[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44459-44461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0005; Notice 1]


Forest River Bus, 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: Forest River Bus, LLC (Forest River) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2009-2022 Starcraft school buses do not fully 
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, 
School Bus Passenger Seating And Crash Protection. Forest River filed a 
noncompliance report dated December 21, 2022, and subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on January 17, 2023, for a decision 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Forest River's 
petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 11, 2023.

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 may be 
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 dockets. 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

[[Page 44460]]

Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, General Engineer, NHTSA, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Forest River determined that certain MY 2009-2022 
Starcraft school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.3 of 
FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 
CFR 571.222).
    Forest River filed a noncompliance report dated December 21, 2022, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Forest River petitioned NHTSA on January 17, 2023, 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 Forest River's petition is published 
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency 
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the 
petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 3,192 of the following 
Starcraft school buses manufactured between April 3, 2009, and May 20, 
2020, are potentially involved:

1. MY 2013-2016 Starcraft Allstar MVP
2. MY 2016 Starcraft Allstar XL
3. MY 2019 Starcraft Allstar XL
4. MY 2016-2018 Starcraft Allstar XL MVP
5. MY 2009-2010 Starcraft MFSAB/Prodigy
6. MY 2012-2018 Starcraft MFSAB/Prodigy
7. MY 2013 Starcraft MPV/Prodigy
8. MY 2015-2018 Starcraft MPV/Prodigy
9. MY 2009-2010 Starcraft Prodigy
10. MY 2009-2022 Starcraft Quest
11. MY 2011 Starcraft Quest XL
12. MY 2014-2016 Starcraft Quest XL

    III. Noncompliance: Forest River explains that the noncompliance is 
that the subject school buses are equipped with a restraining barrier 
that does not meet the barrier forward performance requirement provided 
by S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222.
    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 S5.1.3.1 
through S5.1.3.4 for seating performance tests, the restraining barrier 
must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The restraining barrier force/deflection curve shall fall 
within the zone specified in Figure 1;
    (b) Restraining barrier deflection shall not exceed 356 mm; (for 
computation of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve describes only 
the force applied through the upper loading bar, and only the forward 
travel of the pivot attachment point of the loading bar, measured from 
the point at which the initial application of 44 N of force is 
attained.)
    (c) Restraining barrier deflection shall not interfere with normal 
door operation;
    (d) The restraining barrier shall not separate from the vehicle at 
any attachment point; and
    (e) Restraining barrier components shall not separate at any 
attachment point.
    V. Summary of Forest River's Petition: The following views and 
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Forest River's 
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Forest River. They 
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. Forest River describes the subject noncompliance and 
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety.
    Forest River begins by stating that since the subject frontal 
barrier was first certified in 2008, the same design has been used and 
has been produced by the same supplier. Forest River states since the 
frontal barrier was certified to comply with the FMVSS No. 222 
performance requirements, it ``has not changed in any material 
respect.'' Furthermore, Forest River contends that NHTSA has previously 
conducted compliance testing on the subject frontal barriers and found 
them to be compliant with the S5.2.3 requirements.
    In September of 2020, a third-party contractor for NHTSA, Applus 
IDIADA KARCO Engineer, LLC (KARCO) conducted compliance testing for the 
performance of MY 2019 Starcraft Quest school bus in accordance with 
the requirements of S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222. The testing conducted by 
Karco shows that the force/deflection curve of the passenger side 
restraining barrier did not comply with S5.2.3(a) resulting in a formal 
inquiry by NHTSA. In June 2021, Forest River responded to NHTSA's 
inquiry and contended that KARCO did not conduct the September 2020 
compliance testing in accordance with the test procedure required by 
FMVSS No. 222. Specifically, Forest River believes that KARCO's setup 
of the test apparatus ``caused it not to be sufficiently rigid and this 
caused the apparatus to inappropriately contort and change direction 
during testing.'' Forest River contends that in the video of KARCO's 
testing provided by NHTSA, the ``movement of the test apparatus can 
clearly be seen.'' Forest River notes that NHTSA has provided videos of 
KARCO's testing, and requested a copy of KARCO's test report but NHTSA 
has not provided one. Therefore, Forest River states, it is not able to 
evaluate how KARCO documented its findings
    In November 2021, Forest River retained an external testing 
facility to reevaluate the subject frontal barriers. Forest River 
states that this testing indicated that the subject frontal barriers 
complied with the S5.2.3 requirements and Forest River provided the 
test report and videos to NHTSA. NHTSA requested additional information 
from Forrest River in March 2022 and Forest River provided a partial 
response in April 2022 and provided the remainder in May 2022. Forest 
River maintained its position that the KARCO testing was not conducted 
in accordance with the FMVSS No. 222 test procedures ``due to 
insufficient rigidity of the testing apparatus that allowed for 
inappropriate movement of the upper loading bar.'' Forest River says 
that this movement can be seen in the video provided by KARCO. Thus, 
according to Forest River, KARCO's testing is not an accurate indicator 
of compliance.
    Forest River states that it met with NHTSA on December 2, 2022, at 
the Agency's request. At the meeting, NHTSA informed Forest River that 
the frontal barrier tested by the external facility retained by Forest 
River was not the same size as the frontal barrier that was tested by 
KARCO. Forest River states that its external testing facility 
unintentionally evaluated the incorrect size frontal barrier. The 
external testing facility evaluated a 34-inch frontal barrier when it 
intended to evaluate a 30-inch frontal barrier. Forest River says, 
``NHTSA indicated that a recall of vehicles equipped with the 
30[hyphen]inch frontal barrier would be necessary.'' At the time Forest 
River did not have test data to show that the 30-inch frontal barrier 
was compliant. As a result, Forest River says it ``acquiesced to 
NHTSA's demand'' and filed a noncompliance report on December 21, 2022.
    Meanwhile, Forest River says that it made arrangements to evaluate 
a 30-inch frontal barrier, and testing took place in early January 
2023. Forest River states that the test results show that the 30-inch 
frontal barrier complied with the FMVSS No. 222 performance 
requirements and absorbed nearly 125 percent of the energy absorption 
requirements. Forest River provided a

[[Page 44461]]

copy of the test report with its petition which can be found on the 
docket. Forest River states that video of the testing is available to 
NHTSA to view.
    Forest River notes that no production changes are necessary because 
it ceased manufacturing the subject school buses in June 2020.
    According to Forest River, the purpose of S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222, 
``is to mitigate against the effects of injury if an occupant is thrown 
against the restraining barrier in a crash.''
    Forest River states that its testing conducted in January 2023 
demonstrates that the subject frontal barrier complies with the 
relevant performance requirements because it indicates that the 30-inch 
frontal barrier ``substantially exceeds'' the S5.2.3 performance 
requirement. Forest River contends that its January 2023 testing was 
conducted in accordance with S5.2.3, ``thus any noncompliance in this 
product (to the extent one actually exists) is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety.'' Forest River says that the testing apparatus used to 
conduct the testing ``was sufficiently robust so that it remained 
stable during operation.'' Forest River says that because the testing 
apparatus was sufficiently rigid, ``the path of each of the loading 
bars remained laterally centered and maintained a straight path to the 
barrier and with minimal deflection, as the test procedure requires.''
    Forest River notes that NHTSA has previously stated that one of its 
considerations when evaluating inconsequentiality petitions is the 
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against 
which the recall would otherwise protect.\1\ According to Forest River, 
the subject noncompliance does not cause an enhanced risk to an 
occupant of an affected school bus because ``the data clearly and 
unambiguously demonstrates that the frontal barriers meet the 
performance requirements of S5.2.3.'' Forest River contends that its 
petition is unlike other inconsequential noncompliance petitions that 
involve a noncompliance with a performance requirement because there is 
no performance-related concern for the subject noncompliance, as shown 
by Forest River's test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Forest River adds that no complaints, reports, or claims of any 
type have been received concerning the performance of the subject 
frontal barriers. Forest River acknowledges that NHTSA does not 
consider the absence of injuries or complaints when determining the 
inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, however, Forest River believes 
that ``this dearth of data in this case, when coupled with all of the 
other relevant data and information is instructive given the long field 
history of the subject barriers.''
    To conduct the January 2023 testing, Forest River states that the 
test facility obtained four frontal barriers with the correct 
specifications directly from the supplier and selected one of those 
frontal barriers to evaluate.
    Forest River claims that NHTSA ``has not accounted for the 
deviations in the test procedure utilized by its own testing 
contractor.'' Forest River states that S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222 requires 
the barrier performance forward testing to be conducted in accordance 
with the conditions stated in S5.1.3.1-S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS No. 222. 
Forest River contends that KARCO did not set up the test apparatus in 
accordance with FMVSS No. 222 when evaluating the subject frontal 
barrier on behalf of NHTSA. Forest River says that KARCO's setup caused 
the test apparatus ``to not be sufficiently rigid or stable and thus 
allowed it to inappropriately contort during testing.'' According to 
Forest River, the test setup allowed the upper loading bar ``to change 
course dramatically by veering to the left and pushing the force of the 
loading bar on the left side of the barrier.'' Therefore, Forest River 
says, ``It did not remain laterally centered against the barrier as 
required by S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.3 and deflected more than the 25 mm 
allowable by S6.5.1.'' which ``prevented the upper loading bar's 
longitudinal axis from maintaining a transverse plane as required 
S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.3.''
    Forest River concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety 
and its petitions 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 Forest River 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 Forest 
River 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. 2023-14725 Filed 7-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


