General Motors Corporation; Receipt of Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Barry Felrice Date: 26 July 1995 Subject: American Government • Safety Topics: Chevrolet Suburban • Chevrolet Tahoe • GMC Yukon

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38392-38393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18383]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 95-57; Notice 1]


General Motors Corporation; Receipt of Application for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) of Warren, Michigan, has determined 
that some of its vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of 49 
CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 
``Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' and has filed 
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.'' GM has also applied to be exempted from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301-``Motor 
Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the noncompliance in inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of an application 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 application.
    In FMVSS No. 108, Paragraph S5.5.10(d) requires that ``all other 
lamps [not mentioned in Paragraphs S5.510(a-c) which includes all stop 
lamps such as enter high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs)] shall be wired to 
be steady-burning.''
    During the 1995 model year, GM manufactured a total of 96,607 GMC 
and Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, and 

[[Page 38393]]
Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles that have CHMSLs that were inadvertently wired 
in a manner which permits the CHMSLs to momentarily flash under certain 
conditions while the driver is in the process of activating or 
deactivating the hazard flashers. As a result, they do not meet the 
requirement stated in Paragraph S5.5.10(d) that they be ``wired to be 
steady-burning.'' While GM designed the subject vehicles to meet this 
requirement, it subsequently discovered a transient contact condition 
inside the multi-function (brake lamp, CHMSL, turn signal, and hazard 
flasher) switch which occasionally causes the CHMSL to flash while the 
driver is in the process of turning the hazard flasher switch ``on'' or 
``off.'' The error was corrected in production in March 1995 by adding 
a brake lamp relay to the I/P harness to provide isolation from the 
multi-function switch transient.
    GM supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following:

    The CHMSL preforms properly at all times when the service brakes 
are applied. The transient condition will not occur if the service 
brakes are applied when the driver activates or deactivates the 
hazard flasher switch. Therefore, the CHMSL will not flash when it 
is required to be steady-burning. The CHMSL will not flash if the 
ignition switch is in the ``off'' position. Thus, the condition will 
not occur if the hazard flashers are turned ``off'' or ``on'' when 
the ignition is off and the vehicle is parked at the side of the 
road, for example.
    If the CHMSL flashes at all, it will illuminate a maximum of 
three times during the transient condition, with each pulse lasting 
0.5 [millisecond (ms)] to 4.0 ms. The entire unintended event, in 
its worst case, lasts no more than 125.8 ms. This extremely short 
duration is likely to go entirely unnoticed by following drivers in 
many instances. In the event that it is noticed, it is not likely to 
be confused with anything other than the hazard flashers. Since the 
flashers will be activated while the unintended condition occurs, 
but the brake lamps will not be, this will not present a safety 
risk.
    The CHMSL otherwise meets all of the requirements of FMVSS 108.
    In a 1989 interpretation, NHTSA discussed the difference between 
the requirements that stop lamps be steady-burning and hazard 
warning lights flash. NHTSA explained:
    Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady-burning, and 
hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn 
signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that the 
stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in 
motion, while hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the 
vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily 
recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning 
begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove 
confusing to motorists, thereby diluting the effectiveness.

August 8, 1989 letter from S.P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
to L.P. Egley

    While this condition technically causes a lamp which is 
ordinarily steady burning to begin to flash, it will not likely 
``prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its 
effectiveness,'' because it will not occur if the service brakes are 
applied. Even if the condition were mistaken for a brake signal 
(which is doubtful since CHMSLs do not flash with brake lamp 
activation), the following driver would not likely react to it. 
According to recent research studies conducted by GM, as well as 
field data, it takes a following driver at least 0.5 seconds to 
react to a signal and apply the service brakes once [a] preceding 
vehicle's brake lamps are activated. Given the extremely short 
duration of the transient CHMSL condition, the misinterpreted signal 
would be gone long before the following driver could respond.
    Hazard flashers are not frequently used. Thus, the exposure of 
following drivers to the noncompliant condition would be very 
limited. This is particularly true because of the transient nature 
of the condition, its short duration, and the fact that it will not 
occur at all if the service brakes are applied or the vehicle's 
ignition is off.
    GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints, or 
field reports related to this condition.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the application of GM described above. Comments should 
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, D.C., 20590. It is requested but not required 
that six copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the 
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: August 25, 1995.

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: July 21, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-18383 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P-M