Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 8, 2015 / Notices 18935 

requirements of section 4129 while 

continuing to ensure that operation of 

CMVs by drivers with ITDM will 

achieve the requisite level of safety 

required of all exemptions granted 

under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). 

Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA 

to ensure that drivers of CMVs with 

ITDM are not held to a higher standard 

than other drivers, with the exception of 

limited operating, monitoring and 

medical requirements that are deemed 

medically necessary. 

The FMCSA concluded that all of the 

operating, monitoring and medical 

requirements set out in the September 3, 

2003 notice, except as modified, were in 

compliance with section 4129(d). 

Therefore, all of the requirements set 

out in the September 3, 2003 notice, 

except as modified by the notice in the 

Federal Register on November 8, 2005 

(70 FR 67777), remain in effect. 

IV. Submitting Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and in the 

search box insert the docket number 

FMCSA–2015–0057 and click the search 

button. When the new screen appears, 

click on the blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

button on the right hand side of the 

page. On the new page, enter 

information required including the 

specific section of this document to 

which each comment applies, and 

provide a reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. If you submit your 

comments by mail or hand delivery, 

submit them in an unbound format, no 

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit comments by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. FMCSA 

may issue a final rule at any time after 

the close of the comment period. 

V. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as any 

documents mentioned in this preamble, 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and in the 

search box insert the docket number 

FMCSA–2015–0057 and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and 

you will find all documents and 

comments related to the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Issued on: April 2, 2015. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08053 Filed 4–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, 

DP14–002 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a July 

7, 2014 petition from Mr. Brian Rosa of 

Union, NJ, 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 Dodge Grand Caravan 

minivan. The petitioner’s vehicle is a 

Chrysler RS platform minivan. The RS 

platform includes MY 2003 through 

2007 Dodge Grand Caravan, Dodge 

Caravan, Chrysler Town and Country 

and Chrysler Voyager minivans. NHTSA 

evaluated the petition by analyzing 

consumer complaints submitted to the 

Agency, analyzing field data and 

reviewing technical information 

provided by Chrysler in response to an 

information request letter from the 

Agency, and testing an RS minivan that 

was the subject of a post-refuel engine 

stall complaint to NHTSA. 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: Mr. 

Paul Simmons, Vehicle Control 

Division, Office of Defects Investigation, 

NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(202) 366–2315. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Alleged Defect 

The petitioner alleges that his MY 

2007 Dodge Grand Caravan vehicle 

experienced multiple incidents of 

engine stall without warning 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 fully evaluate 

the defect. 

Engine Stall Defects 

The United States Code for Motor 

Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) 

defines motor vehicle 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.’’ 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 will 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 which 

do not affect the operator’s ability to 

immediately restart the engine are 

considered the least hazardous types of 

stalling problems and, absent other 

safety factors, are not considered to be 

unreasonable risks to safety. 

Background (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, 

Chrysler identified a problem with the 

multifunction control valve (MFCV) fuel 

shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon 

fuel tanks in certain LX vehicles. 

According to Chrysler, 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. This could result 

in problems with engine driveability 

(e.g., stumble or hesitation) or stall 

while driving in the brief period 

immediately after filling the fuel tank. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 8, 2015 / Notices 

ODI’s analysis of complaints related 

to this condition determined that most 

of the incidents of engine stall were 

occurring when the vehicles were 

stopped or travelling at low speeds and 

there were no reports of any difficulty 

restarting the engines after such 

incidents. No crashes or injuries were 

identified in the subject vehicles, which 

had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The 

investigation was closed with no safety 

recall due to the low safety risk 

associated with the alleged defect 

condition. 

RS Minivan analysis 

In response to ODI’s information 

request letter for DP14–002, Chrysler 

indicated that the RS Minivans may 

experience a condition with MFCV float 

sticking similar to the one investigated 

in the LX Cars in PE13–016: 

‘‘The failure mechanism is a result of a 

swollen refueling float within the 

multifunction control valve. Studies have 

proven that elevated ethanol additives cause 

the float and housing to swell, which, in 

turn, causes the float to intermittently stick. 

Once stuck, a limited amount of fuel will 

pass beyond the refuel float and enter the 

vapor recovery system before the fill pressure 

threshold is reached and shuts the fuel 

nozzle off. 

‘‘Once fuel has entered into in the vapor 

recovery system, it can then be purged into 

the engine’s intake system in place of 

anticipated vapor within the first minute of 

starting the engine. The result of fuel rather 

than vapor entering in the engine intake 

system will cause the engine to stumble or, 

when the vehicle is not in motion and/or the 

engine at idle, a stall can occur. The 

condition is often contained to a momentary 

engine stumble as the purge event is 

immediately turned off when a rich fuel 

condition is detected by the Powertrain 

Control Module. 

‘‘Chrysler believes there is no unreasonable 

risk to motor safety because an engine 

stumble or rough idle will occur at a low 

driving speed, and while a stall is most likely 

to occur at an idle or stop. There have been 

no reported accidents or property damage in 

over 1.8 million vehicles. Additionally, when 

a refuel valve does stick, there is sufficient 

back pressure in the fuel system to shut off 

the fuel pump and limit the amount of the 

fuel into the purge line.’’ 

ODI’s analysis of complaints, field 

reports, legal claims and warranty data 

related to the alleged defect in Chrysler 

RS Minivans identified a total of 720 

post-refueling engine stall incidents in 

approximately 1.8 million vehicles, 

resulting in an overall rate of 0.39 per 

incidents per thousand vehicles (IPTV). 

Similar to the LX Car analysis in PE13– 

016, the engine stalls were mostly 

occurring when the vehicle was stopped 

or coasting to a stop at low speed. There 

were no allegations of difficulty 

restarting the engines immediately after 

the stalls occurred. There were no 

allegations of crash or injury. 

Differences in tank design, exhaust 

routing and purge strategy may 

influence the incident rate at which the 

MFCV float sticking condition occurs 

and/or the potential for engine stall or 

other performance concerns. As a result, 

ODI’s analysis examined incident rates 

over the full range of RS Minivan 

production to assess the effects of 

changes in tank design and purge 

control logic. This analysis identified an 

elevated incident rate for approximately 

208,000 MY 2004 and 2005 RS 

Minivans built during a seventh month 

period from September 2003 through 

March 2004, which exhibited a failure 

rate similar to the LX Cars investigated 

in PE13–016. Table 1 summarizes the 

field data for DP14–002 and PE13–016. 

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF NHTSA COMPLAINTS AND CHRYSLER COMPLAINTS, FIELD REPORTS AND LAWSUITS

NHTSA inv. No. Vehicles Build range Population Vehicle age 

(yrs) 

Total reports Report rate 

(IPTV) 

Crashes/ 

Injuries 

PE13–016 ................ LX cars, 2006 ............................ 4/05–7/06 153,817 7–8 299 1.94 0/0 

DP14–002 ................ RS vans, 2003–04 .................... 7/02–8/03 425,544 11–12 34 0.08 0/0 

RS vans, 2004–05 .................... 9/03–3/04 208,419 10–11 445 2.14 0/0 

RS vans, 2005–07 .................... 4/04–5/07 1,221,370 7–10 241 0.20 0/0 

Total RS, 2003–07 .................... 7/02–5/07 1,855,333 7–12 720 0.39 0/0 

Subject Vehicle Test Results 

As part of its evaluation of this defect 

petition, NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and 

Test Center (VRTC) conducted testing 

on a 2005 Chrysler Town & Country 

LMT (3.6L SFI, 20 gal. fuel tank) vehicle 

that was the subject of an ODI complaint 

(VOQ 10641603) that provided the 

following description of the problem: 

After fill up, vehicle stalls, the engine cuts 

off and the vehicle loses all power and power 

steering. This happened first on a cross 

country trip and caused some serious safety 

concerns when attempting to exit the gas 

station and merge onto the highway. This 

problem has been occurring regularly from 

the first instance in 2011. When fueling, the 

van is never over filled; we fill until the pump 

clicks off. This seems to be a fairly common 

problem in this generation of minivans as 

represented in online forums trying to 

diagnose the problem. 

VRTC conducted tests on the 

complaint vehicle to assess 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 were 

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. 

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, the 

low failure rate in vehicles with 

approximately 8 to 13 years in service 

and the absence of any reports of 

crashes or injuries. Therefore, in view of 

the need to allocate and prioritize 

NHTSA limited resources to best 

accomplish the Agency’s safety mission, 

the petition is denied. This action does 

not constitute a finding by NHTSA that 

a safety-related defect does not exist. 

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. 

Frank S. Borris II, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08082 Filed 4–7–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES