Document ID: NHTSA-2021-0079-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Maserati North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2022-09-07T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54749-54751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0079; Notice 2]

Maserati North America, 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: Maserati North America, Inc., (MNA), has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2014-2021 Maserati Ghibli, Quattroporte, and 
Levante motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. MNA filed a 
noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021. MNA subsequently petitioned 
NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its petition on January 13, 2022, 
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of 
MNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Syed Rahaman, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
(202) 306-7018, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    MNA has determined that certain MY 2014-2021 Maserati Levante, 
Ghibli, and Quattroporte motor vehicles do not fully comply with 
paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.208).
    MNA filed a noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021, pursuant to 
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. 
MNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its 
petition on January 13, 2022, 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 MNA's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on January 31, 2022, in the Federal Register (87 
FR 4991). No comments were received. To view the

[[Page 54750]]

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-
2021-0079.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 78,588 MY 2014-2021 Maserati Levante, Ghibli, and 
Quattroporte motor vehicles, manufactured between April 30, 2013, and 
July 13, 2021, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    MNA explains that the subject vehicles are equipped with air bag 
warning labels that are affixed to the headliner, rather than either 
side of the sun visor, as required by S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. Vehicles certified to meet the requirements 
specified in S19, S21, or S23 on or after September 1, 2003, shall have 
a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the 
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is 
equipped with an inflatable restraint.

V. Summary of MNA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by 
MNA. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. MNA describes the 
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    MNA says that the sun visor is affixed with an air bag alert label 
that informs ``passengers to flip the sun visor to the down position'' 
to view the warning label. MNA also says that although the air bag 
warning label is affixed to the headliner, the label is clearly visible 
when the sun visor is in the down position. In its petition, MNA 
provides computer-aided design (CAD) illustrations of the air bag alert 
label and noncompliant air bag warning label.
    MNA states its belief that although the air bag warning label is 
not positioned on the sun visor, the combination with the air bag alert 
label on the sun visor with the warning label on the headliner provides 
a prominent display as intended by FMVSS No. 208. In support of this 
argument, MNA cites a 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on 
Vehicle Defect Reporting Requirements \1\ in which MNA says NHTSA 
assessed ``the suitability of the headliner for safety warning labels 
in Section IV, Alternatives Considered and Proposed for the Label, and 
finds the headliner to be an effective location for a safety warning 
label.'' MNA cites NHTSA as stating that it recognizes ``the headliner 
as an effective location for safety warning labels.'' MNA further 
states that NHTSA has found the headliner to be of similar benefit as 
the sun visor for the placement of the air bag warning label. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 81 FR 85478 (November 28, 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MNA says it ``is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer 
complaints associated with this condition'' and that production is 
being updated to correct the noncompliance in future vehicles.
    MNA concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety and 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

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses 
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event 
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA 
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when 
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The 
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not 
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be 
safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 
12, 2016); see also 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to 
the consequence of that noncompliance.\4\ The Safety Act is preventive, 
and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or injuries to 
occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall.\5\ Indeed, the 
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 
759 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(b)(3) requires air bag warning labels to be 
affixed to either side of the sun visor. The purpose of FMVSS No. 208 
is to reduce the adverse effects of air bags by attracting the 
attention of vehicle occupants to look for the air bag warning label on 
the sun visor. In its petition, MNA explains that the subject vehicles 
are equipped with air bag warning labels that are affixed to the 
headliner, rather than either side of the sun visor
    FMVSS No. 208 S4.5.1(c) requires an air bag alert label to be 
permanently affixed to the sun visor so that the label is visible when 
the visor is in the stowed position if the air bag warning label 
required by S4.5.1(b) is not visible when the sun visor is in the 
stowed position. The alert label must contain the content of the sun 
visor label as shown in Figure 6(c) of FMVSS No. 208. This requirement 
specifies that manufacturers, who place the label required by 
S4.5.1(b)(3) on the side of the visor that is hidden from the occupant 
when stowed, must place an air bag alert label on the visible part of 
the sun visor. MNA has done this and used the correct Figure 6(c) 
label. NHTSA believes this to be adequate notice to the occupant 
instructing them to ``flip visor over'' and view the full air bag 
warning label. In the case of the subject vehicles, the occupant would 
clearly see the required warning label on the headliner directly above 
the sun visor.
    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance 
petition submitted by MNA and has determined that this particular 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees 
with MNA that the noncompliant placement of the air bag warning label 
in the subject vehicles is inconsequential. Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) 
allows for placement of the air bag warning label on either side of the 
sun visor, including the side that is hidden from the driver when 
stowed. Paragraph S4.5.1(c) requires an instructional alert

[[Page 54751]]

label informing the occupant to flip the visor over, placing the visor 
in the down position, for more information. MNA explained that the 
label is clearly visible when the sun visor is in the down position and 
is displayed as intended by FMVSS No. 208.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that MNA has met its 
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 208 noncompliance in 
the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, MNA's petition is hereby granted and MNA 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 vehicles that MNA 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 MNA 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. 2022-19234 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P