FCA US LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61432-61434 [2022-22050]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
61432
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 11, 2022 / Notices
Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall: 3 Poly
Correct marking should be Tread: 2
Poly + 2 Steel + 2 Nylon, Sidewall:
2 Poly
• 35x12.50–16LT Interco Thornbird
Sidewall marked as Tread: 4 Ply
Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
Correct marking should be Tread: 4
Poly + 2 Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply
Poly
• 33x13.50R17LT Interco Irok
Sidewall marked as Tread: 3 Poly + 2
Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall: 3 Poly
Correct marking should be Tread: 2
Poly + 2 Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall:
2 Poly
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 and
paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No.
139 include the requirements relevant to
these petitions. Paragraph S6.5(f) of
FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire
shall be marked on each sidewall with
the actual number of plies and the
composition of the ply cord material in
the sidewall and, if different, in the
tread area. Paragraphs 5.5(e) and (f) of
FMVSS No. 139 require that each tire
must be marked on one sidewall with
the generic name of each cord material
used in the plies (both sidewall and
tread area) of the tire, the actual number
of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if
different.
V. Summary of STA’s Petitions: The
following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of STA’s Petitions,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by STA. They do
not reflect the views of the Agency.
STA described the subject
noncompliances and stated that the
noncompliances are inconsequential as
they relate to motor vehicle safety. In
support of its petitions, STA offers the
following reasoning:
1. The subject tires were
manufactured as designed and meet or
exceed all other marking and
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 119 or 139, as applicable.
2. The noncompliance is not a safety
concern, having no effect on operation
of the tire and no impact on the
retreading, repairing, or recycling
industries.
3. All the tires in inventory and the
mold information are being corrected
and all future production and sales by
STA of these tires will have the correct
information on both sidewalls.
4. STA stated that they are not aware
of any warranty claims, adjustments,
field reports, customer complaints, legal
claims, or any incidents, accidents, or
injuries related to the subject condition.
5. STA says that NHTSA has granted
a number of similar petitions relating to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Oct 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
incorrectly identifying the actual
number of plies in the tread area. STA
went on to cite the following petitions
in which the Agency has previously
granted:
a. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential noncompliance, 83 FR
36668 (July 30, 2018).
b. Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR
13002 (March 26, 2018).
c. Bridgestone Americas Tire
Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 47049 (August 2,
2013).
d. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 74 FR
10804 (March 12, 2009).
e. Nitto Tire U.S.A., Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 17764 (March
30, 2016).
f. Hankook Tire America Corp., Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 79 FR
30688 (May 28, 2014).
STA concluded by again contending
that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petitions to
be exempted from providing notification
of the noncompliances, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, be granted.
STA’s complete petitions 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.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The Agency
agrees with STA that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. The Agency
believes that one measure of
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety is that there is no effect of the
noncompliance on the operational
safety of vehicles on which these tires
are mounted. Another measure of
inconsequentiality which is relevant to
these petitions is the safety of people
working in the tire retread, repair and
recycling industries.
Although tire construction affects the
strength and durability of tires, neither
the Agency nor the tire industry
provides information establishing a
relationship between tire strength and
durability to the number of plies and
types of ply cord material in the tread
sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
customers should consider the tire
construction information along with
other information such as the load
capacity, maximum inflation pressure,
tread wear, temperature, and traction
ratings, to assess performance
capabilities of various tires. In the
Agency’s judgement, the incorrect
labeling of the tire construction
information will have an
inconsequential effect on motor vehicle
safety because most consumers do not
base tire purchases or vehicle operation
parameters on the number of plies in a
tire.
The Agency also believes the
noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries. The use
of steel in the sidewall and tread is the
primary safety concern of these
industries. In this case, because the
sidewall markings indicate correctly
that the steel plies exist, and their
number, the industry will be reasonably
notified of this potential safety concern.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that STA has met its burden of
persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 and
FMVSS No. 119 noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, STA’s
petitions are hereby granted, and STA is
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a remedy
for, the 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.)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022–21997 Filed 10–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0112; Notice 2]
FCA US LLC, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:
FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler
Group LLC) (‘‘FCA US’’) has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2019–2020
Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor
vehicles equipped with Mopar rear
brake hoses and replacement brake
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 11, 2022 / Notices
hoses sold to FCA US dealers do not
fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
106, Brake Hoses. FCA US filed two
noncompliance reports with NHTSA
(the ‘‘Agency’’), both dated October 22,
2020. FCA US subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on November 13, 2020, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces and explains the denial of
FCA US’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Manuel Maldonado, Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, Tel. (202) 366–
8731.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
FCA US has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2019–2020 Ram 4500/
5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles
equipped with Mopar rear brake hoses
and replacement brake hoses sold to
FCA US dealers as replacement parts do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1
of FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR
571.106). FCA US filed two
noncompliance reports, both dated
October 22, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. FCA US
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
November 13, 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), 49 U.S.C. 30120(h), and 49
CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of FCA US’s petition
was published in the Federal Register
(86 FR 15548), pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120, with a 30-day public
comment period that began on March
23, 2021. No comments were received.
The petition, and all supporting
documents, can be found in docket
NHTSA–2020–0112 on the Docket
Management System’s (FDMS) website
at https://www.regulations.gov/.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
II. Vehicles and Equipment Involved
Approximately 26,961 MY 2019–2020
Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor
vehicles, manufactured between
February 10, 2019, and August 26, 2020,
are potentially involved. Approximately
182 Mopar right rear brake hose
replacement parts, with part numbers
68371722AA and 68371722AB, and left
rear brake hose replacement parts, with
part numbers 68371723AA and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Oct 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
68371723AB, which were manufactured
between January 29, 2019, and August
20, 2020, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA US states that the inside
diameter of certain Mopar rear brake
hoses equipped in certain model year
(MY) 2019–2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab
Chassis motor vehicles and sold to FCA
US dealers as replacement parts do not
meet the FMVSS No. 106 requirement
that every inside diameter of any section
of a hydraulic brake hose assembly is
not less than 64 percent of the nominal
inside diameter of the brake hose, and
therefore the parts do not comply with
paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106.
FCA US explains that this
noncompliance is due to crimping of the
hose without use of a mandrel, resulting
in the inside diameter of the hose at the
fitting being smaller than designed.
Additionally, FCA US states that, in the
worst-case scenario, some of these brake
hoses measured 52.8 percent of the
nominal inside diameter.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106
provides that ‘‘[e]xcept for that part of
an end fitting which does not contain
hose, every inside diameter of any
section of a hydraulic brake hose
assembly shall be not less than 64
percent of the nominal inside diameter
of the brake hose (S6.12).’’
V. Summary of FCA US’s Petition
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of FCA US’s Petition,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by FCA US and do
not reflect the views of the Agency.
FCA US described the subject
noncompliance and contended that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA US states that it ‘‘has completed
testing showing that, in this particular
circumstance, there is no safety concern
with the noncompliant brake hose
assemblies’’ that were built with an
under-specification inside diameter (ID)
size. FCA US claims that ‘‘the testing
shows there is no concern for hose
rupture and no risk of brake system
failure due to pressure loss.’’ FCA US
says its testing also ‘‘shows there is no
meaningful effect on vehicle braking
performance’’ for the subject vehicles.
FCA US claims that the subject
vehicle ‘‘achieves no more than 2,500
pounds per square inch (PSI) in the
brake hose assemblies when performing
FMVSS. 105 testing for stopping
distance.’’ According to FCA US,
‘‘FMVSS 106 specifies a minimum burst
strength requirement of 7,000 PSI for
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61433
brake hoses of 1⁄8″ or smaller diameter’’
and ‘‘the subject brake hoses have a
diameter of 1⁄8″.’’ The FCA US says its
‘‘internal specification requires the
supplier to perform burst testing daily,
and the minimum requirement that all
hose assemblies must meet is 9,000 PSI
under the FMVSS. 106 test conditions.’’
FCA US says ‘‘[t]he brake hose
assemblies containing an out of
specification ID all surpassed the
requirement and showed no difference
from those containing a compliant ID.’’
FCA US believes that because the
‘‘viscosity of brake fluid at colder
temperatures increases, the flow rate of
brake fluid will be reduced at colder
temperatures,’’ therefore FCA US
characterizes the cold temperature
testing as the worst-case scenario. FCA
US tested noncompliant brake hose
assemblies equipped in the subject
vehicles and compliant brake hose
assemblies for flow at ambient and at
cold temperature, which included an
overnight soak at ¥30 °C. FCA US says
‘‘[t]he test was conducted using a panic
brake application of 500 Newtons in 0.5
seconds per FMVSS 105 pedal force
requirements and then held for an
additional 5 seconds to ensure fluid
flow to the wheel end.’’ FCA US found
that the ‘‘compliant and noncompliant
brake hose assemblies showed no
meaningful difference in the time they
each took to reach 50 bar and 100 bar
at either ambient or cold.’’
FCA US tested the subject vehicle for
stopping distance according to FMVSS
105 testing procedures for vehicles over
10,000 pounds (lbs.) Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating (GVWR), which FCA US
characterizes as the worst-case scenario.
FCA US explains that the test was
conducted 6 times ‘‘on a vehicle that
was slowed from a speed of 60 mph
with a maximum pedal effort of 150 lbs.
to determine if it could meet the
required stopping distance
requirements.’’ FCA US says it focused
on the ‘‘2nd effectiveness and 3rd
effectiveness results’’ and used the best
distance to calculate the Best Stop
Percentage Margin. FCA US found that
there was ‘‘no meaningful difference
between the 2nd effectiveness and the
3rd effectiveness government
specifications or the more stringent FCA
US internal stopping requirements
between a brake hose with an out of
specification’’ ID and a brake hose with
a compliant ID. FCA US completed two
tests with brake hose assemblies with
compliant ID sizes and one test with the
subject out of specification ID size.
FCA US states it is not aware of any
crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with the
condition.
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
61434
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 11, 2022 / Notices
FCA US concludes 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.1
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.2 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.3
The main purpose of the vehicle brake
hose and its connected systems is to
allow a motor vehicle operator to safely
bring the vehicle to a complete stop.
FMVSS No. 106 states that the purpose
of the standard is to reduce deaths and
injuries occurring as a result of brake
system failure from pressure or vacuum
loss due to hose or hose assembly
rupture, and FMVSS No. 106 contains
1 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).
2 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).
3 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’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Oct 07, 2022
Jkt 259001
the constriction requirement in S5.3.1 to
help facilitate that outcome.
NHTSA does not find FCA US’s
arguments persuasive that failure to
meet the minimum safety requirements
of FMVSS No. 106 is inconsequential to
safety. FMVSS No. 105 establishes
minimum requirements related to motor
vehicle braking under certain specified
braking conditions, whereas FMVSS No.
106 describes, more broadly, minimum
performance that pertain to brake hoses
and brake hose assemblies to reduce
deaths and injuries occurring as a result
of brake system failure from pressure or
vacuum loss due to rupture. For
example, FMVSS No. 106 includes tests
for constriction, whip resistance, and
tensile strength, among others, that are
intended to ensure a minimum level of
safety beyond testing to the specific
limited braking scenarios found in
FMVSS No. 105.
FCA US explained that the root cause
of the noncompliance is due to crimping
of the hose without use of a mandrel
that caused the inside diameter of the
hose at the fitting to be smaller than
designed. FCA US acknowledged in its
petition that the hoses do not meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.3.1 of
FMVSS No. 106, stating that the worst
cases of noncompliance only have 53%
of the nominal inside diameter. This
represents a significant decrease from
FMVSS No. 106’s 64% minimum safety
requirement. NHTSA finds that any
potential safety consequence resulting
from FCA US’s noncompliance may not
present itself initially, but can emerge
over the service life of the product.
Furthermore, over-crimping a brake
hose, which FCA US stated caused the
noncompliance, is a common cause of
brake hose failure in motor vehicles,
and it can lead to cyclical fatigue that
causes a shorter lifespan than a correctly
crimped brake hose. Even if the subject
noncompliant hoses passed a burst test
when they were new, the over-crimping
can result in higher stresses on the
inside of the hose than designed and
reduce the strength and cycle life of the
hose.
In summary, the increased material
stress and the loss of strength and cycle
life due to over-crimping can lead to
premature failure of the brake hose
assemblies which negatively affects the
vehicle’s braking performance and
creates a risk to motor vehicle safety.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
NHTSA has determined that FCA US
has not met its burden of persuasion
needed for the noncompliance with
FMVSS No. 106 to be considered
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
FCA US’s petition is hereby denied, and
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FCA US is therefore obligated to provide
notification of, and free remedy for, the
aforementioned noncompliances,
pursuant to 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. 2022–22050 Filed 10–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Requesting
Comments on Declarations and
Authorizations for Electronic Filing
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Internal Revenue Service,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
invites the general public and other
federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting
comments concerning e-file declarations
using Forms 8453–EMP, 8453–FE, and
8453–WH, as well as e-file
authorizations using Forms 8879–EMP,
8879–F, and 8879–WH.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before December 12, 2022
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or
by email to pra.comments@irs.gov.
Include OMB Control No. 1545–1276 in
the subject line of the message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of this collection should be
directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800–
7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room
6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20224, or through the
internet at jon.r.callahan@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IRS is
currently seeking comments concerning
the following information collection
tools, reporting, and record-keeping
requirements:
Title: Declarations and Authorizations
for Electronic Filing.
OMB Number: 1545–0967.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61432-61434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0112; Notice 2]
FCA US LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) (``FCA US'') has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab
Chassis motor vehicles equipped with Mopar rear brake hoses and
replacement brake
[[Page 61433]]
hoses sold to FCA US dealers do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. FCA US filed two
noncompliance reports with NHTSA (the ``Agency''), both dated October
22, 2020. FCA US subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 13, 2020,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces and explains
the denial of FCA US's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manuel Maldonado, Compliance Engineer,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, Tel. (202) 366-8731.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
FCA US has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram
4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles equipped with Mopar rear brake
hoses and replacement brake hoses sold to FCA US dealers as replacement
parts do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106, Brake
Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). FCA US filed two noncompliance reports, both
dated October 22, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FCA US subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on November 13, 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), 49 U.S.C. 30120(h), and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of FCA US's petition was published in the Federal
Register (86 FR 15548), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, with a
30-day public comment period that began on March 23, 2021. No comments
were received. The petition, and all supporting documents, can be found
in docket NHTSA-2020-0112 on the Docket Management System's (FDMS)
website at https://www.regulations.gov/.
II. Vehicles and Equipment Involved
Approximately 26,961 MY 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor
vehicles, manufactured between February 10, 2019, and August 26, 2020,
are potentially involved. Approximately 182 Mopar right rear brake hose
replacement parts, with part numbers 68371722AA and 68371722AB, and
left rear brake hose replacement parts, with part numbers 68371723AA
and 68371723AB, which were manufactured between January 29, 2019, and
August 20, 2020, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA US states that the inside diameter of certain Mopar rear brake
hoses equipped in certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab
Chassis motor vehicles and sold to FCA US dealers as replacement parts
do not meet the FMVSS No. 106 requirement that every inside diameter of
any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly is not less than 64
percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose, and therefore
the parts do not comply with paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106. FCA US
explains that this noncompliance is due to crimping of the hose without
use of a mandrel, resulting in the inside diameter of the hose at the
fitting being smaller than designed. Additionally, FCA US states that,
in the worst-case scenario, some of these brake hoses measured 52.8
percent of the nominal inside diameter.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106 provides that ``[e]xcept for that
part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside
diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not
less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose
(S6.12).''
V. Summary of FCA US's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of FCA US's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
FCA US and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
FCA US described the subject noncompliance and contended that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA US states that it ``has completed testing showing that, in this
particular circumstance, there is no safety concern with the
noncompliant brake hose assemblies'' that were built with an under-
specification inside diameter (ID) size. FCA US claims that ``the
testing shows there is no concern for hose rupture and no risk of brake
system failure due to pressure loss.'' FCA US says its testing also
``shows there is no meaningful effect on vehicle braking performance''
for the subject vehicles.
FCA US claims that the subject vehicle ``achieves no more than
2,500 pounds per square inch (PSI) in the brake hose assemblies when
performing FMVSS. 105 testing for stopping distance.'' According to FCA
US, ``FMVSS 106 specifies a minimum burst strength requirement of 7,000
PSI for brake hoses of \1/8\'' or smaller diameter'' and ``the subject
brake hoses have a diameter of \1/8\''.'' The FCA US says its
``internal specification requires the supplier to perform burst testing
daily, and the minimum requirement that all hose assemblies must meet
is 9,000 PSI under the FMVSS. 106 test conditions.'' FCA US says
``[t]he brake hose assemblies containing an out of specification ID all
surpassed the requirement and showed no difference from those
containing a compliant ID.''
FCA US believes that because the ``viscosity of brake fluid at
colder temperatures increases, the flow rate of brake fluid will be
reduced at colder temperatures,'' therefore FCA US characterizes the
cold temperature testing as the worst-case scenario. FCA US tested
noncompliant brake hose assemblies equipped in the subject vehicles and
compliant brake hose assemblies for flow at ambient and at cold
temperature, which included an overnight soak at -30 [deg]C. FCA US
says ``[t]he test was conducted using a panic brake application of 500
Newtons in 0.5 seconds per FMVSS 105 pedal force requirements and then
held for an additional 5 seconds to ensure fluid flow to the wheel
end.'' FCA US found that the ``compliant and noncompliant brake hose
assemblies showed no meaningful difference in the time they each took
to reach 50 bar and 100 bar at either ambient or cold.''
FCA US tested the subject vehicle for stopping distance according
to FMVSS 105 testing procedures for vehicles over 10,000 pounds (lbs.)
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), which FCA US characterizes as the
worst-case scenario. FCA US explains that the test was conducted 6
times ``on a vehicle that was slowed from a speed of 60 mph with a
maximum pedal effort of 150 lbs. to determine if it could meet the
required stopping distance requirements.'' FCA US says it focused on
the ``2nd effectiveness and 3rd effectiveness results'' and used the
best distance to calculate the Best Stop Percentage Margin. FCA US
found that there was ``no meaningful difference between the 2nd
effectiveness and the 3rd effectiveness government specifications or
the more stringent FCA US internal stopping requirements between a
brake hose with an out of specification'' ID and a brake hose with a
compliant ID. FCA US completed two tests with brake hose assemblies
with compliant ID sizes and one test with the subject out of
specification ID size.
FCA US states it is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with the condition.
[[Page 61434]]
FCA US concludes 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
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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
\3\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main purpose of the vehicle brake hose and its connected
systems is to allow a motor vehicle operator to safely bring the
vehicle to a complete stop. FMVSS No. 106 states that the purpose of
the standard is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of
brake system failure from pressure or vacuum loss due to hose or hose
assembly rupture, and FMVSS No. 106 contains the constriction
requirement in S5.3.1 to help facilitate that outcome.
NHTSA does not find FCA US's arguments persuasive that failure to
meet the minimum safety requirements of FMVSS No. 106 is
inconsequential to safety. FMVSS No. 105 establishes minimum
requirements related to motor vehicle braking under certain specified
braking conditions, whereas FMVSS No. 106 describes, more broadly,
minimum performance that pertain to brake hoses and brake hose
assemblies to reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake
system failure from pressure or vacuum loss due to rupture. For
example, FMVSS No. 106 includes tests for constriction, whip
resistance, and tensile strength, among others, that are intended to
ensure a minimum level of safety beyond testing to the specific limited
braking scenarios found in FMVSS No. 105.
FCA US explained that the root cause of the noncompliance is due to
crimping of the hose without use of a mandrel that caused the inside
diameter of the hose at the fitting to be smaller than designed. FCA US
acknowledged in its petition that the hoses do not meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106, stating that the
worst cases of noncompliance only have 53% of the nominal inside
diameter. This represents a significant decrease from FMVSS No. 106's
64% minimum safety requirement. NHTSA finds that any potential safety
consequence resulting from FCA US's noncompliance may not present
itself initially, but can emerge over the service life of the product.
Furthermore, over-crimping a brake hose, which FCA US stated caused the
noncompliance, is a common cause of brake hose failure in motor
vehicles, and it can lead to cyclical fatigue that causes a shorter
lifespan than a correctly crimped brake hose. Even if the subject
noncompliant hoses passed a burst test when they were new, the over-
crimping can result in higher stresses on the inside of the hose than
designed and reduce the strength and cycle life of the hose.
In summary, the increased material stress and the loss of strength
and cycle life due to over-crimping can lead to premature failure of
the brake hose assemblies which negatively affects the vehicle's
braking performance and creates a risk to motor vehicle safety.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
NHTSA has determined that FCA US has not met its burden of
persuasion needed for the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 106 to be
considered inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. FCA US's petition
is hereby denied, and FCA US is therefore obligated to provide
notification of, and free remedy for, the aforementioned
noncompliances, pursuant to 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. 2022-22050 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
