|
|---|
|
Forest River Bus, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 12 July 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Buses, Safety
Topic: Starcraft |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44459-44461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14725]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0005; Notice 1]
Forest River Bus, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Forest River Bus, LLC (Forest River) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2009-2022 Starcraft school buses do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222,
School Bus Passenger Seating And Crash Protection. Forest River filed a
noncompliance report dated December 21, 2022, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on January 17, 2023, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Forest River's
petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before August 11, 2023.
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 may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials 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 fullest 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 comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
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
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
[[Page 44460]]
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, General Engineer, NHTSA,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Forest River determined that certain MY 2009-2022
Starcraft school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.3 of
FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49
CFR 571.222).
Forest River filed a noncompliance report dated December 21, 2022,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Forest River petitioned NHTSA on January 17, 2023, 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.
This notice of receipt of Forest River's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 3,192 of the following
Starcraft school buses manufactured between April 3, 2009, and May 20,
2020, are potentially involved:
1. MY 2013-2016 Starcraft Allstar MVP
2. MY 2016 Starcraft Allstar XL
3. MY 2019 Starcraft Allstar XL
4. MY 2016-2018 Starcraft Allstar XL MVP
5. MY 2009-2010 Starcraft MFSAB/Prodigy
6. MY 2012-2018 Starcraft MFSAB/Prodigy
7. MY 2013 Starcraft MPV/Prodigy
8. MY 2015-2018 Starcraft MPV/Prodigy
9. MY 2009-2010 Starcraft Prodigy
10. MY 2009-2022 Starcraft Quest
11. MY 2011 Starcraft Quest XL
12. MY 2014-2016 Starcraft Quest XL
III. Noncompliance: Forest River explains that the noncompliance is
that the subject school buses are equipped with a restraining barrier
that does not meet the barrier forward performance requirement provided
by S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. When force is applied to
the restraining barrier in the same manner as specified in S5.1.3.1
through S5.1.3.4 for seating performance tests, the restraining barrier
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The restraining barrier force/deflection curve shall fall
within the zone specified in Figure 1;
(b) Restraining barrier deflection shall not exceed 356 mm; (for
computation of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve describes only
the force applied through the upper loading bar, and only the forward
travel of the pivot attachment point of the loading bar, measured from
the point at which the initial application of 44 N of force is
attained.)
(c) Restraining barrier deflection shall not interfere with normal
door operation;
(d) The restraining barrier shall not separate from the vehicle at
any attachment point; and
(e) Restraining barrier components shall not separate at any
attachment point.
V. Summary of Forest River's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Forest River's
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Forest River. They
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Forest River describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
Forest River begins by stating that since the subject frontal
barrier was first certified in 2008, the same design has been used and
has been produced by the same supplier. Forest River states since the
frontal barrier was certified to comply with the FMVSS No. 222
performance requirements, it ``has not changed in any material
respect.'' Furthermore, Forest River contends that NHTSA has previously
conducted compliance testing on the subject frontal barriers and found
them to be compliant with the S5.2.3 requirements.
In September of 2020, a third-party contractor for NHTSA, Applus
IDIADA KARCO Engineer, LLC (KARCO) conducted compliance testing for the
performance of MY 2019 Starcraft Quest school bus in accordance with
the requirements of S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222. The testing conducted by
Karco shows that the force/deflection curve of the passenger side
restraining barrier did not comply with S5.2.3(a) resulting in a formal
inquiry by NHTSA. In June 2021, Forest River responded to NHTSA's
inquiry and contended that KARCO did not conduct the September 2020
compliance testing in accordance with the test procedure required by
FMVSS No. 222. Specifically, Forest River believes that KARCO's setup
of the test apparatus ``caused it not to be sufficiently rigid and this
caused the apparatus to inappropriately contort and change direction
during testing.'' Forest River contends that in the video of KARCO's
testing provided by NHTSA, the ``movement of the test apparatus can
clearly be seen.'' Forest River notes that NHTSA has provided videos of
KARCO's testing, and requested a copy of KARCO's test report but NHTSA
has not provided one. Therefore, Forest River states, it is not able to
evaluate how KARCO documented its findings
In November 2021, Forest River retained an external testing
facility to reevaluate the subject frontal barriers. Forest River
states that this testing indicated that the subject frontal barriers
complied with the S5.2.3 requirements and Forest River provided the
test report and videos to NHTSA. NHTSA requested additional information
from Forrest River in March 2022 and Forest River provided a partial
response in April 2022 and provided the remainder in May 2022. Forest
River maintained its position that the KARCO testing was not conducted
in accordance with the FMVSS No. 222 test procedures ``due to
insufficient rigidity of the testing apparatus that allowed for
inappropriate movement of the upper loading bar.'' Forest River says
that this movement can be seen in the video provided by KARCO. Thus,
according to Forest River, KARCO's testing is not an accurate indicator
of compliance.
Forest River states that it met with NHTSA on December 2, 2022, at
the Agency's request. At the meeting, NHTSA informed Forest River that
the frontal barrier tested by the external facility retained by Forest
River was not the same size as the frontal barrier that was tested by
KARCO. Forest River states that its external testing facility
unintentionally evaluated the incorrect size frontal barrier. The
external testing facility evaluated a 34-inch frontal barrier when it
intended to evaluate a 30-inch frontal barrier. Forest River says,
``NHTSA indicated that a recall of vehicles equipped with the
30[hyphen]inch frontal barrier would be necessary.'' At the time Forest
River did not have test data to show that the 30-inch frontal barrier
was compliant. As a result, Forest River says it ``acquiesced to
NHTSA's demand'' and filed a noncompliance report on December 21, 2022.
Meanwhile, Forest River says that it made arrangements to evaluate
a 30-inch frontal barrier, and testing took place in early January
2023. Forest River states that the test results show that the 30-inch
frontal barrier complied with the FMVSS No. 222 performance
requirements and absorbed nearly 125 percent of the energy absorption
requirements. Forest River provided a
[[Page 44461]]
copy of the test report with its petition which can be found on the
docket. Forest River states that video of the testing is available to
NHTSA to view.
Forest River notes that no production changes are necessary because
it ceased manufacturing the subject school buses in June 2020.
According to Forest River, the purpose of S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222,
``is to mitigate against the effects of injury if an occupant is thrown
against the restraining barrier in a crash.''
Forest River states that its testing conducted in January 2023
demonstrates that the subject frontal barrier complies with the
relevant performance requirements because it indicates that the 30-inch
frontal barrier ``substantially exceeds'' the S5.2.3 performance
requirement. Forest River contends that its January 2023 testing was
conducted in accordance with S5.2.3, ``thus any noncompliance in this
product (to the extent one actually exists) is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.'' Forest River says that the testing apparatus used to
conduct the testing ``was sufficiently robust so that it remained
stable during operation.'' Forest River says that because the testing
apparatus was sufficiently rigid, ``the path of each of the loading
bars remained laterally centered and maintained a straight path to the
barrier and with minimal deflection, as the test procedure requires.''
Forest River notes that NHTSA has previously stated that one of its
considerations when evaluating inconsequentiality petitions is the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\1\ According to Forest River,
the subject noncompliance does not cause an enhanced risk to an
occupant of an affected school bus because ``the data clearly and
unambiguously demonstrates that the frontal barriers meet the
performance requirements of S5.2.3.'' Forest River contends that its
petition is unlike other inconsequential noncompliance petitions that
involve a noncompliance with a performance requirement because there is
no performance-related concern for the subject noncompliance, as shown
by Forest River's test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest River adds that no complaints, reports, or claims of any
type have been received concerning the performance of the subject
frontal barriers. Forest River acknowledges that NHTSA does not
consider the absence of injuries or complaints when determining the
inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, however, Forest River believes
that ``this dearth of data in this case, when coupled with all of the
other relevant data and information is instructive given the long field
history of the subject barriers.''
To conduct the January 2023 testing, Forest River states that the
test facility obtained four frontal barriers with the correct
specifications directly from the supplier and selected one of those
frontal barriers to evaluate.
Forest River claims that NHTSA ``has not accounted for the
deviations in the test procedure utilized by its own testing
contractor.'' Forest River states that S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222 requires
the barrier performance forward testing to be conducted in accordance
with the conditions stated in S5.1.3.1-S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS No. 222.
Forest River contends that KARCO did not set up the test apparatus in
accordance with FMVSS No. 222 when evaluating the subject frontal
barrier on behalf of NHTSA. Forest River says that KARCO's setup caused
the test apparatus ``to not be sufficiently rigid or stable and thus
allowed it to inappropriately contort during testing.'' According to
Forest River, the test setup allowed the upper loading bar ``to change
course dramatically by veering to the left and pushing the force of the
loading bar on the left side of the barrier.'' Therefore, Forest River
says, ``It did not remain laterally centered against the barrier as
required by S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.3 and deflected more than the 25 mm
allowable by S6.5.1.'' which ``prevented the upper loading bar's
longitudinal axis from maintaining a transverse plane as required
S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.3.''
Forest River concludes by stating its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and its petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for 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 buses that Forest River 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 buses under their control after Forest
River 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)
Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-14725 Filed 7-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P