
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19055-19056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7591]



[[Page 19055]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0028; Notice 1]


Morgan Olson, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Morgan Olson, LLC (Morgan Olson) \1\ has determined that 
certain model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 Morgan Olson walk-in van-type 
trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 4,536 kg and 
manufactured between September 1, 2009, and January 18, 2012, do not 
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. 
Morgan Olson has filed an appropriate report dated January 19, 2012, 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morgan Olson, LLC, is manufacturer of motor vehicles and is 
registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), Morgan Olson 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.
    This notice of receipt of Morgan Olson'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.
    Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 6430 Morgan Olson 
model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 walk-in van-type trucks having a GVWR 
over 4,536 kg and manufactured between September 1, 2009 and January 
18, 2012.
    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 6430 \2\ model year 2009, 2010, and 2011 
trucks that Morgan Olson no longer controlled at the time it determined 
that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Morgan Olson's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Morgan Olson as a vehicle 
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 
CFR part 573 for the 6430 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 Morgan Olson notified them that 
the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noncompliance: Morgan Olson explains that the noncompliance is that 
the affected vehicles do not contain a primary door latch system or 
door closure warning system as prescribed by paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS 
No. 206. As a result of an erroneous interpretation as to the scope of 
FMVSS No. 206's application, Morgan Olson mistakenly believed that the 
requirement for either a primary door latch system or door closure 
warning system applied only to its vehicles having a GVWR under 4,536 
kg.
    Morgan Olson explains that the latch systems in the noncompliant 
vehicles do not meet the standard of a primary door latch, because 
these latch systems do not have a secondary latched position. Nor are 
these vehicles equipped with a door closure warning system.
    Rule text: 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 Morgan Olson's Analysis and Arguments

    In describing the operation of the affected doors Morgan Olson 
explained that when the sliding door is closed but not latched, there 
is a \1/2\ inch gap between the door and its frame. Thus the rubber 
seal in the door jam as well as the exterior paint are clearly visible. 
When the door is latched, none of this is visible.
    Morgan Olson stated that its customers are delivery and like 
companies whose drivers are trained commercial drivers. A trained 
commercial driver, such as one driving a walk-in van manufactured by 
Morgan Olson, would immediately notice this gap and realize that the 
door is not latched.
    Morgan Olson also stated its belief that even if the driver did not 
notice that the door was not latched by means of observing the \1/2\ 
inch gap, the door would slowly begin to slide open as the vehicle 
began to accelerate, which a driver would certainly notice. 
Accordingly, if the sliding door is not latched, this would be apparent 
to the driver as soon as he accelerates.
    In addition, Morgan Olson stated its belief that this noncompliance 
in walk-in van type vehicles is distinguishable from the primary focus 
of FMVSS No. 206 sliding door standards. In adopting the standards, 
NHTSA noted a particular concern with sliding door failures in 
passenger vans, which often contain children in the back seat(s).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 72 FR 5385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morgan Olson argued that with passenger vans, the sliding doors are 
situated behind the driver and therefore out of the driver's line of 
sight. And, that this is not true for subject trucks that are used for 
commercial purposes and driven by commercial drivers without 
passengers.
    In summation, Morgan Olson 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 on to the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.

[[Page 19056]]

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.
    Comment Closing Date: April 30, 2012.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 23, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-7591 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


