Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0085-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Posted Date: 2020-10-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68622-68623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0085; Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz USA, 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: Mercedes-Benz AG (MBAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) 
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'') a subsidiary of Daimler AG has 
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz 
Sprinter and MY 2019-2020 Freightliner Sprinter vans 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 5,536 
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less. Daimler Vans USA LLC on behalf of 
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020. 
Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2020, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of 
Mercedes-Benz's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 30, 2020.

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.
     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 docket. 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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz, a subsidiary of Daimler AG, has 
determined that certain MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and 2019-
2020 Freightliner Sprinter vans do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S4.3(a) 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 5,536 Kilograms (10,000 
Pounds) or Less (49 CFR 571.110). Daimler Vans USA LLC on behalf of 
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 
2020, 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 Mercedes-Benz's petition is published 
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency 
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the 
petition.
    II. Vans Involved: Approximately 33 MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz 
Sprinter and MY 2019-2020 Freightliner Sprinter vans manufactured 
between April 18, 2019, and February 25, 2020, are potentially 
involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance 
is that the subject vehicles are equipped with vehicle placards that 
incorrectly state the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo in 
pounds and therefore, do not meet the requirements set forth in 
paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, the last digit of the 
value in pounds for the combined weight of occupants and cargo is 
missing. The vehicle placard states that

[[Page 68623]]

the combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed 353 
pounds when it should state 3,532 pounds.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 includes the 
requirements relevant to this petition. Each vehicle, except for a 
trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in 
S4.3(a) through (g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option the 
information specified in S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently 
affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. Specifically, S4.3(a) states 
that vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``[t]he combined weight of 
occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds'' 
must be present on the driver's side B-pillar.
    V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition: The following views and 
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's 
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Mercedes-Benz. They 
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and 
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Mercedes-Benz offers the following 
reasoning:
    Mercedes-Benz says the affected vehicles contain placards that do 
not list the correct vehicle weight limit in pounds as they 
inadvertently omit the last digit of the weight capacity. The maximum 
weight capacity is provided accurately in kilograms. As an example, the 
maximum weight is listed as 353 pounds but should be 3,532 pounds. All 
of the remaining information on the placard is accurate.
    Despite the error on the placard, there is no increased risk to 
motor vehicle safety. There is no risk of vehicle overloading. In the 
event the consumer relies upon the maximum vehicle weight capacity 
listed in pounds and does not reference any of the additional sources 
of information available to determine the maximum loading capacity, 
then the vehicle would be substantially underloaded.
    In addition, there are other accurate sources of vehicle weight 
capacity information available to the operator. The certification label 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 567 is located on the vehicle's B-pillar and 
accurately indicates the vehicle's GVWR. In addition, the placard 
includes the statement that the operator should refer to the owner's 
manual for further information. The owner's manual for the affected 
vehicles (both the hard copy manual and the electronic version 
available online) describes the methodology for the customer to 
calculate the accurate maximum weight in capacity information in both 
pounds and kilograms. Upon noting that the maximum weight in pounds is 
extremely low and differs significantly from the maximum weight listed 
in kilograms, it is reasonable to expect that the operator would 
question the information and refer to the owner's manual for further 
clarification, as instructed on the placard. Thus, the driver can refer 
to this alternate source of information to determine the correct 
maximum load weight of the vehicle.
    Discrepancies in the maximum occupant capacity information have 
been found to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, particularly 
where the vehicle is technically capable of handling any increased 
loading. See, e.g., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 33547, July 20, 2017 
(maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo was listed as a value 
higher on the placard that the actual vehicle capacity. The 
noncompliance was found to be inconsequential because the tire size and 
pressure were accurate, and the tires and vehicle axles would have been 
able to safely carry any additional loading on the vehicle).\1\ In the 
affected vehicles, the omission of the last digit leads to a 
substantially lower than calculated maximum vehicle loading capacity. 
Therefore, there is no risk that a consumer relying on the placard 
alone would overload the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mercedes-Benz also notes that a similar inconsequentiality 
petition from another manufacturer is currently pending before the 
Agency where the last digit was left off of the printed label and 
the maximum loading capacity was similarly understated. See Jayco, 
Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 85 FR 554 (January 6, 2020). Here, the manufacturer 
indicated a total of 8,174 trailers have trailer loading capacity 
placards which show the vehicle weight capacity as 80 kg when it 
should be 807 kg. In that case, the placard also includes an 
additional character in the recommended tire inflation listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Agency has previously granted petitions for 
inconsequential treatment for FMVSS No. 110, where the underlying issue 
also involved missing information of typographical errors on the 
vehicle placard, but where the information was otherwise readily 
available from another source, such as the owner's manual. See, e.g., 
Kia Motors America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 85 FR 39676, July 1, 2020 (failure to 
provide wheel size information and the letter ``i'' in ``psi'' on the 
placard is inconsequential where the information could be obtained from 
the owner's manual). That the accurate information is otherwise readily 
available from other sources creates no additional enhanced risk to 
motor vehicle safety in this case. In this case, the owner's manual 
instructs the user on how to calculate the maximum vehicle weight 
capacity.
    Finally, Mercedes-Benz states that it is not aware of any reports 
or complaints about the issue from the field and it has corrected the 
condition in production.
    Mercedes-Benz 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.
    Mercedes Benz's complete petition and all supporting documents are 
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) 
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search 
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this 
notice.
    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 vans that Mercedes-Benz no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on 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 buses under their control after Mercedes-
Benz 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. 2020-23948 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P