Daimler Coaches North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Daimler AG
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
9 November 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 217 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71392-71394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24822]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0084; Notice 1]
Daimler Coaches 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 Coaches North America, LLC (DCNA), a subsidiary of
Daimler AG, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012-2019 Setra
S407 and MY 2009-2020 Setra S417 buses do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.
DCNA filed a noncompliance report dated July 16, 2020. DCNA
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 4, 2020, and later amended it
on October 1, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces receipt of DCNA's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before December 9, 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
DCNA has determined that certain MY 2012-2019 S407 and 2009-2020
Setra S417 buses do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraphs S.5.3.2.1 and S5.3.2.2 of Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls
and Displays (49 CFR 571.101). DCNA filed a noncompliance report dated
July 16, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. DCNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
August 4, 2020, and later amended it petition on October 1, 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 DCNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent
[[Page 71393]]
any Agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits
of the petition.
II. Buses Involved
Approximately 538 MY 2012-2019 Setra S407 and MY 2009-2020 Setra
S417 motorcoach buses manufactured between May 19, 2009, and December
18, 2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
DCNA explains that the noncompliance is that the windshield
defogging/defrosting and the hazard warning signal indicators in the
subject buses do not meet the brightness of illumination requirements
provided in paragraphs S5.3.2.1 and S5.3.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 101.
Specifically, the brightness of the windshield defogging/defrosting
indicator cannot be adjusted and the hazard warning signal indicator
does not illuminate.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S.5.3.2.1 and S.5.3.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 101 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. Means must be provided for
illuminating the indicators, identification of indicators, and
identifications of controls listed in Table 1 to make them visible to
the driver under daylight and nighttime driving conditions. The means
of providing the visibility required by paragraph S5.3.2.1 must be
adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness.
V. Summary of DCNA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of DCNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
DCNA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. DCNA described the subject noncompliance and
contended that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, which is attached in full to the
docket, DCNA submitted the following reasoning:
1. DCNA explained its understanding of FMVSS No. 101 and described
its opinion that the specified noncompliance does not increase risk to
motor vehicle safety: FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, is premised
on ensuring the various controls, telltales, and indicators can easily
be recognized in order to facilitate the driver's selection under day
and nighttime conditions, to prevent the mistaken selection of controls
and to reduce potential safety hazards when the driver's attention is
diverted from the driving task. FMVSS No. 101 sets requirements for the
location (S5.1), identification (S5.2), and illumination (S5.3) of
various controls and displays, and Table 1 of the standard sets out
those controls, telltales, and indicators with illumination and color
requirements. At S5.3.1(b), the controls 1isted in Table 1 of the
standard, including those for the hazard and windshield defrost/defog
control, are required to be illuminated whenever the headlamps are
activated, and the brightness of the control is to be adjustable to at
least two levels.
DCNA believes that the lack of illumination on the hazard warning
lamp symbol included on the control and inability to adjust the
brightness of the defrost/defog control does not present an increased
risk to motor vehicle safety. DCNA states that each of the controls is
fully operable, and their function is not affected by the lack of
illumination or ability to adjust the brightness of the individual
control or identifier.
2. DCNA described the operation and design of the hazard warning
lamp control for the subject vehicle and DCNA's assessment of risk: The
hazard warning lamp is controlled by a large red plastic toggle switch
that is 19 mm across by 40 mm high. The switch is activated by pressing
the bottom half of the switch downward with one finger until a clicking
noise occurs. When the hazard warning lamp is activated, even without
illumination the operation of the hazard function is confirmed because
the hazard lamp itself will flash on and off and both the right and
left turn signal indicators in the instrument cluster will flash on and
off and in unison with the hazard warning lamps on the exterior of the
vehicle. Thus, there is no question that the driver would not be able
to confirm that the hazard warning lamp is operational.
The vehicle operator can readily identify and locate the hazard
warning lamp switch under nighttime conditions, even without the
illumination of the hazard warning lamp symbol on the switch. The
hazard warning lamp control is located at the immediate right of the
driver. The switch is located at the driver's eye level and remains in
plain view of the driver when the driver is belted. The hazard warning
lamp switch is bright red and is the only switch or control on the
immediate right side of the driver that is not black or grey and, thus,
easily contrasts with the remainder of the interior and background of
the driver's compartment area. The characteristics and placement of the
hazard warning lamp switch make it readily apparent under all operating
conditions.
3. DCNA described the operation and design of the windshield
defrost/defog control for the subject vehicle and DCNA's assessment of
risk: The windshield defrost/defog symbol is located adjacent to the
control knob. The turn-style control knob that activates the windshield
defrost/defog function and the adjacent symbol are automatically
illuminated when the vehicle's headlamps are activated but cannot be
dimmed in accordance with paragraph S5.3.2.1. However, each of the
functions surrounding the windshield defrost/defog symbol, many of
which are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101, Table 1, are illuminated.
There is a master switch for adjusting the brightness of the area
surrounding the driver. Dimming is controlled within the meter assembly
menu for the dashboard lights and is adjustable to more than two
different levels of brightness. Further, the windshield defog/defrost
control is located within a group of controls that are responsible for
the heating, cooling, and temperature operations of the driver's
compartment of the vehicle. Therefore, the driver would be well aware
of the location of the defrost/defog control because it is located
within a cluster of controls that operate similar functions. Thus,
there is little to no risk that the driver's vision would otherwise be
impaired if the display was too bright or too dim.
Further, any driver of a motorcoach such as the vehicles that are
the subject of this petition would be a professionally trained driver.
As such, the driver would likely have experience in operating the
particular vehicle and would be knowledgeable about the location and
function of all of the controls and devices within the vehicle. More
so, the interior cabin of the motorcoach in the area forward of the
driver's seat is sufficiently lit by roadway lighting, other
illuminated controls, telltales, and the light emitted from the display
of the instrument cluster. As described above, the dashboard lamps are
illuminated when the vehicle is operated with the headlamps on. This
would also brighten the area in the vicinity of the driver and would
assist in illuminating the hazard warning lamp and other controls and
indicators.
The Agency has previously considered conditions where certain
controls, telltales, and indicators listed in Table 1 were not visible
to the driver under all day and night driving conditions and has
concluded that the noncompliance is inconsequential. In particular, an
electrical condition which could cause the headlamp upper beam
indicator telltale to extinguish for
[[Page 71394]]
various periods of time and under certain conditions was deemed to be
inconsequential. In granting the petition, the Agency relied on the
fact that the upper beam telltale would only need to be illuminated
under nighttime driving conditions and found at that time that ``a
comparatively small portion of driving occurs at night, the time of
headlamp activation.'' See Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, General Motors Corp., 56 FR 33323 (July
19, 1991).
The buses that are the subject of this petition are motor coaches
largely used in commercial activity. As such, the drivers operating
these vehicles are trained drivers that should be familiar with the
layout, placement, and operation of the hazard warning lamp and defog/
defrost controls. NHTSA has previously found that when trained drivers
operate vehicles, this diminishes the potential safety consequence of
an FMVSS No.101 noncompliance because it is expected that the drivers
will not only monitor their vehicles' condition closely to ensure the
systems are properly operating but that ``professional drivers will
become familiar with the meaning of the telltales and other warnings
and the feedback provided to the driver in these vehicles.'' See Mack
Trucks, Inc., and Volvo Trucks North America, Grant of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 67766 (December 11,
2019); Autocar Industries, LLC, and Hino Motors Sales U.S.A., Inc.,
Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR
11162 (March 25, 2019); Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 33551
(July 20, 2017).
4. DCNA summarized corrections taken and its lack of complaints or
reports related to the condition described in the petition: Evo Bus and
DCNA have corrected this issue in production by including a mechanism
to adjust the brightness of the vehicle's defrost/defog control and to
illuminate the hazard warning lamp control. DCNA is not aware of any
complaints or reports related to the condition described in this
petition. In the majority of cases, the vehicles have been in use for
many years and without incident.
DCNA concluded by again contending that the subject noncompliances
are inconsequential as they relate 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.
DCNA'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 buses that DCNA 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 DCNA
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. 2020-24822 Filed 11-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P