Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 35992-35994 [2020-12716]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35992-35994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12716]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0005; Notice 1]


Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2011-2021 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner HDX 
school buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash 
Protection. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated December 17, 2019, 
and later amended the report on January 16, 2020. DTNA subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA on January 16, 2020, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This notice announces receipt of DTNA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the 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 for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (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 comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: DTNA has determined that certain MY 2011-2021 Thomas 
Built Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger 
Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222). DTNA filed a 
noncompliance report dated December 17, 2019, and later amended their 
report on January 16, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned 
NHTSA on January 16, 2020, 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.
    This notice of receipt of DTNA's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent

[[Page 35993]]

any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits 
of the petition.
    II. Buses Involved: Approximately 7,601 MY 2011-2021 Thomas Built 
Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses manufactured between October 21, 2009, and 
December 16, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: DTNA explains that the noncompliance is that 
the subject school buses are equipped with a wall-mounted restraining 
barrier that does not meet the requirements specified in paragraph 
S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222. Specifically, when tested according to the 
test procedure, the restraining barrier did not meet the force/
deflection curve or deflection requirements because the upper loading 
bar contacted the trim panel on the front entry door of the bus causing 
the upper loading bar force to exceed the allowable limit.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222 includes 
the requirements relevant to this petition. When force is applied to 
the restraining barrier in the same manner as specified in paragraphs 
S5.1.3.1 through S5.1.3.4 for seating performance tests the restraining 
barrier:
    (a) Force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in 
Figure 1;
    V. Summary of DTNA's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, V. Summary of DTNA's Petition, are the views 
and arguments provided by DTNA. They have not been evaluated by the 
Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. DTNA described the 
subject noncompliance and stated their belief that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, DTNA submitted the following reasoning:
    1. Background and description of the noncompliance: DTNA found that 
it had modified the restraining barrier design in October 2009 
following an update to FMVSS No. 222 to increase the seat back height 
requirement to 24 inches. For aesthetic purposes and not for functional 
or compliance reasons, DTNA similarly adjusted the profiles (slope and 
angle) of the restraining barrier to match the new higher seatback 
height. To do so, DTNA added approximately \5/8\ inch of foam padding 
to each side of the restraining barrier. Notably, the foam was added 
onto the outside of the frame of the barrier--doing so did not widen 
the frame structure itself. The additional padding is used for cosmetic 
purposes (to promote uniformity of design of the seat profiles at that 
time) and is not needed to provide protection beyond the construction 
of the restraining barrier itself.
    2. Analysis: DTNA says that the purpose of the restraining barrier 
is to provide compartmentalization for occupants of the first row of 
school bus seats where there is not a seat back to offer protection. 
FMVSS No. 222 includes a series of performance requirements for school 
bus frontal barriers which includes distance between the barrier and 
the seat (S5.2.1), the barrier height and position (S5.2.2), and 
barrier forward performance (S5.2.3). The purpose of the barrier 
forward performance requirement at S5.2.3 is to ensure the front 
barrier can withstand the impact of certain set forces while at the 
same time maintaining component integrity.
    3. The forces measured in testing are a product of the test 
apparatus that would not occur in the real world. DTNA says that the 
effect of the additional foam outside the restraining barrier frame was 
to slightly widen the restraining barrier. Now, with a wider 
restraining barrier, the placement of the upper restraining barrier is 
moved outwards so that it now encounters the door frame trim. With a 
wider restraining barrier, based on its calculated placement per the 
test procedure, the corresponding length of the upper loading bar 
becomes longer than that of the prior design. When the upper loading 
bar deployed, it contacted the front entrance door trim and caused the 
upper loading bar to exceed the force limits. The behavior of the upper 
loading bar is a product of the test procedure and does not represent 
the behavior of the barrier in actual use conditions. Prior to the 2009 
design change; there was an approximately two-inch gap at the height 
where the upper loading arm was placed. This design well exceeded the 
minimum requirements as indicated above. With the design change in 
2009, that space was filled in with soft foam, but the effect of doing 
so did not have any impact on the performance or integrity of the 
barrier itself.
    DTNA has since conducted its own analysis of the restraining 
barrier performance in the design tested by the Agency as well as the 
prior design. The results of that testing demonstrate that the 
additional foam creates approximately 11 mm (.43 inches) of 
interference between the upper loading bar on the right side of the 
vehicle and the bus entrance door frame. The additional foam was not 
intended to and does not provide any safety or functional benefit. Even 
though the prior design of the restraining barrier left a small gap 
between the bus sidewall and the barrier itself, the barrier was more 
than sufficient to meet the performance forward requirements. The 
addition of foam for cosmetic purposes in 2009 does not deter from the 
safety of the barrier.
    Removing the additional \5/8\ inches of foam padding would 
eliminate the potential for any interference with the upper loading bar 
as it then cannot come into physical contact with the doorframe. The 
previous small gap in space did not expose occupants to an increased 
risk of harm (as demonstrated by the lack of any reports from the field 
potentially related to this issue), and the more recent addition of the 
foam also does not create any safety concerns beyond the operation of 
the test itself.
    4. The current restraining barrier addresses the unreasonable risk 
to safety identified by FMVSS No. 222. DTNA says that the purpose of a 
restraining barrier is to compartmentalize and contain passengers 
located in the first row of seats in the event of a crash or sharp 
deceleration. The forward performance test evaluates the strength of 
the restraining barrier in a forward impact and to deflect in a 
controlled manner as it absorbs the energy of the occupant striking the 
barrier.
    The restraining barrier is intended to provide an equivalent level 
of compartmentalization as does the seat back for the rearward seats. 
The safety benefit of compartmentalization is realized through the 
height of the restraining barrier (or seatback) as a restraining 
barrier that is too low could increase the likelihood that in a forward 
crash, an occupant could be thrown over the barrier. This view is 
consistent with the requirement that the height and position of the 
restraining barrier match or ``coincide'' with that of the seatback. 
Because FMVSS No. 222 defines the unreasonable risk to safety as the 
potential for being thrown over the barrier, it is the height and 
position of the barrier that mitigate against this risk.
    Additionally, while the surface area of the barrier must at least 
coincide with the surface area of the seatback, any additional width of 
the barrier that extends beyond the frame of the barrier and thus is 
surplus material that does not address the unreasonable risk to safety 
identified by the standard. DTNA says that the Agency has previously 
recognized that a ``restraining barrier must therefore only coincide 
with or lie outside of the seatback surface required by S5.1.2. If a 
seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size 
of the restraining barrier need not coincide.'' Letter to Wort, August 
11,

[[Page 35994]]

1987. The reverse also holds true. For the subject buses, the surface 
area of the barrier is larger than that of the seat back and exceeds 
the area required by S5.2.1. While the restraining barrier surface area 
can be larger than the seat back, the unreasonable risk to safety is 
addressed by maximizing the effects of compartmentalization by ensuring 
the perimeter of the restraining barrier coincides with the surface 
area of the seatback.
    DTNA says that the test procedure considers the need to assess the 
portion of the barrier that is intended to bear the force of the 
loading. DTNA believes that when creating the test procedure, the 
Agency intentionally limited the length of the loading bar to be 
approximately 4 inches shorter than the width of the seat back or 
restraining barrier. DTNA says NHTSA declined to reduce the size of the 
range to two inches because it wanted ``to ensure loads would be 
transferred to the seat structure without collapse of the seat back'' 
and to discourage manufacturers from adding a narrow structural member 
to meet the requirements. See 39 FR 27585 (July 30, 1974). In other 
words, the objective of the forward performance test is to measure the 
operation and structural integrity of the restraining barrier by 
ensuring the loads are concentrated in the core of the structure itself 
and not the periphery of the structure which could cause it to 
unnecessarily collapse. Thus, the additional foam installed outwards of 
the retaining barrier frame has no bearing on the forward performance 
of the restraining barrier.
    5. DTNA has corrected this issue in production by adjusting the 
location of the installation of the barrier by moving it away from the 
wall by \3/4\ inch. Doing so ensures that in any future testing, the 
loading bar will not encounter the door frame.
    6. Finally, DTNA has used this seating design for over a decade. It 
is not aware of any consumer complaints or reports of accidents or 
injuries related to the forward displacement of the restraining 
barrier.
    DTNA's complete petition and all supporting documents are available 
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at 
https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search 
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this 
notice.
    DTNA concluded by expressing the belief 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.
    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, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject buses that DTNA no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant buses under their control after DTNA 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-12716 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P