[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 141 (Friday, July 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45423-45424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6187; Notice 2]


Athey Products Corporation, Grant of Application for Decision 
That Noncompliance Is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety

    Athey Products Corporation (Athey) determined that certain Mobil 
model Street Sweepers it produced are not in full compliance with 49 
CFR 571.105, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, 
``Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems,'' and filed an appropriate 
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance 
Reports.'' Athey also applied to be exempted from the notification and 
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' 
on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    Notice of receipt of an application was published, with a 30-day 
comment period, on October 21, 1999 in the Federal Register (64 FR 
56835). NHTSA received no comments on this application during the 
comment period.
    Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 105 requires each vehicle with a gross 
vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds, except for a vehicle 
with a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph, to be 
equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) that directly controls the 
wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear 
axle of the vehicle. Vehicles that do not comply with the requirements 
of a FMVSS are subject to the notification and remedy requirements of 
Chapter 301, unless exempted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety. The effective date of the requirement for ABS on 
medium and heavy duty hydraulically-braked trucks was March 1, 1999.
    Between March 1, 1999 and July 31, 1999 Athey manufactured, sold 
and/or distributed 21 Athey Mobil M8A model street sweepers and 56 
Mobil M9D model street sweepers which were not equipped with ABS as 
required by FMVSS No. 105. To the best of Athey's knowledge, there were 
no other vehicles manufactured by the company that are noncompliant 
with the ABS requirements.
    Athey supported its application by stating that the agency 
recognized that vehicle stopping distances and stability would not be 
substantially improved with ABS during maximum braking at speeds below 
33 mph. According to Athey, the noncompliant vehicles are capable of 
speeds in excess of 33 mph, but spend the majority of their operating 
time at speeds below 33 mph. A review of information from its customers 
indicated that these street sweepers spend 80% to 90% of their 
operation time at speeds that are most effective at removal of road 
debris, speeds in the 3 to 7 mph range. In Athey's opinion, due to the 
low speed operation of these vehicles and the type of road use of 
street sweepers, maximum brake application does not normally cause 
lockup and the subsequent loss of vehicle control or jack knifing. 
Athey also stated that these street sweeper models are seldom operated 
in inclement weather thereby reducing the need for ABS.
    Athey further stated that the hydraulic service brake system with 
which the noncompliant street sweepers are equipped is capable of 
providing substantially more brake torque than necessary to meet the 30 
mph and 60 mph stopping performance requirements in FMVSS No. 105.
    In addition to information supporting its arguments that the 
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 105 is inconsequential, Athey cited 
several other developments and circumstances that it considered 
relevant to its application. Athey stated that it attempted to secure 
the necessary ABS equipment from suppliers in order to meet the March 
1, 1999 effective date for ABS installation, but experienced delays in 
receiving ABS equipment from suppliers due to a backlog of orders for 
ABS components. Further, immediately upon becoming aware of the 
consequences of the noncompliance, Athey halted all further sales and/
or distribution of the Mobil model M8A and M9D street sweepers until 
compliance with the ABS requirements was achieved.
    According to Athey, the importance of the service provided by 
street sweepers on public and private roadways should not be 
overlooked. The removal of waste material such as broken glass and 
other sharp, potentially dangerous objects from the roadway is a health 
and safety benefit.
    Athey also noted that the agency granted a temporary exemption to 
the Johnson Sweeper Company (JSC) under 49 CFR part 555 from the ABS 
requirements of FMVSS No. 105. The agency cited the low speed operation 
of the JSC street sweepers and a reduction in the number of sweepers to 
fill the need of municipalities if JSC sweepers were not available, as 
important factors in its decision.
    Upon its review of this petition, the agency believes that the true 
measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is the effect of 
the noncompliance on the operation of the vehicles. Athey has described 
the effect of the absence of ABS on the operational characteristics, 
the braking capacity, and the braking stability of these specialized 
vehicles. The street sweepers spend the majority of their operating 
time at speeds in the 3 to 7 mph range for maximum debris removal 
effectiveness, speeds well below the vehicle speed capability for which 
ABS

[[Page 45424]]

installation is required or effective. During low speed operation, 
maximum braking does not generally result in wheel lockup and the 
subsequent potential for loss of vehicle control. These street sweepers 
are seldom operated in inclement weather, which further reduces the 
need for ABS.
    Athey stated that the company has reviewed its manufacturing 
process, determined the cause of the noncompliance with the ABS 
requirements of FMVSS No. 105, and taken corrective measures to 
eliminate this type of noncompliance in the future.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it 
describes is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, its application is 
granted, and the applicant is exempted from providing the notification 
of the noncompliance that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from 
remedying the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority of 49 CFR 1.50 and 
501.8)

    Issued on: July 17, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-18514 Filed 7-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P