|
|---|
|
Maserati North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 7 September 2022 Subject: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Maserati |
[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, Syed.Rahaman@dot.gov.
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