|
|---|
|
Spartan Motors USA, Inc, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Signing Official: Anne L. Collins Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Date: 17 October 2022 Topic: Spartan  
|
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62919-62922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22453]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0010, 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62920]]
SUMMARY: Spartan Motors USA, Inc (Spartan), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2015-2019 Spartan Specialty MM and K2 motorhome chassis
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Spartan filed a noncompliance report dated
December 18, 2017, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on January 15,
2018, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the
denial of Spartan's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-7236, Ahmad.Barnes@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Spartan has determined that certain MY 2015-2019
Spartan Specialty MM and K2 motorhome chassis do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR
571.121). Spartan filed a noncompliance report dated December 18, 2017,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Spartan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on January 15, 2018,
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 May 13, 2019, in the Federal Register (84 FR
20947). 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-2018-0010.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 414 MY 2015-2019 Spartan
Specialty MM and K2 motorhome chassis manufactured between February 12,
2014, and December 11, 2017, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Spartan describes the noncompliance as a
combined volume of air in the service and supply reservoirs in the air
brake system is insufficient to meet the required minimum of twelve
times the combined volume of air from all service brake chambers
specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 121.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 121, titled
``Air Brake Systems,'' states that the combined volume of all service
reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least 12 times the
combined volume of all service brake chambers.
V. Summary Spartan's of Petition: Spartan describes the subject
noncompliance and states its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety because the air
compressor in the subject vehicles has the capacity to replace the
volume of air in the brake system in a relatively short space of time;
brake applications for motorhomes appear to be less frequent than stop-
and-go applications and the lower air capacity may not be noticeable to
the driver nor impact braking performance; and completed subject
vehicles are equipped with dual air gauges as well as a visual and
audible warning system to alert the driver to a loss of air in the air
brake system.
Spartan first calculates the air reservoir capacity necessary for
its chassis to be compliant with FMVSS No. 121:
S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS 121, requires the combined volume of all
service reservoirs and supply reservoirs to be at least 12 times the
combined volume of all service brake chambers. The chassis affected
by this condition are equipped with a T-24 brake chamber on the
steer axle, T-30 brake chamber on the drive axle and T-16 brake
chamber on the tag axle. In using the values in Table V of FMVSS
121, the cumulative air capacity of these brake chambers would be
404 [cubic inches]. Multiplying by 12, the needed air reservoir
capacity would be 4848 [cubic inches].
Spartan also provides a table reflecting its calculations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cu. In. = Cubic Inch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 121 Number of
Brake chamber size cu. in.\1\ chambers total Total cu. in.
(Table V) cu. in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T-24............................................................ 67 2 134
T-30............................................................ 89 2 178
T-16............................................................ 46 2 92
-----------------------------------------------
Total Chamber Cu. In........................................ .............. .............. 404
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Air Reservoir Capacity (using 12 x Multiplier) Cu. In.. .............. .............. 4,848
Spartan Actual Reservoir Capacity (Cu. In.)..................... .............. .............. 4,674
Additional Capacity Needed (Cu. In.)............................ .............. .............. 174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 121 specifies that a vehicle must be
equipped with an air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air
pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 psi to 100 psi
when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum
recommended revolutions per minute (r.p.m.) within a time, in seconds,
determined by the quotient ((actual reservoir capacity x 25)/required
reservoir capacity). According to Spartan, under this paragraph, the
subject vehicles would be required to have a compressor with enough
capacity to go from 85 psi to 100 psi within 24 seconds ((4,674*25)/
4,848). Using the same equation and the required air reservoir capacity
of 4,848 cubic inches, the air pressure would need to increase from 85
psi to 100 psi within 25 seconds. However, Spartan contends that the
subject vehicles can increase air pressure from 85 psi to 100 psi in
less than 6 seconds, well within the requirement of 25 seconds.
Further, Spartan states that the subject vehicles are configured so the
compressor activates at a pressure set at, or greater than, the minimum
requirement of 100 psi.
In Spartan's view, the impact of the noncompliance--having 3.5
percent less air reservoir capacity than required--when combined with
the configuration of the activation pressure and the
[[Page 62921]]
capacity of the compressor, ``would appear to have an adverse
consequence of a slight increase in air compressor cycling,'' but
``this would be dependent on application of the service brakes.'' To
this point, Spartan further submits that motorhomes (vehicles on which
the noncompliant chassis here would be installed) have a similar duty
cycle to tractor-trailers, where they are driven at highway speeds with
infrequent brake applications. Spartan also notes that motorhomes also
are largely driven from owner residences to campground locations
throughout the traveling season. Accordingly, Spartan contends that
brake applications here would appear to be less frequent than those in
stop-and-go applications. Spartan therefore concludes that the
noncompliant air capacity with a one-second time difference to increase
air pressure may not be noticeable to the driver, and would not impact
the braking performance of the vehicle. Spartan also contends that
completed motorhomes subject to its petition are equipped with two air
gauges that monitor the air system pressure in both system 1 and system
2. In addition to the air gauges, there is both a warning light and an
audible alarm to alert the driver in the event of a low-air condition.
Based on these assertions, Spartan requests that its petition to be
exempted from notice and remedy obligations under the Safety Act.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which the recall would otherwise protect.\3\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries as evidence
that the issue 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., 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).
\4\ 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 also do not justify granting of an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant
who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has reviewed Spartan's petition, and is denying the petition.
The purpose of FMVSS No. 121 is to ensure safe braking performance
under normal and emergency conditions. Spartan states that it believes
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety even though the air braking system falls short of the required
capacity, in part contending that this deviation does not have an
adverse effect on braking. Spartan contends that even with the
insufficient system capacity, the onboard air compressor has the
capacity to raise the system pressure from 85 psi to 100 psi in a short
interval that is well under the timeframe specified in FMVSS No. 121.
Based on this compressor capacity and the pressure at which the
compressor activates, Spartan contends that the deficient system
capacity would not be noticed under the conditions in which motor homes
are used, or impact braking performance. Spartan also states that
completed subject vehicles are equipped with gauges and a visual and
audible warning system to alert the driver in the event of a loss of
air in the system.
The Agency does not find Spartan's reasoning persuasive.
First, Spartan admits that there may be an adverse consequence of a
slight increase in air compressor cycling as a result of the
noncompliant air reservoir capacity. Spartan qualifies this by stating
that whether there may be such an adverse consequence depends on the
application of the service brakes. To this point, Spartan observes that
brake applications in the subject vehicles ``would appear to be less
frequent than those stop and go applications,'' rendering the time
difference to increase air pressure potentially unnoticeable by the
driver and not impactful on braking performance. Spartan provided no
additional information or data here to support this notion, however.
Even assuming that brake application in the subject vehicles as
described by Spartan is generally true, Spartan also did not provide
evidence that such applications would be true of every affected
vehicle. In addition, as a general matter, Spartan provided no test
data to support the assertions in its petition. Furthermore, Spartan
fails to acknowledge that unsafe conditions could exist while the
vehicles are driven under stop-and-go conditions which may increase the
risk of crashes or injury.
Second, while Spartan observes that the completed subject vehicles
are installed with air gauges to monitor air system pressure, as well
as a warning light and audible alarm to alert drivers of a low air
condition, Spartan does not explain how driver awareness of a low air
condition would serve to mitigate the potential consequences of the
noncompliance.
And third, that the system may meet or exceed FMVSS No. 121's
requirements for the time in which the compressor can recharge the
system does not excuse the failure to meet system capacity
requirements. While compressor output may be such that lesser system
capacity may appear unnoticeable in normal braking and in the
``typical'' use scenario put forward by Spartan, FMVSS No. 121 seeks to
[[Page 62922]]
ensure motor vehicle safety in atypical and emergency use conditions as
well. In some catastrophic failures--such as compressor and system
valve failure--the presence of an adequate air reserve as required by
S5.1.2.1 would provide critical braking capacity for these large
vehicles. A vehicular crash is a potential consequence of an inadequate
air reserve in the event that critical braking is required, and a
recall would otherwise protect against such an event.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Spartan 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. Spartan is
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: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-22453 Filed 10-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P