General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 7847-7849 [2018-03677]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
• Red contrasting color on the air
gauges indicating low air pressure
The functionality of both the parking
brake system and the service brake
system remains unaffected by using the
ISO symbol for brake malfunction
instead of ‘‘Brake Air’’ for the telltale in
the subject vehicles.
4. NHTSA Precedents—Hino notes
that NHTSA has previously granted
petitions for decisions of
inconsequential noncompliance for
similar brake telltale issues:
(a) Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0011, 82
FR 33551 (July 20, 2017), grant of
petition for Daimler Trucks North
America, LLC.
(b) Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0046, 79
FR 78559 (December 30, 2014), grant of
petition for Chrysler Group, LLC
(c) Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0004, 78
FR 69931 (November 21, 2013), grant of
petition for Ford Motor Company.
In these instances, the vehicles
displayed an ISO symbol for the brake
telltale instead of the wording required
under FMVSS No. 101. The ISO symbol
in combination with other available
warnings was deemed sufficient to
provide the necessary driver warnings.
Hino concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
To view Hino’s petition analyses in
their entirety you can visit https://
www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets and by using the docket ID
number for this petition shown in the
heading of this notice.
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, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject vehicles that Hino no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on 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 Hino notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
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. 2018–03678 Filed 2–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
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:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7847
https://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
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
7848
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 36 / Thursday, February 22, 2018 / Notices
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
U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND
SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Open Public Hearing
U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
ACTION: Notice of open public hearing.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given of the
following hearing of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review
Commission.
The Commission is mandated by
Congress to investigate, assess, and
report to Congress annually on ‘‘the
national security implications of the
economic relationship between the
United States and the People’s Republic
of China.’’ Pursuant to this mandate, the
Commission will hold a public hearing
in Washington, DC on March 8, 2018 on
‘‘China, the United States, and Next
Generation Connectivity.’’
DATES: The hearing is scheduled for
Thursday, March 8, 2018 from 9:00 a.m.
to 2:50 p.m.
ADDRESSES: TBD, Washington, DC. A
detailed agenda for the hearing will be
posted on the Commission’s website at
www.uscc.gov. Also, please check the
Commission’s website for possible
changes to the hearing schedule.
Reservations are not required to attend
the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public seeking further
information concerning the hearing
should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North
Capitol Street NW, Suite 602,
Washington DC 20001; telephone: 202–
624–1496, or via email at ltisdale@
uscc.gov. Reservations are not required
to attend the hearing.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: This is the third public
hearing the Commission will hold
during its 2018 report cycle. This
hearing will compare and contrast U.S.
and Chinese pursuit of next generation
connected devices and networks and the
implications for U.S. economic
competitiveness and national security.
The hearing will focus on U.S. and
Chinese 5th generation wireless
technology (5G) and Internet of Things
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:10 Feb 21, 2018
Jkt 244001
standards and technology development,
U.S. usage of Chinese Internet of Things
technologies and 5G networks, and the
ability of Chinese firms to collect and
utilize data from U.S. consumers
through Internet of Things technologies.
The hearing will be co-chaired by
Commissioner Michael Wessel and
Commissioner Larry Wortzel. Any
interested party may file a written
statement by March 8, 2018, by mailing
to the contact above. A portion of each
panel will include a question and
answer period between the
Commissioners and the witnesses.
Authority: Congress created the U.S.China Economic and Security Review
Commission in 2000 in the National Defense
Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106–398), as
amended by Division P of the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L.
108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108
(November 22, 2005), as amended by Public
Law 113–291 (December 19, 2014).
Dated: February 16, 2018.
Kathleen Wilson,
Finance and Operations Director, U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–03621 Filed 2–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1137–00–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
[OMB Control No. 2900–0068]
Agency Information Collection Under
OMB Review: Application for ServiceDisabled Veterans Insurance
Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, this notice announces that the
Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs,
will submit the collection of
information abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and comment. The
PRA submission describes the nature of
the information collection and its
expected cost and burden; it includes
the actual data collection instrument.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before March 26, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on the collection of information through
www.Regulations.gov, or to Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Attn:
VA Desk Officer; 725 17th St. NW,
Washington, DC 20503 or send through
electronic mail to oira_submission@
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7849
omb.eop.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB
Control No. 2900–0068’’ in any
correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise
Records Service (005R1B), Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420,
(202) 461–5870 or email cynthia.harveypryor@va.gov. Please refer to ‘‘OMB
Control No. 2900–0068’’ in any
correspondence.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521.
Title: Application for ServiceDisabled Veterans Insurance, VA Form
29–4364 and VA Form 29–0151.
OMB Control Number: 2900–0068.
Type of Review: Reinstatement of a
previously approved collection.
Abstract: These forms are used by
veterans to apply for Service-Disabled
Veterans Insurance, to designate a
beneficiary and to select an optional
settlement.
The Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting
comments on this collection of
information was published at 82 FR 229
on November 30, 2017, pages 56857–
56858.
Affected Public: Individuals and
Households.
Estimated Annual Burden: 8,333
hours.
Estimated Average Burden per
Respondent: 20 minutes.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
25,000 respondents.
By direction of the Secretary.
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor,
Department Clearance Officer, Office of
Quality, Privacy and Risk, Department of
Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018–03584 Filed 2–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
[OMB Control No. 2900–0695]
Agency Information Collection
Activity: Application for
Reimbursement of Licensing or
Certification Test Fees
Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA), Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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
