[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58876-58880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0025; Notice 2]


Daimler Trucks North America, 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: Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2019-2022 Thomas Built Bus school buses do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. DTNA filed 
an original noncompliance report dated February 9, 2022, and amended 
the report on April 13, 2022. DTNA petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on 
March 1, 2022, and later amended the petition on April 13, 2022, for a 
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the denial of 
DTNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, Safety Compliance 
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7235.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: On November 20, 2020, NHTSA requested information from 
DTNA regarding a test failure with S5.5.3(a) of FMVSS No. 217, 
Emergency Exit Identification and Labeling, in a 2019 Thomas Saf-T-
Liner school bus. NHTSA received DTNA's response on December 18, 2020, 
and on January 26, 2022, NHTSA requested that DTNA provide additional 
information or file a noncompliance report, if it determines that there 
is a noncompliance.
    As a result, DTNA determined that certain MY 2019-2022 Thomas Built 
Bus school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.3(a) of FMVSS 
No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 
571.217).
    DTNA filed an original noncompliance report dated February 9, 2022, 
and amended the report on April 13, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DTNA petitioned 
NHTSA on March 1, 2022, and amended the petition on April 13, 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.
    Notice of receipt of DTNA's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period on August 30, 2022, in the Federal Register (87 
FR 53044). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2022-0025.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 28,814 MY 2019-2022 Thomas 
Built Saf-T-Liner HDX, EFX, C2, and Minotour school buses, manufactured 
between September 28, 2018, and February 23, 2021, are potentially 
involved.
    III. Noncompliance: DTNA explains that the subject school buses are 
equipped with ``Emergency Exit'' and ``Emergency Door'' labels that do 
not meet the letter height requirements, as required by paragraph 
S5.5.3(a) of FMVSS No. 217. Specifically, some of the letters are 4.9 
cm instead of the required minimum 5 cm letter height.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.3(a) of FMVSS No. 217 
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each school bus 
emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS No. 217 is 
required to have the designation ``Emergency Door'' or ``Emergency 
Exit,'' as appropriate, in letters that are at least 5 centimeters high 
and in a color that contrasts with the background of the letters.
    V. Background: In March 2020, NHTSA notified DTNA of a potential 
noncompliance regarding the emergency exit identification labeling in 
its subject school buses. In April 2020, DTNA responded to NHTSA and 
stated its belief that the label ``should be considered compliant'' 
because ``with standard rounding, the label-letters met the 
requirements.'' In its response, DTNA also contended that NHTSA had 
previously audited the labels in 2014

[[Page 58877]]

and found them to be compliant. Then in November 2020, DTNA stated that 
it received an information request from the Agency, to which DTNA 
responded by explaining that ``1) the labels meet the requirements of 
FMVSS [No.] 217 following the agency's rules of rounding and precision 
and 2) were the exact same labels had previously been reviewed by the 
OVSC and found to be compliant during OVSC compliance testing.'' On 
January 31, 2022, DTNA received another letter from the Agency 
requesting that DTNA submit additional information or file a supporting 
noncompliance report. DTNA stated that it decided to file the 
noncompliance report ``in order to avoid a protracted dispute with the 
agency.''
    VI. Summary of DTNA's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``VI. Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the 
views and arguments provided by DTNA. They do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. DTNA describes the subject noncompliance and contends that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety.
    DTNA says ``[t]he relevant labels were designed with letters at 
least 5 cm and reasonably believed at all relevant times that they 
complied with FMVSS [No.] 217 under applicable law, including NHTSA's 
public statements regarding numerical rounding.''
    DTNA contends that NHTSA has granted the following petitions in 
which the letters did not meet the minimum letter height requirement:
     Kia Motors America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 41332 (July 8, 2004);
     General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (July 9, 2004); and
     Hyundai Motor Co., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 41568 (July 9, 2004).
    DTNA also states that NHTSA has previously granted two 
inconsequentiality petitions that ``could lead to crowding of 
passengers trying to flee an exit.'' In the first case,\1\ ``buses were 
manufactured with only one emergency exit instead of two,'' and in the 
second case,\2\ ``emergency exits were mounted under the same post and 
roof bow panel space.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See New Flyer of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 32694 (June 15, 
1998).
    \2\ See IC Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70 FR 24464 (May 9, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA states its belief that although the letter height is 0.1 cm 
less than the FMVSS requirement, the letters ``are sufficiently large 
as to aid passengers fleeing an emergency'' and that the labels meet 
all other applicable FMVSSs. DTNA believes that because some of the 
letters exceed the 5 cm minimum requirement, ``the reasonable aggregate 
perception of a viewer is that the letters are 5 cm or more.'' DTNA 
further states its belief that the 0.1 cm difference does not obscure 
the labels or the purpose of the label since the labels are in bold 
letters that contrast against the background of the labels.
    DTNA claims that it is not aware of any complaint, accident, 
injury, or death resulting from the subject noncompliance.
    DTNA contends that ``there is a substantial question whether or not 
there is fair notice as to how a manufacturer is to comply with FMVSS 
[No.] 217 (and potential scores of other FMVSSs) given the agency's 
past statements on numerical rounding.'' DTNA believes that NHTSA's 
statements with respect to the rounding method it uses \3\ and the 
rounding method provided in the FMVSS No. 111 test procedure are 
contradicted by a 1990 NHTSA interpretation,\4\ which states that an 
FMVSS will specify when rounding is appropriate. DTNA claims that 
NHTSA's ``procedures for comparing numbers to a standard is 
ambiguous,'' therefore, DTNA states that it lacked ``fair notice as to 
which of the above procedures, rounding or not, apply.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program, 79 FR 
28594 (May 16, 2014).
    \4\ See Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to David G. 
Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc. (September 10, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates 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 remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: 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.\5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
    \6\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Principles

    Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1966 (the Safety Act) with the express purpose of reducing motor 
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. See 49 U.S.C. 
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of 
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards (FMVSS). See 49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has 
delegated this authority to NHTSA. See 49 CFR 1.95.
    NHTSA adopts a FMVSS only after the Agency has determined that the 
requirements are objective and practicable and meet the need for motor 
vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a general 
presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of motor 
vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the risk to motor 
vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA through the 
rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks, 
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are normally 
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify 
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a free 
remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has recognized 
that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance could be 
``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It therefore established a 
procedure under which NHTSA may consider whether it is appropriate to 
exempt a manufacturer from its notification and remedy (i.e., recall) 
obligations. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h). The Agency's regulations 
governing the filing and consideration of petitions for 
inconsequentiality

[[Page 58878]]

exemptions are set forth at 49 CFR part 556.
    Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions 
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and 
then only after notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for 
interested members of the public to present information, views, and 
arguments on the petition. In addition to considering public comments, 
the Agency will draw upon its own understanding of safety-related 
systems and its experience in deciding the merits of a petition. An 
absence of opposing argument and data from the public does not require 
NHTSA to grant a manufacturer's petition.
    Neither the Safety Act nor part 556 define the term 
``inconsequential.'' Rather, the Agency determines whether a particular 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the 
specific facts before it in a particular petition. An important issue 
to consider in determining inconsequentiality based upon NHTSA's prior 
decisions on noncompliance issues was the safety risk to individuals 
who experience the type of event against which the recall would 
otherwise protect.\7\ NHTSA also does not consider the absence of 
complaints or injuries when determining whether a noncompliance is 
inconsequential to safety. The Safety Act is preventive, and 
manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or injuries to 
occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall. See, e.g., 
United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 
Indeed, the very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from 
risk. See id. ``Most importantly, the absence of a complaint does not 
mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does it mean that there 
will not be safety issues in the future.'' \8\ ``[T]he fact that in 
past reported cases good luck and swift reaction have prevented many 
serious injuries does not mean that good luck will continue to work.'' 
\9\ Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who 
is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
    \8\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \9\ 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'').
    \10\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 
2004); Cosco, Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Response to DTNA's Arguments

    NHTSA reviewed DTNA's arguments that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DTNA contends that the 
noncompliance with the letter height requirements that are set forth in 
paragraph S5.5.3(a) of FMVSS No. 217, poses little, if any, risk to 
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not agree.
    DTNA's first argument is that the ``relevant labels were designed 
with letters at least 5 cm and reasonably believed at all relevant 
times that they complied with FMVSS [No.] 217 under applicable law.'' 
DTNA's belief that the labels were compliant, which might be relevant 
if the issue here was its basis for certification, has no bearing on 
whether this noncompliance is inconsequential. DTNA may have designed 
the labels with letters that were supposed to have at least 5 cm of 
letter height, however, the letter heights when measured by both NHTSA 
and DTNA, were less than 5 cm. This could be due to a variety of 
reasons. For example, the noncompliance could be caused by a variation 
in DTNA's production and quality processes, which allowed for smaller 
letter heights to be printed on labels. It could also be caused by 
insufficient tolerancing applied to the design of the labels (a process 
that is meant to ensure that even with the highest degree of variation, 
the minimum letter height of 5 cm would still be attained on the 
labels). With a robust surveillance program, this type of anomaly may 
have been discovered early in the production process, but no such 
surveillance data was provided by DTNA. DTNA did not provide any 
additional details regarding the design of the labels in its petition, 
therefore no additional context or evidence was provided by DTNA in 
support of this claim. Consequently, NHTSA is not persuaded by DTNA's 
argument that the design of the labels mitigates the noncompliance for 
the letter height requirement, as no evidence was provided in support 
of this claim. In any event, NHTSA disagrees with DTNA's argument that 
a noncompliant label can be considered compliant or inconsequential if 
the design of the label meets the applicable FMVSS--but the actual 
manufactured label does not.
    Regarding the readability of the labels, NHTSA does not agree with 
DTNA that the readability of the labels is unaffected by the 
noncompliance with the letter height requirement. DTNA did not provide 
any additional context, evidence or data to support its claims that (1) 
the labels ``are sufficiently large as to aid passengers fleeing an 
emergency,'' (2) ``the reasonable aggregate perception of a viewer is 
that the letters are 5 cm or more,'' or (3) the letter height 
difference does not obscure the labels or the purpose of the labels. As 
such, NHTSA is not persuaded by DTNA's argument that the readability of 
the labels is unaffected by the noncompliance with the letter height 
requirement, as no evidence or data was provided in support of this 
claim.
    Insofar as conspicuity of the operating instructions is concerned, 
NHTSA agrees with DTNA that the letters on the labels ``are in bold 
letters that contrast against the background of the labels,'' but NHTSA 
does not agree with DTNA that compliance with the conspicuity 
requirements negates a failure to comply with school bus emergency exit 
label letter minimum height requirements. As such, NHTSA rejects DTNA's 
argument that meeting the conspicuity requirements for the labels 
mitigates the noncompliance with the letter minimum height requirement, 
particularly in the absence of data or evidence supporting this claim.
    DTNA further submits that numerical rounding employed by NHTSA in 
other contexts establishes that DTNA's noncompliance is inconsequential 
to safety. DTNA's argument is not compelling. One of the numerical 
rounding methods referenced by DTNA \11\ is not part of the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, but is instead part of the voluntary 
consumer information New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). That rounding 
methodology is not applicable to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and 
cannot be used to determine whether a label is compliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 79 FR 28594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA also quotes a 1990 NHTSA interpretation letter but 
subsequently disagrees with the conclusion in NHTSA's interpretation 
letter. NHTSA reaffirms the statement in the 1990 interpretation letter 
that: ``Rounding is generally not used in the safety standards. The 
standards expressly specify when rounding is

[[Page 58879]]

appropriate.'' \12\ DTNA has not identified anything in FMVSS No. 217 
or specific to that standard that allow for rounding. NHTSA does not 
agree with DTNA that rounding is permitted in the present case or that 
FMVSS No. 217 presents an ambiguity regarding rounding. In fact, the 
1990 interpretation goes on to state that ``. . . any value less than 
the minimum required value is a noncompliance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to David G. 
Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc. (September 10, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DTNA's reference to the rounding methodology in the FMVSS 
No. 111 test procedure is also not applicable, since the rounding 
methodology refers to the conversion from English to metric units when 
direct measurement in metric units is not available--which is not the 
case with DTNA's subject noncompliance.
    DTNA asserted that five inconsequential noncompliance petitions 
that NHTSA had previously granted support DTNA's subject petition. 
However, NHTSA disagrees because all of the five cited petitions are 
unrelated to school bus emergency exit identification. Furthermore, 
NHTSA emphasizes that the Agency examines every inconsequential 
noncompliance petition on its own merits. The Agency's decisions are 
necessarily highly fact dependent and limited to a particular and often 
narrow context. NHTSA therefore believes that prior determinations--
that are not specific to the identification of school bus emergency 
exit labels--do not warrant granting this petition.
    The first petition,\13\ from Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia 
Motors Corp. (collectively, ``Kia''), involved passenger vehicles which 
did not meet the letter height requirements for brake system warning 
lights, specifically for the abbreviation ``ABS'' and in some cases the 
word ``brake,'' as required by FMVSS No. 101, 105, and 135. In this 
case, these passenger vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height 
requirement of 3.2 mm. The Agency decided that ``due to the 
positioning, color, use of the ISO symbol, and combined size of both 
the lettering and symbols, it is very unlikely that a vehicle user 
would either fail to see or fail to understand the meaning of the brake 
or ABS warning light in the affected vehicles'' and granted the 
petition. NHTSA does not agree that granting this prior petition 
supports granting DTNA's petition here for the following reasons: (1) 
compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was not at issue; (2) emergency exit 
identification within the vehicle was not at issue; (3) the warning 
lights in Kia's petition both ``illuminated in red (brake warning 
light) or yellow (ABS light)'' and also ``include[d] an International 
Standards Organization (ISO) symbol combined with the word `brake' or 
the abbreviation `ABS,''' which are two features distinctly different 
from the emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not illuminate 
or contain any symbol); and (4) the warning lights in Kia's petition 
were related to the driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit 
labels in DTNA's petition are for school bus children to use in the 
event of an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 69 FR 41332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second petition,\14\ from General Motors, LLC (GM), involved 
passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter height requirements 
for the park brake telltale (identified by the word ``PARK''), as 
required by FMVSS No. 101 and 135. In this case, these passenger 
vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height requirement of 3.2 mm 
for the word ``PARK.'' The Agency decided that ``[i]llumination of both 
the `PARK' indicator combined with the information center statement 
`Park Brake Set' provides ample communication to the driver that the 
parking brake has been applied,'' and granted the petition. NHTSA does 
not agree that granting this prior petition supports granting DTNA's 
petition here for the following reasons: (1) compliance with FMVSS No. 
217 was not at issue; (2) emergency exit identification within the 
vehicle was not at issue; (3) the park brake telltale lights in GM's 
petition ``illuminated,'' which is a feature distinctly different from 
the emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not illuminate); (4) 
activation of the park brake telltale light in GM's petition would 
simultaneously activate a second illuminated message, which is a 
feature distinctly different from the emergency exit labels at issue 
here (which do not activate a second message); and (5) the park brake 
telltale lights in GM's petition were related to the driver's 
attention, whereas the emergency exit labels in DTNA's petition are for 
school bus children to use in the event of an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 81 FR 92963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third petition,\15\ from Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai), 
involved passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter height 
requirements for the abbreviation ``ABS'' and in other cases the word 
``brake,'' as required by FMVSS No. 105 and 135. In this case, the 
passenger vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height requirement 
of 3.2 mm. The Agency decided that ``[d]ue to the positioning, color, 
use of the ISO symbol, and combined size of both the lettering and 
symbols, it is very unlikely that a vehicle user would either fail to 
see or fail to understand the meaning of the brake or ABS warning light 
in the affected vehicles,'' and granted the petition. However, NHTSA 
does not agree that granting this prior petition supports granting 
DTNA's petition here for the following reasons: (1) compliance with 
FMVSS No. 217 was not at issue; (2) emergency exit identification 
within the vehicle was not at issue; (3) the warning lights in 
Hyundai's petition both ``illuminated'' and also included an 
``International Standards Organization (ISO) symbol for the ABS,'' 
which are two features distinctly different from the emergency exit 
labels at issue here (which do not illuminate or contain any symbol); 
and (4) the warning lights in Hyundai's petition were related to the 
driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit labels in DTNA's 
petition are for school bus children to use in the event of an 
emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 69 FR 41568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth petition,\16\ from New Flyer of America, Inc., involved 
transit buses that had only one emergency exit on the right side of the 
bus instead of two, as required by FMVSS No. 217. In this case, these 
buses had 3.28 times the required exit area, with two emergency exit 
windows on the left side, one emergency exit window on the right side 
and two roof exits. Thus, the buses had the minimum number of emergency 
exits required by FMVSS No. 217. However, these exits were not 
distributed properly. Instead of a second emergency exit on the right 
side, these buses had an additional roof exit. The Agency decided that 
the additional roof exit provided for an additional level of safety 
during a rollover event and granted the petition. However, NHTSA does 
not agree that the granting of this prior petition supports granting 
DTNA's subject petition because emergency exit identification within 
the vehicle was not at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 63 FR 32694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fifth petition,\17\ from IC Corporation (IC), involved school 
buses where two side emergency exit doors were located opposite each 
other within the same post and roof bow panel space. IC argued that the 
requirement prohibiting two exit doors from being located in this 
manner appeared to be related to the structural integrity of a bus body 
with this configuration. IC indicated that it had no reports of any

[[Page 58880]]

structural failures in the area around the emergency doors but stated 
that it would extend to owners of the noncompliant vehicles a 15-year 
warranty for any structural or panel failures related to the location 
of the doors. NHTSA agreed with IC that, in this case, the 
noncompliance did not compromise safety in terms of emergency exit 
capability in proportion to maximum occupant capacity, access to side 
emergency doors, visibility of the exits, or the ability of bus 
occupants to exit after an accident. However, NHTSA does not agree that 
the granting of this prior petition supports granting DTNA's petition 
here because emergency exit identification within the vehicle was not 
at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 70 FR 24464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the above-discussed five petitions that DTNA provided in 
support of its subject petition are related to labeling for emergency 
egress of school buses. Emergency egress occurs under states of 
emergency, which may include fire, smoke, panicked children, etc. As 
such, the dilution of these emergency egress marking requirements in 
school buses is consequential to motor vehicle safety.
    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 
has decided that DTNA has not met its burden of persuasion that the 
subject FMVSS No. 217 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, DTNA's petition is hereby denied and DTNA is 
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for 
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 49 CFR part 556; delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-15903 Filed 7-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P