Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 11261 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0144; Notice 2] 

General Motors, LLC; Ruling on 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Ruling on petition. 

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) has 

determined that certain model year 2013 

Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars 

manufactured between June 21, 2011 

and July 24, 2012, do not fully comply 

with paragraphs S3.1.4.1 (a) and (b) 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 

August 3, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR part 

573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Mr. Vince 

Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–2319, facsimile 

(202) 366–5930. 

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. 

Notice of receipt of GM’s petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on September 30, 

2013, in the Federal Register (78 FR 

60019.) No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012– 

0144.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 23,910 model year 2013 

Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars 

manufactured between June 21, 2011 

and July 24, 2012. 

III. Noncompliance: GM explains that 

the noncompliance is that in the subject 

vehicles, because the primary shift lever 

position backlight in the console shift 

indicator can fail to illuminate, the 

transmission shift position selected in 

relation to the other gears is not always 

provided under the required conditions 

specified in S3.1.4.1 (a) and (b). 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S3.1.4.1 (a) 

and (b) of FMVSS No. 102 specifically 

states: 

S3.1.4 Identification of shift positions and 

of shift position sequence. 

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 positions in 

relation to each other and the position 

selected, shall be displayed in view of the 

driver whenever any of the following 

conditions 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. There is minimal risk that the 

operator will shift the vehicle out of 

park without being aware that the 

transmission shift position sequence 

display is not illuminated since the 

condition can only be initiated at keyup (engine crank). The condition cannot 

be initiated while driving. 

2. The condition corrects on the next 

ignition cycle. Throughout our 

investigation it never repeated on 

consecutive ignition cycles. 

3. The gear selected is always 

provided in a redundant display located 

in the instrument panel (IP) cluster. 

a. The up-level IP cluster is utilized 

in 85% of the vehicle production and 

displays the gear selected in relation to 

the other gears for 3 seconds whenever 

the vehicle is shifted. After 3 seconds 

the IP cluster displays only the gear 

selected. 

b. 15% of production has the base IP 

cluster which displays only the gear 

selected. 

4. The system is designed to minimize 

the risk that the operator will shift to an 

unintended gear. 

a. When shifting, a secondary motion 

(button push on shifter) is required to 

help prevent mis-shift. A button on the 

shift lever must be depressed when 

shifting from: 

i. PARK to any other gear: 

ii. REVERSE to any other gear: or 

iii. DRIVE to PARK or REVERSE 

b. NEUTRAL gear selection from 

DRIVE does not require a secondary 

motion (button push on shifter), making 

location of NEUTRAL easier in a panic 

situation. 

c. The gear selected is provided as a 

secondary display in the IP cluster and 

the shifter in the subject vehicle utilizes 

a linear shift pattern (used on U.S. 

vehicles for more than 50 years). Since 

the relationship between PARK, 

REVERSE, NEUTRAL and DRIVE is well 

understood by the driving public, this 

should assist the operator in 

determining the shift lever’s position in 

relationship to the other gear positions 

even when not illuminated. 

d. Brake Transmission Shift Interlock 

(BTSI) helps to assure the driver is not 

caught unaware when shifting from 

PARK since the operator must first 

apply the brake. 

e. On the subject vehicles missshifting is prevented while the vehicles 

are in motion. At speeds above 10 MPH, 

shifting from DRIVE to REVERSE or 

PARK; or shifting from REVERSE to 

PARK or DRIVE, is electronically 

inhibited. 

5. The frequency of the condition 

occurring is rare and random. 

a. As of 25 July 2012, there were only 

ten reported incidents which occurred 

on seven of 285 captured test fleet (CTF) 

vehicles. The condition was reported 

twice on two of the CTF vehicles and 

did not occur on consecutive ignition 

cycles. 

b. During the investigation, it took 

more than a week of testing during 

which approximately 1000 ignition 

cycles were conducted on each of four 

CTF vehicles reported to have the 

condition in order to recreate the 

occurrence. 

c. Warranty claims as of 25 July 2012 

i. U.S. Warranty 3 of 8,573 vehicles 

ii. China Warranty 2 of 11,872 

vehicles 

iii. Korea Warranty 3 of 4,968 vehicles 

d. None of the Warranty claims or 

CTF reports indicated that the operator 

had experienced a mis-shift condition. 

e. No claims were discovered related 

to injury or crash. 

f. As of August 1, 2012, GM found no 

Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaires (VOQs) 

resulting from the subject condition 

during its search of the NHTSA 

database. 

6. GM stated its belief that NHTSA 

granted a similar petition in the past. 

On August 16, 2013 GM additionally 

informed NHTSA in an email message 

that it corrected the noncompliance on 

August 3, 2012 so that all future 

production would 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 from providing recall 

notification of noncompliance as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

remedying the recall noncompliance as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 40 / Monday, March 2, 2015 / Notices 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be 

granted. 

VI. NHTSA’s Decision: NHTSA has 

reviewed GM’s analyses that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. GM has identified 

an intermittent condition during which 

the automatic transmission positions on 

the console-mounted transmission 

control will not be illuminated at key 

startup. FMVSS No. 102, paragraph 

S3.1.4.1 requires the indicator to display 

identification of an automatic 

transmission’s positions, including the 

position selected and the positions in 

relation to each other in view of the 

driver. FMVSS No. 101, paragraph 

S5.3.1(b) and Table 1 require the 

automatic transmission control position 

indicator to be illuminated whenever 

the headlamps are activated. GM stated 

that the failure of illumination is very 

rare, has occurred only at startup (not 

during driving), and has never been 

found to repeat on consecutive ignition 

cycles. However, when it does occur, 

the transmission position indicator on 

the console will not be illuminated 

throughout that operating period. The 

indicator identifies P,R,N,D or M (M1– 

M6) and, except when the 

noncompliance occurs at key startup, is 

illuminated as required. 

FMVSS No. 102 paragraph S3.1.4 

permits a redundant display providing 

some or all of the required information. 

GM identified two instrument clusters 

used in the affected vehicles that 

provide different amounts of redundant 

information. The transmission position 

selected is always displayed on both 

clusters. In addition, for vehicles other 

than the base model (approximately 15 

percent of the affected vehicles), the 

cluster display includes the position 

selected and the positions in relation to 

each other for three seconds whenever 

the transmission is shifted. 

The redundant display on the cluster 

identifies the transmission position 

selected for all affected vehicles. It is 

likely that drivers will become 

accustomed to looking at the instrument 

cluster rather than looking down at the 

console to confirm the desired 

transmission position, i.e., ‘‘D,’’ has 

been selected. So the lack of 

illumination on the console at startup 

may go unnoticed. In a panic situation, 

an inexperienced driver may not be 

familiar with the other positions, i.e., 

how to shift from ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘N’’ to recover 

control of the vehicle if an unintended 

acceleration occurs. Since the cluster of 

85 percent of the vehicles displays this 

information for 3 seconds after every 

shift, this frequent reminder is 

considered sufficient to alert the driver 

about the relationship to the other 

transmission positions. The 15 percent 

(base models) are not so equipped and 

present an unreasonable risk to safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that for all except 

the base model vehicles, GM has met its 

burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, GM’s petition is hereby 

partially granted and GM is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for the 

subject noncompliance for the non-base 

model Malibu vehicles (approximately 

85 percent of the affected vehicles) 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 

For the base model Malibu vehicles 

(approximately 15 percent of the 

affected vehicles), NHTSA has decided 

that GM has not met its burden of 

persuasion that the FMVSS No. 102 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, for 

those vehicle’s GM’s petition is hereby 

denied and GM is obligated to provide 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

subject 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 23,910 

model year 2013 Chevrolet Malibu 

passenger cars that GM 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 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) 

Nancy Lummen Lewis, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04150 Filed 2–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

Notice and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: 60-day notice of request for 

extension: Notifications of Trails Act 

Agreement and Substitute Sponsorship. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation 

Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its 

intent to seek from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) an 

extension of approval for the collection: 

Notifications of Trails Act Agreement 

and Substitute Sponsorship. 

Under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and its 

regulations, the STB will issue a 

Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or 

Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) to a 

prospective trail sponsor who offers to 

assume managerial, tax, and legal 

responsibility for a right-of-way that a 

rail carrier would otherwise abandon. 

The CITU/NITU permits parties, for 180 

days, to negotiate for a railbanking 

agreement. If parties reach an 

agreement, the CITU/NITU 

automatically authorizes railbanking/

interim trail use. If no agreement is 

reached, then upon expiration of the 

negotiation period, the CITU/NITU 

authorizes the railroad to exercise its 

option to fully abandon the line without 

further action by the Board. 

Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29, parties 

must jointly notify the Board when a 

trail use agreement has been reached, 

and must identify the exact location of 

the right-of-way subject to the 

agreement, including a map and 

milepost marker information. The rules 

also require parties to file a petition to 

modify or vacate the CITU/NITU if the 

trail use agreement applies to less of the 

right-of-way than covered by the CITU/ 

NITU. Finally, the rules require that a 

substitute trail sponsor must 

acknowledge that interim trail use is 

subject to restoration and reactivation at 

any time. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

(1) The accuracy of the Board’s burden 

estimates; (2) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (3) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology when 

appropriate; and (4) whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Board, including 

whether the collection has practical 

utility. Submitted comments will be 

summarized and included in the 

Board’s request for OMB approval. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES