Notice2024-31752
Gillig, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 6, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
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 relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of Gillig's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 735-737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. 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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 6, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.