[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55779-55782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0039; Notice 2]
Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 55780]]
ACTION: Denial 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
the denial of MCI's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (325) 655-0547.
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.
Notice of receipt of MCI's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 21, 2023, in the Federal Register
(88 FR 10640). 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-2022-0039.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 15,454 of the following
coaches, manufactured between January 4, 1988, and January 14, 2022,
were reported by the manufacturer:
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 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, are the views and arguments provided by MCI.
They do not reflect the views of NHTSA. MCI describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
On April 14, 2022, MCI petitioned for a determination that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety on the grounds
that the lower curb view window is sufficiently transparent to allow
the coach driver to see people or objects outside the coach and is
equivalent to the transparency of compliant glazing.
MCI explains that FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 do 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 showing the exact location of
the AS-5 rated 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, in their first petition, MCI contended that the AS-5 rated
glazing installed in the 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 vehicle 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 ``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 curb view window in a collision, given its location and
small size.'' For these reasons, MCI focused its analysis on a need to
ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for
driver visibility. In its April 2022 submission, MCI makes three claims
in support of their contention that the curb view windows achieve this
safety need pertaining to driver visibility.
First, MCI states that the 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 states that the glazing used in the 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 a sample 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 the glazing used in the 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 an instance of
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
[[Page 55781]]
environmental exposure.'' However, MCI claims 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.''
At the time of its initial file of petition on April 14, 2022, MCI
expressed its belief that it would be able to document that the AS-5
rated glazing on the subject coaches permits 70% light transmittance.
This belief was based on inspections of actual coaches and observations
that the visibility through the lower curb view window was comparable
to visibility through the upper window with AS-2 rated glazing.
Photographs of the visibility of individuals and objects through the
lower curb view window from the vantage of the coach driver were
included with the petition.
MCI filed a supplemental petition on September 2, 2022, after it
undertook testing of the subject glazing in an effort to quantify the
light transmittance through the glazing under the procedures specified
by ANSI Z26.1-1996. After its testing, MCI disclosed that the lower
curb view window in the subject coaches does not permit 70% light
transmittance. The light transmittance when measured under the
procedures specified by ANSI Z26.1-1996 was approximately 20%. However,
MCI continues to believe that, due to the relative darkness of the
stairwell area inside the coach when compared with the relative
brightness of the ambient environment outside the coach under most, if
not all, conditions, the lower curb window provides the coach driver
with a view of the exterior of the coach that is essentially equivalent
to compliant glazing. In other words, the coach driver will see mainly
the light from outside, which makes the individuals or objects outside
the coach visible to the driver.
MCI concludes by stating its belief that the noncompliance is
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 remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis: In determining the 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.\1\ 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
there will not be safety issues in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
\2\ 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 subject MCI coaches were manufactured with a curb view window
in the lower portion of the front door of the coach. The curb view
window glazing material is rated AS-5, as defined in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-
1996. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National
Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and
Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard
ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). FMVSS No. 205 therefore specifies
performance requirements for various types of glazing and specifies the
locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.
First, NHTSA is not persuaded by MCI's claim that the lower curb
window is not requisite for driving visibility. The petitioner states
instead that one of the purposes of the window is to facilitate parking
along a curb. Parking involves driving in the forward and/or reverse
gears, so visibility needed for parking is visibility needed for
driving. Furthermore, NHTSA has two interpretations discussed in more
detail, below, which involve glazing of similar design/purpose that
NHTSA found to be requisite for driving visibility.
In 2008, California Highway Patrol (CHP) inspected the right-front,
swing-open, entry door and lower curb-side view glazing on a 2008 MCI
motor coach and noted that the curb-side view window was labeled AS-5.
CHP asked NHTSA for an interpretation of whether AS-5 glazing is
permitted in the lower curb-side view glazing on buses. The Agency
explained in the 2009 interpretation letter \3\ in response to Mr. Cris
Morgan of CHP that lower curb-side view glazing on doors to the right
or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for
driving visibility. Therefore, AS-5 glazing is not permitted on buses
in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/08-004149-19-nov-08-sa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On an April 23, 2001, the agency issued an interpretation letter
\4\ to Mr. Thomas F. Brown concerning peep windows in Mack Trucks. The
peep window was a small, separate fixed window located below the
passenger door's main window, near the bottom of the door, which could
be used to analyze and react to traffic situations near the passenger
door of a medium or heavy-duty truck. NHTSA determined that the peep
window was at a level requisite for driving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2001-9605-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lower curb-side view window on the 2008 MCI motor coach and the
peep window on the Mack Truck are in a similar location and provide
similar visibility to the curb view window on the MCI motor coaches at
issue here.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that one of the safety
considerations in evaluating this petition should be that the curb view
window helps a driver safely operate the vehicle by, among other
things, allowing visibility of the curb, a person, or an object that
might be located between the coach and the curb.
NHTSA is not persuaded by the petitioner's arguments that failing
to meet the light transmittance and abrasion resistance for this
glazing is inconsequential to safety. MCI stated in its supplemental
petition that the lower curb view window in the subject coaches does
not permit 70% light transmittance. The light transmittance when
measured under the procedures specified by ANSI Z26.1-1996 was
approximately 20%. The Agency is not persuaded by MCI's argument that
the relative darkness of the stairwell inside the coach when compared
with the relative brightness of the ambient environment outside the
coach will provide the coach driver with a clear view of the exterior
of the coach in most if not all conditions. NHTSA can foresee that in
evening hours or poor weather conditions the visibility through the
affected window may be impacted due to the use of AS-5 glazing, which
is more prone to abrasion and has reduced light transmittance. This
could prove
[[Page 55782]]
especially consequential to safety if a small child or animal is
standing outside the small curb view window in hours of reduced ambient
light.
In addition, AS-5 glazing is not required to meet other performance
requirements that are applicable to AS-2 glazing and this may
potentially further degrade its ability to provide a minimum level of
safety in this application. NHTSA does not accept MCI's assertion that
it is not reasonably possible for an occupant to impact the curb view
window in a collision. After making this claim, MCI's analysis focuses
on only one of the performance requirements for AS-2 glazing--Test no.
2: Luminous Transmittance. In fact, there are several performance
requirements that AS-5 glazing is not required to meet but are
applicable to AS-2 glazing. Specifically, AS-5 glazing is not required
to meet Tests no. 1: Light Stability; no. 2: Luminous Transmittance;
no. 6: Impact, Ball, 3.05 m (10 ft.); no. 7: Fracture Test; no. 8:
Impact, Shot Bag, 2.44 m (8 ft.); and, no. 18: Abrasion Resistance,
each of which AS-2 tempered glazing must meet. The required tests under
AS-5 glazing are for the rigid plastic glazing but not for the tempered
glass. The petition ignores the other performance requirements
inapplicable to AS-5 glazing without providing sufficient analysis or
evidence to explain why these other requirements are irrelevant in this
instance.
In summary, the curb view window in this petition is similar to the
glazing described in the interpretations discussed above and is
requisite for driving visibility. The Agency's findings in its
evaluation of this petition are consistent with the Agency's
interpretations letters of 2009 to Mr. Cris Morgan and of 2001 to Mr.
Thomas F. Brown which indicate that AS-5 glazing is not permitted in
windows to the immediate right or left of the driver. Further, MCI
provided insufficient evidence that the other performance requirements
outlined in FMVSS No. 205 are irrelevant to the safety analysis.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that MCI has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MCI's petition is hereby denied and MCI 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: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2025-21778 Filed 12-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P