|
|---|
|
Great Dane, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 18 April 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Trucking
Topic: Great Dane |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23018-23020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08226]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0110; Notice 2]
Great Dane, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Great Dane, LLC (Great Dane) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2019 Great Dane Freedom Platform trailers do not comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear Impact
Guards, and FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. Great Dane filed a
noncompliance report dated January 2, 2019, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on January 2, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the denial of Great Dane's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natasha Iwegbu, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Great Dane has determined that certain MY 2019 Great Dane Freedom
Platform trailers do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No.
223, Rear Impact Guards (49 CFR 571.223), and paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS
No 224, Rear Impact Protection (49 CFR 571.224). Great Dane filed a
noncompliance report dated January 2, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and
[[Page 23019]]
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on January 2, 2019, 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 Great Dane's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on November 7, 2019 in the Federal Register
(84 FR 60145). One comment was received. To view the 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-2018-0110.''
II. Trailers Involved
Approximately 72 MY 2019 Great Dane Freedom Platform trailers,
manufactured between July 10, 2018, and November 8, 2018, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Great Dane explained that the noncompliance is that the subject
trailers were manufactured with a rear impact guard (RIG) that does not
contain the certification plate as required by paragraphs S5.3 of FMVSS
No. 223 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 224.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S5.3 of FMVSS No. 223 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 224 include
the requirements relevant to this petition. 49 CFR 571.223, S5.3
provides that each guard shall be permanently labeled with the
information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (c) of FMVSS No.
223. The information shall be in English and in letters that are at
least 2.5 mm high. The label shall be placed on the forward or rearward
facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided that the
label does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by
S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is readily
accessible for visual inspection and includes the following: (a) The
guard manufacturer's name and address, (b) the statement:
``Manufactured in ___'' (inserting the month and year of guard
manufacture), and (c) the letters ``DOT,'' constituting a certification
by the guard manufacturer that the guard conforms to all requirements
of this standard. 49 CFR 571.224, S5.1 requires that each vehicle shall
be equipped with a rear impact guard certified as meeting FMVSS No.
223.
V. Summary of Great Dane's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Great Dane's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Great Dane. They do not reflect the views of the Agency.
1. Great Dane believes that the lack of the impact guard
certification plate is an inconsequential type of noncompliance as it
relates to vehicle safety. The fact that the certification plate was
not installed on the rear impact guard on this particular group of
trailers does not make these trailers any less safe.
2. Great Dane stated that these rear impact guards as manufactured
and installed by Great Dane, are compliant as required by the Federal
Standard.
3. Great Dane stated that the subject trailers have affixed to them
certification plates, certifying that the entire trailer, including the
rear impact guard, meet and/or exceed all the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards in effect, on the date of manufacture as indicated.
4. Great Dane stated that to meet the standards of FMVSS Nos. 223
and 224, it has never installed a third party produced rear impact
guard on any of its trailers.
5. Great Dane stated that the incident that led to these trailers
being produced without the plate attached was an isolated incident. It
has since been investigated, resolved, and should not occur again in
the future.
6. Great Dane believes that the extra certification plate required
on the rear impact guard is redundant.
Great Dane concluded by contending 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.
VI. Public Comments
The Agency received one comment from the public. This comment was
received from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).\1\ CVSA
supports the granting of Great Dane's petition that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and ``agrees with Great Dane's assessment that a rear impact guard with
a certification label, that otherwise meets the requirements outlined
in FMVSS No. 223, is not any less safe than a rear impact guard with a
label.'' In its comment, CVSA contends that because these certification
labels ``frequently wear, fade or are removed during repair'' and
``motor carriers are unable to obtain new certification labels from the
original trailer manufacturers because they can no longer guarantee
that the rear impact guards meet the FMVSS manufacturing standard,''
the rear impact guard certification label requirements should be
removed. CVSA goes on to give its views about the effects of the rear
impact guard certification label requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Docket Number ``NHTSA-2018-0110-0003.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
Rear impact guards for trailers reduce the risk to passenger
vehicle occupants in crashes in which a passenger vehicle impacts the
rear end of a trailer or semitrailer. RIGs need to be certified as
meeting all applicable standards.
The principle of self-certification is the foundation of the method
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 establishes
for regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in the United
States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), there is a general prohibition
against manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing
or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing
into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect unless the vehicle or equipment both
complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued
under section 30115.
Offering for sale products that fail to contain the manufacturer's
certification violates this system, and therefore the consequences to
safety are potentially significant. Furthermore, omitting all of the
labeling from an item of regulated motor vehicle equipment may have
other safety consequences. NHTSA has a long-standing position that
removing required labeling reduces the safety effectiveness of items of
motor vehicle equipment. The labeling is an indication to consumers,
including secondhand purchasers, that the item of equipment provides a
minimum level of safety protection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-002439as.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received a comment from CVSA in support of Great Dane's
position, and in support of removing the RIG certification label
requirements altogether. NHTSA finds the argument that these labels
``frequently wear, fade, or are removed during repair'' to be a
[[Page 23020]]
complaint of inconvenience, not a complaint of substance. Furthermore,
to the extent that CVSA states that certification labels are removed
during repair and not replaced, such practice may violate 49 U.S.C.
30122(b), which prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or
motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any
part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle
equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard. NHTSA has stated that removal of markings and information
required by an applicable FMVSS would take such item out of compliance,
and therefore would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).
The removal of these labels may further endanger the motoring
public in a rear end collision with a trailer that has had a
substandard repair, or cannot be properly inspected for safety and
compliance. For example, once a trailer is in-service, the owner of the
trailer may choose to replace or repair the RIG at any time and may
source a replacement RIG from any number of places, over which the
original certifying entity has no control. If a RIG were to be involved
in a crash or if it were to fail an inspection, it may be difficult to
know who the certifying entity for a RIG was if there were no permanent
labeling on it. This would inhibit the ability of the investigators to
determine if there was a potential safety trend involved with the
subject equipment item. This example demonstrates the need for critical
safety equipment, such as the rear impact guard, to be labeled
permanently with the required information.
NHTSA does not agree with Great Dane's argument that the RIG
certification plate is redundant to the trailer certification plate,
nor does it agree that the lack of date of manufacture is
inconsequential. Further, Great Dane argues that all the trailers in
question were fitted with Great Dane RIGs and no third-party RIGs were
used, therefore the trailer certification plate is sufficient to
symbolize certification for the RIG. However, in the event of a rear-
end crash, the RIG would likely be replaced, while the trailer may
remain unaffected. In this instance, a replacement RIG would no longer
share the certification or date of manufacture stated on the trailer
certification plate.
Furthermore, while NHTSA regulates new motor vehicles and
equipment, the importance of the requirements does not end when the
vehicles or equipment are sold. A purchaser of such vehicles would
likely need to know if the manufacturer certified the RIG when the
vehicle was new. This is one reason why the requirement is for the
label to be permanent. Therefore, lack of a certification plate could
have a safety implication throughout the life of the product.
A RIG certification plate is required by FMVSS No. 223 as the Rear
Impact Guard is a part of trailer, much in the same way an independent
DOT certification, as indicated by the symbol DOT, is required on
regulated vehicle lamps, wheels, tires, and various other regulated
parts of a vehicle. In the same way, the presence of a passenger
vehicle certification label does not obviate the marking requirements
of the aforementioned vehicle equipment. Similarly, a trailer
certification plate does not obviate the requirement for a RIG
certification plate.
After reviewing the petition of inconsequentiality from Great Dane,
NHTSA has determined that this particular noncompliance is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, therefore this petition is
denied.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Great
Dane has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
223 and FMVSS No. 224 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Great Dane's petition is hereby denied and Great
Dane is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free
remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-08226 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P