[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