General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: General Motors
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
22 February 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7847-7849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03677]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0125; 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 (MY) 2015 GMC multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM has filed a
noncompliance report dated November 5, 2014. GM also petitioned NHTSA
on November 26, 2014, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5319, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM has determined that certain MY 2015 GMC MPVs do not
fully comply with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). GM has filed a noncompliance
report dated November 5, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. GM also petitioned NHTSA on
November 26, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 11, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR
33334). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0125.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 51,616 MY 2015
GMC Yukon, Yukon Denali, Yukon XL, and Yukon XL Denali MPVs
manufactured between September 19, 2013, and October 10, 2014. See GM's
petition for additional details.
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that
under certain conditions the parking lamps on the subject vehicles fail
to meet the device activation requirements of paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS
No. 108.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS No. 108 titled
``Activation,'' as detailed in Table I-a, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition:
Parking lamps must be activated when the headlamps are
activated in a steady burning state.
V. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons:
(A) GM explains that the condition is difficult to create even in
laboratory settings, let alone real-world driving conditions. GM also
stated that they were only able to duplicate the condition under the
following circumstances:
The vehicle is being operated during the daytime with the
master lighting switch in ``AUTO'' mode.
The transmission is not in ``Park.''
Three or more high-inrush current spikes that exceed the
body control module (BCM) inrush current threshold occur on the parking
lamp/daytime running lamp (DRL) circuit within a period of 0.625
seconds. While there may be other methods for triggering these spikes
(e.g., a service event), GM has only been able to isolate one cause:
manually moving the master lighting control from ``AUTO'' to parking
lamp (or headlamp), back to ``AUTO'' and back to parking lamp (or
headlamp) within 0.625 seconds.
(B) GM believes that drivers are unlikely to cause these spikes
during real-world driving. The subject vehicles are equipped with
automatic-headlamp operation, so there is very little need for drivers
to ever manually operate their vehicle's master lighting control. But
even if a driver were inclined to do so, rapidly cycling a vehicle's
master lighting control from ``AUTO'' to parking lamp (or headlamp)
back to ``AUTO'' and back to parking lamp (or headlamp) in less than a
second is a highly unusual maneuver that few (if
[[Page 7848]]
any) drivers would ever attempt during normal vehicle operation.
(C) GM additionally explained that the condition is short-lived and
that if the condition does occur any of the following routine
operations will automatically correct the condition:
The ignition is turned off and then on with the master
lighting control in ``AUTO'' mode.
Turning the ignition off with the master lighting control
in any mode other than ``AUTO,'' and then turning the ignition back on
after a minimum of ten minutes.
Cycling the master lighting control to off and then back
to any on position.
If the vehicle is in DRL mode, activating both turn
signals, or shifting the transmission in and out of ``PARK.''
(D) GM notes that while the condition affects the parking lamps and
DRLs it does not affect the operation of the vehicle's other lamps.
(E) GM also cited a previous petition that NHTSA granted dealing
with a noncompliance that GM believes is similar to the noncompliance
that is the subject of its petition.
GM is not aware of any field incidents or warranty claims relating
to the subject noncompliance.
GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it corrected the
noncompliance in subsequent production of the subject vehicles.
In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, seeking 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.
GM's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov/ and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this
notice.
NHTSA'S Decision:
NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts GM's analyses that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA stresses that compliant parking lamps are important safety
features of vehicles. There are a number of factors that led NHTSA to
the conclusion that under the specific circumstances described in this
petition, this situation would have a low probability of occurrence
and, if it should occur, it would neither be long lasting nor likely to
occur during a period when parking lamps are generally in use.
Importantly, when the noncompliance does occur, other lamps remain
functional. The combination of all of the factors, specific to this
case, abate the risk to safety.
As defined by FMVSS No. 108, parking lamps are lamps on both the
left and right of the vehicle which show to the front and are intended
to mark the vehicle when parked or serve as a reserve front position
indicating system in the event of headlamp failure. While this
definition does not mention daytime or nighttime, NHTSA believes the
primary benefit of parking lamps to motor vehicle safety occurs during
dusk and darkness.
Based on GM's explanation, the condition during which the parking
lamps do not activate simultaneously with the headlamps could only
originate under a very narrow set of circumstances that cause the
vehicle to falsely diagnose a short-to-ground of the parking lamp
circuit. Furthermore, these narrow circumstances would only occur when
the DRLs are activated which is during the daytime. For the condition
to present itself during darkness, it would have had to originate
during the day and continue operation past twilight, because that is
when the headlamps and other required lamps (including parking lamps)
are automatically activated. In addition, the condition would only
exist until one of the actions that would reset the system and
eliminate the condition occurred. GM explains the five conditions under
which this occurs,\1\ including actions like turning the vehicle off
and then back on again while the lighting switch is in the default
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other reset conditions include: The ignition is turned off
and then turned on with the master lighting control in ``AUTO''
mode; the ignition is turned off with the master lighting control in
any mode other than ``AUTO'' and the vehicle is restarted after the
ignition is off for a minimum of ten minutes; the master lighting
control is turned off and then to any on position; the transmission
is moved in and out of ``Park'' while the vehicle is in DRL mode
(daytime and master lighting control is in ``AUTO'' position); or
both turn signals are activated while the vehicle is in DRL mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, NHTSA concludes that there is a very remote chance that
this situation would occur during dusk or darkness when parking lamps
are important to safety and, importantly, that if the situation were to
occur, it would correct itself during normal vehicle operations.
GM referred to two prior inconsequential noncompliance petitions
NHTSA granted involving noncompliant conditions caused by a rare, or
very specific and rare sequence of events. The first was a petition
from Nissan North America (see 78 FR 59090), regarding a unique
sequence of actions that can lead to the shift position indicator
displaying the incorrect shift position. While this issue was
considered a rare occurrence, the primary reason for granting the
petition was that the vehicle could not be started or operated when the
shift position indicator was in its noncompliant state. NHTSA does not
believe that this prior petition supports GM's argument in this case
since the relevant issue is that the vehicles under GM's current
petition can be operated with the noncompliant condition.
The second was a petition from GM (see 78 FR 35355), regarding the
occupant classification system telltale. In this case, GM explained,
that on rare occasions (estimated as once every 18 months) during a
particular ignition cycle, the passenger airbag telltale indicates that
the airbag is ``OFF,'' regardless of whether the airbag was or was not
suppressed at the time. Despite the erroneous telltale, the airbag
still functioned as designed and there was no danger to the vehicle
occupants because of this noncompliance. Once again, NHTSA does not
believe that this prior petition supports GM's argument in this case
because the airbag was still fully functional and operating as
designed.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that GM has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
GM's petition is hereby granted and GM is consequently exempted from
the obligation of providing 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 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
[[Page 7849]]
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,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-03677 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P