Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP17-002, 22743-22744 [2018-10404]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
on its X1 (MPV and passenger cars), X2,
X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as well as
its Carline 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, MINI and
MINI Countryman vehicle lines, all
which have been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the Agency. BMW asserts
that theft data have indicated a decline
in theft rates for vehicle lines that have
been equipped with antitheft devices
similar to that which it proposes to
install on the 8 series vehicle line. BMW
stated that for MY/CY 2014, the
Agency’s data show that the theft rates
for its vehicle lines are: 0.47 (2-series),
0.91 (3-series), 0.80 (4-series), 0.90 (5series), 1.83 (6-series) 2.85 (7-series),
0.30 (X1), 0.60 (X3), 0.00 (X5), 0.43 (Z4),
0.00 (i3), 0.00 (i8) and 0.41 (MINI
Cooper). Using an average of 3 MYs data
(2012–2014), NHTSA’s theft rates for
BMW’s 2 series, 3 series, 4 series, 5
series, 6 series, 7 series, X1, X3, X5, Z4,
i3, i8 and MINI Cooper vehicle lines are
0.7416, 0.7566, 0.8041, 1.0805, 2.5509,
2.0632, 0.2672, 0.6117, 0.0000, 0.8159,
0.0000, 0.0000 and 0.2379 respectively,
all below the median theft rate of
3.5826.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by BMW, the Agency believes
that the antitheft device for the BMW 8
series vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part
541). The Agency concludes that the
device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in
§ 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of
the device by unauthorized persons;
preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.7 (b), the Agency grants a
petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541, either
in whole or in part, if it determines that,
based upon supporting evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541. The Agency
finds that BMW has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the 8 series vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This
conclusion is based on the information
BMW provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the Agency
hereby grants in full BMW’s petition for
exemption for the MY 2019 8 series
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The
Agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
Appendix A–1, identifies those lines
that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49
CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning
model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new
vehicle lines exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If BMW decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it must formally
notify the Agency. If such a decision is
made, the line must be fully marked as
required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component
parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in
the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption.
Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that
belong to a line exempted under this
part and equipped with the antitheft
device on which the line’s exemption is
based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for
the submission of petitions ‘‘to modify
an exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to but differing
from the one specified in that
exemption.’’
The Agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
Agency did not intend Part 543 to
require the submission of a modification
petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft
device. The significance of many such
changes could be de minimis. Therefore,
NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any
changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the Agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018–10428 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22743
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0052]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
DP17–002
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
investigation.
AGENCY:
This document denies a
January 11, 2017, petition, as submitted
under Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) ID number 10944318, from Ms.
Laura Nagel of Springfield, VA,
requesting that the agency open an
investigation into an alleged defect
resulting in engine stall without
warning after refueling in a model year
(MY) 2007 Jeep Patriot. The petitioner’s
vehicle is a 2007 Jeep Patriot. The
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) evaluated the
petition by analyzing consumer
complaints submitted to the Agency, by
reviewing two prior evaluations of the
same apparent defect issue, and by
reviewing technical and field
information provided by FCA US, LLC
(FCA) in response to an information
request letter from the Agency. After
completing this evaluation, NHTSA has
concluded that further investigation of
the alleged defect in the subject vehicles
is unlikely to result in a determination
that a safety related defect exists. The
agency accordingly denies the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Abhijit Sengupta, Office of Defects
Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–4293.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Alleged Defect
The petitioner alleges that her MY
2007 Jeep Patriot vehicle experienced
multiple incidents of engine stall
without warning shortly after refueling.
The petitioner discovered that the
defective part is a valve that is integral
to the fuel tank, requiring tank
replacement to repair the problem. The
petitioner alleged that stalling without
warning is an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety and requests the
agency take action by opening a
Preliminary Evaluation to fully evaluate
the defect.
Engine Stall Defects
The Safety Act, (Chapter 301 of Title
49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.
30101 et. seq.)) defines motor vehicle
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
22744
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
safety as ‘‘the performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
a way that protects the public against
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring
because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and
against unreasonable risk of death or
injury in an accident, and includes
nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.’’ In this instance, the risk
involved is a low speed engine stall
happening immediately after the fuel
tank is overfilled. NHTSA considers
several factors when assessing the safety
risk posed by conditions that may result
in engine stall while driving. These
include the speeds at which stalling
may occur, the ability of the driver to
restart the vehicle, the warning available
to the driver prior to stalling, the effects
of engine stall on vehicle controllability,
when and where the stalling may occur
and the effects of the condition on other
safety systems of the vehicle. In general,
conditions that result in engine stall
during low-speed operation at idle, such
as when slowing to a stop, and where
the engine may be restarted right away,
are considered by NHTSA to be among
the least hazardous types of stalling
problems and, absent other risk factors,
are not considered to be unreasonable
risks to safety.
Prior ODI Investigation PE13–016
On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an
investigation of an alleged defect in
approximately 153,817 MY 2006
Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge
Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may
result in engine stall shortly after
refueling (PE13–016). In response to
ODI’s information request for PE13–016,
FCA identified a problem with the
multifunction control valve (MFCV) fuel
shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon
fuel tanks in certain LX vehicles.
According to FCA, the float may swell
after exposure to fuels with high ethanol
content, which may cause the valve to
stick. A float valve that is stuck open
during refueling could result in fuel
tank overfill and allow raw fuel to enter
the purge line and vapor canister. This
could result in problems with engine
drivability (e.g., stumble or hesitation)
or stall due to a rich fuel mixture while
driving, in the brief period immediately
after filling the fuel tank.
ODI’s complaint review showed most
of the engine stall incidents occurred
when vehicles were stopped or
travelling at low speeds. This review
also revealed that no significant
difficulty restarting the vehicle was
reported and no crashes or injuries were
identified in the subject vehicles, which
had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The
investigation (PE13–016) was closed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
without a finding of a defect due to the
low safety risk associated with the
alleged defect condition. Further details
of the investigation are available at
https://www.NHTSA.gov.
Prior ODI Petition DP14–002
In response to ODI’s information
request letter for DP14–002, FCA
indicated that the RS Minivan may
experience MFCV float sticking similar
to that investigated in PE13–016 and
described above. Further details of the
investigation are available at https://
www.NHTSA.gov.
As part of its evaluation of DP14–002,
NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test
Center (VRTC) tested a 2005 Chrysler
Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI, 20 gal.
fuel tank) that was the subject of an ODI
complaint (VOQ 10641603) and proved
the vehicle was affected by the sticking
in-tank fuel valve. VRTC’s examination
assessed engine performance after
refueling, including the driving
conditions and ease of engine restart
associated with any observed engine
stalls. When refueling the vehicle up to
the initial shut-off of the filling station
pump nozzle, the VRTC testing was able
to reproduce stalling incidents when the
vehicle was stopped or coasting to a
stop at low speed. The vehicle did not
stall 4 out of 5 times when travelling at
5 mph, but minor hesitation was noted.
No stalls and only minor hesitation
occurred when travelling at 10 mph or
above in tanks filled to the initial nozzle
shut-off. Stalling was more likely to
occur if the tank was overfilled (i.e.,
adding fuel past the initial fill nozzle
shutoff). Testing after overfilling
resulted in stalls in 4 of 5 tests at speeds
up to 10 mph. Regardless of fill
condition, the vehicle could always be
immediately restarted after each engine
stall.
2008 Jeep Patriot Analysis
In response to ODI’s information
request letter for DP17–002, FCA
indicated that the 2007 Jeep Patriot may
experience a condition with MFCV float
sticking similar to the one investigated
in the LX Cars in PE13–016 and 2007
Chrysler Minivans in DP14–002. As
described above in PE13–016, the
failure mechanism is a result of a
swollen refueling float within the
multifunction control valve. The FCA
response also indicated no reported
accidents or property damage in a fleet
of 29,573 vehicles with more than 4
billion vehicle miles driven over 10
years of service. FCA believes that,
predicated upon these findings, there is
no unreasonable risk to motor safety.
Further details of the investigation will
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be available in the near future at https://
www.NHTSA.gov.
ODI’s complaint analysis of the
alleged defect, completed in March
2017, identified 39 post-refueling engine
stall incidents in approximately 29,573
vehicles. Similar to the LX Car analysis
in PE13–016, and 2007 Chrysler
Minivans analysis in DP14–002, the
engine stalls occurred immediately after
refueling when the vehicle was stopped
or coasting to a stop at low speed. There
were no allegations of significant
difficulty restarting the engines
immediately after the stalls occurred.
None of the complaints alleged any
crash or injury. Based upon the above
facts and the conditions in which any
stall occurs, ODI concludes that further
investigation is unlikely to result in a
finding that a defect related to motor
vehicle safety exists.
Conclusion
In the Agency’s view, additional
investigation is unlikely to result in a
finding that a defect related to motor
vehicle safety exists given the limited
conditions under which the subject
condition may result in engine stall.
Although NHTSA can and will take
action before a defect results in a crash,
injury or death, the absence of any
reported crashes or injuries in a fleet of
nearly 30,000 vehicles estimated to have
driven 4 billion vehicle miles indicates
that further investigation is not
warranted under the facts known to the
Agency at this time. Therefore, in view
of the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA’s limited resources to best
accomplish the agency’s safety mission,
the petition is denied. The Agency will
take further action if warranted by
future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018–10404 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0063]
Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping
Requirements
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Reinstatement of a previously
approved collection of information.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22743-22744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10404]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0052]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP17-002
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a January 11, 2017, petition, as
submitted under Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) ID number
10944318, from Ms. Laura Nagel of Springfield, VA, requesting that the
agency open an investigation into an alleged defect resulting in engine
stall without warning after refueling in a model year (MY) 2007 Jeep
Patriot. The petitioner's vehicle is a 2007 Jeep Patriot. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluated the petition by
analyzing consumer complaints submitted to the Agency, by reviewing two
prior evaluations of the same apparent defect issue, and by reviewing
technical and field information provided by FCA US, LLC (FCA) in
response to an information request letter from the Agency. After
completing this evaluation, NHTSA has concluded that further
investigation of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles is unlikely
to result in a determination that a safety related defect exists. The
agency accordingly denies the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Abhijit Sengupta, Office of
Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4293.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Alleged Defect
The petitioner alleges that her MY 2007 Jeep Patriot vehicle
experienced multiple incidents of engine stall without warning shortly
after refueling. The petitioner discovered that the defective part is a
valve that is integral to the fuel tank, requiring tank replacement to
repair the problem. The petitioner alleged that stalling without
warning is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and requests
the agency take action by opening a Preliminary Evaluation to fully
evaluate the defect.
Engine Stall Defects
The Safety Act, (Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et. seq.)) defines motor vehicle
[[Page 22744]]
safety as ``the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.'' In this instance, the risk involved is a low speed engine
stall happening immediately after the fuel tank is overfilled. NHTSA
considers several factors when assessing the safety risk posed by
conditions that may result in engine stall while driving. These include
the speeds at which stalling may occur, the ability of the driver to
restart the vehicle, the warning available to the driver prior to
stalling, the effects of engine stall on vehicle controllability, when
and where the stalling may occur and the effects of the condition on
other safety systems of the vehicle. In general, conditions that result
in engine stall during low-speed operation at idle, such as when
slowing to a stop, and where the engine may be restarted right away,
are considered by NHTSA to be among the least hazardous types of
stalling problems and, absent other risk factors, are not considered to
be unreasonable risks to safety.
Prior ODI Investigation PE13-016
On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an investigation of an alleged
defect in approximately 153,817 MY 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and
Dodge Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may result in engine stall shortly
after refueling (PE13-016). In response to ODI's information request
for PE13-016, FCA identified a problem with the multifunction control
valve (MFCV) fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel tanks in
certain LX vehicles. According to FCA, the float may swell after
exposure to fuels with high ethanol content, which may cause the valve
to stick. A float valve that is stuck open during refueling could
result in fuel tank overfill and allow raw fuel to enter the purge line
and vapor canister. This could result in problems with engine
drivability (e.g., stumble or hesitation) or stall due to a rich fuel
mixture while driving, in the brief period immediately after filling
the fuel tank.
ODI's complaint review showed most of the engine stall incidents
occurred when vehicles were stopped or travelling at low speeds. This
review also revealed that no significant difficulty restarting the
vehicle was reported and no crashes or injuries were identified in the
subject vehicles, which had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The
investigation (PE13-016) was closed without a finding of a defect due
to the low safety risk associated with the alleged defect condition.
Further details of the investigation are available at https://www.NHTSA.gov.
Prior ODI Petition DP14-002
In response to ODI's information request letter for DP14-002, FCA
indicated that the RS Minivan may experience MFCV float sticking
similar to that investigated in PE13-016 and described above. Further
details of the investigation are available at https://www.NHTSA.gov.
As part of its evaluation of DP14-002, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and
Test Center (VRTC) tested a 2005 Chrysler Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI,
20 gal. fuel tank) that was the subject of an ODI complaint (VOQ
10641603) and proved the vehicle was affected by the sticking in-tank
fuel valve. VRTC's examination assessed engine performance after
refueling, including the driving conditions and ease of engine restart
associated with any observed engine stalls. When refueling the vehicle
up to the initial shut-off of the filling station pump nozzle, the VRTC
testing was able to reproduce stalling incidents when the vehicle was
stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. The vehicle did not stall 4
out of 5 times when travelling at 5 mph, but minor hesitation was
noted. No stalls and only minor hesitation occurred when travelling at
10 mph or above in tanks filled to the initial nozzle shut-off.
Stalling was more likely to occur if the tank was overfilled (i.e.,
adding fuel past the initial fill nozzle shutoff). Testing after
overfilling resulted in stalls in 4 of 5 tests at speeds up to 10 mph.
Regardless of fill condition, the vehicle could always be immediately
restarted after each engine stall.
2008 Jeep Patriot Analysis
In response to ODI's information request letter for DP17-002, FCA
indicated that the 2007 Jeep Patriot may experience a condition with
MFCV float sticking similar to the one investigated in the LX Cars in
PE13-016 and 2007 Chrysler Minivans in DP14-002. As described above in
PE13-016, the failure mechanism is a result of a swollen refueling
float within the multifunction control valve. The FCA response also
indicated no reported accidents or property damage in a fleet of 29,573
vehicles with more than 4 billion vehicle miles driven over 10 years of
service. FCA believes that, predicated upon these findings, there is no
unreasonable risk to motor safety. Further details of the investigation
will be available in the near future at https://www.NHTSA.gov.
ODI's complaint analysis of the alleged defect, completed in March
2017, identified 39 post-refueling engine stall incidents in
approximately 29,573 vehicles. Similar to the LX Car analysis in PE13-
016, and 2007 Chrysler Minivans analysis in DP14-002, the engine stalls
occurred immediately after refueling when the vehicle was stopped or
coasting to a stop at low speed. There were no allegations of
significant difficulty restarting the engines immediately after the
stalls occurred. None of the complaints alleged any crash or injury.
Based upon the above facts and the conditions in which any stall
occurs, ODI concludes that further investigation is unlikely to result
in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists.
Conclusion
In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety
exists given the limited conditions under which the subject condition
may result in engine stall. Although NHTSA can and will take action
before a defect results in a crash, injury or death, the absence of any
reported crashes or injuries in a fleet of nearly 30,000 vehicles
estimated to have driven 4 billion vehicle miles indicates that further
investigation is not warranted under the facts known to the Agency at
this time. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety
mission, the petition is denied. The Agency will take further action if
warranted by future circumstances.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-10404 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
