[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20152-20153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 94-48; Notice 2]
John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
John Russo Industrial, Inc. (Russo) of San Jose, California,
determined that some of its trucks failed to comply with requirements
of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in 49 CFR
Part 571. These are FMVSS No. 113, ``Hood Latch Systems,'' FMVSS No.
120, ``Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger
Cars,'' FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing Materials,'' and FMVSS No. 207,
``Seating Systems.'' All these noncompliances were discovered on July
13, 1993 during inspection of vehicles by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance (File NCI 3288). Russo filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
Russo also petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy
requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15
U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (now 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120) on the basis that
the noncompliances were inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety. This notice grants the petition.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published on June 9, 1994 (59
FR 29861), and an opportunity afforded for comment. Comments on the
petition were received from Donald W. Beams (Fleet Manager, Vehicle
Maintenance Division, Department of General Services, City of San
Jose); R. A. Gaffney (a senior member of the board of the California
Fire Chief's Mechanics Education Committee); and Darlene E. Skelton.
These commenters recommended that the petition be denied. Comments on
the safety issues were also received from the Fire Marshal of the State
of California, Ronny J. Coleman.
1. FMVSS No. 113, ``Hood Latch Systems''
In 1991, Russo completed two vehicles which do not comply with the
hood latching requirements in S4.2 of FMVSS No. 113, in that panels
opening on the front were not provided with a second latch position on
the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system. With respect
to this noncompliance, Russo argued:
[49 CFR 571.113 S3] definition, ``Hood means any movable
exterior body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover
[an] engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment.'' The forward
face panels on our vehicles are below the windshield, and are not
used as compartment, storage, or any criteria to classify it as a
hood.
Paragraph S4.2 of standard 113 states: ``A front opening hood
which, in any open position partially or completely obstructs a
driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a
second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood
latch system.''
The access panels in question are not classified as a hood
mechanism, therefore [they] do not need to follow these guidelines.
If the panel were left open it would not obstruct the driver's view
enough to cause a driving hazard.
Our testing of this design consisted of the air flow testing of
up to 78 mph with a head wind of 14 mph that brought the total air
speed to 92 mph. Air flow only holds the access panel down more
securely. The panel cannot fly up as a result of the air flow.
Panels of similar design are easily found on hundreds of
thousands of on-road vehicles including GMC Astro 9500, Chevrolet
Titan 90, Ford CLT 9000, Freight Liner cab overs, and many other
vehicles * * *.
The Hazmat and Command vehicles are built with windshields which
are much larger than those of typical van or cab over engine type
vehicles. This large windshield is provided partially as a styling
feature and partly to provide exceptional visibility in low speed
maneuvering situations. The small area of windshield which would be
blocked if the access panel could physically be lifted up by air
flow, would not even be in the field of view on typical vehicles in
this class.
The City of San Jose disputes Russo's contention that the panel is
not a hood, saying that the front compartment ``has some storage
capacity.'' Commenters expressed concern that the panel could rise and
strike the windshield. The Fire Marshal asks whether a standard has
been developed for air flow tests; if no standard exists, the panel's
performance in Russo's tests is an inadequate justification for
granting the petition.
NHTSA has reviewed Russo's arguments and the comments received. The
agency accepts the manufacturer's position that the panels do not cover
the engine, luggage or storage space, or battery compartment. The
panel, therefore, would not appear to be a ``hood'' within the meaning
of the standard's definition. Even if it were a hood, Russo's 92 mph
wind tests provide a measure of assurance that the airflow increases
the pressure on the panels, making it unlikely that the wind could blow
the panels open. Even if the panels do blow open, any obstruction to
the operator's view is minor and affects visibility only through the
lowest portion of the windshield.
2. FMVSS No. 120, ``Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other
Than Passenger Cars''
Seventeen vehicles completed or modified by Russo from 1989 through
1991 do not have the label required by S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, which
includes the size designation of the tires, the size designation of the
rims, and the cold inflation pressure of the tires. According to Russo,
the noncompliances are due to removal of labels after the purchaser
took delivery of the vehicles. It commented that
Without waiving this petition for exemption due to
inconsequential non-compliance, we will notify the Deputy Chief of
the San Jose Fire Dept. of our offer to supply and install new
decals if they wish in a coordinated verifiable supervised manner.
We shall document it for NHTSA and send NHTSA all copies of the
labels.
The City of San Jose comments that it has no records that the
labels were installed or removed. Darlene E. Skelton says that the same
noncompliance can be found on Russo vehicles provided to fire
departments other than those of San Jose. The Fire Marshal notes that
Russo has offered to provide the labels.
Russo's provision of the labels is the same remedy that other
manufacturers with similar noncompliances have performed in the absence
of an inconsequentiality petition. Thus, this action moots the petition
for relief from remedy. Russo's notification letter to the Fire
Department does not contain all the information required by 49 CFR Part
577, but the omissions (safety warnings, DOT address, etc.) are not
critical in this case where there is only one owner, who is aware of
the problem and who has contacted NHTSA already with comments on it.
3. FMVSS No. 205, ``Glazing Materials''
In 1991, Russo completed two vehicles that do not comply with the
glazing materials marking requirements in Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205,
which state that windshields must be marked AS-1 and windows to the
right and left of the driver's position must be marked AS-2. The
subject vehicles have no marking on the windshields, and the markings
on the windows to the right and left of the driver's position are AS-3,
not AS-2. Russo provided a photocopy of a purchase order for AS-1
windshield glass which it claims were used for the windshields. Russo
further provided a copy of a letter from the supplier of the cockpit
side windows [[Page 20153]] stating that the windows in question were
marked AS-3. Russo argued:
The windshields that were installed in these vehicles were
labeled AS-1.
The [installers] had shown us the windshield label on the
windshield stock plate before the installation and fitting process.
The San Jose Fire Dept.'s Battalion Chief Master Mechanic was also
shown the label at this time and he said this to Mr. Shifflet [of
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance] during his visit.
We have a sample of the label that the glass company that
supplies the Fire Dept. And all of California had supplied(sic) to
show DOT.
The windshield that was supplied to us by San Jose Glass
contained this label:
Laminated
16 CFR 1201 M550
CATT II AS-1
DOT 273
* * * * *
The labeling on the driver's and passenger's window is also
inconsequential to vehicle safety as shown by supporting data that
the glass manufacturer uses all the same AS 2 glass except for a
very slight insignificant light transmission in AS-certified
configuration.
The City of San Jose notes that the side windows are AS-3 rather
than AS-2. Darlene E. Skelton and the Fire Marshal note that the
noncompliance is easily remedied by the installation of new glass. The
Fire Marshal also believes that the windshield should be marked to
bring it into full compliance with Standard No. 205.
Because all windshields are required to be AS-1 glazing, NHTSA is
confident that, if the unmarked windshields have to be replaced, the
replacement windshield will be AS-1 glazing. The agency does not concur
with Russo's characterization of the substitution of AS-3 glazing for
AS-2 glazing as resulting in ``a very slight insignificant light
transmission'', but it does conclude that, because the noncompliance
exists in only two vehicles, it will have an inconsequential effect on
safety.
4. FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating Systems''
In April 1991, Russo produced one Command/Communications van (1989
Gillig chassis) with an 18,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating. The
vehicle is a specially configured portable meeting room for use at the
scene of disasters. It is a closed, straight body van-type vehicle
consisting essentially of a cab for vehicle operation and a cargo area
which Russo converted into a conference room.
Section 4.4 of FMVSS No. 207 requires that all seats not designed
to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion are to be conspicuously
labeled to that effect. The seats located in the meeting room area of
this vehicle are not designed to be occupied while the vehicle is being
operated, but are not labeled as such.
Subsequent to its petition, Russo agreed to provide the labels for
the seats in question. This moots its penalty for exemption from the
statutory remedial requirements. Any failures to comply with the letter
of the notification requirements of Part 577 are less significant in
the case where notification is to be provided a single owner who is
aware of the noncompliance and has commented to NHTSA on it.
Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found
that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliances herein described are inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and its petition is granted.
(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
and 49 CFR 501.8)
Issued on April 18, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-10000 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
