6928 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 

systems would help eliminate this 

hazard, and provide a safer working 

environment. 

Seven commenters identified 

themselves as owners of small towing 

companies that use rechargeable 

wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail 

lighting systems when conducting 

temporary emergency tows. These 

commenters echoed the comments 

above, noting that use of the wireless 

systems allows operators to clear 

accident scenes from roadways faster 

and thereby increases tow operator 

safety. 

Four additional commenters 

supported TowMate’s application, 

noting the same benefits as the other 

commenters. 

Discussion 

Prior to August 2005, section 393.23 

of the FMCSRs was titled ‘‘Lighting 

devices to be electric,’’ and stated 

‘‘Lighting devices shall be electric, 

except that red liquid-burning lanterns 

may be used on the end of loads in the 

nature of poles, pipes, and ladders 

projecting to the rear of the motor 

vehicle.’’ In a final rule published on 

August 15, 2005, FMCSA amended 

section 393.23 of the FMCSRs to 

incorporate terminology which is more 

consistent with current industry 

standards and practices (70 FR 48008). 

Specifically, the title of section 393.23 

was revised to read ‘‘Power supply for 

lamps,’’ the reference to red liquidburning lanterns was removed as 

obsolete, and—as it relates to the subject 

exemption application—the rule was 

amended to permit the use of battery 

powered lamps on projecting loads. 

With respect to the use of battery 

powered lamps, the August 2005 rule 

states ‘‘With the exception of temporary 

lamps used on projecting loads, lamps 

are required to be powered through the 

electrical system of the commercial 

motor vehicle.’’ [Emphasis added]. 

Motor vehicles transporting loads 

which extend more than 4 feet beyond 

the rear of the motor vehicle, or which 

have tailboards or tailgates extending 

more than 4 feet beyond the body, are 

required to mark those projections when 

the vehicle is operated during the hours 

when headlamps are required. 

Specifically, each side of the projecting 

load is required to be marked with one 

red side marker lamp, visible from the 

side, located to indicate the maximum 

overhang, and the rear of the projecting 

load is required to be marked with two 

red lamps, visible from the rear, one at 

each side, and two red reflectors visible 

from the rear, one at each side, located 

so as to indicate the maximum width of 

the projection. By expressly permitting 

battery powered lamps on projecting 

loads via the August 2005 final rule, the 

Agency has directly acknowledged the 

viability of lighting systems powered by 

sources other than the vehicle’s 

electrical system in limited applications 

where the lamps required by the 

regulations are temporary in nature due 

to the specific vehicle operation. 

Section 393.17 of the FMCSRs 

prescribes the lighting requirements for 

vehicles engaged in driveaway-towaway 

operations. A vehicle combination 

consisting of a tow vehicle pulling a 

wrecked or disabled vehicle is 

considered a driveaway-towaway 

operation, and the combination needs to 

be equipped with the lighting devices 

specified in section 393.17. Specifically 

with respect to the rear of the rearmost 

towed vehicle in such a combination, 

section 393.17(b)(2) requires at least two 

tail lamps, two stop lamps, two turn 

signals, two clearance lamps, and two 

reflectors, one of each type at each side. 

In addition, if any vehicle in the 

combination is 80 inches or more in 

overall width, there must be three 

identification lamps on the rear. Similar 

to the temporary lamps required on the 

rear of projecting loads, the required 

lamps on the rear of a wrecked or 

disabled vehicle being transported to a 

motor carrier’s terminal or facility for 

repairs are temporary in nature. 

FMCSA Decision 

FMCSA has evaluated the comments 

received in support of TowMate’s 

application. The Agency agrees that 

permitting the use of rechargeable 

wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail 

lighting systems during temporary 

towing operations will reduce the time 

tow operators spend at the side of the 

road connecting wired lighting systems 

between vehicles, thereby reducing their 

risk of injury and increasing safety. The 

Agency believes that use of the 

rechargeable wireless lighting systems 

will maintain a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

of safety achieved without the 

exemption. This decision is consistent 

with the amendment made in the 

August 2005 final rule to allow battery 

powered lamps on the rear of projecting 

loads. 

Terms and Conditions for the 

Exemption 

The Agency hereby grants the 

exemption for a two-year period, 

beginning February 9, 2016 and ending 

February 9, 2018. During the temporary 

exemption period, motor carriers will be 

allowed to use rechargeable wireless 

temporary stop, turn, and tail lighting 

systems that do not meet the lighting 

power supply requirements of 49 CFR 

393.23 during temporary towing 

operations, provided the requirements 

of 49 CFR 393.17(b)(2) are met. The 

exemption will be valid for two years 

unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The 

exemption will be rescinded if: (1) 

Motor carriers and/or commercial motor 

vehicles fail to comply with the terms 

and conditions of the exemption; (2) the 

exemption has resulted in a lower level 

of safety than was maintained before it 

was granted; or (3) continuation of the 

exemption would not be consistent with 

the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315(b). 

Interested parties possessing 

information that would demonstrate 

that motor carriers using rechargeable 

wireless temporary stop, turn, and tail 

lighting systems during temporary 

towing operations are not achieving the 

requisite statutory level of safety should 

immediately notify FMCSA. The 

Agency will evaluate any such 

information and, if safety is being 

compromised or if the continuation of 

the exemption is not consistent with 49 

U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take 

immediate steps to revoke the 

exemption. 

Preemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 

381.600, during the period this 

exemption is in effect, no State shall 

enforce any law or regulation applicable 

to interstate commerce that conflicts 

with or is inconsistent with this 

exemption with respect to a firm or 

person operating under the exemption. 

States may, but are not required to, 

adopt the same exemption with respect 

to operations in intrastate commerce. 

Issued on: January 29, 2016. 

T.F. Scott Darling, III, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02511 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0134; Notice 2] 

General Motors 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: General Motors LLC, (GM) has 

determined that certain model year 2014 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 6929 

1A copy of this letter is attached to GM’s petition 

and is available in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA–2013– 

0134–0001. 

Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 

trucks manufactured between January 

29, 2013, and October 28, 2013, do not 

fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1(e) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and 

Displays, and paragraph S3.1.4.1 of 

FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift 

Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, 

and Transmission Braking Effect. GM 

filed a report dated October 31, 2013, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. GM then petitioned NHTSA in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 556 

requesting a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Amina Fisher, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5307, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. GM’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 

implementing those provisions at 49 

CFR part 556, GM has petitioned 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 the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on February 24, 2014, 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 10226). 

Four individuals and the Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 

provided comments to the receipt 

notice. To view the petition, the 

comments, 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–2013– 

0134.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are 

approximately 200,921 model year 2014 

Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 

trucks manufactured between January 

29, 2013, and October 28, 2013. 

III. Noncompliance: GM explains that 

the noncompliance is that under certain 

circumstances when an owner uses the 

steering wheel controls to browse and 

select songs to play from an external 

device (i.e., MP3 player) that is plugged 

into one of the vehicle’s USB ports, the 

instrument cluster may reset. When the 

instrument cluster resets the analog 

gauges and identifications, the PRNDM 

[shift position] indicator, and the cruise 

control telltale, if illuminated, will 

briefly extinguish. In addition, some of 

the instrument cluster telltales may also 

illuminate briefly during a bulb check 

without the condition the telltale is 

designed to indicate being present. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.3.1 of 

FMVSS No. 101 states specifically: 

S5.3.1 Timing of illumination 

. . . 

(e) A telltale must not emit light except 

when identifying the malfunction or vehicle 

condition it is designed to indicate, or during 

a bulb check. 

Paragraph S3.1.4. of FMVSS No. 102 

states specifically: 

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 

states that the subject noncompliance is 

unlikely to occur in that all of the 

following conditions have to exist: The 

driver must operate a media device 

inserted into one of the vehicle’s USB 

ports in a very specific way; the 

redundant steering wheel controls must 

be used to select a song; the driver must 

then search for a particular song by 

depressing the left arrow on the right 

spoke of the steering wheel, then select 

‘‘audio’’ using the steering wheel 

controls, then select ‘‘browse’’ using the 

steering wheel controls, then scroll to a 

particular song using the steering wheel 

control, then select a song to play. If the 

driver selects ‘‘browse’’ using the 

steering wheel controls to select a 

second song, the subject condition may 

occur, but only if the total information 

in titles of the buffered songs exceeds 

2000 bytes. 

GM believes that the condition is 

short-lived as disruption of the PRNDM 

is said to persist for one and one half 

seconds, and the telltale bulb check is 

said to persist for approximately five 

seconds. GM cited a 1979 interpretation 

to Ford in which NHTSA acknowledged 

that a short-lived inability to view 

telltales does not necessarily warrant 

manufacturers correcting the condition.1

NHTSA is quoted as stating, ‘‘This 

means that the tell-tales and their 

identification need not be visible to the 

driver when the tell-tales are struck by 

direct sunlight. Since conditions such as 

these are typically short-lived, the 

NHTSA does not believe that the length 

of time the driver may be unable to view 

the tell-tales is significant enough to 

warrant requiring the manufacturer to 

prevent their occurrence.’’ 

GM states that the noncompliance 

that is the subject of the petition has 

little effect on the normal operation of 

the vehicle. GM states that when the 

operation of the instrument panel is 

briefly affected by the noncompliance, 

none of the other vehicle operations are 

affected; any underlying messages 

remain in place and will continue to be 

displayed after the instrument panel 

resets; other operations, like cruise 

control, are unaffected by the 

noncompliance (only the displays on 

the instrument panel are briefly affected 

by the condition); and if the 

noncompliance were to occur, it is 

unlikely the brief disruption of the 

PRNDM will affect the driver. 

Lastly, GM states that NHTSA has 

previously granted petitions for a 

determination of inconsequential 

noncompliance, finding no risk to motor 

vehicle safety, where the sequence of 

events causing the noncompliant 

condition is exceptionally rare. GM 

states that these granted petitions allow 

specific telltales to extinguish for a 

limited period of time while the vehicle 

is being operated. 

In summation, GM believes that the 

described noncompliance of the subject 

vehicles is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety, and that its petition, to be 

exempt from providing recall 

notification of the 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’s Decision 

NHTSA’S Analysis: NHTSA has 

reviewed GM’s justification for an 

inconsequential noncompliance 

determination and agrees that the 

specific noncompliance addressed is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

GM states its belief that the subject 

condition is unlikely to occur due to the 

series of events that must take place 

before the instrument cluster resets. GM 

explains that the driver must operate a 

USB media device by using the steering 

wheel controls to search for a song, 

select ‘‘audio’’, select ‘‘browse’’, and 

select another song to play while the 

total information in titles of the buffered 

songs exceeds 2000 bytes for the 

condition to occur. 

GM states that the condition is shortlived with the disruption of the PRNDM 

illumination lasting approximately one 

and one half seconds and the telltale 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

6930 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Notices 

bulb check lasting approximately five 

seconds. According to GM, the 

condition will have little effect on the 

normal operation of the vehicle as no 

underlying systems are affected by the 

failure. 

After receipt of GM’s petition, NHTSA 

requested more information regarding 

the subject noncompliance. GM 

submitted videos showing that when the 

condition occurs any existing warning 

lights extinguish, the indicators (gauges) 

drop to zero, and operation of the entire 

instrument panel is interrupted. 

Specifically, any illuminated telltales 

extinguish for approximately one and 

one half seconds before a bulb check 

that lasts approximately five seconds is 

initiated. At the conclusion of the bulb 

check, any previously illuminated 

telltales will illuminate and remain 

illuminated. 

NHTSA agrees with GM that if the 

instrument panel reset were to happen 

it would only be a momentary 

condition, the instrument panel telltales 

and indicators would extinguish and 

return to normal very quickly, with 

little, if any, impact to the driver. 

GM mentioned two previous petitions 

that the agency granted due to the loss 

or failure of telltale indications. In the 

first petition, General Motors Corp.; 

Grant of Petition for Determination of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR 

33323 (July 19, 1991), the 

noncompliance would only manifest 

itself when the headlight high beams 

were turned on and the cigar lighter was 

activated. In this situation the required 

high beam telltale could dim or 

extinguish altogether for a short period 

of time while the cigar lighter was being 

powered. The petition was granted 

because the agency determined there 

was no consequence to motor vehicle 

safety attached to the extinguishment of 

the high beam telltale. 

In the second petition, submitted by 

Nissan, Nissan North America, 

Incorporated, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 59090, (Sept. 25, 

2013), under rare circumstances the 

transmission gear selected was not 

always displayed correctly as required. 

The petition was granted because it was 

only possible for the gear indication to 

extinguish when the engine was 

inactive and the vehicle was inoperable. 

Upon reactivating the engine the gear 

indicator displayed the correct gear. 

Five commenters (four individuals 

and the Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety) provided comments about 

GM’s petition when NHTSA issued the 

notice of receipt in the Federal Register. 

One individual stated that ‘‘there is 

no such potential product recall as 

‘inconsequential’ ’’ and that ‘‘all product 

recalls must be effectively enforced 

against the vehicle manufacturer.’’ We 

note that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

requires the Secretary of Transportation 

to provide the vehicle manufacturers an 

opportunity to submit information, 

views, and arguments showing that a 

noncompliance does not impact motor 

vehicle safety. NHTSA is then required 

to consider information and arguments 

submitted and make a determination 

whether the noncompliance is, or is not, 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

If NHTSA determines that the subject 

noncompliance has no consequence to 

motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer 

is exempted from notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

The second individual commenter 

believes that GM should conduct a 

recall because the touch screen is not 

covered by the vehicle’s warranty. The 

agency feels that this comment is not 

relevant because the steering wheel 

controls (rather than the touch screen on 

the center console) are the controls that 

must be used for the subject 

noncompliance to occur. 

The two remaining individuals that 

provided comments believe that 

anything causing a distraction to the 

occupants of a motor vehicle under 

operation should be recalled. One of the 

commenters expressed that using a USB 

music device would be distracting and 

the other believes that the cluster 

becoming inoperable, even for a second, 

is enough time to distract the driver and 

cause an accident. 

After reviewing the video provided by 

GM, the agency believes that a reset of 

the instrument panel would be 

corrected quickly within seconds, before 

the driver would be distracted, or 

realize what was happening. 

The Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety does not specifically support the 

granting or denial of GM’s petition, but 

believes that the existence of such a 

malfunction raises serious questions 

regarding vehicle design which can lead 

to this kind of situation. 

Finally, GM stated that a Service 

Update Bulletin was issued to update 

the software of all IP clusters whenever 

any service to the affected vehicles is 

done at the dealership. The agency 

understands that GM’s action to update 

the IP cluster software on these vehicles 

as they are brought in for regular service 

should reduce considerably the number 

of affected vehicles. 

NHTSA’S Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided 

that GM has met its burden of 

persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101 and 

FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance in the 

affected vehicles is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM’s 

petition is hereby granted and GM is not 

obligated to provide 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 

noncompliant vehicles 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. 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02415 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0035; Notice 2] 

McLaren Automotive, Inc. (McLaren), 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: McLaren has determined that 

certain model year (MY) 2012–2015 

MP4 12–C Spider and Coupe passenger 

cars do not fully comply with paragraph 

S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire 

Pressure Monitoring Systems. McLaren 

filed a report dated February 18, 2014, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. McLaren then petitioned 

NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 

requesting a decision that the subject 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES