```

[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
```