General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: GMC Sierra
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
May 22, 2014
[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