Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0021-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Posted Date: 2020-06-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35990-35992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0021; 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'') have determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicles do 
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed a 
noncompliance report dated February 24, 2020, and subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA on March 12, 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 July 13, 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

[[Page 35991]]

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 has determined that certain MY 2019 
Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicles do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping 
and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104). Mercedes-Benz filed a 
noncompliance report dated February 24, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and noncompliance responsibility and reports, and 
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 12, 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. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 4,145 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz 
A220 and A220 4MATIC motor vehicles manufactured between August 3, 
2018, and November 26, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance 
is that the windshield wiping systems in the subject vehicles do not 
wipe the percentage of the windshield as required by paragraph S4.1.2 
of FMVSS No. 104. Specifically, the windshield wiping system may only 
wipe 93.8% of the windshield instead of the 94% required.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104 includes 
the requirements relevant to this petition. When tested wet in 
accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a (1966), each passenger 
car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, 
and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that 
(1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following 
subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter 
line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the 
daylight opening.
    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 described the subject noncompliance and 
stated their belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Mercedes-Benz submitted the following 
reasoning:
    1. Mercedes-Benz cited the definition of motor vehicle safety as 
cited in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and 
their belief that this matter is appropriate for a decision that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as it does not 
present any increased risk to vehicle occupants.
    2. They state that, in the subject vehicles, the portion of the 
windshield that just falls below the minimum wiped area is located at 
the outer edge of the windshield. In the worst-case scenario, only 
93.8%, instead of the minimum 94%, of the Area B portion of the 
windshield remains unwiped. The affected portion of Area B is located 
at the outer edge of the passenger's side of the windshield and not in 
the area located directly in front of the driver's field of view.
    3. Mercedes-Benz asserts that NHTSA has previously considered the 
performance of windshield wiper systems in the context of interpreting 
the meaning of the term ``daylight opening'' in FMVSS No. 104. 
Mercedes-Benz says that in 2003, in response to a request from a 
manufacturer, NHTSA interpreted that opaque coatings located around the 
edge of the windshield would not be considered part of the daylight 
opening for purposes of calculating the starting point of the wiped 
area. See Letter to Reed, May 6, 2003. This interpretation was an 
apparent change in approach for several manufacturers. In a request for 
reconsideration, the industry reported that many vehicles would not 
meet the minimum wiped portion of Area B based on the Agency's new 
interpretation. In supporting comments, two manufacturers reported that 
there were multiple vehicle models that would not meet the 94% minimum 
requirement for Area B. For one of the manufacturers, all of its 
vehicles were no more than 93.2% of the Area B minimum, while the other 
manufacturer did not provide specific information on how far its system 
deviated from the Area B minimum. After considering the substantial 
resources necessary to redesign the wiper systems outside of the normal 
vehicle refresh schedule, the Agency delayed the date on which it would 
begin enforcement of FMVSS No. 104 based on its updated interpretation. 
See Letter to Strassburger, January 7, 2005.
    4. Thus, while the Agency was alerted to the fact that certain 
vehicles would not be able to comply with the minimum wiped area 
requirements of FMVSS No. 104, the Agency delayed implementing 
enforcement of the new interpretation for several years. While the 
delay was based, in part on the additional complexities needed to 
update the vehicle, fundamentally, the small deviation in the minimum 
wiped area requirement appears to not have been considered one that 
adversely impacted driver visibility or increased the safety risk to 
vehicle occupants. In that case, the deviation from the minimum wiped 
portion of Area B was more than what exists in the subject vehicles. 
While it is unclear from the interpretation letters what portion of 
Area B did not meet the minimum wiped requirements, in the subject 
vehicles, only a narrow strip of a portion of the outer edge of the 
passenger side of the windshield is affected by the deviation. Due to 
the location and small size of the unwiped

[[Page 35992]]

area, the deviation would not affect the visibility of the driver or 
their ability to safely operate the vehicle and would not lead to an 
overall increased safety risk to the vehicle occupants.
    5. Mercedes-Benz stated that the windshield wiper systems installed 
in the subject vehicles otherwise meet or exceed the remaining 
requirements in FMVSS No. 104 for the wiped portion of Areas A and C, 
for wiper frequency, and the windshield washing system. Mercedes-Benz 
has not received any reports related to a lack of visibility due to the 
performance of the windshield wiping system at issue here.
    Mercedes-Benz concluded by expressing the 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.
    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 vehicles 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 vehicles 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. 2020-12718 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P