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