
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29501-29502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11881]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0045; Notice 1]


General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC, ``GM'' has determined that certain model 
year (MY) 2014 GMC Sierra Denali vehicles do not fully comply with 
paragraph S3.1.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and 
Transmission Braking Effect. GM has filed an appropriate report dated 
January 31, 2014 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. GM's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), GM submitted a petition for an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the 
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 2,747 MY 2014 GMC Sierra Denali vehicles 
equipped with RPO code ``UHS'' instrument cluster displays that were 
manufactured between July 16, 2013 and January 27, 2014.

III. Noncompliance

    GM explains that while the subject vehicles are being driven the 
gear shift selection indicator (a.k.a., PRNDM) may not be visible for 
approximately 1.3 seconds during an instrument cluster reset, thus, 
failing to fully meet the requirements set forth in paragraph S3.1.4.1 
of FMVSS No. 102.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102 requires:

    S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission 
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of 
shift positions, including the position in relation to each other 
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver 
whenever any of the following exist:
    (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be 
shifted; or
    (b) The transmission is not in park.

V. Summary of GM's Analyses

    GM stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. GM believes that the condition is extremely unlikely to occur. 
For the condition to occur, the instrument cluster design input rate 
must be exceeded. This can only happen under extreme load conditions. 
For example, GM was able to create the condition in the laboratory by 
simultaneously inputting a series of warnings into the cluster during 
an active search of a media device connected to the vehicle while a 
Bluetooth call is received by the vehicle.
    2. GM states that any disruption of the PRNDM display as a result 
of this condition is very brief. In the unlikely event the condition 
were to occur and the instrument cluster resets, the PRNDM display 
would be restored within 1.3 seconds. This momentary reset would be a 
clear indication to the driver that service may be required.
    3. GM also believes that the condition has little effect on the 
normal operation of the vehicle. While the operation of the instrument 
panel is briefly affected by the underlying condition, none of the 
other vehicle operations are affected.
    4. GM states that the condition is extremely remote and not likely 
to occur during shifting. Considering the unusual combination of pre-
conditions for the condition to occur, it is very unlikely the brief 
disruption of the PRNDM display would occur when it is needed, i.e., 
during shifting. Most shifting occurs shortly after the vehicle is 
started, or just prior to being turned off. In the rare instance of a 
cluster reset, it would be more likely to occur during driving, not 
immediately after starting the vehicle or just prior to the driver 
exiting the vehicle.
    5. GM is not aware of any reported instrument cluster resets as a 
result of the subject noncompliance.

[[Page 29502]]

    6. GM also expressed its belief that for previous noncompliances 
that GM believes were similar, NHTSA granted petitions for 
inconsequential noncompliance.
    GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the 
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with 
FMVSS No. 102.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the 
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that 
its petition, to exempt GM from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    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, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that GM no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve GM distributors 
and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or 
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of 
the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after GM 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)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11881 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


