Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 735-737 [2024-31752]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
procedures to set performance targets.
Performance measures set the stage for
an informed discussion of State
performance, barriers to improvement,
potential countermeasure strategies, and
the expected benefits of safety activities.
SHSOs should expand and engage more
diverse stakeholders when establishing
performance targets. Considering the
viewpoints of underserved and
overrepresented communities is critical
for setting performance targets.
SHSOs should ensure that
performance targets and measures are
developed in cooperative partnerships
based on data and objective information.
The SHSO should use the most current
available data to perform a trend
analysis to help predict what is likely to
happen. Using a data-driven decision
process that accounts for the SHSO’s
programming and interventions helps
maintain a focus on improvement. This
approach helps make investment and
policy decisions to achieve performance
targets.
NHTSA acknowledges that States face
many other considerations when setting
performance targets. Each performance
target must be treated individually
instead of applying the same formula or
giving a blanket statement about what
factors were considered for the entire
process. For example, suppose a
primary seat belt law was recently
enacted in your State. In that case, the
State could expect to have a higher
decrease in unbelted fatalities compared
to other types of fatalities.
When setting targets, SHSOs should
consider the following as part of their
justification:
• Problem identification and trend
analysis
• What data sources were considered?
• Which sociodemographic sources are
considered?
• How will the program,
countermeasure strategy, and project
selections adjustments help meet the
target?
• How were underserved and
overrepresented communities
considered?
• How has the SHSO engaged with
stakeholders?
• Anticipated levels of effort
• Economic conditions
• Legislative changes
• Political support
• Has the State adopted the Safe System
approach?
• Other local considerations such as
other transportation efforts,
employment patterns, weather,
demographic changes, and travel
patterns
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
Illustrative Examples
As a reminder, States are required to
provide performance measures for every
countermeasure strategy for
programming funds in the 3HSP.
Projects do not require specific
performance measures but are instead
associated with performance measures
through their corresponding
countermeasure strategy. This section
provides context for when a State may
need to submit a State-developed
performance measure. For example,
drugged or poly-substance impaired
driving is listed as a State-developed
performance measure because data is
not consistently collected across States
and territories, and State programs vary.
NHTSA encourages States to look at
ways to improve data collection related
to drug impairment and testing.
Suppose an SHSO includes a drugimpaired driving countermeasure
strategy within the Impaired Driving
program area. In that case, the State may
not rely on the number of fatalities
involving a driver or motorcycle
operator with a BAC of .08 and above
universal core performance measure as
that measure is specific to alcoholimpaired driving. Instead, the SHSO
must include a State-developed
performance measure related to drugged
driving. Other examples include if the
SHSO has a Police Traffic Services
program area that includes multiple
topics such as speeding and distracted
driving. In this example, the SHSO may
not rely solely on the number of
speeding-related fatalities performance
measure. Rather, the SHSO may need to
use a State-developed performance
measure such as observed cell phone/
handheld electronic, distracted driving
fatalities, or another measure specific to
the State’s countermeasure strategies.
Countermeasure strategies for topics
such as traffic records may not rely on
the universal core measures because
none are relevant to traffic records.
Instead, SHSOs will need to create a
State-developed performance measure
such as improvement in accuracy.15
Further, even for program areas and
countermeasure strategies for which
there is a universal or strategic core
performance measure, SHSOs are
strongly encouraged to also develop
additional State-developed performance
measures to more specifically address
their problem ID when appropriate. For
example:
15 For additional guidance in setting performance
measures related to traffic records system, see
Traffic Records Data Quality Management Guide:
Update to the Model Performance Measures for
State Traffic Records Systems, DOT HS 813 544
(Mar 2024). Available online at https://crashstats.
nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813544.
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
735
• In addition to UC–7 (number of
pedestrian fatalities), a State could
develop a separate measure for
pedestrian fatalities for ages 18–34.
• In addition to number of motorcyclist
fatalities, a State could develop a
separate measure for number of
unhelmeted fatalities.
• In addition to UC–4 (number of
unrestrained passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities, all seat positions),
a State could develop a separate
measure for observed seat belt use for
passenger vehicles, front seat
outboard passengers.
• In addition to UC–5 (number of
fatalities involving a driver or
motorcycle operator with a BAC over
your State’s legal limit), a State could
develop a separate measure for
Number of fatalities in crashes
involving a driver or motorcycle
operator with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of .05 and above.
VI. Applicability Date
SHSOs will submit performance
measures aligning with this framework
beginning with the 3HSP due to NHTSA
on July 1, 2026, covering fiscal years
2027, 2028 and 2029.
Authority: 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8(i).
Issued in Washington, DC.
Barbara Sauers,
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations
and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2024–31487 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0042; Notice 2]
Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Gillig LLC, determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013–2019
Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect. Gillig filed a
noncompliance report dated April 1,
2019, and later amended the report on
April 23, 2019. Gillig subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on May 8, 2019, for
a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
736
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
relates to motor vehicle safety. This
notice announces the grant of Gillig’s
petition.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366–7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Gillig has determined
that certain MY 2013–2019 Low Floor
buses do not fully comply with
paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102). Gillig
filed a noncompliance report dated
April 1, 2019, and later amended their
report on April 23, 2019, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on May 8, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirement 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 Gillig’s petition
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on September 20,
2019, in the Federal Register (84 FR
49624). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019–
0042.’’
II. Buses Involved: Approximately 925
MY 2013–2019 Gillig Low Floor buses,
manufactured between December 23,
2013, and February 25, 2019, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Gillig explains
that the noncompliance is that the
subject buses are equipped with a starter
interlock that allow starter operation
while the transmission shift position is
in a forward or reverse drive position
and therefore, does not meet the
requirements in paragraph S3.1.3 of
FMVSS No. 102.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102 provides the
requirements relevant to this petition.
Except as provided in paragraphs
S3.1.3.1 through S3.1.3.3, the engine
starter shall be inoperative when the
transmission shift position is in a
forward or reverse drive position.
V. Summary of Gillig’s Petition: The
following views and arguments
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Gillig’s Petition,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by Gillig and do not
reflect the views of the Agency. Gillig
described the subject noncompliance
and contended that the noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
Gillig says that Allison Transmission
Inc., (ATI) conducted an audit at Gillig’s
headquarters and discovered the
noncompliance. In support of its
petition, Gillig explains that ‘‘the
potentially noncompliant condition
occurs as follows: when the ignition
switch is in the ON position, the engine
is stopped, the shift selector is in the
‘Forward’ or ‘Reverse’ position, and the
start button is depressed, the starter
cranks the engine, but the transmission
does not engage because, according to
ATI, the shifter is in an inhibited state.’’
Gillig describes the inhibited state, ‘‘in
a condition with ignition on/engine off,
even if the transmission gear selector is
moved to Drive or Reverse, the
transmission shifter does not broadcast
anything but Neutral to the transmission
control unit’’. Gillig says that ‘‘with the
engine running, the vehicle operator
must perform four separate actions in a
specific sequence to engage the
transmission and move the vehicle
under power, specifically: (a) place foot
on brake (b) select neutral (c) select a
gear, and (d) remove foot from foot
brake.’’ Gillig says that ‘‘because the
transmission controller defaults the
transmission to neutral after an engine
start, there is no risk of unintentional
vehicle movement’’ and therefore the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Gillig concluded 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.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The burden of
establishing the inconsequentiality of a
failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS—as opposed
to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications—is more
substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found
many such noncompliances
inconsequential.1
1 Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation: Ruling on Petition
for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14,
2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was
expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to
vehicle occupants or approaching drivers).
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which a recall would otherwise
protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries when determining if a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety. The absence of complaints does
not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it
mean that there will not be safety issues
in the future.3
In evaluating the merits of the petition
for inconsequentiality by Gillig, NHTSA
has determined that this noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No.
102 requires that the engine starter shall
be inoperative while the transmission is
in a forward or reverse position. In the
subject vehicles, the starter is
operational when a forward or reverse
position is selected, which is
noncompliant. Gillig contends that the
subject vehicles are equipped with a
shift controller interlock which is active
when the propulsion system is on and
prevents the vehicle from moving
without the driver first performing a
series of actions. The interlock prevents
the forward or reverse gears from
engaging until the transmission is first
returned to its neutral position. Gillig
also noted that the subject vehicles do
not have a park position on the
transmission selector which means the
vehicles are likely to be started in either
a forward or reverse gear. NHTSA agrees
that subject Gillig vehicles shift
interlock provides sufficient assurance
of preventing unintended forward or
rearward movement. More specifically,
NHTSA agrees that because the
transmission controller defaults the
transmission to neutral after an engine
start, there is no risk of unintentional
vehicle movement. Consequently, the
2 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).
3 See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016); see also 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’’).
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
initiative that seeks to raise awareness
among transportation stakeholders
about human trafficking and increase
training and prevention to combat the
crime. The award serves as a platform
for transportation stakeholders to
creatively develop impactful and
innovative counter-trafficking tools,
initiatives, campaigns, and technologies
that can be shared with the broader
community to help stop human
trafficking. The award is open to
individuals and entities, including nongovernmental organizations,
transportation industry associations,
research institutions, and State and
local government organizations.
Entrants compete for a cash award of up
to $50,000 to be awarded to the
individual(s) or entity selected for
creating the most impactful countertrafficking initiative or technology.
DATES: Submissions will be accepted
from January 6, 2025 through 11:59 p.m.
PST/2:59 a.m. EST on March 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Additional information
regarding the Department’s countertrafficking activities can be found at
www.transportation.gov/
stophumantrafficking.
Additional information regarding the
Department’s counter-trafficking
activities can be found at
www.transportation.gov/
stophumantrafficking. To register your
intent to compete individually or as part
of a team, visit www.transportation.gov/
stophumantrafficking, email
trafficking@dot.gov, or contact the
Office of International Transportation
and Trade at (202) 366–4398.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Award Approving Official: The
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary).
Subject of Award Competition: The
Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award
recognizes impactful, innovative, and
shareable approaches to combating
human trafficking in the transportation
industry.
[DOT–OST–2024–0127]
Problem
interlock present here satisfies the
intent of S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102,
NHTSA finds that the noncompliance in
the subject vehicles is inconsequential
to safety.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that Gillig has met its burden of
persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
102 noncompliance in the affected
buses is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Gillig’s
petition is hereby granted and Gillig is
consequently exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a free 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 the subject
buses that Gillig no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. 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 buses under their
control after Gillig 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)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024–31752 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
As many as 27.6 million men, women,
and children are held against their will
and trafficked into forced labor and
commercial sex. Transportation figures
prominently in human trafficking
enterprises when traffickers move
victims, which uniquely positions the
industry to combat the crime.
Solicitation for Annual Combating
Human Trafficking in Transportation
Impact Award
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
The annual Combating
Human Trafficking in Transportation
Impact Award (the award) is a
component of the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation
Leaders Against Human Trafficking
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Jan 03, 2025
Jkt 265001
Challenge
The Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award is looking
for the best innovators to develop
original, impactful, unique, and
shareable human trafficking tools,
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
737
initiatives, campaigns, and technologies
that can help stop these heinous crimes
in the transportation industry.
Eligibility
To be eligible to participate in the
Combating Human Trafficking in
Transportation Impact Award
competition, private entities must be
incorporated in and maintain a primary
place of business in the United States,
and individuals must be citizens or
permanent residents of the United
States. There is no charge to enter the
competition.
Rules, Terms, and Conditions
The following additional rules apply:
1. Entrants shall submit a project to
the competition under the rules
promulgated by the Department in this
Notice;
2. Entrants must indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the Federal
Government from and against all thirdparty claims, actions, or proceedings of
any kind and from any and all damages,
liabilities, costs, and expenses relating
to or arising from participant’s
submission or any breach or alleged
breach of any of the representations,
warranties, and covenants of participant
hereunder. Entrants are financially
responsible for claims made by a third
party;
3. Entrants may not be a Federal
entity, Federal employee acting within
the scope of their employment, or a
family member of a Federal Employee;
4. Entrants may not be an employee
or family member of an employee of the
U.S. Department of Transportation;
5. Entrants shall not be deemed
ineligible because an individual used
Federal facilities or consulted with
Federal employees during a competition
if the facilities and employees are made
available to all individuals participating
in the competition on an equitable basis;
6. The entries cannot have been
submitted in the same or substantially
similar form in any other previous
Federally sponsored promotion or
Federally sponsored competition;
7. Entrants previously awarded first
place are not eligible to reenter for the
same or substantially similar project;
8. Entries which, in the Department’s
sole discretion, are determined to be
substantially similar to another entity’s
entry submitted to this competition may
be disqualified;
9. The competition is subject to all
applicable Federal laws and regulations.
Participation constitutes the entrants’
full and unconditional agreement to
these rules and to the Secretary’s
decisions, which are final and binding
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 735-737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31752]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0042; Notice 2]
Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Gillig LLC, determined that certain model year (MY) 2013-2019
Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Gillig filed a
noncompliance report dated April 1, 2019, and later amended the report
on April 23, 2019. Gillig subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 8, 2019,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
[[Page 736]]
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of
Gillig's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-7236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Gillig has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Low
Floor buses do not fully comply with paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102). Gillig filed a
noncompliance report dated April 1, 2019, and later amended their
report on April 23, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on May 8, 2019, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirement 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 Gillig's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 20, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 49624). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0042.''
II. Buses Involved: Approximately 925 MY 2013-2019 Gillig Low Floor
buses, manufactured between December 23, 2013, and February 25, 2019,
are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Gillig explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject buses are equipped with a starter interlock that allow
starter operation while the transmission shift position is in a forward
or reverse drive position and therefore, does not meet the requirements
in paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102 provides
the requirements relevant to this petition. Except as provided in
paragraphs S3.1.3.1 through S3.1.3.3, the engine starter shall be
inoperative when the transmission shift position is in a forward or
reverse drive position.
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 and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Gillig described the subject noncompliance and contended
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
Gillig says that Allison Transmission Inc., (ATI) conducted an
audit at Gillig's headquarters and discovered the noncompliance. In
support of its petition, Gillig explains that ``the potentially
noncompliant condition occurs as follows: when the ignition switch is
in the ON position, the engine is stopped, the shift selector is in the
`Forward' or `Reverse' position, and the start button is depressed, the
starter cranks the engine, but the transmission does not engage
because, according to ATI, the shifter is in an inhibited state.''
Gillig describes the inhibited state, ``in a condition with ignition
on/engine off, even if the transmission gear selector is moved to Drive
or Reverse, the transmission shifter does not broadcast anything but
Neutral to the transmission control unit''. Gillig says that ``with the
engine running, the vehicle operator must perform four separate actions
in a specific sequence to engage the transmission and move the vehicle
under power, specifically: (a) place foot on brake (b) select neutral
(c) select a gear, and (d) remove foot from foot brake.'' Gillig says
that ``because the transmission controller defaults the transmission to
neutral after an engine start, there is no risk of unintentional
vehicle movement'' and therefore the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Gillig concluded 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation: Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the merits of the petition for inconsequentiality by
Gillig, NHTSA has determined that this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. Paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102 requires
that the engine starter shall be inoperative while the transmission is
in a forward or reverse position. In the subject vehicles, the starter
is operational when a forward or reverse position is selected, which is
noncompliant. Gillig contends that the subject vehicles are equipped
with a shift controller interlock which is active when the propulsion
system is on and prevents the vehicle from moving without the driver
first performing a series of actions. The interlock prevents the
forward or reverse gears from engaging until the transmission is first
returned to its neutral position. Gillig also noted that the subject
vehicles do not have a park position on the transmission selector which
means the vehicles are likely to be started in either a forward or
reverse gear. NHTSA agrees that subject Gillig vehicles shift interlock
provides sufficient assurance of preventing unintended forward or
rearward movement. More specifically, NHTSA agrees that because the
transmission controller defaults the transmission to neutral after an
engine start, there is no risk of unintentional vehicle movement.
Consequently, the
[[Page 737]]
interlock present here satisfies the intent of S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102,
NHTSA finds that the noncompliance in the subject vehicles is
inconsequential to safety.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that Gillig has met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance in the affected buses is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Gillig's petition is hereby granted
and Gillig is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free 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 the subject buses that Gillig no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 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 buses under their control after Gillig 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)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-31752 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
