John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. 94-48; Notice 1]

John Russo Industrial, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

John Russo Industrial, Inc. (Russo) of San Jose, California, has

determined that some of its trucks fail 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.'' Russo has filed an appropriate report pursuant to

49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Russo has 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.) on the basis that the noncompliance are inconsequential as they

relate to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of a petition is published under Section 157

of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417)

and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of

judgement concerning the merits of the petition.

All noncompliances covered by this petition were discovered on July

13, 1993 during inspection of vehicles by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance (File NCI 3288).

1. FMVSS No. 113, ``Hood Latch Systems''

In April 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications van

(Gillig chassis) and, in July 1991, one Hazardous Materials van

(Spartan chassis). These vehicles do not comply with the hood latching

requirements in S4.2 of FMVSS No. 113, in that their front opening

hoods, which in any open position partially or completely obstruct a

driver's forward view through the windshield, are not provided with a

second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood

latch system.

Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

[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 I have found in researching my response.

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.

2. FMVSS No. 120, ``Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other

Than Passenger Cars''

From 1989 through 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications

van (Gillig chassis) and one Hazardous Materials van (Spartan chassis)

and modified six Ford F350 and nine F800 trucks. These vehicles 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. Russo states that the

noncompliances are due to removal of labels after the purchaser took

delivery of the vehicles.

Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

The Act states that the labels must be installed by us. NHTSA *

* * says that the customer can do whatever they want to the vehicle

once they get it, ``they can even cut seatbelts * * *'' Then we

respectively state that no manufacturer whether Chevrolet or John

Russo should be made to do anything anytime anyone decides to remove

a sticker. We are not Chevrolet, we are a small minority family

business across the street that [was] asked to install bodies on

[the San Jose Fire Department's] chassis under their total

supervision.

* * * * *

The rim width missing will not affect the safety of the vehicle.

All vehicles involved in the petition belong to one user. The user

has redundant data and all information available, plus all the

resources to possess the information. The vehicle has this

information. The user has all the incomplete vehicle manuals. The

customer has a whole city fleet and its own service department and

had ordered cab and chassis to match their tire and rim fleet

specifications before we even got the contract to build the bodies.

When these vehicles were first delivered, engraved labels were

requested in place of the white labels that we normally install.

This was done.

When the new person took over, yellow NTEA labels were

requested. This was complied with.

* * * * *

No safety benefit to anyone has come out of this.

* * * * *

Without waving 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.

* * * * *

There has to be fairness and a limit to a manufacturers'

accountability especially in view of the circumstances and the years

of service we have rendered to the user in the former

administration. We cannot be held accountable for situations beyond

our control. Those Labels Were There and They Had Been Removed

[emphasis original].

3. FMVAA No. 205, ``Glazing Materials''

In April 1991, Russo completed one Command/Communications van

(Gilling chassis) and, in July 1991, one Hazardous Materials van

(Spartan chassis). These vehicles 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

had no marking on the windshields, and the markings on the windows to

the right and left of the driver's position were 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 stating

that the windows in question were marked AS-3. These materials are

available in the NHTSA Docket Section.

Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

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. [a]nd all of California had supplied 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.

4. FMVSS No. 207, ``Seating Systems''

In April 1991, Russo produced a 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.

Russo supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

A sign in the cab states that only two people are to be seated

in the cab. This is a specially configured portable meeting room for

disasters. The vehicle was configured for a specific purpose by the

user and the construction of the body layout was very closely

supervised by the fire department to the detail. The user (as

mentioned to NHTSA) * * * stated that [the vehicle] is only used for

meetings at the disaster scene. Many command centers are trailers,

only for use as scene command.

There is a very big sign on the vehicle stating that it is a

command and communications center. This is an official vehicle in

case of a disaster, designed to only be occupied by a driver and one

passenger while in motion.

We were contracted to build a vehicle for the user for [a]

specific purpose. In the case of a severe emergency, where a command

station is required, this vehicle is called in to act as the meeting

and communications center. This vehicle is not a response vehicle,

and is only brought to the scene after the situation has been

evaluated by the on scene command team as critical. The vehicle is

then used as a center and checkpoint to all incoming and outgoing

personnel at the scene.

This vehicle was built to the strict specification of the City

of San Jose Fire Department. It was ordered with seat belts for the

driver and one passenger only as the back communications and meeting

areas [were] not to be occupied when the vehicle was in motion. The

fire department is aware of the vehicle configuration and is fully

capable of instructing its employees that the back sections are not

to be occupied when the vehicle is in motion.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments on the petitions of Russo, described above. Comments should

refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the close of business on the closing

date indicated below will be considered The application and supporting

materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also

be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the

petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the

Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: July 11, 1994.

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR

501.8)

Issued on June 3, 1994.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 94-13970 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M