Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0063-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC
Posted Date: 2022-04-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22019-22022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07825]

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

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.

[[Page 22020]]

     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

    DTNA has determined that certain MY 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia 
heavy motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of 
paragraph S6.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). DTNA filed a noncompliance 
report dated May 12, 2020, and amended the report on December 23, 2021, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 4, 2020, and 
later amended its petition on July 22, 2020, and January 19, 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.
    This notice of receipt of DTNA'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. Trucks Involved

    Approximately 24,282 MY 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia heavy motor 
vehicles manufactured between January 16, 2019, and March 27, 2020, are 
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    DTNA explains that the first noncompliance is that during an 
Advanced Brake Assist (ABA) event, the hazard warning signal in the 
subject vehicles, does not meet the flash rate required by paragraph 
S6.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, during an emergency braking 
(EB) stage of ABA events and if the vehicle is being operated at 20 
kilometers per hour (km/h) (12 miles per hour (MPH)) or more, the 
hazard warning signal lights are actuated at a flash rate of 140 
flashes per minute when the flash rate should be between 60 and 120 
flashes per minute. In addition to the flash rate noncompliance, DTNA 
says that in specific operating circumstances, where the truck has 
progressed to the third and final phase of an ABA event, the system 
automatically activates the hazard warning lamps contrary to the 
definition of the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit which 
states it is a driver controlled device.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4, S6.1.5.1, S9.6.2, S14.9.3.9.3, and Figure 2 of FMVSS 
No. 108 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph 
S4 defines the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit as a 
driver-controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to 
flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of 
a vehicular hazard. Paragraph S.6.1.5.1 requires that in all passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the 
activation of the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit must 
cause to flash simultaneously sufficient turn signal lamps to meet, as 
a minimum, the turn signal photometric requirements of this standard. 
Paragraph S9.6.2 requires that the vehicular hazard warning signal 
operating unit must operate independently of the ignition or equivalent 
switch and if the actuation of the hazard function requires the 
operation of more than one switch, a means must be provided for 
actuating all switches simultaneously by a single driver action. 
Paragraph S14.9.3.9.3 requires that the flash rate and percent current 
``on'' time test for at least 17 of 20 samples comply with the 
following: (a) The performance of a normally closed type flasher must 
be within the unshaded portion of the polygon shown in Figure 2, or (b) 
The performance of a normally open type flasher must be within the 
entire rectangle including the shaded areas shown in Figure 2.

[[Page 22021]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13AP22.000

V. Summary of DTNA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by 
DTNA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the 
views of the Agency. DTNA described the subject noncompliances and 
stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    DTNA explains the three phases of an ABA event as follows: First, 
there is the Optic Acoustic Warning (OAW), the Warn (Haptic) Braking 
(WB/HB), and then the EB. The first phase, OAW, ``warns the operator of 
a possible collision with a pop-up and audio alert only,'' and will 
move into the second phase, ``if the driver does not apply sufficient 
deceleration by applying service brakes.'' The WB/HB ``applies 50 
percent deceleration to the vehicle in order to assist the driver in 
mitigating a possible collision.'' Then, DTNA states, ``[i]f the system 
deems it necessary'' it will start the EB phase (third phase) which 
would apply ``maximum braking force to assist the driver in bringing 
the truck to a complete halt.'' DTNA states that only during this third 
phase would ``the warning system in question engage.''
    DTNA provides background information, detailing the development of 
its ABA system \1\ and states that its findings show ``that an EB event 
is an extremely rare scenario that is visible only for a short period 
of time in only the rarest of extreme braking events.'' According to 
DTNA, the data ``conveys that an EB event has an extremely short 
occurrence with a negligible reaction time to notice the change in 
hazard warning signal flash rate.'' Further according to DTNA, the 
average EB event lasts ``less than 1 second'' and of ``millions of 
miles of recorded data'' the maximum EB event observed lasted ``less 
than 3 seconds.'' Specific to the noncompliant flash rate, DTNA says 
this data supports their assertion that ``the number of blink cycles 
between the maximum permissible flash rate and emergency braking flash 
rate on the subject vehicles is minimal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Details of DTNA's ABA development can be found in its 
petition at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0063-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA contends that ``[t]he flashing warning provides other vehicles 
with a safe indication of the aggressiveness of the braking.'' DTNA 
claims that NHTSA has found that ``flashing warning under certain 
extreme braking events may be regarded as a safer indicator for rear 
signaling.'' \2\ DTNA also notes that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration ``has granted an approval'' for hazmat hauler tanker 
trucks to use amber brake activated lights, following a 30-month study 
by Groendyke Transportation which found that a ``pulsating amber brake 
light reduced rear-end collisions by roughly 34%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DTNA cites Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in 
the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling 
Countermeasure Development. DOT HS 810 846 (October 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DTNA states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions 
for noncompliances similar to the noncompliant flash rate \3\ where 
those noncompliances only occur ``under specific and rare conditions,'' 
\4\ and ``were granted for short duration of occurrence'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 32871 (June 18, 
2001).
    \4\ See General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 7847 (February 22, 2018) and 
General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013).
    \5\ See Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 8151 (March 6, 
2019), Maserati S.p.A and Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 1676 
(January 13, 2016), and General Motors Corporation; Grant of 
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 FR 
56734 (November 4, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA states that it ``is not aware of any accidents, injuries, 
owner complaints or field reports'' in relation to the subject 
noncompliances.
    On September 13, 2022, NHTSA contacted DTNA to further explain and 
discuss the automatic activation of the hazard warning lamps. DTNA 
clarified that ``based on analysis of prior agency interpretations,'' 
it believes that the ``limited technical parameters and operating 
conditions under which the hazard warning lamps would activate,'' does 
not constitute a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA informed DTNA 
that the prior interpretations did not support DTNA's position because 
the subject vehicles ``have not come to a complete stop at the time the 
hazard warning lamps activate.'' As a result, DTNA amended its original 
petition to include the automatic activation of the hazard warning 
lamps as a noncompliance.
    DTNA believes that this noncompliance is also inconsequential 
because the ``limited context in which the hazard lamps automatically 
activate ensure the message which the hazard warning lamps is 
communicating is clear and does not confuse other drivers about the 
meaning of the lamps.'' DTNA again explains the phases of its ABA 
system and says that if the driver does not disengage the ABA system, 
it ``will

[[Page 22022]]

apply the maximum braking force'' and cause the vehicle to come to a 
complete stop. When the emergency braking is activated in this phase 
while the subject vehicle is traveling at 20 mph or more ``the hazard 
warning lamps are automatically activated and flash at a rate of 140 
Hz.'' Therefore, DTNA says, the automatic activation of the hazard 
warning lamps would not occur ``in stop and go traffic.'' DTNA also 
notes that after the subject vehicle ``comes to a complete stop, the 
hazard lamps revert to a standard flash rate'' and ``throughout the ABA 
event, the hazard warning signal operating unit can be manually engaged 
by the driver.''
    DTNA then contends that the automatic activation of the hazard 
warning lamps is consistent with prior NHTSA interpretations in which 
it says, ``the agency has found automatic activation of the hazard 
warning signal operating unit to be appropriate in certain 
circumstances.'' DTNA claims that the November 18, 2016, interpretation 
letter to General Motors \6\ supports its view. In that interpretation 
letter, DTNA says that NHTSA ``concluded that in the context of an 
adaptive cruise control system, the automatic activation of the hazard 
warning lamps was consistent with FMVSS 108 if the human driver failed 
to respond to the system's requests to regain control of the vehicle.'' 
DTNA argues that the automatic activation of the hazard warning lamps 
in the subject vehicles is consistent with the condition found in the 
interpretation letter to General Motors. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289-gm-hazard-innovative-28-apr-16-rsy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA claims that the automatic activation of the hazard warning 
lamps ``is consistent with the type of message the hazard lamps are 
intended to convey'' and consistent with other NHTSA precedents.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SAE J910, Jan. 1966; see also Letter to Sen. Richard 
Lugar (May 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA concludes by expressing its belief that the subject 
noncompliances are 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 DTNA 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 DTNA 
notified them that the subject noncompliances 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. 2022-07825 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P