[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14748-14749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20545; Notice 1]


IC Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    IC Corporation (IC) has determined that certain school buses that 
it manufactured in 2001 through 2004 do not comply with S5.2.3.2(a)(4) 
of 49 CFR 571.217, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
217, ``Bus emergency exits and window retention

[[Page 14749]]

and release.'' IC has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), IC has petitioned 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 IC'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 a total of approximately 40 school buses manufactured 
from August 15, 2001 to September 29, 2004. S5.2.3.2(a)(4) of FMVSS No. 
217 states ``No two side emergency exit doors shall be located, in 
whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space.'' The 
noncompliant vehicles have two side emergency exit doors located 
opposite each other within the same post and roof bow panel space.
    IC believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. IC states 
that NHTSA's main purpose in updating FMVSS No. 217 was,

to ensure that emergency exit capability would be proportional to 
the maximum occupant capacity; to improve access to side emergency 
doors; to improve visibility of exits; and to facilitate the exiting 
of occupants from a bus after an accident * * *. None of these 
primary objectives were compromised on the 40 units covered by this 
petition.

    IC states that it reviewed comments in response to the NPRM to 
update FMVSS No. 217 and determined that they

* * * were related to the fatigue strength of a bus body of this 
configuration. IC Corporation was unable to find comments relating 
to the safe exit of occupants in the event of an accident as a 
result of this door arrangement. Based on this background, IC 
Corporation presents arguments for consideration regarding both the 
structural and safety aspects of the rule. Finally, we present bus 
customer feedback based on interviews conducted with some of the bus 
customers affected by this non-compliance.

    IC further states that it is ``not aware of any research that 
indicates that emergency exits should not be located across from each 
other for safety of egress reasons alone.'' IC says it believes the 
requirement for two exits doors located across from each other in the 
same post and roof bow appears ``to all be related to the issue of the 
structural integrity of a bus body of this configuration.''
    IC indicates that it ``has no reports of any failures of panels or 
the structure in the area of the left or right emergency doors'' of the 
noncompliant vehicles. Nor has IC received failure reports of panels or 
the structure for two other types of buses it manufactures. It 
describes these two other types of buses. One is ``commercial buses 
with a passenger door centered on the right side of the bus and large 
double bow windows on the left side within the same post and roof bow 
panel space.'' Another is buses with ``the combination of a left side 
emergency door on the left side and a wheelchair door on the right side 
within the same post and roof bow panel space.'' IC further asserts 
that ``NHTSA does not restrict other combinations of doors and windows 
within the same roof bow space.''
    IC states that it is willing to extend to the owners of the 
noncompliant vehicles a 15-year warranty for any structural or panel 
failures related to the location of the doors, so that ``corrections 
could be made long before any possible fatigue problems * * * progress 
into major structural issues.''
    The petitioner also describes discussions regarding the 
noncompliant vehicles with a New York State official who is ``involved 
in compliance with the State regulations and product issues'' and 
owners with multiple units in VA, TX and CA. IC says that the New York 
official supports granting this petition and the other owners prefer 
the warranty remedy.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. 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. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: 
Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that 
two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal holidays. Comments may 
be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management 
System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be 
faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    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 22, 2005.

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

    Issued on: March 3, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-5761 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P