I am the "petitioner". NHTSA & FCA US (Chrysler) completely ignored my allegation that the separated window disables the critical function of the roof & window to protect sensitive/vital electrical harness components from the obvious risk to failure due to flooding damage caused by rain/snow etc. This poses very real dangers such as losing brake/tail light functions which often contribute to rear end collisions (one of the most common of all driving accidents).
Instead they chose to cite and focus ONLY on; injury, fatality, crash, loss of control and glass projectile evidence, in particular, of which there is little, if any, to examine.
I recently read the official response from Chrysler to the NHTSA's Information Request, online, and they reported (in part); only finding ONE consumer complaint to the Company with ONE Vin #, and ZERO involvement in any lawsuit relating to the alleged defect.
I (essentially) said that I believe the Company's response to be dishonest, especially in light of the fact that they were the defendant in our small claims case.
NHTSA's response (essentially) considered this of no concern to their denial decision. I'll have to decide where I go with that.
Any comments especially on potential electrical damage/failure aspect which was deliberately(?) ignored? Didn't NHTSA ignore all potential consequences of GM ignition switch failures for quite a long time? In NHTSA's recent crackdown on FCA US safety related issues, was there a prerequisite for people to be hurt or to die? How exactly do they determine the "unreasonable risk" factor of their legal mandate?