Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Utilimaster
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
21 July 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47493-47494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17189]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0024; Notice 1]
Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Spartan Motors USA, Inc. (Spartan), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2015 Utilimaster Vans do not fully comply
with paragraph S4.5.1(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Spartan Motors USA, Inc.,
filed a report dated January 15, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports for Spartan.
Spartan 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 August 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), Spartan 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 Spartan'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 910 MY 2013-2015
Utilimaster Vans that were manufactured between July 11, 2014 and
December 8, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: Spartan explains that the noncompliance
occurred during alterations to the subject vehicles. During alterations
the sun visors were removed and then reinstalled. As a result of the
reinstallation, the required sun visor air bag warning labels are not
visible when the sun visors are in the stowed position. Since the sun
visor air bag warning labels are not visible when in the stowed
position, an air bag alert label is required and therefore does not
meet the requirements as specified in paragraph S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No.
208.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 208 requires in
pertinent part:
S4.5.1(c) Air bag alert label. If the label required by
S4.5.1(b) is not visible when the sun visor is in the stowed
position, an air bag alert label shall be permanently affixed to
that visor so that the label is visible when the visor is in that
position. The label shall conform in content to the sun visor label
shown in Figure 6(c) of this standard, and shall comply with the
requirements of S4.5.1(c)(1) through S4.5.1(c)(3) . . .
V. Summary of Spartan's Petition: Spartan described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
(a) Spartan cited the definition of motor vehicle safety as stated
in the Safety Act under 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Spartan also cited 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) under the Safety Act where Congress acknowledges that
there are cases where a manufacturer has failed to comply with a safety
standard, yet the impact on motor vehicle safety is so slight that an
exemption from the notice and remedy requirements of the Safety Act is
justified.
(b) Spartan stated that S4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 208 requires an
air bag warning label to be installed, at the manufacturer's option, on
either side of the sun visor at each outboard seating position equipped
with an inflatable restraint. Within that same section of FMVSS No.
208, it states that air bag warning labels are to be installed, at the
manufacturer's option, in accordance
[[Page 47494]]
with Figure 8 or 11 of the standard. Footnotes under Figures 8 and 11,
among others, state ``Sun Visor Label Visible when Visor is in Down
Position.''
Spartan submitted a photograph depicting that the air bag warning
label on the subject vehicles is visible when the sun visor is in the
down position, however, the content is inverted.
(c) Spartan specified that the content of the sun visor label
identifies the risks associated with the placement of children, or
child seats, encourages the use of seatbelts, and defers to the owner's
manual for information pertaining to the air bags.
Spartan notes that they are a vehicle alterer in this case and are
not responsible for the content of the air bag warning label and that
they make no assertions relating to compliance of the label. However,
during alterations to the vehicles they do remove and reinstall the sun
visors.
(d) Spartan also stated that they alter a completed vehicle (in
this case a van) to become a vocational vehicle intended to be used as
a delivery service vehicle (i.e., a vehicle used to carry parcel
packages or other goods.) And although, the altered vehicle would be
equipped with two outboard seating positions, delivery service vehicles
are typically occupied by the driver who has a specific purpose of
delivering goods. Given the nature of, or intended use, the vehicle, it
would be unlikely for children to be placed in the passenger seating
area.
(e) Spartan clearly expressed that they do not alter information in
the owner's manual although it may provide supplements related to the
alterations being made. Spartan says that the content in the owner's
manual states that the air bag system is supplemental to the seat belts
and further describes risks associated with the air bag system.
Furthermore, the information in the owner's manual discusses an air bag
warning indicator (tell-tale) of which the vehicle is equipped and its
function (this indicator would provide indication to the driver that
the vehicle is equipped with an air bag system.)
(f) Spartan believes that while the content on the sun visor
warning label (although not provided by Spartan) may not be in the
upright position to be easily read by the occupants, it is visible with
the sun visor in the down position. And even though the label is
inverted, the coloring scheme would continue to signify risks
associated with the air bag system.
Spartan elaborated by saying that the information within the
owner's manual for the affected vehicles expands on potential risks
related to the system but also encourages the use of seatbelts as the
primary purpose of occupant protection.
Spartan additionally informed NHTSA that on December 8, 2015
containment actions were conducted and all units in control of
Utilimaster were inspected and the noncompliance corrected. This
included vehicles currently undergoing alterations.
In summation, Spartan believes that given the vocational use of the
affected vehicles and information provided in the foregoing that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Spartan from providing notification of the
noncompliances as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying 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 Spartan 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 under their control after Spartan
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. 2016-17189 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P