[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