Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Topics:  Utilimaster

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
5 December 2016

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87654-87656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29026]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0024; Notice 2]


Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Spartan Motors USA, Inc. (Spartan), has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2013-2015 Utilimaster Vans do not fully comply 
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant 
crash protection. Spartan Motors USA, Inc., filed a defect report dated 
January 15, 2016. Spartan then petitioned NHTSA on February 12, 2016, 
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision please contact 
James A. Jones, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-
5294, facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: 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 also petitioned NHTSA on

[[Page 87655]]

February 12, 2016, under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on July 21, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 
47493). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0024.''
    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 paragraph 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 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 of, 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'S Decision:
    Background: To reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially 
for children, NHTSA required newly improved, attention getting labels 
in a final rule issued on November 27, 1996.\1\ The new rule required 
vehicle manufacturers permanently affix an air bag alert label to the 
sides of sun visors. See paragraph S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 208. A 
manufacturer did not have to provide the alert label if the sun visor 
air bag warning label (see paragraph S4.5.1(b)of FMVSS No. 208) was 
placed so that it is visible when the visor is in the stowed position. 
The air bag alert label includes instructions to ``flip the visor 
over'' and a pictogram of a rear facing child restraint being struck by 
an air bag. NHTSA believed that the alert label is more likely to 
attract the attention of vehicle occupants and induce them to look for 
the air bag

[[Page 87656]]

warning label on the other side of the sun visor. See 61 FR 60206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The new labels would not be required on vehicles having a 
``smart passenger-side air bag'' (i.e., an air bag that would 
automatically shut-off or adjust its deployment so as not to 
adversely affect children).'' This provision, however, was removed 
from the current rule issued on May 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 12, 2000, NHTSA refreshed the content requirements of the 
air bag warning labels consistent with its intent to require labels for 
vehicles with advanced air bags. Additionally, in order to provide 
consumers with adequate information about their occupant restraint 
system, NHTSA required manufacturers to provide a written explanation 
of the vehicle's advanced air bag system in owner's manuals. See 65 FR 
30722.
    NHTSA's Analysis: Acting as an alterer,\2\ Spartan removed and re-
installed sun visors as part of its modification of the subject 
vocational vehicles. The vocational vehicles are equipped with advanced 
air bags at the driver and front passenger seating positions and had 
compliant air bag warning labels pursuant to paragraph S4.5.1(b)(1) of 
FMVSS No. 208 permanently affixed to the sun visors, and visible to 
vehicle occupants when the sun visors were stowed prior to Spartan's 
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined by 49 CFR 567.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The left and right-side sun visors are nearly identical in size, 
have identical attachment points to the headliner and are 
interchangeable. Apparently, when re-installing the sun visors, Spartan 
incorrectly placed the left-side visor on the right-side of the vehicle 
and vice-versa. As a result, the air bag warning labels are no longer 
visible to vehicle occupants when the sun visors are stowed. Rather, 
the air bag warning labels are inverted and only visible to vehicle 
occupants when the sun visors are deployed.
    In accordance with paragraph S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No.208, if the air 
bag warning label is not visible when the sun visor is in the stowed 
position, an additional label (i.e., air bag alert label) conforming to 
Figure 6(c) of FMVSS No. 208 shall be permanently affixed to the visor 
and visible when the visor is in the stowed position. Spartan failed to 
affix air bag alert labels to the sun visors as required.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the petition, Spartan discussed noncompliance to 
paragraph S4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 208 and in their safety recall 
report, incorrectly cited paragraph S4.5.1 5(c) of FMVSS No. 208. 
The noncompliance resulting from the absence of air bag alert labels 
pursuant to paragraph S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 208 is under review in 
this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's Decision: NHTSA has concluded that the absence of the air 
bag alert labels affixed to sun visors on subject Spartan vocational 
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees that 
given the nature and intended use of the subject vocational vehicles, 
it would be unlikely for children to be placed in the front passenger 
seating area. The subject vehicles are equipped with OEM installed 
advanced airbags that have the potential to substantially decrease the 
risk of injuries and deaths occurring from deployment. In addition, a 
written explanation of the advanced passenger air bag system is 
included in the owner's manuals.
    This petition is granted solely on the agency's decision that the 
noncompliance in the subject vehicles is inconsequential as it relates 
to motor vehicle safety. It is important that all other vehicles 
subject to these requirements continue to meet them.
    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, this decision 
only applies to the subject vehicles that Spartan no longer controlled 
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the 
granting of 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. 2016-29026 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P