VAN Hool, Prevost and 1 others equipment query EQ19001
Seat Belt Buckle Casings may Fail. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this equipment query about the buckle assembly on 25 model years (2015–2018). Opened Jul 2, 2019, closed Aug 20, 2025 after 6.1 years without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn March 30, 2018, Van Hool N.V. (Van Hool) noti�ed the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) of a safety defect that exists in certain model year (MY) 2015-2018 CX45, TD925, TDX25, TX40, TX45, and 2016-2018 CX35 motorcoaches. The passenger seat belt buckle’s outer casing may fail, leaving the seat belt buckle mechanisms exposed. The exposed seat belt buckle mechanisms may reduce the seat occupants’ likelihood of using the seat belt, increasing the risk of injury in the event of a crash. This recall of vehicles with the subject seat belt buckle casings was designated recall 18V-209. In its recall �ling, Van Hool identi�ed the component manufacturer as Fasching Salzburg. Based on Early Warning Reporting (EWR), �eld reports, and warranty claims aggregate data, NHTSA identi�ed that the defective part in Van Hool’s recall was potentially used in vehicles manufactured by Volvo Bus Corporation (Volvo), Motor Coach Industries (MCI), and Prevost Car (US) Inc. (Prevost). NHTSA opened this Equipment Query (EQ) investigation, EQ19-001, to determine if the seat belt buckle casing at issue in recall 18V-209 constituted a safety defect in Volvo, MCI or Prevost vehicles, thereby requiring additional recalls. On July 23, 2019, NHTSA sent an Information Request (IR) letter to Volvo requesting that for all of the seatbelt buckles Volvo uses, or has used, as original or replacement equipment on 2016 model year Volvo 9700 buses, that it provide the Volvo part number(s), the seatbelt manufacturer’s or supplier’s part number(s), the manufacturer’s or supplier’s name and their contact information. In the IR, NHTSA further requested that Volvo state the number of each of the above seatbelts that Volvo has distributed as replacement items for the original equipment seatbelts and provide the model and model year of the vehicle in which it is used and month/year of sale (including the cut-off date for sales, if applicable). Finally, NHTSA requested that Volvo provide two samples of each seat belt type/brand/part number identi�ed by Volvo. On October 23, 2019, NHTSA sent an IR letter to Amaya-Astron Seating, the seat manufacturer that installed the subject Fasching Salzburg seat belt buckle assemblies on the seats supplied to Van Hool. The purpose of this letter was to obtain, in part, a list of purchasers that were sold the seatbelt buckles as individual replacements or part of a seat and a list of all customers/manufacturers that received the same or similarly affected seatbelt buckles. Amaya-Astron identi�ed MCI, Prevost, and Volvo as the motorcoach manufacturers to which it supplied seats with subject seat belt buckle casings. NHTSA sent two IR Letters and Comprehensive Inquiry (CI) 21650H002 in support of EQ19-001 to MCI, Prevost, and Volvo Bus, in order to determine the relevant population. The IR letters and CI identi�ed that the following vehicles used the subject seat belt buckle casings: 2016 Volvo Bus 9700 and 2018 Prevost X3-45. MCI reported that it had no vehicles with the suspected subject seat belt buckle casings. Prevost and Volvo Bus reported that they did not observe a trend of seat belt buckle casing failures as observed in recall 18V-209. EWR, �eld reports, warranty claims data, and the information provided in the IR responses and CI similarly did not identify failure trends in the seat belt buckle casings. In addition, Prevost recalled the population of its vehicles subject to this investigation, containing the subject seat belt buckle casings, in recall 22V-236 (2018 Prevost X3-45) based on a different safety defect of the seat belt buckle assembly. The recall addressed vehicles with seat belt buckles that may have exposed, frayed retaining cables. As a result, the seat belt assemblies may not secure the seat occupants in the event of a crash. The remedy for recall 22V-236 was the replacement of the entire seat belt buckle, including its casing, with a different part. That remedy also obviated the potential concern regarding casing failure that was at issue in recall 18V-209 and EQ19-001. ODI is closing this investigation. Duringthe course of this investigation, the agency reviewed the information that it received and also closely monitored the data over multiple years to see if any trends would emerge. During this time, a portion of the vehicles that were part of the original population of this investigation were recalled. NHTSA believes that enough time has now passed with such monitoring to consider the data as presenting no observable trends to suggest that the seat belt buckle casings subject to recall 18V-209 similarly pose a safety defect in the remaining population of vehicles equipped with the seat belt buckle casings. The agency will continue to monitor the issue and will not hesitate to take appropriate action should such trends emerge in the future. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a �nding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist, including on other model or MY vehicles outside of the recall scope. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
A Equipment Query is a query about a piece of equipment — a component, a tire, a child seat — rather than a whole vehicle. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themAlso named: 2018 Prevost X3-45; 2016 VAN Hool CX35; 2017 VAN Hool CX35; 2018 VAN Hool CX35; 2015 VAN Hool CX45; 2016 VAN Hool CX45; 2017 VAN Hool CX45; 2018 VAN Hool CX45; 2015 VAN Hool TD925; 2016 VAN Hool TD925; 2017 VAN Hool TD925; 2018 VAN Hool TD925; 2015 VAN Hool TDX25; 2016 VAN Hool TDX25; 2017 VAN Hool TDX25; 2018 VAN Hool TDX25; 2015 VAN Hool TX40; 2016 VAN Hool TX40; 2017 VAN Hool TX40; 2018 VAN Hool TX40; 2015 VAN Hool TX45; 2016 VAN Hool TX45; 2017 VAN Hool TX45; 2018 VAN Hool TX45; 2016 Volvo BUS 9700.
A vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs EQ19001 a recall?
No. A equipment query is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is EQ19001 still open?
No. It closed on Aug 20, 2025 without a recall.
Which vehicles does EQ19001 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 25 model years: 2018 Prevost X3-45, 2016 VAN Hool CX35, 2017 VAN Hool CX35, 2018 VAN Hool CX35, 2015 VAN Hool CX45, 2016 VAN Hool CX45 and more. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.