[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76230-76233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0125; Notice 2]


Mercedes-Benz USA, 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: Mercedes-Benz AG (MB AG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) 
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz''), formerly known as Daimler AG has 
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG GT motor 
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Mercedes-Benz 
filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019, and subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 2019, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This notice announces the denial of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nuschler, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5829.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG 
GT motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS 
No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201).
    Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and

[[Page 76231]]

Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 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 Mercedes-Benz's petition was published, with a 
30-day public comment period, on May 21, 2020, in the Federal Register 
(85 FR 31023). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management Systems 
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0125.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz GT63, GT53, and GT63S AMG 
motor vehicles, manufactured between August 29, 2017, and March 4, 
2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz explains that an interior compartment door assembly 
in the subject vehicles does not meet the requirements of paragraph 
S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201. Specifically, the front center console 
storage compartment sliding lid may open briefly in certain types of 
forward crashes.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201, include 
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each interior compartment 
door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat 
back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall 
remain closed when tested in accordance with either S5.3.1(a) and 
S5.3.1(b) or S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c). S5.3.1(a) subjects the interior 
compartment door latch system to an inertia load of 10g in a horizontal 
transverse direction and an inertia load of 10g in a vertical direction 
in accordance with the procedure described in section 5 of SAE 
Recommended Practice J839b (1965) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
571.5), or an approved equivalent. Further, S5.3.1(c) subjects the 
interior compartment door latch system to a horizontal inertia load of 
30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedure 
described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b (1965) 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), or an approved 
equivalent.

V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition,'' are the views and arguments 
provided by Mercedes-Benz. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. 
Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Background: Prior to the introduction of the MY 2019 AMG GT 
vehicles to the United States market, MB AG found that the lid of the 
front center console could open for a matter of milliseconds and that 
the supplier of the compartment had tested the locking mechanism of the 
door with 24g of force, instead of the 30g force requirement contained 
in S5.3.1(c). The crash lock was updated in production, prior to 
introduction to the U.S. market, to ensure conformance to the force 
requirements in S5.3.1(c) and vehicles in the company's possession were 
reworked.\1\ MB AG later identified 12 vehicles that had not received 
the improved crash lock mechanism prior to being released into the 
field and made a determination to submit a part 573 Noncompliance 
Information Report on October 11, 2019. In support of its petition, 
Mercedes-Benz submits the following reasoning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The crash lock mechanism is not installed on vehicles 
offered for sale outside of the United States, Canada and South 
Korea, where FMVSS 201 or its equivalent has been adopted. According 
to the petition, MB AG is not aware of any claims or reports of 
injuries due to the performance of the interior compartment door in 
any market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. At issue in this petition are a total of 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-
Benz AMG GT vehicles. MB AG previously determined that the interior 
compartment door located within the vehicle's center console does not 
fully meet the requirement in FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in 
Interior Impact, when tested to the demonstration procedure for frontal 
crash set forth in the standard. In a frontal crash scenario, there is 
a possibility for the lid of the interior compartment door in the 
center console to open for a matter of milliseconds, after which the 
door will automatically close again.
    2. Mercedes-Benz states that due to the location and geometry of 
the compartment door, there is no risk of injury even if it were to 
open in a frontal crash. Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located 
in the center console, below the invehicle display, and does not 
present an opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened. 
Further, because the design of the door slides forward and into the 
center console when it opens, there is similarly no risk of injury from 
the performance of the door. Finally, although the purpose and 
objective of the standard is to protect against injury from hard and 
sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, because the compartment door 
will automatically close within an extremely short period of time (a 
matter of milliseconds) from opening and because the door may only open 
during a frontal crash in which case any objects within the compartment 
would only move in a forward direction and not rearward into the 
occupant compartment, there is no risk of harm from objects inside the 
compartment escaping into the occupant space.
    3. The Performance of the Compartment Door Does Not Create an 
Increased Safety Risk: Mercedes-Benz cites the provisions of the Safety 
Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the basis upon which NHTSA 
evaluates an inconsequentiality petition ``whether an occupant who is 
affected by the noncompliance is likely to be exposed to a 
significantly greater risk than an occupant in a compliant vehicle.'' 
See 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004) (emphasis added).
    As described below, the issue here does not impact the operational 
safety of the vehicle and will not create an enhanced risk to vehicle 
occupants because, in the limited, frontal crash scenario in which the 
door could potentially open, neither the door itself nor any objects 
within the compartment could cause injury to vehicle occupants.
    4. Description of the Compartment Door: Mercedes-Benz explains that 
the interior compartment door at issue in this petition is a storage 
compartment used in vehicles with the Wireless Media Interface (WMI) 
package. The WMI feature allows users to wirelessly charge cell phones 
within the compartment and the compartment can also be used to store 
small objects like coins and accessories. The compartment is located 
within the center console between the driver and front passenger's seat 
and the storage portion of the compartment is approximately 15 cm/6 
inches long and 13 cm/5 inches deep.
    In normal use, the door remains shut until an occupant pushes the 
door forward. The door moves forward in an upward direction, towards 
the front of the vehicle. When reaching the top, the door is enclosed 
within the housing of the compartment itself and, with an additional 
push is snapped into place to remain open. Once it is snapped into 
place, in order to close the door an

[[Page 76232]]

occupant can pull the door slightly from the housing. The door then 
closes automatically. As a result, if the door does open briefly during 
a frontal crash and is not pushed fully into the latched open position, 
Mercedes-Benz states it will quickly and automatically close.
    5. It is Not Possible for the Compartment Door to Strike Occupants: 
Mercedes-Benz states that the performance of the interior compartment 
door does not present any of the safety risks contemplated by FMVSS No. 
201 because there is no risk of vehicle occupants coming into contact 
with or striking the compartment door. When originally promulgated, the 
interior compartment door provisions in FMVSS No. 201 were focused on 
preventing injuries that could occur from hard interior doors, such as 
the glove compartment door, striking an occupant. See 33 FR 15794 
(October 24, 1968) (considering ``the potential injury that can be 
caused by an open interior compartment door because . . . [prior 
requirements] do not afford protection against the type of protrusion 
created by an open interior compartment door'') (emphasis added); see 
also Letter to M. Smith, August 26, 1988 (``the purpose of the 
requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an 
occupant in a crash.'') The standard, which was also promulgated at a 
time when seat belt use was substantially lower than it is today, was 
directed toward mitigating injuries that can be caused by interior 
doors with hard and sharp surfaces opening unexpectedly. That risk is 
not present here.
    The location, geometry, and operation of the compartment door 
prevent it from causing or contributing to an injury in the event of a 
crash. The door is located in the bottom of the center console, in the 
area between the driver and front passenger seats. Mercedes-Benz states 
that the door is installed in a location where it could not strike a 
vehicle occupant should it open in a crash. The door, moreover, does 
not have any sharp edges and is not comprised of a hard, metal surface.
    Further, Mercedes-Benz states that because of the manner in which 
the door opens, there is no opportunity for the door to strike a 
vehicle occupant. The door covering slides forwards and into the 
housing of the compartment itself, it does not extend outwards into the 
passenger compartment which is the concern that the standard is 
intended to address. In typical use, the operator slides the door 
covering away towards the front of the vehicle, away from the occupant 
compartment and into the center console where it becomes fully enclosed 
within the housing. By contrast, glove box doors and other interior 
compartment doors on hinges that open outwards and into the occupant 
compartment are the traditional types of doors that FMVSS No. 201 was 
designed to address because the door's surface could come into contact 
with a vehicle occupant if it opened in a crash. Mercedes-Benz contends 
that this same risk does not exist with the door covering in the AMG 
vehicles based on its geometry and design.
    Additionally, the compartment door will automatically close after 
opening if it has not been snapped into place to stay open. In the 
event of a frontal crash force that is severe enough to cause the door 
to open, the door would open for an extremely short period of time, a 
matter of milliseconds, and then would automatically pull back into 
place and the door will close again. Because of the design and 
operation of the door, it remains open for a matter of milliseconds 
seconds after which it will retreat back into its fully closed 
position.
    6. There is No Risk of Injury to Occupants from Objects Escaping 
the Compartment: Mercedes-Benz states there is no potential for items 
inside the storage compartment to escape and injure vehicle occupants. 
Although the scope of the standard has always been focused on risks of 
injury presented by the hard surface of vehicle doors opening in a 
crash, Mercedes-Benz claims that there is similarly no enhanced risk to 
safety from items escaping the compartment and causing injury. The 
compartment door has the potential to open only in specific situations, 
a frontal crash with loads exceeding 24 g of force. Mercedes-Benz 
states that the compartment door operates within the requirements of 
the standard at all other times.\2\ Mercedes-Benz states that even in a 
crash where the load force was severe enough, the compartment lid would 
open and completely close again within approximately 250 ms of the 
crash. Mercedes-Benz claims that even in a front end crash that was 
severe enough to open the compartment door, the direction of the crash 
forces precludes objects from escaping. In a front end collision with 
high vehicle deceleration, any objects inside the storage compartment 
at the time would shift forward, in the same direction in which the 
vehicle is moving. According to Mercedes-Benz, because the force of 
deceleration causes the items to shift forward, they will move forward 
and deeper into the compartment and will remain enclosed within the 
compartment during the crash event. During the intervening moments 
following the crash, the door will automatically close and secure the 
items within the compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The vehicles fully meet the performance requirements when 
tested to S5.3.l(a) and S5.3.l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Mercedes-Benz states that the above described discrepancy does 
not create a safety risk and that it is not aware of any warranty 
claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or injuries 
related to this noncompliance. Even if the compartment door was to open 
in the event of a severe crash, there is no increased risk of injury 
due to the location of the door covering itself, its operation and 
design that allows it to retract into the console housing and the fact 
that it will automatically close after an extremely short period of 
time. Mercedes-Benz states that vehicle occupants are not at risk of 
coming into contact with the door itself (when opened or closed) and 
there is no risk of objects stored inside the compartment from escaping 
into the occupant space.
    Mercedes-Benz concludes 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. NHTSA's Analysis

    FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to 
reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior 
of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors 
to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain 
forces that might be experienced in a crash.
    NHTSA notes first that a petitioner seeking relief from the 
notification and remedy requirements must, when requesting the Agency 
to grant a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, meet the burden 
of persuasion to obtain relief. Further, the burden of establishing the 
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance 
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is 
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not 
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\3\ Potential 
performance

[[Page 76233]]

failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are 
rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected 
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or 
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality 
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the 
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against 
which the recall would otherwise protect.\4\ NHTSA also does not 
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue 
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a 
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does 
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \5\ 
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction 
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will 
continue to work.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \6\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor 
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an 
inconsequentiality petition.\7\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions 
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or 
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a 
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality. 
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is 
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\8\ These 
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential 
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin 
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations 
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and 
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located in the center 
console, below the in-vehicle display, and does not present an 
opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened. Further, Mercedes-
Benz states the design of the door slides forward and into the center 
console when it opens and presents little or no opportunity for any 
contact between the vehicle's occupants and the door. Finally, although 
the purpose and objective of the standard are to protect against injury 
from hard and sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, Mercedes-Benz 
states the compartment door will automatically close within 250 ms.
    Without presenting any test data or other information supporting 
this thesis, Mercedes-Benz argues that in a frontal crash there is the 
possibility that the center console door will open for a matter of 
milliseconds then automatically close. Specifically, Mercedes-Benz 
represents that there is ``no risk of injury to occupants from objects 
escaping the compartment . . . only opening in crash loads exceeding 24 
g of force . . . and would open and completely close within 
approximately 250 ms.'' NHTSA notes that frontal crash events, such as 
seen in NHTSA FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection compliance tests 
or New Car Assessment Program Tests, terminate in 150 ms or less and 
can exceed 24 g.
    NHTSA finds that in the instant case, the mere assertion that the 
center console door will open for up to 250 ms and then automatically 
close is not sufficiently persuasive to justify granting the relief 
Mercedes-Benz seeks. In addition, the Agency has never made a 
distinction between sliding interior compartment doors and other, 
pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. Mercedes-
Benz asserts that an open sliding compartment door does not present a 
potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door 
does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of 
FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain 
closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open 
or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant 
injury is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather, 
the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid 
surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury. In other 
words, we do not consider the risk posed by the sharp edges of the door 
itself to be the only risk addressed by FMVSS No. 201. Surfaces that 
should be masked by a door may themselves pose risks to occupants 
during a crash.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Agency Interpretation to D. Haenchen, Volkswagen of 
America, Inc., February 12, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Mercedes-Benz represents that it is ``not aware of any 
warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or 
injuries related to this noncompliance.'' As noted above, NHTSA does 
not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the 
issue is inconsequential to safety.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion 
that the FMVSS No. 201 noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates 
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the petition is hereby denied and 
Mercedes-Benz is not exempt from the obligation to provide notification 
of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles 
under 49 U.S.C. 30018 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. 2022-26959 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P