General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 35355-35357 [2013-13928]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Notices Startrans also states that the number of vehicles that potentially require remedy is 107,250 and represents several concerns. These vehicles are already registered and currently represent no concern with licensing. To perform a remedy on this many vehicles invites the possibility of certification decals being reinstalled on the wrong vehicles. Startrans has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 120. In summation, Startrans believes that the described noncompliance of its 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 required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted. Background Requirement: Section § 5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 specifically states: 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 approximately 107,250 vehicles that Startrans no longer controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject vehicles. 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 Startrans notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8) Issued On: June 5, 2013. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. (a) After each GAWR listed on the certification label required by § 567.4 or § 567.5 of this chapter; or at the option of the manufacturer, (b) On the tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the manner, location, and form described in § 567.4 (b) through (f) of this chapter as appropriate of each GVWR–GAWR combination listed on the certification label. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES § 5.3 Each vehicle shall show the information specified in § 5.3.1 and § 5.3.2 and, in the case of a vehicle equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire, the information specified in § 5.3.3, in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the format set forth following this paragraph. This information shall appear either— National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts Startrans analyses that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In addition, NHTSA has verified that the certification and tire labels do comply with all other safety performance requirements of FMVSS No. 120. NHTSA agrees that, despite the lettering size discrepancy, the labels are clear and legible. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that Startrans has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 120 labeling noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Startrans’ petition is hereby granted, and Startrans is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 3018 and 30120. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:32 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 [FR Doc. 2013–13920 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0006; Notice 2] General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Grant of Petition. AGENCY: SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain model year 2012; Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain and Saab 9–4x multipurpose passenger vehicles, and Chevrolet Cruze passenger cars, do not fully comply with paragraph § 19.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. GM has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated September 6, 2011. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35355 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 August 9, 2012, in the Federal Register (77 FR 47697). No comments were received. To view the petition, the comments, and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: https:// www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–0006.’’ For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Charles Case, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366–5319. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 3,599 Cadillac SRX, 11,459 Chevrolet Equinox, 5,080 GMC Terrain and 24 Saab 9–4x multipurpose passenger vehicles; and 27,392 Chevrolet Cruze passenger cars, a total of approximately 47,554 vehicles not in compliance with FMVSS No. 208. All of the vehicles are model year 2012 and were manufactured within the period from April 6, 2011 through August 20, 2011. Summary of GM’s Analysis and Arguments: GM explained that the noncompliance is that on rare occasions, the front passenger air bag suppression status telltale lamp on the subject vehicles may remain illuminated during a particular ignition cycle and indicate that the passenger air bag is OFF regardless of whether the air bag is or is not suppressed. GM further explains that for this noncompliance condition to exist, the following must occur: (1) The engine must be restarted within approximately 24 seconds of having been turned OFF; (2) The key 1 must be turned rapidly, spending less than 10 milliseconds (0.01 seconds) in the RUN position before it reaches the START position; and (3) The crank power mode (approximately how long the starter motor runs) must be less than 1.2 seconds. GM’s data predicts that the conditions for a noncompliance to occur will happen, on average, approximately once every 18 months, independent of whether the front seat is occupied or not. GM stated its belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: A. The noncompliance does not increase the risk to motor vehicle safety because it has no effect on occupant 1 Cadillac SRX and Saab 9–4X vehicles have a push button start/stop switch. E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 35356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Notices restraint. The noncompliant condition has absolutely no effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system. If the telltale error occurs when an occupant or a Child Restraint System (CRS) is in the front passenger seat, the occupant classification system will operate as designed, and will enable or disable the air bag, as intended, and continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 in all other regards. As a result, all occupants will continue to receive the benefit of the air bag when they otherwise would, regardless of whether or not the telltale is operating properly during a particular ignition cycle. B. The noncompliance condition is an extremely remote event. The noncompliance condition will not occur unless the engine is shut off and restarted within about 24 seconds. Even then, the condition will not occur unless the ignition key spends less than a hundredth of a second in the RUN position before reaching the START position, and the crank power mode lasts less than 1.2 seconds. These are very prescribed, unusual conditions. GM discovered the condition during an assembly plant end of line audit when it was noted that the telltale illuminated OFF when an adult passenger was present. GM is not aware of any reports in the field about the condition. When this condition occurs, it sets a Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) that is stored in history in the sensing diagnostic module for 100 ignition cycles. GM reviewed its test fleet experience for the subject vehicles, and determined that the conditions needed to produce the telltale error will occur on average once every 535 days, or approximately, once every 18 months regardless of whether the front passenger seat is occupied or not. C. Even if the air bag was enabled when the telltale indicated it was disabled, that would be extremely unlikely to increase the risk to motor vehicle safety. A potential safety risk could exist if the telltale indicated the air bag was OFF when the air bag was actually ON and a small child or CRS was placed in the front passenger seat. As explained in more detail below, this is extremely unlikely to occur in the present case. Parents and caregivers are warned to properly restrain small children and CRSs in the rear seat, and field data shows small children and CRSs are generally not placed in the front seat. In addition, GM has conducted significant testing to help assure that the air bag suppression system will properly disable the air bag system for small children and CRSs, as designed. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:32 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 1. Children and CRSs generally are not placed in the front seat. It is very unlikely that a small child or a CRS would be placed in the front seat since parents and caregivers are routinely advised by NHTSA, pediatricians, child safety advocacy groups, and public service messages to properly restrain them in the rear seat. As NHTSA states in its Child Safety Recommendations for All Ages, ‘‘All children under 13 should ride in the back seat.’’ In addition, the label on the vehicle’s sun visor warns against placing a rear facing infant seat in the front passenger seat, and the owner’s manual warns against placing children in the front seat, as well, even for vehicles equipped with a passenger sensing system. Publicly available data confirms that parents and caregivers generally do not place small children in the front passenger seat. According to GM’s calculations using National Accident Sampling System (NASS) data, six month old, three year old and six year old children collectively are likely to occupy the front passenger seat during less than one half of one percent of all trips. This fact, together with the infrequency with which the noncompliance condition occurs, makes it extremely unlikely that a child or CRS would be placed in the front seat when the conditions needed to produce the telltale error occur. 2. Even if a small child or CRS was in the front seat. GM has conducted extensive testing to help assure that the air bag suppression system will properly characterize these occupants, so that the air bag will be suppressed, as designed. GM has had significant field experience with suppression systems of the type used in the subject vehicles. GM has used pattern recognition based suppression systems since 2005 and capacitance based suppression systems since 2009. GM has conducted over 15,000 tests of the suppression systems in the subject vehicles, based on FMVSS 208 as well as GM’s own internal requirements, to judge performance for properly positioned as well as out of position occupants and CRSs. In each of the over 10,000 tests involving the systems in the Cruze, Equinox, Terrain and Saab 9–4X vehicles, the suppression system properly characterized the occupant or CRS and enabled or disabled the air bag system, as appropriate. The same is true in the vast majority of SRX tests. In over 5,000 of GM’s SRX tests, the air bag system was enabled or disabled as desired. In just four of GM’s internal (non-FMVSS) SRX tests involving three year old dummies in a particular PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 forward facing CRSs, the suppression system enabled the air bag. In each of these tests, the CRS was installed over a 10 mm thick blanket. These tests have no significant bearing on the present risk analysis, since more than 98 percent of the tests involving a three year old dummy in a forward-facing CRS classified correctly, and in each of the discrepant tests, the CRS would classify correctly when installed without the blanket. There was not a single discrepancy in the over 10,000 tests involving the Cruze, Equinox, Terrain and Saab 9–4X vehicles, representing over 92 percent of the subject vehicle population. In addition, in over 99.8 percent of the SRX tests with CRSs or occupants, the air bag system was enabled or disabled, as desired, and in the remainder of the CRS tests, the air bag system was properly suppressed when the CRS was installed according to the CRS manufacturer’s instructions. The very low rate at which the conditions needed to produce the telltale error occur, coupled with the very low chance that a small child or CRS would be located in the front seat at that time, makes the potential for any safety consequence extremely small. That potential is reduced even further since it is extremely unlikely that the noncompliance condition would occur at that same time that a CRS is being installed in the vehicle, for the first time. Anyone who used such a restraint, would in all probability, have received numerous AIR BAG ON telltale illuminations before and after the infrequent noncompliant OFF illumination, and would have moved the CRS to a rear seating location or modified the installation accordingly. GM concludes by stating that the telltale error at issue in this petition does not increase the risk to motor vehicle safety because it has no effect on occupant restraint. The air bag classification system will continue to characterize the front seat occupants and enable or disable the air bag, as designed. In addition, the noncompliance condition will rarely occur. For the error to occur at all, the vehicle must be restarted in a very particular manner within less than half of one minute of having been turned off. The conditions needed to produce the telltale error are estimated to occur approximately once every 18 months. The potential for any consequence to result is further reduced by the fact that the front seat is occupied only about a quarter of the time, and by small children and CRSs, much more infrequently. Parental and caregiver education and information in the E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Notices vehicle owner’s manuals and labels warn against placing infants, children and CRSs in the front seat, and NASS data bears out that small children and CRSs are placed in the front less than one percent of the time. More importantly, GM has conducted more than 10,000 tests confirming that the air bag system in over 93 percent of the subject vehicles will properly characterize occupants and CRSs, so that the air bag will or will not be suppressed, as appropriate. With respect to the remaining vehicles, the air bag system was enabled or disabled, as desired, over 99.8 percent of the time in GM’s testing. Even so, the chance that a CRS would be installed in the front seat for the first time, at the same time that the noncompliance occurred, would be even more remote. GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 208. In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of its 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 required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted. Background Requirements: Section § 19 of FMVSS No. 208 specifically states: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES § 19 Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear facing and convertible child restraints and car beds. § 19.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with § 14 shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements specified in § 19.2 or § 19.3, under the test procedures specified in § 20. § 19.2 Option 1—Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle shall meet the requirements specified in § 19.2.1 through § 19.2.3. . . . § 19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with at least one telltale which emits light whenever the passenger air bag system is deactivated and does not emit light whenever the passenger air bag system is activated, except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Each telltale: . . . (h) The telltale must not emit light except when the passenger air bag is turned off or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting. NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts GM’s analyses that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM explained that the front passenger classification and air bag suppression system complies with the safety performance requirements of the standard except under a very specific VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:32 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 and rare set of conditions that can occur during an ignition cycle and cause the front passenger air bag OFF telltale to remain illuminated. When this occurs, the telltale is the only part of the system affected and the occupant classification system will continue to operate as designed and will enable or disable the air bag as intended. As of May 14, 2013, no consumer complaints related to this condition were received by NHTSA for the subject vehicles. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that GM met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 208 noncompliance with respect to the front passenger air bag suppression status telltale lamp described in GM’s Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM’s petition is hereby granted and the GM is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a 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 47,554 subject vehicles that GM determined were noncompliant. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Issued On: June 3, 2013. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2013–13928 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0025; Notice 2] Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. AGENCY: ACTION: PO 00000 Grant of Petition. Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35357 SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (Bridgestone) 1, has determined that certain Firestone Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light truck replacement tires manufactured between November 20, 2011 and December 10, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph § 5.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated January 9, 2012. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Bridgestone 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 30day public comment period, on April 4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20482). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012– 0025.’’ For further information on this decision contact Mr. Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–0661, facsimile (202) 366–7002. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 467 Firestone brand Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light truck replacement tires manufactured between November 20, 2011 and December 10, 2011, at the Bridgestone Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette, Quebec, Canada and imported into the United States by Bridgestone. Summary of Bridgstone’s Analysis and Arguments: Bridgestone explains that the noncompliance is that the sidewall marking on the intended outboard sidewall of the subject tires describes the maximum load in kilograms incorrectly. Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently marked with a maximum load of 1350 kg. The labeling should have read 1320 kg. Bridgestone stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1 Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and imports replacement equipment. E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35355-35357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13928]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0006; Notice 2]


General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain model 
year 2012; Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain and Saab 9-4x 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, and Chevrolet Cruze passenger cars, do 
not fully comply with paragraph Sec.  19.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. GM has 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated September 6, 2011.
    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 GM's petition was published, 
with a 30-day public comment period, on August 9, 2012, in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 47697). No comments were received. To view the 
petition, the comments, and all supporting documents log onto the 
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to 
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0006.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Charles Case, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5319.
    Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 3,599 Cadillac SRX, 
11,459 Chevrolet Equinox, 5,080 GMC Terrain and 24 Saab 9-4x 
multipurpose passenger vehicles; and 27,392 Chevrolet Cruze passenger 
cars, a total of approximately 47,554 vehicles not in compliance with 
FMVSS No. 208. All of the vehicles are model year 2012 and were 
manufactured within the period from April 6, 2011 through August 20, 
2011.
    Summary of GM's Analysis and Arguments: GM explained that the 
noncompliance is that on rare occasions, the front passenger air bag 
suppression status telltale lamp on the subject vehicles may remain 
illuminated during a particular ignition cycle and indicate that the 
passenger air bag is OFF regardless of whether the air bag is or is not 
suppressed.
    GM further explains that for this noncompliance condition to exist, 
the following must occur:
    (1) The engine must be restarted within approximately 24 seconds of 
having been turned OFF;
    (2) The key \1\ must be turned rapidly, spending less than 10 
milliseconds (0.01 seconds) in the RUN position before it reaches the 
START position; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cadillac SRX and Saab 9-4X vehicles have a push button 
start/stop switch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The crank power mode (approximately how long the starter motor 
runs) must be less than 1.2 seconds. GM's data predicts that the 
conditions for a noncompliance to occur will happen, on average, 
approximately once every 18 months, independent of whether the front 
seat is occupied or not.
    GM stated its belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    A. The noncompliance does not increase the risk to motor vehicle 
safety because it has no effect on occupant

[[Page 35356]]

restraint. The noncompliant condition has absolutely no effect on the 
proper operation of the occupant classification system. If the telltale 
error occurs when an occupant or a Child Restraint System (CRS) is in 
the front passenger seat, the occupant classification system will 
operate as designed, and will enable or disable the air bag, as 
intended, and continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 in all 
other regards. As a result, all occupants will continue to receive the 
benefit of the air bag when they otherwise would, regardless of whether 
or not the telltale is operating properly during a particular ignition 
cycle.
    B. The noncompliance condition is an extremely remote event. The 
noncompliance condition will not occur unless the engine is shut off 
and restarted within about 24 seconds. Even then, the condition will 
not occur unless the ignition key spends less than a hundredth of a 
second in the RUN position before reaching the START position, and the 
crank power mode lasts less than 1.2 seconds. These are very 
prescribed, unusual conditions. GM discovered the condition during an 
assembly plant end of line audit when it was noted that the telltale 
illuminated OFF when an adult passenger was present. GM is not aware of 
any reports in the field about the condition.
    When this condition occurs, it sets a Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) 
that is stored in history in the sensing diagnostic module for 100 
ignition cycles. GM reviewed its test fleet experience for the subject 
vehicles, and determined that the conditions needed to produce the 
telltale error will occur on average once every 535 days, or 
approximately, once every 18 months regardless of whether the front 
passenger seat is occupied or not.
    C. Even if the air bag was enabled when the telltale indicated it 
was disabled, that would be extremely unlikely to increase the risk to 
motor vehicle safety. A potential safety risk could exist if the 
telltale indicated the air bag was OFF when the air bag was actually ON 
and a small child or CRS was placed in the front passenger seat. As 
explained in more detail below, this is extremely unlikely to occur in 
the present case. Parents and caregivers are warned to properly 
restrain small children and CRSs in the rear seat, and field data shows 
small children and CRSs are generally not placed in the front seat. In 
addition, GM has conducted significant testing to help assure that the 
air bag suppression system will properly disable the air bag system for 
small children and CRSs, as designed.
    1. Children and CRSs generally are not placed in the front seat. It 
is very unlikely that a small child or a CRS would be placed in the 
front seat since parents and caregivers are routinely advised by NHTSA, 
pediatricians, child safety advocacy groups, and public service 
messages to properly restrain them in the rear seat. As NHTSA states in 
its Child Safety Recommendations for All Ages, ``All children under 13 
should ride in the back seat.''
    In addition, the label on the vehicle's sun visor warns against 
placing a rear facing infant seat in the front passenger seat, and the 
owner's manual warns against placing children in the front seat, as 
well, even for vehicles equipped with a passenger sensing system.
    Publicly available data confirms that parents and caregivers 
generally do not place small children in the front passenger seat. 
According to GM's calculations using National Accident Sampling System 
(NASS) data, six month old, three year old and six year old children 
collectively are likely to occupy the front passenger seat during less 
than one half of one percent of all trips. This fact, together with the 
infrequency with which the noncompliance condition occurs, makes it 
extremely unlikely that a child or CRS would be placed in the front 
seat when the conditions needed to produce the telltale error occur.
    2. Even if a small child or CRS was in the front seat. GM has 
conducted extensive testing to help assure that the air bag suppression 
system will properly characterize these occupants, so that the air bag 
will be suppressed, as designed. GM has had significant field 
experience with suppression systems of the type used in the subject 
vehicles. GM has used pattern recognition based suppression systems 
since 2005 and capacitance based suppression systems since 2009.
    GM has conducted over 15,000 tests of the suppression systems in 
the subject vehicles, based on FMVSS 208 as well as GM's own internal 
requirements, to judge performance for properly positioned as well as 
out of position occupants and CRSs. In each of the over 10,000 tests 
involving the systems in the Cruze, Equinox, Terrain and Saab 9-4X 
vehicles, the suppression system properly characterized the occupant or 
CRS and enabled or disabled the air bag system, as appropriate. The 
same is true in the vast majority of SRX tests.
    In over 5,000 of GM's SRX tests, the air bag system was enabled or 
disabled as desired. In just four of GM's internal (non-FMVSS) SRX 
tests involving three year old dummies in a particular forward facing 
CRSs, the suppression system enabled the air bag. In each of these 
tests, the CRS was installed over a 10 mm thick blanket.
    These tests have no significant bearing on the present risk 
analysis, since more than 98 percent of the tests involving a three 
year old dummy in a forward-facing CRS classified correctly, and in 
each of the discrepant tests, the CRS would classify correctly when 
installed without the blanket.
    There was not a single discrepancy in the over 10,000 tests 
involving the Cruze, Equinox, Terrain and Saab 9-4X vehicles, 
representing over 92 percent of the subject vehicle population. In 
addition, in over 99.8 percent of the SRX tests with CRSs or occupants, 
the air bag system was enabled or disabled, as desired, and in the 
remainder of the CRS tests, the air bag system was properly suppressed 
when the CRS was installed according to the CRS manufacturer's 
instructions.
    The very low rate at which the conditions needed to produce the 
telltale error occur, coupled with the very low chance that a small 
child or CRS would be located in the front seat at that time, makes the 
potential for any safety consequence extremely small. That potential is 
reduced even further since it is extremely unlikely that the 
noncompliance condition would occur at that same time that a CRS is 
being installed in the vehicle, for the first time. Anyone who used 
such a restraint, would in all probability, have received numerous AIR 
BAG ON telltale illuminations before and after the infrequent 
noncompliant OFF illumination, and would have moved the CRS to a rear 
seating location or modified the installation accordingly.
    GM concludes by stating that the telltale error at issue in this 
petition does not increase the risk to motor vehicle safety because it 
has no effect on occupant restraint. The air bag classification system 
will continue to characterize the front seat occupants and enable or 
disable the air bag, as designed. In addition, the noncompliance 
condition will rarely occur. For the error to occur at all, the vehicle 
must be restarted in a very particular manner within less than half of 
one minute of having been turned off. The conditions needed to produce 
the telltale error are estimated to occur approximately once every 18 
months. The potential for any consequence to result is further reduced 
by the fact that the front seat is occupied only about a quarter of the 
time, and by small children and CRSs, much more infrequently. Parental 
and caregiver education and information in the

[[Page 35357]]

vehicle owner's manuals and labels warn against placing infants, 
children and CRSs in the front seat, and NASS data bears out that small 
children and CRSs are placed in the front less than one percent of the 
time. More importantly, GM has conducted more than 10,000 tests 
confirming that the air bag system in over 93 percent of the subject 
vehicles will properly characterize occupants and CRSs, so that the air 
bag will or will not be suppressed, as appropriate. With respect to the 
remaining vehicles, the air bag system was enabled or disabled, as 
desired, over 99.8 percent of the time in GM's testing. Even so, the 
chance that a CRS would be installed in the front seat for the first 
time, at the same time that the noncompliance occurred, would be even 
more remote.
    GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the 
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with 
FMVSS No. 208.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of its 
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 required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Background Requirements: Section Sec.  19 of FMVSS No. 208 
specifically states:

    Sec.  19 Requirements to provide protection for infants in rear 
facing and convertible child restraints and car beds.
    Sec.  19.1 Each vehicle certified as complying with Sec.  14 
shall, at the option of the manufacturer, meet the requirements 
specified in Sec.  19.2 or Sec.  19.3, under the test procedures 
specified in Sec.  20.
    Sec.  19.2 Option 1--Automatic suppression feature. Each vehicle 
shall meet the requirements specified in Sec.  19.2.1 through Sec.  
19.2.3. . . .
    Sec.  19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped with at least one 
telltale which emits light whenever the passenger air bag system is 
deactivated and does not emit light whenever the passenger air bag 
system is activated, except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate 
when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Each telltale: . . .
    (h) The telltale must not emit light except when the passenger 
air bag is turned off or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.

    NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts GM's analyses that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM 
explained that the front passenger classification and air bag 
suppression system complies with the safety performance requirements of 
the standard except under a very specific and rare set of conditions 
that can occur during an ignition cycle and cause the front passenger 
air bag OFF telltale to remain illuminated. When this occurs, the 
telltale is the only part of the system affected and the occupant 
classification system will continue to operate as designed and will 
enable or disable the air bag as intended. As of May 14, 2013, no 
consumer complaints related to this condition were received by NHTSA 
for the subject vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that GM met 
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 208 noncompliance with 
respect to the front passenger air bag suppression status telltale lamp 
described in GM's Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby granted 
and the GM is exempted from the obligation of providing notification 
of, and a 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 47,554 subject vehicles that GM determined were 
noncompliant.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued On: June 3, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-13928 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.