards meet the FMVSS manufacturing 

standard,’’ the rear impact guard 

certification label requirements should 

be removed. CVSA goes on to give its 

views about the effects of the rear 

impact guard certification label 

requirements. 

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis 

Rear impact guards for trailers reduce 

the risk to passenger vehicle occupants 

in crashes in which a passenger vehicle 

impacts the rear end of a trailer or 

semitrailer. RIGs need to be certified as 

meeting all applicable standards. 

The principle of self-certification is 

the foundation of the method the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act of 1966 establishes for 

regulated motor vehicles and motor 

vehicle equipment in the United States. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), there is a 

general prohibition against 

manufacturing for sale, selling, offering 

for sale, introducing or delivering for 

introduction in interstate commerce, or 

importing into the United States any 

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 

equipment manufactured on or after the 

date an applicable motor vehicle safety 

standard is in effect unless the vehicle 

or equipment both complies with the 

standard and is covered by a 

certification issued under section 30115. 

Offering for sale products that fail to 

contain the manufacturer’s certification 

violates this system, and therefore the 

consequences to safety are potentially 

significant. Furthermore, omitting all of 

the labeling from an item of regulated 

motor vehicle equipment may have 

other safety consequences. NHTSA has 

a long-standing position that removing 

required labeling reduces the safety 

effectiveness of items of motor vehicle 

equipment. The labeling is an indication 

to consumers, including secondhand 

purchasers, that the item of equipment 

provides a minimum level of safety 

protection.2

NHTSA received a comment from 

CVSA in support of Great Dane’s 

position, and in support of removing the 

RIG certification label requirements 

altogether. NHTSA finds the argument 

that these labels ‘‘frequently wear, fade, 

or are removed during repair’’ to be a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
23020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 

complaint of inconvenience, not a 

complaint of substance. Furthermore, to 

the extent that CVSA states that 

certification labels are removed during 

repair and not replaced, such practice 

may violate 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which 

prohibits manufacturers, distributors, 

dealers, or motor vehicle repair 

businesses from knowingly making 

inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed on motor 

vehicle equipment in compliance with 

an applicable motor vehicle safety 

standard. NHTSA has stated that 

removal of markings and information 

required by an applicable FMVSS 

would take such item out of 

compliance, and therefore would be a 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). 

The removal of these labels may 

further endanger the motoring public in 

a rear end collision with a trailer that 

has had a substandard repair, or cannot 

be properly inspected for safety and 

compliance. For example, once a trailer 

is in-service, the owner of the trailer 

may choose to replace or repair the RIG 

at any time and may source a 

replacement RIG from any number of 

places, over which the original 

certifying entity has no control. If a RIG 

were to be involved in a crash or if it 

were to fail an inspection, it may be 

difficult to know who the certifying 

entity for a RIG was if there were no 

permanent labeling on it. This would 

inhibit the ability of the investigators to 

determine if there was a potential safety 

trend involved with the subject 

equipment item. This example 

demonstrates the need for critical safety 

equipment, such as the rear impact 

guard, to be labeled permanently with 

the required information. 

NHTSA does not agree with Great 

Dane’s argument that the RIG 

certification plate is redundant to the 

trailer certification plate, nor does it 

agree that the lack of date of 

manufacture is inconsequential. 

Further, Great Dane argues that all the 

trailers in question were fitted with 

Great Dane RIGs and no third-party RIGs 

were used, therefore the trailer 

certification plate is sufficient to 

symbolize certification for the RIG. 

However, in the event of a rear-end 

crash, the RIG would likely be replaced, 

while the trailer may remain unaffected. 

In this instance, a replacement RIG 

would no longer share the certification 

or date of manufacture stated on the 

trailer certification plate. 

Furthermore, while NHTSA regulates 

new motor vehicles and equipment, the 

importance of the requirements does not 

end when the vehicles or equipment are 

sold. A purchaser of such vehicles 

would likely need to know if the 

manufacturer certified the RIG when the 

vehicle was new. This is one reason 

why the requirement is for the label to 

be permanent. Therefore, lack of a 

certification plate could have a safety 

implication throughout the life of the 

product. 

A RIG certification plate is required 

by FMVSS No. 223 as the Rear Impact 

Guard is a part of trailer, much in the 

same way an independent DOT 

certification, as indicated by the symbol 

DOT, is required on regulated vehicle 

lamps, wheels, tires, and various other 

regulated parts of a vehicle. In the same 

way, the presence of a passenger vehicle 

certification label does not obviate the 

marking requirements of the 

aforementioned vehicle equipment. 

Similarly, a trailer certification plate 

does not obviate the requirement for a 

RIG certification plate. 

After reviewing the petition of 

inconsequentiality from Great Dane, 

NHTSA has determined that this 

particular noncompliance is not 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

therefore this petition is denied. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Great Dane has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 

224 noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Great Dane’s petition is hereby denied 

and Great Dane is consequently 

obligated to provide notification of and 

free remedy for that noncompliance 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Anne L. Collins, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08226 Filed 4–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0117; Notice 2] 

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., and 

Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc., 

Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, 

Ltd. and Sumitomo Rubber North 

America, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Sumitomo’’) have determined that 

certain Sumitomo and Falken truck tires 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 

4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and 

Motorcycles. Sumitomo filed a 

noncompliance report dated November 

12, 2020. Sumitomo subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 

2020, and later amended its petition on 

April 8, 2021, and July 9, 2021, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

the denial of Sumitomo’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 

NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, (325) 655–0547. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Sumitomo has determined that certain 

Sumitomo and Falken truck tires do not 

fully comply with the requirements of 

paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119, 

New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles 

with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and 

Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). 

Sumitomo filed a noncompliance report 

dated November 12, 2020, pursuant to 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Sumitomo subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 

2020, and later amended its petition on 

April 8, 2021, and July 9, 2021, 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 Sumitomo’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on October 12, 

2021, in the Federal Register (86 FR 

56750). No comments were 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–2020– 

0117.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 8,275 of the following 

Sumitomo and Falken truck and bus 

radial tires, manufactured between 

January 26, 2020, and June 2, 2020, are 

potentially involved: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES