65054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

1 General Motors, LLC (GM) is a Michigan 

corporation that manufactures motor vehicles. 2 GM’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR 

part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt GM 

from the notification and recall responsibilities of 

49 CFR part 573 for as many as 462,227 of the 

affected vehicles. However, the agency cannot 

relieve GM’s 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 recognized that the 

subject noncompliance existed. Those vehicles 

must be brought into conformance, exported, or 

destroyed. 

noncompliance. Mazda then concluded 

that the vehicles equipped with the 

affected headlamps failed to comply 

with paragraph S7.2(b) of FMVSS No. 

108. 

Mazda stated the following reasons 

why they believe the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to vehicle safety and 

does not present a risk to motor vehicle 

safety: 

The affected headlamps fulfill all the 

relevant performance requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108, except that trade name and/ 

or trademark of the manufacturer or importer 

is missing on the lens. However, the affected 

headlamps have the trademark of the 

headlamp manufacturer on the rim of the 

headlamp housing. Thus, Mazda contends 

that this marking on the rim is visible with 

the vehicle’s front hood open and states that 

it believes that the rim marking could assist 

the easy identification of the headlamp 

manufacturer by the users of the vehicles. 

Mazda has not received any complaints or 

claims related to the noncompliance nor is it 

aware of any known reports of accidents or 

injuries attributed to the noncompliance. 

In summary, Mazda states that it 

believes the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

because the affected headlamps fulfill 

all other relevant requirements of 

FMVSS No. 108. 

The company also states that it has 

taken steps to correct the 

noncompliance in future production. 

Supported by the above stated 

reasons, Mazda believes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety, and that its 

petition, to exempt it 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. 

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: 

a. 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. 

b. By hand delivery 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 am to 5 pm except 

Federal Holidays. 

c. 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 1–202– 

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, selfaddressed 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. 

Comment Closing Date: November 22, 

2010. 

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: October 15, 2010. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26425 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0137; Notice 1] 

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

General Motors, LLC (GM),1 has 

determined that certain 2008 through 

2010 Model Year Chevrolet Malibu 

passenger cars equipped with automatic 

transmissions and manufactured 

between May 2007 through March 2010 

do not fully meet the requirements of 

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 filed 

an appropriate report pursuant to 49 

CFR part 573 Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports, dated March 30, 2010. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule 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. 

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. 

A total of 462,227 2 model year 2008, 

2009 and 2010 Chevrolet Malibu 

passenger cars manufactured during the 

period May 2007 through March 2010 

are potentially affected by the subject 

noncompliance. 

Paragraph S3.1.4.1 of FMVSS No. 102 

requires: 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 65055 

(b) The transmission is not in park. 

GM described the noncompliance as 

the absence of the required transmission 

shift position display for a certain 

ignition key cylinder position. GM 

explained that while the key is in the 

ignition there is a narrow ignition key 

cylinder position between the ‘‘ACC’’ 

and ‘‘OFF’’ positions within which the 

transmission shift lever can be moved 

and the indicator light that illuminates 

the transmission shift position display 

is inoperative. The Company added that 

this noncompliance only occurs when 

the engine is not running. 

GM additionally stated that in all 

other ignition activation and operation 

positions, all of the subject vehicles 

comply with paragraph S3.1.4.1 of 

FMVSS No. 102. 

GM argued its belief that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because: 

As NHTSA recognized in proposing the 

standard (49 FR 32409–32411 (August 25, 

1988)), the purpose of the display 

requirement for PRNDM information is to 

‘‘provide the driver with transmission 

position information for the vehicle 

conditions where such information can 

reduce the likelihood of shifting errors.’’ 

Thus, in all but the rarest circumstances, the 

primary function of the PRNDM display is to 

inform the driver of gear selection and 

relative position of the gears while the engine 

is running. All of the subject vehicles display 

PRNDM information whenever the ignition 

switch is in the ‘‘On’’ or ‘‘Run’’ position. 

With the exception of the absence of the 

required transmission shift position display 

for one narrow ignition key cylinder position, 

the system meets all other applicable 

requirements of FMVSS No. 102. 

GM has no record of any incidents, 

injuries, owner complaints or field reports 

related to this noncompliance. GM added 

that if a customer reports this problem to 

them and requests a remedy, the Company 

will replace the ignition switch with a 

conforming component. 

Since this noncompliance only occurs 

during an atypical operation, the 

noncompliance is not likely to occur under 

normal driving conditions. The only 

circumstance where the noncompliance 

would appear is if the ignition switch is in 

the intermediary position between the ‘‘OFF’’ 

and ‘‘ACC’’ detent positions prior to the 

interlock. In order for this condition to be 

present, a driver would have to first move the 

transmission control to ‘‘PARK.’’ In such a 

case, there are two possible scenarios for the 

driver: 1) leaving the vehicle with the key in 

the ignition or 2) remaining in the vehicle. 

GM provides the following analysis for both 

scenarios: 

1. The driver exits the vehicle while 

leaving the key in the ignition: 

If the driver attempted to remove the key 

before exiting the vehicle, the key would not 

be capable of removal. The doors may also 

still be locked if they are in the factory 

default setting to unlock in the ‘‘PARK’’ 

position. 

As required by S5.1.3 of FMVSS 114, GM 

provides an audible warning to the driver 

that activates whenever the key has been left 

in the ignition locking system and the 

driver’s door is opened. 

The Owner’s Manual supplied with the 

vehicle provides specific warnings and 

instructions on ensuring the vehicle is in 

‘‘PARK’’ and the key is removed before 

exiting the vehicle. 

2. The driver remains in the vehicle: 

If the driver remains in the vehicle, he or 

she would likely either restart the vehicle’s 

engine or attempt to remove the key to exit 

the vehicle. 

If the driver attempts to restart the engine, 

paragraph S3.1.3 of FMVSS No. 102 requires 

that the starter be inoperative whenever the 

vehicle’s transmission shift position is in a 

forward or reverse drive position. The driver 

rotating the ignition switch forward 

attempting to start the engine will definitely 

activate the PRNDM display. Therefore, the 

PRNDM information will be available to the 

driver who can see that the vehicle did not 

start because the transmission was not in 

‘‘Park’’ or ‘‘Neutral’’. 

GM says that because both of these 

situations are addressed by FMVSS 

requirements, a lack of a transmission shift 

position display in either of these cases may 

constitute a minor inconvenience, but will 

have no consequence to safety. In addition, 

GM stated that NHTSA has previously 

granted similar petitions on 3 occasions. 

Furthermore, GM also stated the 

following: 

GM recognizes that there may be isolated 

non-driving situations in which a person may 

desire to know gear selection or the relative 

position of the gears with the engine off, such 

as when placing the vehicle in tow. However, 

these cases occur infrequently and do not 

occur during normal ignition activation and 

vehicle operation. If the subject condition 

[noncompliance] is present during these 

infrequent non-driving situations when 

PRNDM information may be desired, gear 

selection and relative positioning can easily 

be determined by rotating the ignition switch 

slightly clockwise past the accessory ‘‘ACC’’ 

detent to activate the shift indicator display 

without starting the vehicle’s engine. Given 

the nature of these non-driving situations and 

since the information can be readily obtained 

with a slight key rotation, GM believes that 

the subject condition [noncompliance] will 

have no real or implied degradation of motor 

vehicle safety. 

GM stated that previous rulemakings 

and NHTSA decisions on several 

previous inconsequential 

noncompliance petitions further 

support its position that the subject 

noncompliances are inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

GM also indicated that it has 

corrected the problem that caused the 

subject noncompliance so that it cannot 

reoccur in future production. 

In view of the above, GM believes that 

the described noncompliance is 

inconsequential and does not present a 

risk to motor vehicle safety. Thus, GM 

requests that its petition, to exempt it 

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. 

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: 

a. 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. 

b. By hand delivery 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. 

c. 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 1–202– 

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, selfaddressed 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 / Notices 

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. 

Comment closing date: November 22, 

2010. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: October 14, 2010. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26426 Filed 10–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0202] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Diabetes Mellitus 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt thirty-nine 

individuals from its rule prohibiting 

persons with insulin-treated diabetes 

mellitus (ITDM) from operating 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 

interstate commerce. The exemptions 

will enable these individuals to operate 

CMVs in interstate commerce. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

October 21, 2010. The exemptions 

expire on October 22, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Room 

W64–224, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and/or Room 

W12–140 on the ground level of the 

West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or of the person signing 

the comment, if submitted on behalf of 

an association, business, labor union, or 

other entity). You may review DOT’s 

Privacy Act Statement for the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you 

may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2008/pdf/E8–785.pdf. 

Background 

On August 27, 2010, FMCSA 

published a notice of receipt of Federal 

diabetes exemption applications from 

thirty-nine individuals and requested 

comments from the public (75 FR 

52809). The public comment period 

closed on September 27, 2010 and no 

comments were received. 

FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility 

of the thirty-nine applicants and 

determined that granting the 

exemptions to these individuals would 

achieve a level of safety equivalent to, 

or greater than, the level that would be 

achieved by complying with the current 

regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). 

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving 

Experience of the Applicants 

The Agency established the current 

standard for diabetes in 1970 because 

several risk studies indicated that 

drivers with diabetes had a higher rate 

of crash involvement than the general 

population. The diabetes rule provides 

that ‘‘A person is physically qualified to 

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that 

person has no established medical 

history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes 

mellitus currently requiring insulin for 

control’’ (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). 

FMCSA established its diabetes 

exemption program, based on the 

Agency’s July 2000 study entitled ‘‘A 

Report to Congress on the Feasibility of 

a Program To Qualify Individuals with 

Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus To 

Operate in Interstate Commerce as 

Directed by the Transportation Act for 

the 21st Century.’’ The report concluded 

that a safe and practicable protocol to 

allow some drivers with ITDM to 

operate CMVs is feasible. The 

September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) 

Federal Register notice in conjunction 

with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 

67777) Federal Register notice provides 

the current protocol for allowing such 

drivers to operate CMVs in interstate 

commerce. 

These thirty-nine applicants have had 

ITDM over a range of 1 to 33 years. 

These applicants report no severe 

hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss 

of consciousness or seizure, requiring 

the assistance of another person, or 

resulting in impaired cognitive function 

that occurred without warning 

symptoms, in the past 12 months and no 

recurrent (2 or more) severe 

hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 

years. In each case, an endocrinologist 

verified that the driver has 

demonstrated a willingness to properly 

monitor and manage his/her diabetes 

mellitus, received education related to 

diabetes management, and is on a stable 

insulin regimen. These drivers report no 

other disqualifying conditions, 

including diabetes-related 

complications. Each meets the vision 

standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). 

The qualifications and medical 

condition of each applicant were stated 

and discussed in detail in the August 

27, 2010, Federal Register notice and 

they will not be repeated in this notice. 

Discussion of Comment 

FMCSA did not receive any 

comments in this proceeding. 

Basis for Exemption Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption from 

the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to 

achieve an equivalent or greater level of 

safety than would be achieved without 

the exemption. The exemption allows 

the applicants to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce. 

To evaluate the effect of these 

exemptions on safety, FMCSA 

considered medical reports about the 

applicants’ ITDM and vision, and 

reviewed the treating endocrinologists’ 

medical opinion related to the ability of 

the driver to safely operate a CMV while 

using insulin. 

Consequently, FMCSA finds that in 

each case exempting these applicants 

from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. 

Conditions and Requirements 

The terms and conditions of the 

exemption will be provided to the 

applicants in the exemption document 

and they include the following: (1) That 

each individual submit a quarterly 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES