[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34573-34575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13703]
[[Page 34573]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0085; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (MBAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'') a subsidiary of Daimler AG have
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz
Sprinter and MY 2019-2020 Freightliner Sprinter vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 5,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less. Daimler Vans USA LLC, on behalf of
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020.
Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2020, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of
Mercedes-Benz's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz, a subsidiary of Daimler AG, has
determined that certain MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and 2019-
2020 Freightliner Sprinter vehicles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and
Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 5,536 Kilograms (10,000
Pounds) or Less (49 CFR 571.110). Daimler Vans USA LLC on behalf of
Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 6,
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.
Notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on October 29, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85-FR 68622). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0085.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 33 MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz
Sprinter and MY 2019-2020 Freightliner Sprinter vans manufactured
between April 18, 2019, and February 25, 2020, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance
is that the subject vehicles are equipped with vehicle placards that
incorrectly state the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo in
pounds, and, therefore, do not meet the requirements set forth in
paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, the last digit of the
value in pounds for the combined weight of occupants and cargo is
missing. The vehicle placard states that the combined weight of
occupants and cargo should never exceed 353 pounds when it should state
3,532 pounds. Mercedes-Benz also states that it has corrected future
production and that those vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 110
S4.3(a).
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each vehicle, except for a
trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in
S4.3(a) through (g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option the
information specified in S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently
affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. Specifically, S4.3(a) states
that vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``[t]he combined weight of
occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds''
must be present on the driver's side B-pillar.
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.
Mercedes-Benz says that the value given for the vehicle capacity
weight in pounds on the affected placards is missing the last digit and
is therefore incorrect. However, Mercedes-Benz notes that the placards
contain the correct value in kilograms and all other information is
correct. For example, Mercedes-Benz states that a vehicle placard
states that a vehicle would have a maximum capacity weight of 353
pounds, but it should be 3,532 pounds.
Mercedes-Benz argues that the subject noncompliance does not cause
an increased risk to motor vehicle safety because there is no risk of
vehicle overloading. Mercedes-Benz explains that if a consumer were to
rely upon the incorrect vehicle capacity weight listed on the placard,
then the subject vehicle would be ``substantially underloaded.''
Furthermore, Mercedes-Benz says that the consumer has access to
other sources that contain the correct vehicle capacity weight, like
the certification label required by 49 CFR part 567 and the owner's
manual. Mercedes-Benz adds that the placard includes the statement
instructing the operator to refer to the owner's manual for further
information. Mercedes-Benz says that the operator can use the
instructions included in the owner's manual to calculate the accurate
vehicle weight capacity in both pounds and kilograms. Mercedes-Benz
contends that an operator of the subject vehicle would question the
incorrect vehicle capacity weight in pounds on the placard because it
``is extremely low and differs significantly from the maximum weight
listed in kilograms.'' As a result, Mercedes-Benz asserts that the
vehicle operator would refer to the owner's manual, as instructed on
the placard.
Mercedes-Benz claims that NHTSA has granted past petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance involving discrepancies in the vehicle
weight capacity, ``particularly where the vehicle is technically
capable of handling any increased loading.'' \1\ As an example,
Mercedes-Benz refers to a petition that the Agency granted in which the
maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo was listed as a higher
value on the placard than the actual vehicle capacity. Mercedes-Benz
says the Agency found the noncompliance to be inconsequential ``because
the tire size and pressure were accurate, and the tires and vehicle
axles would have been able to safely carry any additional loading on
the vehicle.'' Mercedes-Benz notes that, as of the date
[[Page 34574]]
of its current petition, the Agency is considering a petition in which
``the last digit was left off the printed label and the maximum loading
capacity was similarly understated.'' \2\ Mercedes-Benz argues that the
omission of the final digit in the vehicle capacity weight provided
indicates a ``substantially lower than calculated maximum vehicle
loading capacity. Therefore, Mercedes-Benz believes that there is no
risk of overloading if a consumer relies solely on the placard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 33547, July 20,
2017.
\2\ See Jayco, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 85 FR 554 (January 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz further states that the Agency has granted past
petitions in which the noncompliance ``also involved missing
information or typographical errors on the vehicle placard, but where
the information was otherwise readily available from another source,
such as the owner's manual.'' For example, Mercedes-Benz provides that
the Agency granted a petition submitted by Kia Motors, Inc., in which
the placard did not contain wheel size information and the letter ``i''
in ``psi'' was omitted but was available from another source.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., Kia Motors America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mercedes-Benz states that it is not aware of any reports
or complaints about the issue from the field and that it has corrected
the condition in production.
Mercedes-Benz concludes 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.
Mercedes Benz'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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining the 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.\5\ 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.\6\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 includes a requirement that each
vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the
information specified in S4.3 (a) through (g), and may show, at the
manufacturer's option, the information specified in S4.3 (h) and (i),
on a placard permanently affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. Under
FMVSS 110, S4.3(f), the placard must state ``see owner's manual for
additional information.''
As described by Mercedes-Benz in its noncompliance report, the
labels at issue were not completely printed and the final digit for the
vehicle capacity in pounds was omitted. This omission means a vehicle
user seeking to determine the loading capacity would find that the
maximum allowable weight of cargo and passengers could not exceed 353
pounds. Given that this petition concerns cargo vans and the driver's
weight alone could amount to half that figure, the error should be
obvious and would be made even more so by comparing it to the carrying
capacity provided in kilograms.
As the required FMVSS No. 110 vehicle placard states, the vehicle
operator can ``see owner's manual for additional information'' in an
effort to verify the vehicle's correct maximum loading capacity. The
owner's manual for the affected vehicles (both hard-copy manuals and
the electronic version available online) describes the methodology for
the customer to calculate the accurate maximum weight capacity
information in both pounds and kilograms. NHTSA agrees with Mercedes-
Benz that it would be reasonable to expect the vehicle operator to
question the low value in pounds in terms of maximum ``cargo'' load
capacity especially in comparison to the listed maximum ``cargo''
capacity in kilograms.
Mercedes Benz also noted that NHTSA has previously granted a
similar petition for inconsequential noncompliance for inaccurate tire
placards in which the noncompliance was a failure to provide wheel size
information and the letter ``i'' in ``psi.'' In that case, the
information could be obtained from the owners' manual. See Kia Motors
America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 85 FR 39676 (July 1, 2020). The agency notes that
inconsequentiality determinations are highly fact specific and as such
should not be regarded as persuasive or binding precedent.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the fact that the
misprinted loading information present here is clearly erroneous and
correct loading information is readily available from other sources,
including consideration of the properly presented metric loading data
on the label itself, NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has met its burden
of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 110 noncompliance in the
affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby granted, and Mercedes-
Benz 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
[[Page 34575]]
noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore,
this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes-Benz
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vans under their control after Mercedes-Benz 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. 2025-13703 Filed 7-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P