[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9726-9727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3766]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0019; Notice 1]
Utilimaster Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Utilimaster Corporation (Utilimaster) \1\ has determined that
certain model year 2009-2011 Utilimaster walk-in van-type trucks
manufactured between September 1, 2009, and December 22, 2011, do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.
Utilimaster has filed an appropriate report dated December 30, 2011,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Utilimaster Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Spartan Motors, Inc., is manufacturer of motor vehicles and is
registered under the laws of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Spartan Motors, Inc.,\2\ on behalf of Utilimaster
has submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Spartan Motors, Inc., is a manufacturer of motor vehicles
and is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice of receipt of Utilimaster's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are approximately 9,861 model year 2009-2011 Utilimaster
walk-in van-type trucks manufactured between September 1, 2009, and
December 22, 2011.
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, these provisions
only apply to the subject 9,861 \3\ model year 2009-2011 trucks that
Utilimaster no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Utilimaster's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Utilimaster as a vehicle
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR part 573 for the 9,861 affected vehicles. However, a decision on
this petition cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant
vehicles under their control after Utilimaster notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilimaster explains that the noncompliance is that while the
sliding doors on the vehicles are equipped with a door latch system
with a fully latched position, no door closure warning system, as
required by paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206, is installed.
Paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206 requires in pertinent part:
S4.2 Sliding Side Doors.
S4.2.1 Latch System. Each sliding door system shall be equipped
with either:
(a) At least one primary door latch system, or
(b) A door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be
located where it can be clearly seen by the driver. Upon
certification a manufacturer may not thereafter alter the
designation of a primary latch. Each manufacturer shall, upon
request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
provide information regarding such designation * * *
Summary of Utilimaster's Analysis and Arguments
The sliding door latch requirements contained in paragraph S4.2.1
of FMVSS No. 206 were adopted in February 2007 as part of a broader
upgrade to the Agency's existing door latch and retention requirements.
The standard defines ``Primary Door Latch'' as ``a latch equipped with
both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position and is
designated as a `primary door latch' by the manufacturer.'' It defines
``Door Closure Warning System'' as ``a system that will activate a
visual signal when a door latch system is not in its fully latched
position and the vehicle ignition is activated.'' The effective date of
these requirements was September 1, 2009. (The load test requirements
of paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 206 became effective September 1,
2010; the subject vehicles do comply with the load requirements.)
As set forth in Utilimaster's noncompliance report, Utilimaster
determined that the new latch requirements applied to these vehicles,
but were not designed into vehicles built after the effective date.
(This omission was the result of Utilmaster's previous
misinterpretation as to the applicability of the FMVSS No. 206
amendments to these particular vehicles.)
Specifically, the sliding doors on the subject vehicles are
equipped with a door latch that does not meet the above-referenced
definition of a ``primary door latch,'' because these vehicles lack a
secondary latched position. Thus, these vehicles do not meet the
paragraph S4.2.1(a) compliance option. Moreover, these vehicles are not
equipped with a ``door closure warning system'' and, therefore, they do
not meet the paragraph S4.2.1(b) compliance option. In any event, we
believe that the omission of a door closure warning system on these
vehicles is inconsequential to safety. This is due to the particular
characteristics of the sliding doors on these vehicles, which will
immediately provide adequate visual (and audible) feedback to the
driver to alert him or her in the event a door is unlatched.
The door has approximately 0.315 inches of engagement into the door
seal. Therefore, should the sliding door not be in the latched
position, it would be readily apparent to the driver before the vehicle
is driven.
Even if the driver did not notice the gap in the door prior to the
vehicle being driven, these doors would provide immediate visual
feedback to the driver as soon as the vehicle begins to move. The
sliding doors, on these vehicles, are designed to slide longitudinally
on a track when the sliding door handle is activated and a small force
is applied in the same longitudinal direction. As a
[[Page 9727]]
consequence, if the sliding door is not fully closed and latched and
the driver is not aware, this fact would become immediately apparent to
the driver when the vehicle is accelerated from rest, as the sliding
door would glide rearward from the force created by the acceleration.
Thus, while these vehicles may not meet the express requirements of
paragraph S4.2.1 or the definition of a ``door closure warning
system,'' Utilimaster believes they do meet the intent of these
requirements. The use of other visual signals, such as a dash-mounted
telltale, might be necessary for vehicles with rear sliding doors, such
as minivans or other passenger vehicles, but the sliding doors on the
subject vehicles are located in the front within plain view of the
driver.
In adopting the upgraded sliding door standards in 2007, the Agency
stated that it was particularly concerned with children riding in the
rear seats of passenger vans (minivans or ``MPVs'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 72 FR 5387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, these vehicles are used exclusively in commercial
applications and are driven exclusively by professional drivers
(primarily without a passenger). The commercial application of walk-in
vans is highly repetitive in nature. To ensure safety and to maximize
productivity, corporations have adopted highly regimented training
programs for drivers in addition to requiring them to carry a
commercial driver's license. The regimented training for the high
majority of commercial applications requires that drivers enter and
exit the vehicle from the curb side of the van. The repetitive use of
the van results in highly repeatable results from one stop to the next.
The likelihood that a driver would move the vehicle with the door left
inadvertently open is very low. Moreover, the likelihood that the
driver would be ejected from the driver's seat, through a curb-side
door, left unintentionally unlatched, is even less probable. These
drivers must adhere to corporate policies as they relate to operating
the vehicle. For example, UPS has strictly enforced requirements for
the drivers to always have the seatbelts fastened when the vehicle is
in motion. Walk-In vans with sliding doors very similar in design to
those on the subject vehicles have been in use for several decades. We
are not aware of a driver or passenger ever having been ejected from,
or fallen through an open sliding cab door, of our vehicles, while the
vehicle was in motion.
The sliding doors on these vehicles meet all load test and inertial
requirements of FMVSS No. 206, paragraph S4.2. Therefore, this
noncompliance will not increase the risk of occupant ejection under
conditions addressed by such requirements.
In summation, Utilimaster believes that the described noncompliance
of its vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to 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 Federal holidays.
c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
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 your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
DATES: Comment Closing Date: March 19, 2012.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: February 13, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-3766 Filed 2-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P