|
|---|
|
Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Eileen Sullivan Date: 31 May 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Public Service Vehicles, Safety
Topics: Spartan Gladiator, Spartan Metro Star |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47234-47236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11972]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0104, Notice 2]
Spartan Motors USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Spartan Motors USA, Inc. (Spartan), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2017-2019 Spartan Emergency Response Gladiator
and Metro Star chassis cabs do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Spartan
filed a noncompliance report dated October 12, 2018, and amended the
report on December 26, 2018. Spartan petitioned NHTSA on November 12,
2018, and amended the petition on July 31, 2019, for a decision that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document announces and explains the denial of
Spartan's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-7236, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Spartan has determined that certain MY 2017-2019 Spartan Emergency
Response Gladiator and Metro Star chassis cabs do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.3.3.1(a) of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR
571.121). Spartan filed a noncompliance report dated October 12, 2018,
and amended the report on December 26, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Spartan
petitioned NHTSA on November 12, 2018, and amended the petition on July
31, 2019, 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.
Notice of receipt of Spartan's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on December 10, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 67509). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0104.''
II. Chassis Cabs Involved
Approximately 15 MY 2017-2019 Spartan Emergency Response Gladiator
and Metro Star chassis cabs manufactured between November 16, 2016, and
October 30, 2018, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Spartan described the noncompliance as the service brake
application timing exceeding the 0.45 timing requirement as specified
in paragraph S5.3.3.1(a) of FMVSS No. 121.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each service brake system must meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.3.3.1(a). With an initial service
reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each
brake chamber must, when measured from the first movement of the
service brake control, reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 seconds in
the case of trucks and buses.
V. Summary of Spartan's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Spartan's petition,'' are the views and arguments provided
by Spartan and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Spartan
describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Spartan states that paragraph S5.3.3.1 of FMVSS No. 121 provides
that 60 psi is required, in this case, for the front brake chambers and
Spartan notes that it requires the pressure in the brake chamber to be
achieved in no more than 0.45 seconds. According to Spartan, this part
of the requirement ``is not interpreted to mean brakes are to be
applied at 60 psi but rather a certain pressure at the brake chamber
will be achieved.''
Spartan says that it ``conducted three tests on a sample chassis
cab of similar brake system configuration to those subject to the
identified noncompliance.'' Spartan found that, on average, the air
pressure at the chamber of the sample chassis cab reached 60 psi 0.04
to 0.05 seconds after the required time of 0.45 seconds. Spartan
further notes that even when the timing requirement is not being met
``the brakes are still being applied irrespective of achieving the 60-
psi pressure at the front brake chambers.'' Spartan claims that
exceeding the required time by the 0.044 to 0.05 seconds observed in
its testing ``would not impede the capability of the vehicle being able
to stop.'' It stated that the impact of being 0.044 to 0.05 seconds
above the requirement of 0.45 seconds would have very little impact
[[Page 47235]]
(approximately 4 feet at 60 mph) to stopping distance of the vehicle.
Spartan then refers to the Driver's License Manual as stating that
``stopping distance is impacted by driver perception distance and
reaction distance,'' as well as other factors including speed and gross
weight of the vehicle. Spartan argues that those factors ``would appear
to have a more significant impact on overall stopping distance, than
0.05 seconds of timing, for the air pressure to reach 60 psi at the
front brake chambers.''
Finally, Spartan explains that at 60 mph, the subject vehicles are
required by FMVSS No. 121 to achieve a complete stop in 310 feet. A
vehicle meeting this requirement would take approximately 3.52 seconds
to stop from a speed of 60 mph. Spartan contends that the subject
vehicles are capable of stopping within 310 feet at 60 mph, and,
therefore, ``would still be able to stop within the required stopping
distance.''
Presumably because any time delay or degradation in performance
resulting from not meeting the timing requirement is small in relation
to the time involved in a full stop from 60 mph, Spartan concludes by
again contending that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\1\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\2\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\2\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\3\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\4\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\4\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of standard No. 121, as is the case with all FMVSS, is
to establish minimum levels of safety performance. The standard ensures
safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions for
trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. One means
of establishing that braking performance meets normal and emergency
conditions is by requiring air pressure to be available at each service
brake chamber within a safe time interval after the service brake
control is activated. Section 5.3.3.1 of FMVSS 121 defines the amount
of pressure (60 psi) for, in this case, the front brake chambers of the
affected vehicles to ensure the proper braking performance. Further, it
also defines a ``not to exceed'' time (0.45 seconds) in which that
pressure at the brake chamber must be achieved. In agreement to
Spartan's views, this is not interpreted to mean brakes are required to
be applied at 60 psi but rather the time in which the air pressure must
be achieved at each brake chamber. Brakes must be applied nearly
instantaneously after actuation of the treadle valve. Consequently, the
relevant metric is the amount of time required for the pressure at each
chamber to reach 60 psi after brake activation.
FMVSS No. 121 requires vehicles to achieve a complete stop in 310
feet from 60 mph. According to Spartan. it would take approximately
3.52 seconds for vehicles to decelerate from this rate of speed to a
complete stop. While vehicles affected by the subject noncompliance are
capable of stopping within the distance of 310 feet as prescribed by
FMVSS No. 121 and the brakes are still being applied irrespective of
achieving the 60-psi pressure at the front brake chambers, NHTSA does
not concur with Spartan's reasoning that the noncompliance does not
impede the capability of all of the manufacturer's vehicles being able
to stop within a safe distance.
In determining whether a noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety, comparable levels of safety must exist between compliant
vehicles and noncompliant vehicles, and in this case, the impact of
being 0.044 to 0.05 seconds above the requirement of 0.45 seconds would
increase stopping distance by approximately 4 feet. In addition,
meeting the minimum required ``not to exceed time'' of (0.45 seconds)
will in most cases, result in a reduction in impact velocity, and hence
the severity of a crash. Furthermore, the ``not to exceed'' time (0.45
seconds) stated in section 5.3.3.1 of FMVSS 121 is intended to assure a
minimum level of safety in all circumstances, including emergency or
excessive braking events (e.g., driving in congested traffic). In the
agency's view, exceeding the 0.45 seconds time interval, particularly
given the consequences of impacts between heavy and light vehicles,
creates risks with potentially serious safety implications. Moreover,
brake responsiveness may also impact vehicle maneuverability in
conditions that are less than ideal.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that
Spartan
[[Page 47236]]
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 121
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Spartan's petition is hereby denied, and Spartan is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 49 CFR part 556; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-11972 Filed 5-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P