[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22622-22623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0074; 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) 2020-2022 Freightliner Cascadia and Western 
Star motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. DTNA filed an 
original noncompliance report dated June 30, 2021, and later amended it 
on July 16, 2021. DTNA petitioned NHTSA on July 29, 2021, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of 
DTNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
(202) 366-0661, [email protected].

DATES: Send comments on or before May 16, 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.
     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 2020-2022 Freightliner Cascadia 
and Western Star motor vehicles do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 
CFR 571.205). DTNA filed an original noncompliance report dated June 
30, 2021, and later amended it on July 16, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DTNA 
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 29, 2021, 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

[[Page 22623]]

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. Windshields Involved

    Approximately 68,658 MY 2020-2022 Freightliner Cascadia, MY 2021 
Western Star 57X, MY 2021-2022 Western Star 49X, and MY 2021-2022 
Western Star 47X motor vehicles, manufactured between June 25, 2020, 
and June 22, 2021, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    DTNA explains that the noncompliance is that windshield installed 
in the subject vehicles may contain a Tintex Plus light material, 
which, in combination with the windshield configuration and thickness, 
do not fully meet the requirements of paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205. 
Specifically, the windshields in the subject vehicles have a luminous 
transmittance measured between 67.35 and 68.01 percent, instead of the 
required 70 percent.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements relevant 
to this petition. Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must 
conform to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996.

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 describes the subject noncompliance and 
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety.
    DTNA states that although the luminous transmittance of the 
windshields in the subject vehicles is 1.99-2.65 percent less than the 
required 70 percent, the subject vehicles have such features as 
windshield's installation angles that make effective visibility much 
higher than other vehicles with similar transmittance.''
    DTNA claims that NHTSA has previously determined that luminous 
transmittance, lower than what is required, to not be a safety risk. 
According to DTNA, NHTSA's ``Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor 
Vehicle Windows,'' in March 1991 found that ``the light transmittance 
of windows of the then new passenger cars and vans that complied with 
Standard No. 205 did not present an unreasonable risk of accident 
occurrence.'' DTNA says that a study reported by TUY Rheinland also 
supports its position that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety because the report states that ``low contrast 
targets were not seen 100% of the time by either group of subjects, but 
the normally sighted group performed equally well in seeing them 
through windshields of 89, 76, and 58% transmittance'' and visibility 
was not found to be ``much reduced'' until it reached 40%. Thus, DTNA 
believes that the subject windshields ``are far closer to the 
standard'' in luminous transmittance than what the TUY Rheinland study 
found would reduce visibility.
    DTNA explains the light transmittance ``as experienced by a vehicle 
driver, is a function of the windshield construction and installation 
angle.'' DTNA states that because of the measurements found in the 
subject windshields, the luminous transmittance of the subject 
windshields is ``only nominally outside the specification but perform 
in a manner exceeding the typical modern passenger vehicle with a 
window at a standard angle.'' Therefore, the luminous transmittance in 
the subject windshields are ``as good or better than the visibility 
through windshields of other vehicles that comply'' with the 
requirement.
    Furthermore, DTNA explains that due to the ``6-9 month lifetime'' 
for heavy truck windshields, ``the length of time for any particular 
windshield to be on the road is limited'' and would be replaced with 
windshields that do not contain the subject noncompliance.
    DTNA claims that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequentiality 
petitions for similar noncompliances with luminous transmittance.\1\ 
DTNA says that in those cases, NHTSA agreed that although the 
percentage of luminous transmittance was lower, the reduction ``would 
have no practical or perceivable effect on driver visibility.'' 
Therefore, DTNA believes that granting its petition would be consistent 
with inconsequentiality petitions that NHTSA has previously granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Ford Motor Company; Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 60 FR 31345 (June 14, 1995); see also 
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.; Action on Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 10964 (March 5, 1998)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA concludes by stating its belief 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.
    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 and replacement windshield glass 
panes under their control after DTNA 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. 2022-08108 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P