Van Hool N.V., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Van Hool
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 22, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3861-3862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01168]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0122; Notice 1]
Van Hool N.V., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Van Hool N.V. (Van Hool), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2015-2016 Van Hool Double Deck buses do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
121, Air Brake Systems. Van Hool filed a report dated November 6, 2015,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Van Hool then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556
requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 22,
2016.
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: 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 Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: 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
Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments 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 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 documents 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 http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown at the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Van Hool submitted a petition for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Van Hool'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. Vehicles Involved
Affected are approximately 48 MY 2015-2016 Van Hool Double Deck
buses that were manufactured between December 13, 2014 and October 22,
2015.
III. Noncompliance
Van Hool explains that the noncompliance is that brake release
times slightly exceed the requirements as specified in paragraph S5.3.4
of FMVSS No. 121.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 121 requires in pertinent part:
S5.3.4 Brake Release Time. Each service brake system shall meet
the requirements of S5.3.1 (a) through (b) . . .
V. Summary of Van Hool's Petition
Van Hool described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based
on the following reasoning:
(1) Based on the results of testing that Van Hool conducted on some
of the affected buses, it determined that the brake release times, on
average,
[[Page 3862]]
exceeded the FMVSS No. 121 requirement by only 0.03 of a second on the
front axle, by 0.05 of as second on the tag axle, and by 0.10 of a
second on the drive axle.
(2) Van Hool determined that this noncompliance may be due to the
change of fitting for this type of vehicle. These new fittings for the
Double Deck buses were introduced in production in September 2014. The
classic brass couplings were replaced with push-in tube connections
made of composite material to remedy certain complaints of air loss.
The effect of minimal loss of internal air flow was misjudged, which
caused the brake release time to exceed the requirements.
However, Van Hool believes that there is no safety issue, nor
unnecessary brake drag during acceleration after brake release due to
the reaction time of the driver (moving foot from brake pedal to
throttle pedal) and the reaction time of the complete driveline being
longer than the brake release time.
(3) Van Hool stated its belief that because the brake actuation
time on the subject buses fulfilled the requirements as specified in
paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121, that the noncompliance has no effect
on the brake performance. Van Hool found that its testing showed a
margin on the required brake actuation time of 11% for the front axle,
20% for the drive axle and 17% for the tag axle. For this reason Van
Hool is convinced that the noncompliance will not show significant
differences in dynamic brake test and will have no influence on the
motor vehicle safety. Thus, Van Hool did not repeat the dynamic brake
test. Also, the dynamic brake test was not repeated on any of the
subject vehicles because Van Hool's dynamic brake test showed a minimum
25% margin for the brake stopping distance requirement.
(4) Van Hool made reference to previous inconsequential
noncompliance petitions that it believes are similar to its petition
and that were granted by NHTSA.
Van Hool additionally informed NHTSA that the noncompliance has
been corrected on vehicles in subsequent production and that all future
vehicles will be in full compliance with FMVSS No. 121.
In summation, Van Hool believes that the described noncompliances
are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt Van Hool from providing recall notification of noncompliances as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 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 buses that Van Hool no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant buses under their control after Van Hool
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.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-01168 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P