Notice2026-05029
Daimler Coaches North America, LLC, 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
March 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Daimler Coaches North America, LLC (DCNA), a subsidiary of Daimler AG, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012-2019 Setra S407 and MY 2009-2020 Setra S417 buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. DCNA filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020 and amended its report on July 16, 2020 and March 24, 2021. DCNA petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on August 4, 2020 for a decision that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. On October 1, 2020 DCNA submitted an amended petition to the Agency. Additionally, DCNA submitted supplemental information to NHTSA on February 5, 2021, March 5, 2021, and March 25, 2021. This notice announces the denial of DCNA's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 50 (Monday, March 16, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12665-12669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05029]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0084; Notice 3]
Daimler Coaches 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 Coaches North America, LLC (DCNA), a subsidiary of
Daimler AG, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012-2019 Setra
S407 and MY 2009-2020 Setra S417 buses do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.
DCNA filed a noncompliance report dated July 15, 2020 and amended its
report on July 16, 2020 and March 24, 2021. DCNA petitioned NHTSA (the
``Agency'') on August 4, 2020 for a decision that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety. On October 1, 2020 DCNA submitted an amended petition to the
Agency. Additionally, DCNA submitted supplemental information to NHTSA
on February 5, 2021, March 5, 2021, and March 25, 2021. This notice
announces the denial of DCNA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kamna Ralhan, General Engineer, NHTSA,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-6443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
DCNA has determined that certain MY 2012-2019 Setra S407 and MY
2009-2020 Setra S417 buses do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraphs S.5.3.1, S5.3.2, and Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and
Displays (49 CFR 571.101). DCNA filed a noncompliance report dated July
15, 2020 and amended its report on July 16, 2020, and March 24, 2021,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. DCNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 4, 2020, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that these noncompliances are inconsequential
as they relate 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. On October 1, 2020,\1\ DCNA submitted an amended
petition to the Agency. Additionally, DCNA submitted supplemental
information to NHTSA on February 5, 2021, March 5, 2021, and March 25,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DCNA's amended petition is dated August 4, 2020, but was
submitted to NHTSA on October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of receipt of DCNA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on March 26, 2024, in the Federal Register (89
FR 21168). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> and follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0084.''
I. Buses Involved
Approximately 538 MY 2012-2019 Setra S407 and MY 2009-2020 Setra
S417 motorcoach buses manufactured between May 19, 2009, and January
30, 2019, were reported by the manufacturer.
III. Noncompliance
DCNA stated that the subject buses are noncompliant because the
identifiers for the windshield defogging/defrosting control, the hazard
warning signal control, and the HVAC control do not meet illumination
requirements in paragraphs S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and Table 1 of FMVSS No.
101. Specifically, the brightness of the windshield defogging/
defrosting and HVAC control identifiers cannot be adjusted, and the
hazard warning signal control identifier does not illuminate.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 101 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. The standard requires that
drivers must have the ability to control the timing of illuminating
indicators, the brightness
[[Page 12666]]
of illuminating indicators, the identification of indicators, and the
identification of controls listed in Table 1 to make those indicators
visible to drivers under daylight and nighttime driving conditions.
Additionally, drivers must have the ability to adjust the visibility to
at least two levels of brightness.
V. Summary of DCNA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of DCNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
DCNA. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. DCNA describes the
subject noncompliances and contends that the noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, which is available in full in the
docket, DCNA explains its understanding of FMVSS No. 101 and states
that the subject noncompliances do not increase risk to motor vehicle
safety. DCNA states that FMVSS No. 101 ``is premised on ensuring the
various controls, telltales, and indicators can easily be recognized in
order to facilitate the driver's selection under day and nighttime
conditions, to prevent the mistaken selection of controls and to reduce
potential safety hazards when the driver's attention is diverted from
the driving task.'' DCNA further explains that FMVSS No. 101 sets
requirements for the location (S5.1), identification (S5.2), and
illumination (S5.3) of various controls and displays, and Table 1 of
the standard provides the illumination and color requirements for those
controls, telltales, and indicators. Specifically, DCNA explains that
S5.3.1(b) requires that the controls listed in Table 1 of FMVSS No.
101, including those for the hazard and windshield defrost/defog
control, are required to be illuminated when the headlamps are
activated, and the brightness of the control must be adjustable to at
least two levels.
DCNA states that ``the lack of illumination on the hazard warning
lamp symbol included on the control and inability to adjust the
brightness of the defrost/defog control'' does not present an increased
risk to motor vehicle safety. DCNA states that the affected controls
are fully operable. DCNA describes the operation and design of the
hazard warning lamp control for the subject buses and provides its
assessment of the risk to motor vehicle safety. DCNA explains that the
``hazard warning lamp is controlled by a large red plastic toggle
switch that is 19 mm across by 40 mm high'' and to activate the
control, the driver would press the bottom half of the switch downward
with one finger until there is a clicking noise. DCNA states that the
operation of the hazard warning lamp ``is confirmed because the hazard
lamp itself will flash on and off, and both the right and left turn
signal indicators in the instrument cluster will flash on and off and
in unison with the hazard warning lamps on the exterior of the
vehicle.'' Therefore, DCNA asserts that a driver of the subject buses
would still be able to confirm that the hazard warning lamp is
operating as intended.
DCNA further states that a driver of the affected buses would be
able to identify and locate the hazard warning lamp switch even under
nighttime conditions because the switch is located to the immediate
right of the driver, is at eye level, and is the only switch in that
area that is red, rather than black or grey. Thus, DCNA states that the
hazard warning lamp switch is conspicuous and ``readily apparent under
all operating conditions.''
DCNA describes the operation and design of the windshield defrost/
defog control for the subject buses, and states that the windshield
defrost/defog symbol is located adjacent to the turn-style control
knob. DCNA also states that the defrost/defog control activates the
windshield defrost/defog function and that both the symbol and control
knob are automatically illuminated when the subject buses' headlamps
are activated but cannot be dimmed, which is required by S5.3.2.1 of
FMVSS No. 101. DCNA asserts that each of the functions surrounding the
windshield defrost/defog symbol, many of which are not regulated by
FMVSS No. 101's Table 1, are illuminated. DCNA explains that there is a
master switch that allows the driver to adjust the brightness of the
area surrounding the controls, and dimming can be controlled ``within
the meter assembly menu for the dashboard lights and is adjustable to
more than two different levels of brightness.'' Furthermore, DCNA
states that the controls at issue are located within a group of
controls that is ``responsible for the heating, cooling, and
temperature operations of the driver's compartment of the vehicle.''
Therefore, DCNA contends that a driver of the subject buses would be
familiar with the location of the defrost/defog control because it is
located within a cluster of controls that operate similar functions.
Thus, DCNA states that ``there is little to no risk that the driver's
vision would otherwise be impaired if the display was too bright or too
dim.''
DCNA notes that drivers of the subject buses would be
professionally trained and would therefore be likely to have experience
operating the bus and be ``knowledgeable about the location and
function of all of the controls and devices within the vehicle.'' DCNA
states that the area forward of the driver's seat in the subject buses'
interior cabin is ``sufficiently lit by roadway lighting, other
illuminated controls, telltales, and the light emitted from the display
of the instrument cluster.'' According to DCNA, when operating the
subject buses with the headlamps turned on, the dashboard lamps will
also be illuminated which will illuminate the hazard warning lamp as
well as other controls and indicators.
DCNA states that NHTSA has granted prior petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance ``where certain controls, telltales, and
indicators listed in Table 1 were not visible to the driver under all
day and night driving conditions.'' Specifically, DCNA refers to a
petition in which an electrical condition ``could cause the headlamp
upper beam indicator telltale to extinguish for various periods of time
and under certain conditions.'' In this case, DCNA states that NHTSA
determined that the upper beam telltale would only need to be
illuminated during nighttime driving conditions, as only a
comparatively small portion of driving occurs at night, which is the
time of headlamp activation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See General Motors Corp.; Grant of Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR 33323 (July
19, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DCNA reiterates that the subject buses are mostly used
commercially, and therefore, the drivers are trained and ``should be
familiar with the layout, placement, and operation of the hazard
warning lamp and defog/defrost controls.'' DCNA states that NHTSA has
also granted prior petitions concerning the potential safety
consequences of a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 101 because it is
expected that the driver will monitor the condition of the vehicle
closely ``to ensure the systems are properly operating.'' Additionally,
DCNA states that there are several petitions where NHTSA found that the
potential risk to motor vehicle safety was inconsequential when the
vehicle is operated by a trained driver because professional drivers
understand the telltales and other vehicle warnings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Mack Trucks, Inc., and Volvo Trucks North America, Grant
of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR
67766 (December 11, 2019); Autocar Industries, LLC, and Hino Motors
Sales U.S.A., Inc., Grant of Petitions for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 11162 (March 25, 2019); Daimler
Trucks North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 33551 (July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12667]]
DCNA concludes by stating that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. Summary of DCNA's Supplemental Submissions
In support of its petition, DCNA submitted supplemental information
to NHTSA on February 5, 2021, March 5, 2021, and March 25, 2021.
In its February 5, 2021, submission, DCNA clarifies that the
reference to dimming through the meter assembly menu means that there
is a master switch that operates the dimming function within the
instrument cluster that is directly in front of the driver.
On March 5, 2021, DCNA provided photos \4\ depicting the
noncompliance under various conditions. In the same supplemental
submission, DCNA notes that, under further testing, the illumination of
the HVAC controls did not cause any driver glare and did not appear
brighter than any of the adjacent markings of the HVAC controls, and
indicators were still sufficiently recognizable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These photos are available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its March 25, 2021, submission, DCNA notes that in addition to
the issues originally covered in its petition, the controls for the
vehicle's HVAC system that are covered by FMVSS No. 101, Table 1, can
be illuminated but are not dimmable as required by S5.3.2.
Specifically, the heating and air-conditioning system and heating and
air-conditioning fan are affected. DCNA further states that despite the
condition that these two controls cannot be dimmed on the vehicles at
issue, this does not create an increased safety risk. DCNA notes that
these two controls are located in the same area as all the other HVAC
controls and their location would be readily known to the experienced
professional drivers that operate the buses at issue here.
Additionally, DCNA asserts that the master switch used for adjusting
the brightness of the area surrounding the driver is fully operable and
adjustable to more than two different levels of brightness.
Consequently, DCNA states that there is little to no risk of
illumination of controls for the heating and air-conditioning system
causing the heating and air-conditioning fan to be overly bright and
impair the vision of the driver.
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
A. General Principles
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\6\ In general,
NHTSA does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show
that the issue 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.\7\
Further, because each inconsequential noncompliance petition must be
evaluated on its own facts and determinations are highly fact-
dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior determinations as binding
precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they have the burden of
persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Response to the Petition
1. Increased Risk Due to Noncompliance
DCNA's interpretation of FMVSS No. 101 hinges upon the position
that the noncompliance does not elevate the risk to motor vehicle
safety compared to a vehicle that is fully compliant with the safety
standard. FMVSS No. 101's sections S5.3.2.1 and S5.3.2.2(a) clearly
mandate that the brightness of the subject controls, telltales, and
indicators must be visible and adjustable under both day and nighttime
conditions. DCNA's assessment undervalues that these regulations were
promulgated to reduce driver distraction and ensure safety,
particularly during challenging lighting conditions.
2. Operation and Design of Hazard Warning Lamp Control
In addressing the operation and design of the hazard warning lamp
control, it is essential to consider not only the visibility and
operability emphasized by DCNA but also the fundamental safety
requirements in FMVSS No. 101. The absence of illumination of the
identifier for the hazard warning lamp control is a significant
concern, as it contravenes the requirements set forth in FMVSS 101,
paragraph S5.3.2.1. This provision mandates the illumination of certain
control identifiers, including the hazard warning symbol to ensure
their visibility under various lighting conditions, thereby
facilitating their safe operation by the vehicle operator.
Moreover, while the implementation of a red toggle switch and its
strategic placement may assist in locating the control, this design
choice does not address the issue of illumination adequacy, which is
required under FMVSS No. 101. Specifically, S5.3.2.2(a) in FMVSS 101
requires that the brightness of these controls must be adjustable to
accommodate different lighting environments, which is a feature that is
absent in DCNA's subject vehicles. This limitation could hinder the
rapid identification of the control under less-than-optimal lighting
conditions, which would increase the risk of a vehicle crash. In safety
engineering, there is a concept called ``Gaze Fixation.'' When a driver
is in an emergency, they should not have to take their eyes off the
road for more than a fraction of a second. By failing to illuminate the
hazard symbol, the manufacturer is forcing the driver to blindly search
for the control or stare into the dark to find it. This ``search time''
is exactly when crashes can occur. If a driver is looking for a switch,
they are not focusing on the road.
Compliance with FMVSS 101 is not about convenience but more so
about predictable behavior. When a vehicle does not follow these
illumination requirements, it breaks the ``muscle memory'' of the
driver. In a high-stress situation--like a tire blowout or a sudden
obstacle--the human brain reverts to basic instincts. The driver
experiences a cognitive delay--they must think about where the switch
is
[[Page 12668]]
instead of immediately seeing and pressing it. That brief two-second
delay at highway speeds can mean traveling more than 150 feet without
activating the warning lights, which can be the difference between the
vehicle behind stopping safely and causing a multi-vehicle crash. The
manufacturer's claim that streetlights or moonlight will make the red
switch visible is both legally and practically flawed, since safety
standards are meant to account for worst-case conditions, such as
driving on a pitch-black rural road where no ambient light is
available.
Additionally, the requirement for the illumination of controls and
their identifications, as stipulated in FMVSS 101, paragraph S5.3
Illumination, further underscores the necessity of this feature.
Specifically, S5.3.1(a) outlines the timing of illumination, stating
that the identification of controls must be illuminated whenever the
headlamps are activated. This requirement ensures that controls are
easily identifiable and operable in conditions where headlamp use is
necessary, which directly impacts the vehicle's operational safety. The
reliance on ambient lighting and audible clicks, while useful, does not
fulfill the need for dedicated illumination of controls, as these
incidental sources do not compensate for the visibility and recognition
afforded by properly designed illumination.
By neglecting to provide specific illumination for the hazard
warning lamp control, the design fails to meet a fundamental safety
requirement set by FMVSS No. 101. This failure violates a specific
provision for the illumination of controls--that all controls are
clearly visible and readily operable under various conditions--and,
consequently, this noncompliance increases the risk of a vehicle crash.
3. Operation and Design of Windshield Defrost/Defog Control
DCNA's reference to the non-adjustable brightness of the windshield
defrost/defog indicator still highlights a direct contravention of
FMVSS No. 101, S5.3.2.2(a). Even if surrounding functions are
illuminated and the control is within a group of related controls, the
inability to adjust its brightness could distract the driver,
particularly during nighttime driving if the display is excessively
bright or too dim, countering FMVSS No. 101's goal of minimizing driver
distractions. Windshield defrosting and defogging are not just about
driver comfort; they are critical ``vision-restoration'' tools that can
determine whether a driver sees the road or drives blind. When a
windshield ``flash fogs'' due to sudden temperature changes, visibility
can drop from 100% to near zero in seconds, requiring immediate action
to prevent a crash. The indicator light is the driver's only
confirmation that this life-saving system is active, but by making its
brightness non-adjustable, the manufacturer creates a dangerous trade-
off: a light that is too bright causes disability glare (blinding the
driver at night), while one that is too dim forces the driver to stare
away from the road to confirm the system's status.
4. Professional Training of Drivers
DCNA's emphasis on the professional training of drivers does not
negate the safety purpose of the requirements of FMVSS No. 101. The
standard regulates vehicle safety features, ensuring a consistent
safety baseline for all drivers, irrespective of their training or
experience. Even professionally trained drivers can be affected by poor
design or inadequate illumination, which could lead to momentary
distractions or mistakes. Previous rulings on similar matters, such as
those involving Mack Trucks, Inc. and Volvo Trucks North America, were
contingent on the specifics of those cases and, as noted elsewhere, are
not binding precedent.
5. Corrective Measures and Lack of Reported Incidents
The Agency acknowledges DCNA's corrective measures and the absence
of reported incidents. However, a lack of incidents to date does not
establish the insignificance of the noncompliance concerning FMVSS No.
101's safety objectives. As noted above, 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.\8\ The
proactive nature of FMVSS No. 101 is to anticipate and address
potential risks before they manifest into real-world issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Comparison to Previous Granted Petition
Contrary to the previously granted petition cited by DCNA, in which
a telltale could sporadically extinguish, DCNA's subject petition
involves a continual lack of hazard lamp illumination and adjustable
brightness for the windshield defrost/defog control. DCNA's
noncompliance is meaningfully different than the granted petition that
DCNA cited, given the continual lack of the required functionality in
DCNA's case.
C. Response to DCNA's Supplemental Information
1. Non-Dimmable HVAC Controls
The lack of dimmable HVAC controls in DCNA's subject vehicle could
potentially cause glare or be distracting, especially during nighttime
driving. Thus, NHTSA is not persuaded this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
2. Reliance on Professional Drivers' Familiarity
DCNA's reliance on the experience of professional drivers to
mitigate potential safety risks is not persuasive. FMVSS No. 101 is
designed to ensure safety and ease of use for all drivers, regardless
of their professional status or familiarity with a specific vehicle.
3. Testing and Driver Glare
The testing conducted by DCNA in a dark tunnel, while valuable,
does not fully replicate the dynamic and often unpredictable lighting
conditions drivers face on actual roads. Real-world driving involves
varying degrees of ambient light, reflections, and other visual
distractions that DCNA's test scenario does not adequately simulate.
FMVSS No. 101 is designed to account for a range of driving scenarios.
Additionally, the ability of drivers to adapt to different lighting
conditions varies widely, and DCNA's test does not account for this
variability. For example, what may not cause a glare for one driver in
a specific testing scenario might cause a distraction or impairment for
another in a different context.
Furthermore, outside of controlled test environments, drivers often
encounter transient lighting conditions while passing through tunnels,
emerging from underpasses, or facing the glare of oncoming headlights.
In these scenarios, the ability to adjust the brightness of controls
like HVAC systems becomes critically important to maintain visibility
and prevent distraction. Testing in a consistently dark environment
does not address these transient conditions, which are integral to
FMVSS No. 101's focus on facilitating proper control selection under
varying lighting.
4. Potential for Overly Bright Controls
The possibility that the illumination of controls could be overly
bright and impair the vision of the driver underscores the importance
of compliance with FMVSS No. 101's
[[Page 12669]]
dimmability requirement. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent
such scenarios, ensuring that drivers can indeed adjust the brightness
of controls in different driving conditions.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that DCNA has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 101
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
DCNA's petition is hereby denied, and DCNA is consequently obligated to
provide notification of a free remedy for that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h): delegations of authority
at 49 CFR 1.95(a) and 501.8(g).
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2026-05029 Filed 3-13-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 16, 2026.
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.