
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72812-72814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0093; Notice 1]


Gillig, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Gillig, LLC, (Gillig) has determined that certain model year 
(MY) 1998-2022 Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully comply with Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. 
Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022, and later 
amended the report on July 22, 2022. Gillig subsequently petitioned 
NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on July 21, 2022, for a decision that the 
subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor 
vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Gillig's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, General Engineer, NHTSA, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-0661.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Gillig determined that certain MY 1998-2022 Gillig Low 
Floor buses do not fully comply with paragraph S6 \1\ of FMVSS No. 205, 
Glazing Materials, and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-l996, as referenced by FMVSS No. 
205 (49 CFR 571.205).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gillig filed a Part 573 noncompliance report dated July 6, 
2022, and later amended the report on July 22, 2022, indicating that 
it has violated the marking requirements as specified in S6 of FMVSS 
No. 205. However, in its July 21, 2022, petition to NHTSA for a 
decision that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they 
relate to motor vehicle safety, Gillig stated that the noncompliance 
was with the Section 5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 205. The Agency would like 
to correct Gillig's mistake because it was, in fact, a violation of 
Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205, as stated in its original Part 573 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022, and later 
amended the report on July 22, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Gillig petitioned 
NHTSA on July, 21, 2022, 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.
    This notice of receipt of Gillig's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Buses Involved: Gillig stated that an unknown number of MY 
1998-2022 Gillig Low Floor buses, manufactured between May 28, 1998, 
and May 23, 2022, are potentially involved.

[[Page 72813]]

    III. Noncompliance: Gillig explains that the noncompliance is that 
subject buses may be equipped with a polycarbonate barrier adjacent to 
the driver's designated seating position that does not meet the 
performance requirements to be certified as Item 4 glazing. 
Specifically, the interior partition installed in the subject buses do 
not meet the requirements of the abrasion, chemical resistance, and 
weathering tests. Within the population affected by this noncompliance, 
there are certain partitions that are also missing the required glazing 
certification marking required by Section 6 of FMVSS No. 205. In a 
separate vehicle population, Gillig explains that ``modesty panels'' 
were installed that are also missing the required glazing certification 
marking. The modesty panels are polycarbonate barriers installed in 
certain transit buses that are located in the passenger compartment of 
the bus.
    IV. Rule Requirements: S6 of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-l996, 
as referenced by FMVSS No. 205, include the requirements relevant to 
this petition.
    V. Summary of Gillig's Petition: The following views and arguments 
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Gillig's Petition,'' are the 
views and arguments provided by Gillig. They have not been evaluated by 
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Gillig describes 
the subject noncompliances and contends that the noncompliances are 
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety.

1. Glazing Material Noncompliance

    Gillig believes that the noncompliance relating to the partitions 
is inconsequential because the subject partitions are not exposed to 
``elements or conditions that would affect the stability and robustness 
of the partition due to weathering, abrasion or chemical degradation.'' 
Therefore, Gillig contends that the performance requirements to certify 
Item 4 glazing ``are not appropriate or necessary to maintain the safe 
performance of the partitions as installed in Gillig's transit bus 
applications.''
    Gillig states its belief that two of the functional purposes of the 
interior partitions installed in the subject buses are to create a 
``hygiene barrier'' between the driver of the vehicles and the 
passengers that minimizes the driver's risk of exposure to airborne 
viruses and to protect the driver from passengers that may pose a 
security risk.
    Gillig also believes that the overall purpose of the abrasion, 
chemical resistance, and weathering tests ``is to ensure that driver 
visibility is adequately maintained through the glazing and that the 
Item 4 glazing material can withstand long term exposure to simulated 
weathering conditions, abrasion due to contact friction and resistance 
to certain chemicals that are likely to be used for cleaning purposes 
and that could lead to degradation of the glazing surface.''
    Gillig refers to an August 2020 interpretation by NHTSA, in which 
it says the Agency ``took the position that rigid plexiglass installed 
to the right of the bus driver is installed in an area that is 
requisite for driving visibility and that NHTSA would consider such a 
barrier to be an `interior partition.' '' \2\ Gillig lists the types of 
glazing that are allowed to be used for ``an interior partition 
installed in an area requisite for driving visibility,'' which includes 
Item 4 glazing. Gillig says that while Item 4 glazing is allowed in 
this application, it is ``typically used for glazing on or facing the 
exterior of the vehicle,'' and would therefore be exposed to weather 
and other elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letter to Collingwood, August 20, 2020, 571.205 
Plexiglass Barriers (002) [bond] NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Gillig states that because the subject partitions are 
installed inside of the vehicle compartment, they would not be exposed 
to such elements that the abrasion, chemical resistance, and weathering 
test requirements are intended to replicate. Thus, Gillig believes that 
those performance requirements are ``not appropriate for generic 
partitions installed inside the vehicle compartment.''
    According to Gillig, the abrasion, chemical resistance, and 
weathering performance requirements ``were intended for glazing used as 
windows, doors and other glazing that typically are or may be installed 
facing and exposed to the exterior of the vehicles.'' Therefore, Gillig 
believes that the application of these performance requirements ``may 
be appropriate for exterior-mounted devices but is overinclusive and 
unnecessary for interior partitions like the Gillig partitions.''

A. Abrasion Test

    According to Gillig, ``the risk of exposure to actual abrasion 
conditions in real-world operation similar to those specified by the 
standard is extremely low.''
    Gillig says that in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \3\ the Agency 
``acknowledged that internal glazing requires significantly less 
cleaning compared to glazing mounted facing the exterior of the 
vehicle, which needs frequent cleaning to remove dirt and grime due to 
exposure to external elements.'' Gillig states that the Agency also 
recognized that different performance requirements for glass and glass 
faced plastic are based on the differing locations on the vehicle in 
which each type of glazing is installed. While Gillig acknowledges that 
an internal partition may be exposed to abrasion when passengers are 
``leaning and rubbing against the glazing surface,'' Gillig explains 
that the partition installed in the subject buses ``is situated in an 
area of the passenger compartment where no standees are allowed and, 
therefore, this risk is considerably reduced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 37477, June 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Chemical Resistance Test

    Gillig provides the ANSI Standard that states the purpose of the 
chemical resistance test:
    ``The purpose of the test is to determine whether non-stressed 
transparent plastic or glass-plastic glazing material have certain 
minimum resistance to the following chemicals which are likely to be 
used for cleaning purposes in motor vehicle service:
    (1) One percent solution of nonabrasive soap in deionized water;
    (2) Kerosene No. K-1 or K-2;
    (3) Undiluted denatured alcohol (Formula SD No. 30);
    (4) Gasoline;
    (5) An aqueous solution of isopropanol and glycol ether solvents in 
concentration no greater than 10% or less than 5% by weight each and 
ammonium hydroxide no greater than 5% or less than 1% by weight each, 
simulating typical commercial windshield cleaner.''
    Gillig explains that the partitions installed in the subject buses 
were found to be noncompliant with the performance requirements 
pertaining to the gasoline immersion. Gillig says that the gasoline 
exposure test is ``focused on extended exposure to gasoline where the 
glazing specimen is immersed in the substance'' which Gillig believes 
is unlikely to occur in real-world use. Gillig contends that in the 
event gasoline were to make contact with the partition, ``it would not 
occur at a rate or level that is so frequent that it would have any 
impact on the performance of the partition.'' Furthermore, Gillig says 
it is not aware of any claims, information, or other data that suggests 
the partitions installed in the subject buses would be exposed to 
gasoline.
    Gillig adds that the subject buses equipped with the noncompliant 
interior partitions are not gasoline powered, therefore the potential 
for the

[[Page 72814]]

partitions to be exposed to gasoline is lowered. Furthermore, due to 
the location of the partition inside the subject buses adjacent to the 
driver's seat, Gillig contends that the probability that the partitions 
would be exposed to gasoline is ``extremely low and most likely to be 
nonexistent.''

C. Weathering Test

    Gillig states that the purpose of the weathering test is ``to 
determine whether the plastic or glass plastic material glazing will 
sufficiently withstand exposure to simulated weathering conditions over 
an extended period of time.'' To conduct this test, Gillig explains 
that a specimen is first exposed to a simulated source of radiation, 
after which the specimen's luminous transmittance is required to not be 
reduced by more than 5 percent, however, any increase in regular 
luminous transmittance is acceptable. The specimen may develop some 
discoloration but other defects should not develop. Additionally, the 
irradiated specimen shall develop no bubbles or other noticeable 
decomposition.
    When testing the partitions installed in the subject buses, Gillig 
found that ``segments of the coating peeled up and flaked off during 
the exposure and did not pass the abrasion test that followed the 
weathering procedure.'' However, Gillig believes that this weathering 
test does not reflect real-world use of the subject partition. Gillig 
explains that the light sources used to conduct the weathering test 
``simulate solar maximum conditions, meaning global, noon sunlight at 
normal incidence on the summer solstice.'' Gillig says this is ``the 
most severe condition met in outdoor service.''
    Gillig says that any type of glass that surrounds a partition 
located in the passenger compartment of a vehicle would act as a 
sunlight filter and would significantly reduce the energy of the 
damaging wavelengths. Thus, Gillig believes, the material deterioration 
due to UV weathering of subject partitions would be greatly reduced. 
Gillig further contends that ``since automotive glass is thicker than 
common window glass, it provides an even superior filtering efficiency 
compared to common glass with the potential to filter out almost all of 
the damaging UV wavelengths.''

2. Glazing Marking Noncompliance

    In the same population of buses affected by the glazing material 
noncompliance, Gillig determined that certain buses are not marked with 
the ``DOT AS4'' glazing marking required by FMVSS No. 205 to indicate 
that it is certified as Item 4 glazing. Gillig also determined that a 
separate population of buses are equipped with modesty panels in the 
passenger compartment that are not marked with the required ``AS4'' 
glazing marking. Gillig says the modesty panel is not used for driver 
visibility but is used to ``enhance privacy for passengers.''
    Gillig says, ``The purpose of the glazing marking is so that 
appropriate equivalent glazing can be used in the event that the 
original glazing needs to be replaced.'' Gillig states its belief that 
the absence of the required glazing marking does not create an 
increased risk to motor vehicle safety because the subject buses are 
operated by personnel that are trained and knowledgeable of the 
appropriate Item of glazing that is allowed to be used in the interior 
of the bus. Despite the lack of the marking, Gillig says that the 
trained maintenance personnel would ensure that the subject glazing is 
replaced by the appropriate glazing. Furthermore, Gillig says that 
replacement parts need to be specifically ordered for the vehicle using 
a unique part number.
    Gillig states production has been corrected and any of the subject 
glazing still in its possession have been removed from future service. 
Gillig says that the modesty panels meet all other FMVSS No. 205 
labeling and performance requirements and the interior partitions 
``meet all of the performance requirements that are necessary for the 
real-world use'' of the subject partitions.
    Gillig claims that the Agency has granted prior petitions in which 
the glazing was missing the required marking, such as the 2016 granting 
of a petition submitted by Supreme Corporation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Grant of Petition of Supreme Corporation, 81 FR 
72850, October 21, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gillig concludes its petition by stating its belief that the 
subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor 
vehicle safety and 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.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Gillig no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
vehicles distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control 
after Gillig notified them that the subject noncompliances existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-23330 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


