Nissan North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 59090-59092 [2013-23360]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59090
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Spartan’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Chassis Cabs Involved: Affected are
approximately 26 model year 2008
through 2013 Spartan Gladiator and
MetroStar chassis cabs manufactured
between April 9, 2008 and January 14,
2013.
III. Noncompliance: Spartan explains
that it has determined that certain
emergency rescue chassis cabs built
between April 9, 2009 and January 14,
2013 may not meet the brake actuation
time for trucks as identified in § 5.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 121.
IV. Rule Text: Section S5.3.3 of
FMVSS No. 121 specifically states:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. Each service
brake system shall meet the requirements of
S5.3.3.1 (a) and (b).
S5.3.3.1(a) With an initial service reservoir
system air pressure of 100 psi, the air
pressure in each brake chamber shall, when
measured from the first movement of the
service brake control, reach 60 psi in not
more than 0.45 second in the case of trucks
and buses,* * *
V. Summary of Spartan’s Analyses:
Spartan stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
Section 5.3.3.1 of FMVSS No. 121
defines the amount of pressure (60 psi)
for, in this case, the front brake
chambers. Further, it also defines a ‘‘not
to exceed’’ time (0.45 seconds) in which
that pressure at the brake chamber must
be achieved. This is not interpreted to
mean brakes are to be applied at 60 psi
but rather a certain pressure at the brake
chamber will be achieved. Brakes will
be applied nearly instantaneously after
actuation of the treadle valve.
Spartan conducted three tests on a
sample of three chassis cabs of similar
brake system configurations. Detailed
results from the testing are shown in
Spartan’s petition. The reported average
was used to determine the actual results
in comparison to the requirements. By
rounding the average of the three tests
for each sample, Spartan Chassis
identified it exceeds the requirements
by 0.01 second.
The measurement of time, in this
case, is for when air pressure at the
chamber reaches 60 psi. As stated, the
brakes are still being applied
irrespective of achieving the 60 psi
pressure at the front brake chambers.
The impact of being 0.006 to 0.01
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
seconds above the requirement of 0.45
seconds would have very little impact
(approximately 1 ft @ 60 mph) to
stopping distance of the vehicle and
would not impede the capability of the
vehicle being able to stop.
According to Driver’s License Manual,
stopping distance is impacted by driver
perception distance and reaction
distance. Other factors include speed
and gross weight of the vehicle. These
attributes would appear to have a more
significant impact to overall stopping
distance than 0.01 second timing for air
pressure to reach 60 psi at the front
brake chambers.
From a speed of 60 mph, vehicles
affected by this condition are required
to achieve a complete stop in 310 ft. At
this speed, it would take approximately
3.52 seconds for vehicles to stop at this
rate of speed. Vehicles affected by the
condition that has resulted in the
identified non-compliance are capable
of stopping within the distance of 310
ft as prescribed by FMVSS No. 121 and
would still be able to stop within the
required stopping distance.
Spartan has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production Gladiator and MetroStar
chassis cabs will comply with FMVSS
No. 121.
In summation, Spartan believes that
the described noncompliance of the
subject chassis cabs is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance 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, 26
Gladiator and MetroStar chassis cabs
that Spartan no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. Therefore, these
provisions only apply to the 26 Chassis
cabs that Spartan no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any
decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction for delivery or
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
control after Spartan notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–23359 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0142; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Incorporated,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
Nissan North America, Inc.
(Nissan) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2009 through 2012
Nissan Titan trucks manufactured from
January 31, 2008 to July 17, 2012 and
MY 2012 Nissan NV trucks, buses or
multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs) manufactured from December
20, 2010 to July 17, 2012, do not fully
comply with paragraph S3.1.4.1 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift
Position Sequence, Starter Interlock,
and Transmission Braking Effect.
Nissan has filed an appropriate report
dated July 23, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Mr. Vince
Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202)366–2319, facsimile
(202)366–5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Nissan’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at
49 CFR part 556), Nissan submitted a
petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Nissan’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on July 5, 2013, in the
Federal Register (78 FR 40546.) No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–
0142.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 45,167 MY 2009 through
2012 Nissan Titan trucks manufactured
from January 31, 2008 to July 17, 2012
and MY 2012 Nissan NV trucks, buses
or MPVs manufactured from December
20, 2010 to July 17, 2012 equipped with
steering column-mounted transmission
shift levers with a manual mode.
III. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1 of
FMVSS No. 102 specifically states:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if
the transmission shift position sequence
includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in
relation to each other and the position
selected, shall be displayed in view of the
driver whenever any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the
transmission can be shifted; or
(b) The transmission is not in park.
IV. Summary of Nissan’s Analyses:
Nissan explains that the noncompliance
is that on the affected vehicles a unique
sequence of actions can lead the shift
position indicator to incorrectly display
the shift position as required by
paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102.
Nissan further explains that the
noncompliance occurs when the
following sequences are accomplished:
(1) The transmission is shifted into
‘‘manual’’ shift mode by pressing the
‘‘manual’’ shift mode button; and
(2) The ignition is switched from the
‘‘ON’’ position directly into ‘‘ACC’’
position, which shuts off the engine.
During the time in which the ignition
is in the ‘‘ACC’’ mode, the gear position
indicator displays the last ‘‘manual’’
gear position of the transmission ([l]M
through [4]M) prior to the ‘‘ACC’’ mode.
If the key is not rotated from the ‘‘ACC’’
position and the shift lever is moved,
the last ‘‘manual’’ gear position will be
displayed regardless of the shift lever
position (the engine will not be
running). Turning the ignition to either
the ‘‘ON’’ or ‘‘OFF’’ positions will reset
the indicator, at which point the correct
position will be displayed.
This issue only occurs when the
ignition is switched from ‘‘ON’’ into
‘‘ACC’’ mode and the engine is off.
Further, the vehicle cannot be restarted
unless the ignition is switched out of
‘‘ACC’’ at which point the shift position
indicator would reset and show the
correct position. Likewise, if the
ignition is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position
to turn the vehicle completely off, the
position indicator resets itself and will
display the correct shift position the
next time the vehicle is started.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
Nissan believes the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
1. The vehicle cannot be operated in
the noncompliant condition. The
noncompliant condition only exists
when the vehicle ignition is switched
from the ‘‘ON’’ directly into the ‘‘ACC’’
mode and exists only for the time that
the ignition remains in ‘‘ACC’’ mode.
The engine is not running at this time.
If the transmission is shifted into park
while in ‘‘ACC’’ mode, it cannot be
removed from park unless the ignition
is switched to the ‘‘ON’’ position. If the
ignition is switched to either the ‘‘ON’’
position (to start the vehicle), or the
‘‘OFF’’ position (to remove the key and
exit the vehicle) the shift indicator
resets to the correct position and the
vehicle is no longer in the noncompliant
condition.
2. The sequence of events that leads
to the noncompliant condition is
exceptionally rare. This sequence, stated
in the description of the
noncompliance, is not one that a driver
should encounter in the typical
operation of the vehicle. If a driver were
to happen into this circumstance, the
condition is so fleeting that the vehicle
would likely be taken out of the
noncompliant condition almost
immediately. This is evidenced by the
fact that some of the affected vehicles
have been on the road for four years and
Nissan has not received any customer
complaints or warranty claims regarding
the issue.
3. The likelihood of an affected
vehicle being inadvertently left out of
park is nearly impossible in this case.
When the noncompliant condition
occurs, the shift indicator states,
incorrectly, that the vehicle is in a
‘‘manual’’ forward gear regardless of the
actual shifter position. Due to the
geometry of the shifter, the park
position should be apparent to the
driver even without the assistance of the
shift indicator.
4. Furthermore, since the owner
cannot remove the mechanical key from
the ignition while the transmission is in
any position except for park due to the
transmission shift interlock, it is
unlikely that a vehicle would be left
unattended in the noncompliant
condition. Given this, the driver will
either exit the vehicle without the key
or the driver will remain in the vehicle.
If the driver attempts to leave the
vehicle without the key, an audible
warning (as required by FMVSS No.
114) will sound, alerting the driver that
the key is in the ignition. This should
reduce the possibility of the operator
leaving the vehicle.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59091
If the driver remains in the vehicle, he
or she will attempt to restart the vehicle.
An attempt to restart will take the
ignition from the ‘‘ACC’’ position to the
ON position and the indicator will reset
to the correct position.
5. As NHTSA recognized in proposing
FMVSS No. 102 (see 49 FR 32409–
32411, August 25, 1988,) the purpose of
the display requirement for PRNDM
information is to ‘‘provide the driver
with transmission position information
for the vehicle conditions where such
information can reduce the likelihood of
shifting errors.’’ Thus, the primary
function of the transmission display is
to inform the driver of gear selection
and relative position of the gears while
the engine is running. Except for the
absence of the required transmission
shift position during the one
circumstance described above, which
occurs when the engine is not running,
all of the 45,167 affected vehicles
otherwise comply with paragraph
S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102.
Nissan also stated its belief that in
similar situations, NHTSA has granted
the applications of other petitioners.
Nissan has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 102.
In summation, Nissan believes that
the described noncompliance of its
vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
V. NHTSA’S Decision: NHTSA has
reviewed Nissan’s analyses that the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Considering the rare occurrence where
the shift position indicator fails to
correctly display the shift position, the
noncompliance poses little if any risk to
motor vehicle safety. This is because the
vehicle cannot be started or operated in
a manual gear position of the
transmission, i.e., 1 through 4. In
addition, the mechanical ignition key in
these vehicles cannot be removed unless
the transmission control is in ‘‘park,’’
and an audible warning required by
FMVSS No. 114 would alert a driver
exiting the vehicle if the key remained
in the starting system. Furthermore, if
the driver places the vehicle in park, the
shifter cannot be moved to another
position without rotating the key from
the accessory position, at which point
shift position indicator would reset and
show the correct shift position.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
59092
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2013 / Notices
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Nissan has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 102 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Nissan’s petition is hereby
granted and Nissan is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification
of, and a remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
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, this
decision only applies to approximately
45,167 vehicles that Nissan no longer
controlled at the time that it determined
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject vehicles. However, the granting
of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their
control after Nissan notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–23360 Filed 9–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0064; Notice 1]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for
Decision that Nonconforming 1988–
1996 Alpina B10 Passenger Cars Are
Eligible for Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
This document announces
receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a
petition for a decision that
nonconforming 1988–1996 Alpina B10
passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:20 Sep 24, 2013
Jkt 229001
importation into the United States
because they have safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being
altered to comply with, all such
standards.
October 25, 2013.
Comments should refer to
the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001
• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments
by hand to: West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by: logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site 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 your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments.
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a 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. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477–78).
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated below will be filed and will be
considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied,
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
notice of the decision will be published
in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a
motor vehicle that was not originally
manufactured to conform to all
applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified
counterpart, shall be refused admission
into the United States unless NHTSA
has decided that the motor vehicle has
safety features that comply with, or are
capable of being altered to comply with,
all applicable FMVSS based on
destructive test data or such other
evidence as NHTSA decides to be
adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may
be submitted by either manufacturers or
importers who have registered with
NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As
specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA
publishes notice in the Federal Register
of each petition that it receives, and
affords interested persons an
opportunity to comment on the petition.
At the close of the comment period,
NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has
received, whether the vehicle is eligible
for importation. The agency then
publishes this decision in the Federal
Register.
101 Innovations, LLC. of Lummi
Island, WA (Registered Importer 07–
350) has petitioned NHTSA to decide
whether nonconforming 1988–1996
Alpina B10 passenger cars are eligible
for importation into the United States.
101 Innovations believes these vehicles
are capable of being modified to meet all
applicable FMVSS.
In the past, NHTSA has granted
import eligibility to a number of Alpina
vehicles that were derived from BMW
vehicles. These include the 2005–2007
(manufactured before September 1,
2006) Alpina B5 series, 1987–1994
Alpina B11 sedan, the 1989–1996
Alpina B12 2-door coupe, and the 1988–
1994 Alpina B12 5.0 sedan (assigned
vehicle eligibility numbers VCP–53,
VCP–48, VCP–43, and VCP–41,
respectively). These eligibility decisions
were based on petitions submitted by
Registered Importers (RIs) who claimed
that the vehicles were capable of being
altered to comply with all applicable
FMVSS.
Because those vehicles were not
manufactured for importation into and
sale in the United States, and were not
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59090-59092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0142; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2009 through 2012 Nissan Titan trucks
manufactured from January 31, 2008 to July 17, 2012 and MY 2012 Nissan
NV trucks, buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) manufactured
from December 20, 2010 to July 17, 2012, do not fully comply with
paragraph S3.1.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect. Nissan has filed an appropriate report
dated July 23, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mr. Vince
Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)366-2319,
facsimile (202)366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Nissan's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556), Nissan
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Nissan's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 5, 2013, in the Federal Register (78 FR
40546.) No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site
[[Page 59091]]
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0142.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 45,167 MY 2009
through 2012 Nissan Titan trucks manufactured from January 31, 2008 to
July 17, 2012 and MY 2012 Nissan NV trucks, buses or MPVs manufactured
from December 20, 2010 to July 17, 2012 equipped with steering column-
mounted transmission shift levers with a manual mode.
III. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102 specifically
states:
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver
whenever any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be
shifted; or
(b) The transmission is not in park.
IV. Summary of Nissan's Analyses: Nissan explains that the
noncompliance is that on the affected vehicles a unique sequence of
actions can lead the shift position indicator to incorrectly display
the shift position as required by paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102.
Nissan further explains that the noncompliance occurs when the
following sequences are accomplished:
(1) The transmission is shifted into ``manual'' shift mode by
pressing the ``manual'' shift mode button; and
(2) The ignition is switched from the ``ON'' position directly into
``ACC'' position, which shuts off the engine.
During the time in which the ignition is in the ``ACC'' mode, the
gear position indicator displays the last ``manual'' gear position of
the transmission ([l]\M\ through [4]\M\) prior to the ``ACC'' mode. If
the key is not rotated from the ``ACC'' position and the shift lever is
moved, the last ``manual'' gear position will be displayed regardless
of the shift lever position (the engine will not be running). Turning
the ignition to either the ``ON'' or ``OFF'' positions will reset the
indicator, at which point the correct position will be displayed.
This issue only occurs when the ignition is switched from ``ON''
into ``ACC'' mode and the engine is off. Further, the vehicle cannot be
restarted unless the ignition is switched out of ``ACC'' at which point
the shift position indicator would reset and show the correct position.
Likewise, if the ignition is turned to the ``OFF'' position to turn the
vehicle completely off, the position indicator resets itself and will
display the correct shift position the next time the vehicle is
started.
Nissan believes the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. The vehicle cannot be operated in the noncompliant condition.
The noncompliant condition only exists when the vehicle ignition is
switched from the ``ON'' directly into the ``ACC'' mode and exists only
for the time that the ignition remains in ``ACC'' mode. The engine is
not running at this time. If the transmission is shifted into park
while in ``ACC'' mode, it cannot be removed from park unless the
ignition is switched to the ``ON'' position. If the ignition is
switched to either the ``ON'' position (to start the vehicle), or the
``OFF'' position (to remove the key and exit the vehicle) the shift
indicator resets to the correct position and the vehicle is no longer
in the noncompliant condition.
2. The sequence of events that leads to the noncompliant condition
is exceptionally rare. This sequence, stated in the description of the
noncompliance, is not one that a driver should encounter in the typical
operation of the vehicle. If a driver were to happen into this
circumstance, the condition is so fleeting that the vehicle would
likely be taken out of the noncompliant condition almost immediately.
This is evidenced by the fact that some of the affected vehicles have
been on the road for four years and Nissan has not received any
customer complaints or warranty claims regarding the issue.
3. The likelihood of an affected vehicle being inadvertently left
out of park is nearly impossible in this case. When the noncompliant
condition occurs, the shift indicator states, incorrectly, that the
vehicle is in a ``manual'' forward gear regardless of the actual
shifter position. Due to the geometry of the shifter, the park position
should be apparent to the driver even without the assistance of the
shift indicator.
4. Furthermore, since the owner cannot remove the mechanical key
from the ignition while the transmission is in any position except for
park due to the transmission shift interlock, it is unlikely that a
vehicle would be left unattended in the noncompliant condition. Given
this, the driver will either exit the vehicle without the key or the
driver will remain in the vehicle.
If the driver attempts to leave the vehicle without the key, an
audible warning (as required by FMVSS No. 114) will sound, alerting the
driver that the key is in the ignition. This should reduce the
possibility of the operator leaving the vehicle.
If the driver remains in the vehicle, he or she will attempt to
restart the vehicle. An attempt to restart will take the ignition from
the ``ACC'' position to the ON position and the indicator will reset to
the correct position.
5. As NHTSA recognized in proposing FMVSS No. 102 (see 49 FR 32409-
32411, August 25, 1988,) the purpose of the display requirement for
PRNDM information is to ``provide the driver with transmission position
information for the vehicle conditions where such information can
reduce the likelihood of shifting errors.'' Thus, the primary function
of the transmission display is to inform the driver of gear selection
and relative position of the gears while the engine is running. Except
for the absence of the required transmission shift position during the
one circumstance described above, which occurs when the engine is not
running, all of the 45,167 affected vehicles otherwise comply with
paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102.
Nissan also stated its belief that in similar situations, NHTSA has
granted the applications of other petitioners.
Nissan has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 102.
In summation, Nissan believes that the described noncompliance of
its vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
V. NHTSA'S Decision: NHTSA has reviewed Nissan's analyses that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Considering the rare occurrence where the shift position indicator
fails to correctly display the shift position, the noncompliance poses
little if any risk to motor vehicle safety. This is because the vehicle
cannot be started or operated in a manual gear position of the
transmission, i.e., 1 through 4. In addition, the mechanical ignition
key in these vehicles cannot be removed unless the transmission control
is in ``park,'' and an audible warning required by FMVSS No. 114 would
alert a driver exiting the vehicle if the key remained in the starting
system. Furthermore, if the driver places the vehicle in park, the
shifter cannot be moved to another position without rotating the key
from the accessory position, at which point shift position indicator
would reset and show the correct shift position.
[[Page 59092]]
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Nissan
has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan's
petition is hereby granted and Nissan is exempted from the obligation
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this decision
only applies to approximately 45,167 vehicles that Nissan no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject vehicles. However, the granting of this petition does
not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Nissan notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-23360 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
