John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Barry Felrice
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
9 June 1994

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13970]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 94-48; Notice 1]

 

John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    John Russo Industrial, Inc. (Russo) of San Jose, California, has 
determined that some of its trucks fail to comply with requirements of 
several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in 49 CFR part 
571. These are FMVSS No. 113, ``Hood Latch Systems,'' FMVSS No. 120, 
``Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger 
Cars,'' FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing Materials,'' and FMVSS No. 207, 
``Seating Systems.'' Russo has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 
49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Russo has also 
petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et 
seq.) on the basis that the noncompliance are inconsequential as they 
relate to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of a petition is published under Section 157 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) 
and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of 
judgement concerning the merits of the petition.
    All noncompliances covered by this petition were discovered on July 
13, 1993 during inspection of vehicles by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance (File NCI 3288).

1. FMVSS No. 113, ``Hood Latch Systems''

    In April 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications van 
(Gillig chassis) and, in July 1991, one Hazardous Materials van 
(Spartan chassis). These vehicles do not comply with the hood latching 
requirements in S4.2 of FMVSS No. 113, in that their front opening 
hoods, which in any open position partially or completely obstruct a 
driver's forward view through the windshield, are not provided with a 
second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood 
latch system.
    Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    [49 CFR 571.113 S3] definition, ``Hood means any movable 
exterior body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover 
[an] engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment.'' The forward 
face panels on our vehicles are below the windshield, and are not 
used as compartment, storage, or any criteria to classify it as a 
hood.
    Paragraph S4.2 of standard 113 states: ``A front opening hood 
which, in any open position partially or completely obstructs a 
driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a 
second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood 
latch system.''
    The access panels in question are not classified as a hood 
mechanism, therefore [they] do not need to follow these guidelines. 
If the panel were left open it would not obstruct the driver's view 
enough to cause a driving hazard.
    Our testing of this design consisted of the air flow testing of 
up to 78 mph with a head wind of 14 mph that brought the total air 
speed to 92 mph. Air flow only holds the access panel down more 
securely. The panel cannot fly up as a result of the air flow.
    Panels of similar design are easily found on hundreds of 
thousands of on-road vehicles including GMC Astro 9500, Chevrolet 
Titan 90, Ford CLT 9000, Freight Liner cab overs, and many other 
vehicles I have found in researching my response.
    The Hazmat and Command vehicles are built with windshields which 
are much larger than those of typical van or cab over engine type 
vehicles. This large windshield is provided partially as a styling 
feature and partly to provide exceptional visibility in low speed 
maneuvering situations. The small area of windshield which would be 
blocked if the access panel could physically be lifted up by air 
flow, would not even be in the field of view on typical vehicles in 
this class.

2. FMVSS No. 120, ``Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other 
Than Passenger Cars''

    From 1989 through 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications 
van (Gillig chassis) and one Hazardous Materials van (Spartan chassis) 
and modified six Ford F350 and nine F800 trucks. These vehicles do not 
have the label required by S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, which includes the 
size designation of the tires, the size designation of the rims, and 
the cold inflation pressure of the tires. Russo states that the 
noncompliances are due to removal of labels after the purchaser took 
delivery of the vehicles.
    Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    The Act states that the labels must be installed by us. NHTSA * 
* * says that the customer can do whatever they want to the vehicle 
once they get it, ``they can even cut seatbelts * * *'' Then we 
respectively state that no manufacturer whether Chevrolet or John 
Russo should be made to do anything anytime anyone decides to remove 
a sticker. We are not Chevrolet, we are a small minority family 
business across the street that [was] asked to install bodies on 
[the San Jose Fire Department's] chassis under their total 
supervision.
* * * * *
    The rim width missing will not affect the safety of the vehicle. 
All vehicles involved in the petition belong to one user. The user 
has redundant data and all information available, plus all the 
resources to possess the information. The vehicle has this 
information. The user has all the incomplete vehicle manuals. The 
customer has a whole city fleet and its own service department and 
had ordered cab and chassis to match their tire and rim fleet 
specifications before we even got the contract to build the bodies.
    When these vehicles were first delivered, engraved labels were 
requested in place of the white labels that we normally install. 
This was done.
    When the new person took over, yellow NTEA labels were 
requested. This was complied with.
* * * * *
    No safety benefit to anyone has come out of this.
* * * * *
    Without waving this petition for exemption due to 
inconsequential non-compliance, we will notify the Deputy Chief of 
the San Jose Fire Dept. of our offer to supply and install new 
decals if they wish in a coordinated verifiable supervised manner. 
We shall document it for NHTSA and send NHTSA all copies of the 
labels.
* * * * *
    There has to be fairness and a limit to a manufacturers' 
accountability especially in view of the circumstances and the years 
of service we have rendered to the user in the former 
administration. We cannot be held accountable for situations beyond 
our control. Those Labels Were There and They Had Been Removed 
[emphasis original].

3. FMVAA No. 205, ``Glazing Materials''

    In April 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications van 
(Gilling chassis) and, in July 1991, one Hazardous Materials van 
(Spartan chassis). These vehicles do not comply with the glazing 
materials marking requirements in section 6 of FMVSS No. 205, which 
state that windshields must be marked AS-1 and windows to the right and 
left of the driver's position must be marked AS-2. The subject vehicles 
had no marking on the windshields, and the markings on the windows to 
the right and left of the driver's position were AS-3, not AS-2. Russo 
provided a photocopy of a purchase order for AS-1 windshield glass 
which it claims were used for the windshields. Russo further provided a 
copy of a letter from the supplier of the cockpit side windows stating 
that the windows in question were marked AS-3. These materials are 
available in the NHTSA Docket Section.
    Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    The windshields that were installed in these vehicles were 
labeled AS-1.
    The [installers] had shown us the windshield label on the 
windshield stock plate before the installation and fitting process. 
The San Jose Fire Dept.'s Battalion Chief Master Mechanic was also 
shown the label at this time and he said this to Mr. Shifflet [of 
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance] during his visit.
    We have a sample of the label that the glass company that 
supplies the Fire Dept. [a]nd all of California had supplied to show 
DOT.
    The windshield that was supplied to us by San Jose Glass 
contained this label:

Laminated

16 CFR 1201 M550

CATT II AS-1

DOT 273

* * * * *
    The labeling on the driver's and passenger's window is also 
inconsequential to vehicle safety as shown by supporting data that 
the glass manufacturer uses all the same AS-2 glass except for a 
very slight insignificant light transmission in AS-certified 
configuration.

4. FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating Systems''

    In April 1991, Russo produced a Command/Communications van (1989 
Gillig chassis) with an 18,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating. The 
vehicle is a specially configured portable meeting room for use at the 
scene of disasters. It is a closed, straight body van-type vehicle 
consisting essentially of a cab for vehicle operation and a cargo area 
which Russo converted into a conference room.
    Section 4.4 of FMVSS No. 207 requires that all seats not designed 
to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion are to be conspicuously 
labeled to that effect. The seats located in the meeting room area of 
this vehicle are not designed to be occupied while the vehicle is being 
operated, but are not labeled as such.
    Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    A sign in the cab states that only two people are to be seated 
in the cab. This is a specially configured portable meeting room for 
disasters. The vehicle was configured for a specific purpose by the 
user and the construction of the body layout was very closely 
supervised by the fire department to the detail. The user (as 
mentioned to NHTSA) * * * stated that [the vehicle] is only used for 
meetings at the disaster scene. Many command centers are trailers, 
only for use as scene command.
    There is a very big sign on the vehicle stating that it is a 
command and communications center. This is an official vehicle in 
case of a disaster, designed to only be occupied by a driver and one 
passenger while in motion.
    We were contracted to build a vehicle for the user for [a] 
specific purpose. In the case of a severe emergency, where a command 
station is required, this vehicle is called in to act as the meeting 
and communications center. This vehicle is not a response vehicle, 
and is only brought to the scene after the situation has been 
evaluated by the on scene command team as critical. The vehicle is 
then used as a center and checkpoint to all incoming and outgoing 
personnel at the scene.
    This vehicle was built to the strict specification of the City 
of San Jose Fire Department. It was ordered with seat belts for the 
driver and one passenger only as the back communications and meeting 
areas [were] not to be occupied when the vehicle was in motion. The 
fire department is aware of the vehicle configuration and is fully 
capable of instructing its employees that the back sections are not 
to be occupied when the vehicle is in motion.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petitions of Russo, described above. Comments should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required 
that six copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the 
petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

    Comment closing date: July 11, 1994.

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 
501.8)

    Issued on June 3, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-13970 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M