Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0112-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: FCA US, LLC
Posted Date: 2022-10-11T04:00Z

[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