|
|---|
|
Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 21 February 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Buses, Safety
Topic: Motor Coach Industries |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10640-10642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03504]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0039; Notice 1]
Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Motor Coach Industries, Inc. (MCI), MCI has determined that
certain model year (MY) 1988-2022 MCI coaches do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing
Materials. MCI filed an original noncompliance report dated March 22,
2022, and amended the report on April 14, 2022. MCI petitioned NHTSA on
April 14, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and submitted
supplemental information on September 2, 2022. This document announces
receipt of MCI's petition and supplemental information.
DATES: Send comments on or before March 23, 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.
[[Page 10641]]
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
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (202) 366-0661.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: MCI determined that certain MCI motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
(49 CFR 571.205).
MCI filed an original noncompliance report dated March 22, 2022,
and amended the report on April 14, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MCI petitioned
NHTSA on April 14, 2022, 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 MCI'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 15,454 of the following
coaches, manufactured between January 4, 1988, and January 14, 2022,
are potentially involved:
1. MY 2001-2021 MCI J4500
2. MY 1998-2013 MCI E4500
3. MY 2017-2021 MCI J3500
4. MY 2005-2021 MCI D4005
5. MY 2005-2022 MCI D4505
6. MY 2000-2007 MCI D4000
7. MY 2001-2020 MCI D4500
8. MY 1988-2001 MCI 102D3
9. MY 1988-2001 MCI 102DL3
10. MY 2001-2022 MCI D4000ISTV
11. MY 2000-2001 MCI 102D3ISTV
12. MY 1995-1999 MCI MC12PTV
III. Noncompliance: MCI explains that the subject vehicles were
manufactured with a small curb view window to the immediate right of
the driver that has glazing rated AS-5 instead of AS-1 or AS-2, or one
of the bullet resistant variations of glazing that are specified in
ANSI/SAE Z26. l-1996, and therefore, do not comply with FMVSS No. 205.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. Glazing materials for use in
motor vehicles must conform to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 571.5), unless FMVSS No. 205 provides otherwise.
SAE Recommended Practice J673 (1993) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 571.5) is referenced in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996
V. Summary of MCI's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of MCI's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by MCI. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. MCI describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
MCI explains that FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 does not
permit AS-5 rated glazing to be installed at locations requisite for
driving visibility. MCI says that NHTSA considers ``requisite for
driving visibility'' to mean ``every item of glazing that is to the
immediate left and right of the driver, as well as windshields.''
MCI's petition includes a schematic to show the exact location of
the small curb view window on the subject coaches. MCI further explains
that AS-5 rated glazing ``is not required to meet certain performance
requirements that are applicable to AS-2 glazing.'' However, MCI
contends that the AS-5 rated glazing installed in the small curb view
window of the subject coaches complies with the 70 percent light
transmittance requirement described in Test 2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996.
MCI believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicles safety and argues that ``the actual field performance of
the small curb view window has met the intent of the substantive
requirements of FMVSS 205 for glazing requisite for driving
visibility.'' MCI states that ``there is no reasonable possibility that
any vehicle occupant would impact that window in a collision. Moreover,
there is no reasonable possibility that any person would be ejected
through the small curb view window in a collision, given its location
and small size. For these reasons, MCI focused its analysis on the
purpose of the standard for ensuring a necessary degree of transparency
in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility.''
First, MCI states that the small curb view window in which the AS-5
rated glazing is installed, ``is not requisite for driving in the
forward and reverse gears'' but may be used to assist with parking. MCI
claims that ``the value of the small curb view window even for parking
is very limited--essentially just to identify the location of the curb
to the driver or identify a person or object between the coach and the
curb.''
Second, MCI explains that the glazing used in the small curb view
window meets the requirements for 70 percent light transmissibility,
even though that is not required for AS-5 glazing. Thus, MCI claims,
``the need to ensure a necessary degree of transparency through the
glazing is achieved.''
Third, MCI states that while AS-5 glazing is not required to meet
certain abrasion resistance requirements of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, ``the
small curb view window has not unreasonably degraded its
transmissibility through abrasion or other environmental exposures in
actual field usage.'' MCI provided photos of the affected coaches with
its petition to demonstrate that ``the small curb view window has
retained good visibility, notwithstanding many years of service in
challenging environmental conditions.'' Furthermore, MCI claims that
glazing used in the small curb view window ``has not abraded
excessively over time and remains safe for use.''
MCI further states that it has not received any customer complaints
over the last 10 years but acknowledges that NHTSA does not consider an
absence of complaints relevant when determining whether a noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. MCI states that the safety
risk of the subject noncompliance ``is the potentially reduced
visibility through glazing that degrades from environmental exposure.''
However, MCI claims that it has effectively demonstrated that ``the
glazing in this particular location has remained adequately transparent
even after years of service in harsh environmental conditions.''
Therefore, MCI believes, ``in this case, the absence of complaints
supports the photographic evidence accompanying this petition.''
MCI concludes by stating its belief that the noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted
from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a
[[Page 10642]]
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 coaches that MCI 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 equipment under their control after MCI
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. 2023-03504 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P