9726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2012 / Notices 

1Utilimaster Corporation, a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Spartan Motors, Inc., is manufacturer 

of motor vehicles and is registered under the laws 

of Delaware. 

2Spartan Motors, Inc., is a manufacturer of motor 

vehicles and is registered under the laws of the state 

of Michigan. 

3Utilimaster’s petition, which was filed under 49 

CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to 

exempt Utilimaster as a vehicle manufacturer from 

the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR 

part 573 for the 9,861 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 

Utilimaster notified them that the subject 

noncompliance existed. 

based on insurers’ salaries, clerical and 

technical expenses, and labor costs. 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Department’s estimate of the burden 

of the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A Comment to OMB is most effective 

if OMB receives it within 30 days of 

publication. 

Issued on: February 13, 2012. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3760 Filed 2–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0019; Notice 1] 

Utilimaster Corporation, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Utilimaster Corporation 

(Utilimaster) 1 has determined that 

certain model year 2009–2011 

Utilimaster walk-in van-type trucks 

manufactured between September 1, 

2009, and December 22, 2011, do not 

fully comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components. Utilimaster has 

filed an appropriate report dated 

December 30, 2011, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Spartan Motors, Inc.,2 on 

behalf of Utilimaster has 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 Utilimaster’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. 

Affected are approximately 9,861 

model year 2009–2011 Utilimaster walkin van-type trucks manufactured 

between September 1, 2009, and 

December 22, 2011. 

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 9,861 3 model year 2009–2011 

trucks that Utilimaster no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. 

Utilimaster explains that the 

noncompliance is that while the sliding 

doors on the vehicles are equipped with 

a door latch system with a fully latched 

position, no door closure warning 

system, as required by paragraph S4.2.1 

of FMVSS No. 206, is installed. 

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 Utilimaster’s Analysis and 

Arguments 

The sliding door latch requirements 

contained in paragraph S4.2.1 of 

FMVSS No. 206 were adopted in 

February 2007 as part of a broader 

upgrade to the Agency’s existing door 

latch and retention requirements. The 

standard defines ‘‘Primary Door Latch’’ 

as ‘‘a latch equipped with both a fully 

latched position and a secondary 

latched position and is designated as a 

‘primary door latch’ by the 

manufacturer.’’ It defines ‘‘Door Closure 

Warning System’’ as ‘‘a system that will 

activate a visual signal when a door 

latch system is not in its fully latched 

position and the vehicle ignition is 

activated.’’ The effective date of these 

requirements was September 1, 2009. 

(The load test requirements of paragraph 

S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 206 became 

effective September 1, 2010; the subject 

vehicles do comply with the load 

requirements.) 

As set forth in Utilimaster’s 

noncompliance report, Utilimaster 

determined that the new latch 

requirements applied to these vehicles, 

but were not designed into vehicles 

built after the effective date. (This 

omission was the result of Utilmaster’s 

previous misinterpretation as to the 

applicability of the FMVSS No. 206 

amendments to these particular 

vehicles.) 

Specifically, the sliding doors on the 

subject vehicles are equipped with a 

door latch that does not meet the abovereferenced definition of a ‘‘primary door 

latch,’’ because these vehicles lack a 

secondary latched position. Thus, these 

vehicles do not meet the paragraph 

S4.2.1(a) compliance option. Moreover, 

these vehicles are not equipped with a 

‘‘door closure warning system’’ and, 

therefore, they do not meet the 

paragraph S4.2.1(b) compliance option. 

In any event, we believe that the 

omission of a door closure warning 

system on these vehicles is 

inconsequential to safety. This is due to 

the particular characteristics of the 

sliding doors on these vehicles, which 

will immediately provide adequate 

visual (and audible) feedback to the 

driver to alert him or her in the event 

a door is unlatched. 

The door has approximately 0.315 

inches of engagement into the door seal. 

Therefore, should the sliding door not 

be in the latched position, it would be 

readily apparent to the driver before the 

vehicle is driven. 

Even if the driver did not notice the 

gap in the door prior to the vehicle 

being driven, these doors would provide 

immediate visual feedback to the driver 

as soon as the vehicle begins to move. 

The sliding doors, on these vehicles, are 

designed to slide longitudinally on a 

track when the sliding door handle is 

activated and a small force is applied in 

the same longitudinal direction. As a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2012 / Notices 9727 

4 72 FR 5387. 

consequence, if the sliding door is not 

fully closed and latched and the driver 

is not aware, this fact would become 

immediately apparent to the driver 

when the vehicle is accelerated from 

rest, as the sliding door would glide 

rearward from the force created by the 

acceleration. Thus, while these vehicles 

may not meet the express requirements 

of paragraph S4.2.1 or the definition of 

a ‘‘door closure warning system,’’ 

Utilimaster believes they do meet the 

intent of these requirements. The use of 

other visual signals, such as a dashmounted telltale, might be necessary for 

vehicles with rear sliding doors, such as 

minivans or other passenger vehicles, 

but the sliding doors on the subject 

vehicles are located in the front within 

plain view of the driver. 

In adopting the upgraded sliding door 

standards in 2007, the Agency stated 

that it was particularly concerned with 

children riding in the rear seats of 

passenger vans (minivans or ‘‘MPVs’’).4

As noted above, these vehicles are 

used exclusively in commercial 

applications and are driven exclusively 

by professional drivers (primarily 

without a passenger). The commercial 

application of walk-in vans is highly 

repetitive in nature. To ensure safety 

and to maximize productivity, 

corporations have adopted highly 

regimented training programs for drivers 

in addition to requiring them to carry a 

commercial driver’s license. The 

regimented training for the high 

majority of commercial applications 

requires that drivers enter and exit the 

vehicle from the curb side of the van. 

The repetitive use of the van results in 

highly repeatable results from one stop 

to the next. The likelihood that a driver 

would move the vehicle with the door 

left inadvertently open is very low. 

Moreover, the likelihood that the driver 

would be ejected from the driver’s seat, 

through a curb-side door, left 

unintentionally unlatched, is even less 

probable. These drivers must adhere to 

corporate policies as they relate to 

operating the vehicle. For example, UPS 

has strictly enforced requirements for 

the drivers to always have the seatbelts 

fastened when the vehicle is in motion. 

Walk-In vans with sliding doors very 

similar in design to those on the subject 

vehicles have been in use for several 

decades. We are not aware of a driver 

or passenger ever having been ejected 

from, or fallen through an open sliding 

cab door, of our vehicles, while the 

vehicle was in motion. 

The sliding doors on these vehicles 

meet all load test and inertial 

requirements of FMVSS No. 206, 

paragraph S4.2. Therefore, this 

noncompliance will not increase the 

risk of occupant ejection under 

conditions addressed by such 

requirements. 

In summation, Utilimaster 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 onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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, selfaddressed 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. 

DATES: Comment Closing Date: March 

19, 2012. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: February 13, 2012. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3766 Filed 2–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Joint Comment Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board); and Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 

ACTION: Notice of information collection 

to be submitted to OMB for review and 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the OCC, the Board, and the 

FDIC (the ‘‘agencies’’) may not conduct 

or sponsor, and the respondent is not 

required to respond to, an information 

collection unless it displays a currently 

valid Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. On November 

21, 2011, the agencies, under the 

auspices of the Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council 

(FFIEC), requested public comment for 

60 days on a proposal to extend, with 

revision, the Consolidated Reports of 

Condition and Income (Call Report), 

which are currently approved 

collections of information. After 

considering the comments received on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES