
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57173-57174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0113; Notice 2]


Mack Trucks, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mack Trucks, Inc., (Mack Trucks), has determined that certain 
model year (MY) 2015-2023 Mack GU/GR Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors 
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Mack 
Trucks filed an original noncompliance report dated November 1, 2022, 
and amended the report on November 3, 2022. Mack Trucks petitioned 
NHTSA on November 23, 2022, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This document announces the denial of Mack Trucks' petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Safety Compliance 
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-5304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Mack Trucks determined that certain MY 2015-2023 Mack 
GU/GR Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors do not fully comply with 
paragraph S6.4.3(a) and Table V-b of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
    Mack Trucks filed an original noncompliance report dated November 
1, 2022, and amended the report on November 3, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mack 
Trucks petitioned NHTSA on November 23, 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mack Trucks' petition failed to include all of the necessary 
components of a petition pursuant to 49 CFR 556.4. The petition 
described the noncompliance, but failed to include any reasoning for 
why the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. A petition is 
required to: ``Set forth all data, views, and arguments of the 
petitioner supporting [the] petition.'' Id. Sec.  556.4. Absent any 
reasoning, a petitioner cannot meet its burden of persuasion that a 
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. Such an invalid petition 
does not require a response by the agency. Nevertheless, in this 
instance, the agency is publishing this notice to help ensure Mack 
Trucks and other petitioners are aware that a petition for 
inconsequentiality must be properly justified. In the future, the 
agency may reject such incomplete petitions without further 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of receipt of Mack Trucks' petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on January 17, 2023, in the Federal Register 
(88 FR 2759). No comments were 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-2022-0113.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 27,544 MY 2015-2023 Mack GU/GR 
Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors, manufactured between September 1, 
2014, and September 30, 2022, are potentially involved:
    III. Noncompliance: Mack Trucks explains that the subject vehicles 
are equipped with turn signal lamps that do not meet the visibility 
requirement at all angles specified by S6.4.3(a) and Table V-b of FMVSS 
No. 108. Based upon different axle positions and frame extension 
configurations, the forward turn signals on specific vehicles are not 
compliant with the 45 degree inboard and/or 15 degree downward angle 
visibility requirement.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.4.3 of FMVSS No. 108 includes 
the requirements relevant to this petition. A manufacturer is required 
to certify compliance of each lamp function to

[[Page 57174]]

one of two visibility requirement options: the lens area option or the 
luminous intensity option. The manufacturer may not thereafter choose a 
different option for that vehicle.
    V. Summary of Mack Trucks' Petition: The following statements 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Mack Trucks' Petition,'' are 
the statements provided by Mack Trucks. They do not reflect the views 
of the Agency. Mack Trucks describes the subject noncompliance and 
contends, without explanation, that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Mack Trucks explains that after FMVSS No. 108 was updated in 2014, 
certain vehicle configurations were not updated accordingly which 
resulted in the subject vehicles being noncompliant with the taillamp 
signal visibility requirements provided in S6.4.3. Mack Trucks states 
that due to an unrelated engineering change, the subject noncompliance 
was identified. Mack Trucks found the subject vehicles did not meet the 
minimum unobstructed view requirement of 1,250 sq mm at all the 
required angles. The standard requires the unobstructed view to be met 
at all angles between the corner points, up to and including 15 degrees 
down and 45 degrees inboard toward the vehicle's longitudinal 
centerline; however, for the GU and GR Axle Back models of the subject 
vehicles failed to meet the requirements past 15 degrees down and 37 
degrees inboard angle. For the GU and GR Axle Forward and Axle Forward 
Extended Frame Rails models of the subject vehicles, Mack Trucks found 
that the subject vehicles failed to meet the requirements past 7 
degrees down and 45 degrees inboard angle. Mack Trucks provides 
illustrations to show the noncompliances on the affected vehicle 
configurations.
    Mack Trucks concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and its 
petition for relief from providing notice and remedy for the 
noncompliance be granted. Mack Trucks failed to include any reasoning 
for why the noncompliance was purportedly inconsequential to safety.
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis:
    Mack Trucks did not provide any data, views, or arguments 
supporting its belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to 
safety, as required by 49 CFR 556.4. It is the petitioner's burden to 
establish the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a FMVSS. 
FMVSS are adopted to ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety.'' 49 
U.S.C. 30111(a). ``[M]otor vehicle safety'' is ``the performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the 
public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the 
design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against 
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes 
nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 
Given the safety need for the FMVSS, an invalid petition that fails to 
provide justification that a specific noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety need not be considered. Nevertheless, in this 
instance, the agency is publishing this notice to help ensure 
petitioners are aware of the requirement to provide ``all data, views, 
and arguments of the petitioner supporting [the] petition.'' 49 CFR 
556.4. Mack Trucks and other petitioners are on notice that the agency 
may reject incomplete petitions without further consideration and they 
must carry out their statutory recall obligations without delay.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has 
decided that Mack Trucks has not met its burden of persuasion that the 
subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, Mack Trucks' petition is hereby denied and Mack 
Trucks 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.)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-18022 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


