Notice2022-17135
Collins Bus Corporation, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 10, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012 2020 Ford and Chevrolet school buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Collins filed a noncompliance report dated April 15, 2020. Collins subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 30, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the denial of Collins's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48756-48760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0030; Notice 2]
Collins Bus Corporation, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2012 2020 Ford and Chevrolet school buses do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus
Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Collins filed a
noncompliance report dated April 15, 2020. Collins subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 30, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces the denial of Collins's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, telephone (202) 366-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Collins has determined that certain MY 2012-2020 Ford
and Chevrolet school buses do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). Collins filed a noncompliance
report dated April 15, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Collins subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 30, 2020, 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 Collins's petition was published in the
Federal Register (85 FR 84463) with a 30-day public comment period, on
December 28, 2020. No comments were received. To view the petition and
all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">http://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0030.''
II. Buses Involved: Approximately 11,079 MY 2012-2020 Ford and
Chevrolet school buses manufactured by Collins, as the final stage
manufacturer, between February 2, 2012, and April 3, 2020, are
potentially involved:
<bullet> Ford TH 400
<bullet> Ford Sh416, models SL, SH, DH, DE, TH, and TL
<bullet> Chevrolet DE516
<bullet> Chevrolet DH516
<bullet> Chevrolet DH500
<bullet> Ford TL 400
<bullet> Ford T24
<bullet> Chevrolet DH400
III. Noncompliance: Collins explains that the noncompliance is that
the letter height for the operating instructions label describing the
motions necessary to unlatch and open the emergency exits in the
subject school buses does not fully comply with the requirements set
forth in paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217. Specifically, the
operating instructions describing the motions necessary to unlatch and
open the emergency window exits are only eight (8) millimeters in
height rather than the required one (1) centimeter.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S5.5.3(b) requires that concise operating instructions describing the
motions necessary to unlatch and open the emergency exit shall be
located within 15 centimeters of the release mechanism on the inside
surface of the bus. These instructions shall be in letters at least 1
centimeter high and of a color that contrasts with its background.
V. Summary of Collins's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Collins's Petition,'' are
the views and arguments provided by Collins and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Collins describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Collins offers the following reasoning:
1. The Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety:
Collins states that the 2-millimeter deficiency in the letter height is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The actual height of the
emergency window exit operating instructions letters--eight (8)
millimeters--is 80 percent of the height required by FMVSS No. 217 (ten
(10) millimeters). NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential
noncompliance petitions for labeling defects across various motor
vehicle safety standards, including for more significant lettering
height deficiencies:
<bullet> Notice Granting Petition by Kia Motors: Letters as little
as 53.1 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 69 FR 41333
(July 8, 2004) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17439).
<bullet> Notice Granting Petition by General Motors: Lettering
height 76.3 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 81 FR 92963
(Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0093).
<bullet> Notice Granting Petition by Hyundai: Letters as little as
78.1 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 69 FR 41568 (Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-17439).
<bullet> Notice Granting Petition by Mercedes-Benz: Letters ``about
[[Page 48757]]
78[percent] of the minimum height required for such letters.'' Pet. at
3 (emphasis omitted). See 67 FR 72026 (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12544).
2. Further, the instruction label includes the words ``Emergency
Exit'' in letters with a height of 11 millimeters, which not only meets
but substantially exceeds the 1-centimeter requirement. See 67 FR 72026
(noting that some of the letters did meet the minimum height
requirements in finding that insufficient height of other letters did
not have an adverse effect on vehicle safety).
3. Collins claims that the height discrepancy does not affect the
readability of the instructions. See 67 FR 72026 (finding that letters
which were roughly 78 percent of the required size (which required size
was nearly one-third of the relevant one-centimeter letter height
requirement at issue here) would not ``degrade the legibility'' of the
words); 81 FR 92964 (finding ``the lettering height for the park brake
applied indicator `Park' at 2.44 mm versus the FMVSS No. 135
requirement of 3.2 mm poses little if any risk to motor vehicle
safety'').
4. Further, Collins says the discrepancy does not compromise the
conspicuity of the instructions. The instructions are not only in a
color that sharply contrasts with their background (red) as required by
FMVSS No. 217, the letters are additionally in bold and block capital
letters, which is not required by the standard but which preserves the
8-millimeter height across the width of the words and increases the
visibility of the instructions. See 81 FR 92964 (finding the use of all
capitalized letters, where not required, provided ``a more pronounced
indicator''). And as noted above, some of the words in the instruction
label (i.e., ``Emergency Exit'') not only meet but exceed the minimum
height requirement, thereby increasing the visibility of the
instructions.
5. Collins states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance under FMVSS No. 217 for conditions that
present a more direct safety risk than the potential safety risk (if
any) created here. See New Flyer of America, Inc.; Grant of Application
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 32694 (granting
petition for inconsequential noncompliance where buses were
manufactured with only one emergency exit instead of two); IC
Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 70 FR 24464 (granting petition for inconsequential
noncompliance where school buses were manufactured with two emergency
doors under the same post and roof bow panel space).
6. Finally, Collins states that the emergency window exit
instructions on the affected vehicles meet all other labeling
requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and do not affect the actual operation of
the emergency window exit, and Collins has not received any complaints
regarding the size or visibility of the instructions and is not aware
of any injuries associated with the size or visibility of the
instructions. Collins has corrected the noncompliance in all buses
remaining within its possession.
Collins concludes by again contending that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that 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.
Collins's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the FDMS website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and by following the online search instructions to
locate the docket number as listed in the title of this notice.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis:
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
performance 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 exemptions are set out 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.\1\ NHTSA also does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries to show that the issue 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
[[Page 48758]]
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.'' \2\ ``[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.'' \3\ Arguments that only a small
number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected
have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality petition.\4\
Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions based on the assertion that
only a small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance. The percentage of potential occupants
that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance does not determine
the question of inconsequentiality. Rather, the issue to consider is
the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to the consequence of
that noncompliance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\3\ 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'').
\4\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\5\ 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 Collins's Arguments
NHTSA reviewed Collins's arguments that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Collins contends that the
letter heights of the operating instructions describing the motions
necessary to unlatch and open the emergency window exit not meeting the
Emergency Exit Identification requirements as specified in paragraph
S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, poses little, if any, risk to motor vehicle
safety. NHTSA does not agree. NHTSA's decision considered the
following:
The purpose of FMVSS No. 217 is to minimize the likelihood of
occupants being thrown from the bus and to provide a means of readily
accessible emergency egress (See 49 CFR 571.217 S2). The Emergency Exit
Identification requirements at S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, at issue
here, are specific to the operating instructions required for emergency
exits in school buses. These requirements are fourfold: (1) operating
instructions must be ``concise'' and describe ``the motions necessary
to unlatch and open the emergency exit,'' (2) operating instructions
must ``be located within 15 centimeters of the release mechanism on the
inside surface of the bus,'' (3) operating instructions must ``be in
letters at least 1 centimeter high,'' and (4) operating instructions
must be ``of a color that contrasts with [their] background.''
In the present case, the instruction labels at issue contain the
following text: ``EMERGENCY EXIT LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW TO OPEN.'' The
labels therefore contain operating instructions (LIFT HANDLE PUSH
WINDOW TO OPEN) which concisely describes the motions necessary to
unlatch and open the emergency exit. The labels are located within 15
centimeters of the release mechanism on the inside surface of the bus
and are of a color that contrasts with their background. However,
although the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' on the instruction labels meet
the minimum letter height requirement, the remaining text containing
the actual operating instructions fail to meet the letter height
requirement at S5.5.3(b)--the operating instructions do not consist of
``letters at least 1 centimeter high.'' This point is further discussed
below.
Regarding Collins's argument that the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' have
a letter height of 11 mm ``which not only meets but substantially
exceeds the 1-centimeter requirement,'' Collins's argument is not
compelling in how the difference of 1 mm in the words ``EMERGENCY
EXIT'' improves the legibility of the words ``LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW
TO OPEN'' having a letter height of only 8 mm, a full 2 mm below the 1-
centimeter requirement. Further, NHTSA notes that Collins's statement
that 1 mm of letter height is ``substantial'' when above the 1 cm
requirement, however ``the 2-millimeter deficiency in the letter height
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,'' indicates a lack of
consistency in Collins's argument. Collins also referenced a previous
petition granted by NHTSA in support of this claim, which is addressed
below, and which is unrelated to school bus emergency exit
identification and operation. As such, NHTSA is not persuaded by
Collins's argument that having the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' being 1 mm
taller than the letter height requirements at S5.5.3(b) mitigates the
noncompliance for the operating instructions ``LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW
TO OPEN'' being 2 mm shorter than the requirement. Furthermore, NHTSA
is not persuaded by Collins's argument that a 2 mm measurement is any
less substantial than a 1 mm measurement, as no evidence was provided
in support of this claim.
Regarding the readability of the operating instructions, NHTSA does
not agree with Collins that the readability of the operating
instructions is unaffected by the noncompliance with the letter height
requirement. Collins referenced two previous petitions granted by NHTSA
in support of this claim, which are addressed below, that are unrelated
to school bus emergency exit identification and operation. As such,
NHTSA is not persuaded by Collins's argument that the readability of
the operating instructions is unaffected by the noncompliance with the
letter height requirement, as no evidence was provided in support of
this claim.
Regarding the conspicuity of the operating instructions, NHTSA
agrees with Collins that the operating instructions are ``in a color
that sharply contrasts with their background (red)'' and are ``in bold
and block capital letters, which is not required by the standard but
which preserves the 8-millimeter height across the width of the words
and increases the visibility of the instructions,'' but does not agree
with Collins that compliance with the conspicuity requirements for the
operating instructions impacts compliance with the letter height
requirements for the operating instructions for emergency exits in
school buses. Collins referenced a previous petition granted by NHTSA
in support of this claim, which is addressed below, that are unrelated
to school bus emergency exit identification and operation. As such,
NHTSA is not persuaded by Collins's argument that meeting the
conspicuity requirements for the operating instructions mitigates the
noncompliance with the letter height requirement, as no evidence was
provided in support of this claim.
C. Remaining Arguments
Collins referenced six inconsequential noncompliance petitions
NHTSA had previously granted to support its petition.
The first petition, from Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors
Corp.
[[Page 48759]]
(Kia) (See 69 FR 41333), 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 Collins's petition here, for four 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
operating instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus
passenger use in the event of an emergency.
The second petition, from General Motors, LLC (GM) (See 81 FR
92963), 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 Collins's petition here, for five 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 operating
instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus passenger use in
the event of an emergency.
The third petition, from Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai) (See 69 FR
41668), 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,
these 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. NHTSA does not agree that granting this prior petition
supports granting Collins's petition here, for four 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 operating instructions
in Collins's petition is for school bus passenger use in the event of
an emergency.
The fourth petition, from Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. (MBUSA) (See
67 FR 72026), involved passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter
height requirements for the brake warning indicator lamp, as required
by FMVSS No. 135. In this case, these passenger vehicles did not meet
the minimum letter height requirement of 3.2 mm for the letters ``r,''
``a,'' and ``e'' in the word ``Brake.'' The Agency decided that ``the
Agency does not believe that the noncompliance will degrade the
legibility of the brake malfunction telltale, or will have an adverse
effect on vehicle safety,'' and granted the petition. NHTSA does not
agree that granting this prior petition supports granting Collins's
petition here, for six reasons: (1) compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was
not at issue, (2) emergency exit identification within the vehicle was
not at issue, (3) the brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA'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 brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA'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), (5) activation of the
second illuminated message in MBUSA's petition would ``[trigger] an
audible signal,'' which is a feature distinctly different from the
emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not trigger an audible
signal), and (6) the brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA's petition
was related to the driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit
operating instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus
passenger use in the event of an emergency.
The fifth petition, from New Flyer of America, Inc. (See 63 FR
32694), 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. NHTSA does
not agree that the granting of this prior petition supports granting
Collins's petition here, because emergency exit identification and
operation within the vehicle was not at issue.
The sixth petition, from IC Corporation (IC) (See 70 FR 24464),
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 structural failures in the area around the
emergency doors
[[Page 48760]]
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. NHTSA does not agree that the
granting of this prior petition supports granting Collins's petition
here, because emergency exit identification and operation within the
vehicle was not at issue.
None of the previous six petitions Collins provided in support of
its current petition were 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.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Collins has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 217 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Collins's petition is hereby denied and Collins 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)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-17135 Filed 8-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 10, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.