Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0030-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Collins Bus Corp., Denial
Posted Date: 2022-08-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48756-48760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: http://www.regulations.gov/. 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:

 Ford TH 400
 Ford Sh416, models SL, SH, DH, DE, TH, and TL
 Chevrolet DE516
 Chevrolet DH516
 Chevrolet DH500
 Ford TL 400
 Ford T24
 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:
     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).
     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).
     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).
     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 https://www.regulations.gov 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