[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32871-32872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7312; Notice 2]


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

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that some of its 
vehicles do not comply with requirements contained in Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment,'' and has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' GM 
has also applied to be exempted from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the 
basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 31207) on May 16, 2000. Opportunity was afforded for 
public comment until June 15, 2000.
    FMVSS No. 108 establishes the requirements for signaling to enable 
safe operation in darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. 
Under S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 108, the center high-mounted stop lamp 
(CHMSL) on each vehicle shall be activated only upon application of the 
service brakes.
    During Model Year 1995-1999, GM produced 3,375,393 vehicles with a 
CHMSL that could briefly illuminate if the hazard warning lamp switch 
is depressed to its limit of travel. The vehicles that may have this 
condition are 1995-1999 model year GMC and Chevrolet trucks and some 
1997-1999 Pontiac Grand Prix cars.
    GM supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following statements:


[[Page 32872]]


    The possibility of unintended CHMSL illumination is very low, 
for several reasons. Hazard flashers are infrequently used in 
service. The condition can occur only when the hazard flasher switch 
is at the extreme bottom of travel. To turn the hazard flashers on 
or off, one need merely push the hazard flasher switch. It is not 
necessary to push the switch all the way to its limit of travel. 
Even when the switch is depressed all the way to its limit of 
travel, CHMSL illumination may not occur. In approximately 50% of 
the switches it would be moderately difficult to get a CHMSL 
activation. With these switches, it is also necessary to apply a 
side force to the hazard flasher switch (in addition to having the 
switch at its bottom of travel) before the CHMSL might illuminate.
    Even if the condition does occur, the duration of unintended 
CHMSL illumination would be very brief. The hazard flasher switch 
requires less than a second in total to turn the flashers on or off, 
and only for a fraction of this total time would the switch be all 
the way to its limit of travel.
    About one-third of the affected vehicles have incandescent 
CHMSLs. In these vehicles, visible illumination of the CHMSL would 
not occur unless the hazard switch were depressed to its full limit 
of travel and held there long enough for the incandescent bulb 
filaments to heat and become visible. Therefore, unless the hazard 
switch was deliberately held at its limit of travel, and possibly 
with a side force, any unintended CHMSL illumination would be 
momentary and as a practical matter virtually imperceptible.
    Even if a visible CHMSL illumination occurs upon hazard flasher 
activation, it would almost certainly have no adverse effect on 
safety. Hazard flasher lights are typically used when the vehicle is 
off the road or out of traffic. However, if a CHMSL illuminated due 
to this condition when the vehicle was on the road, a following 
driver would likely see a brief single flash of the CHMSL. As a 
practical matter, the following driver might not notice this flash 
at all. Even if he or she did, there would seem to be no likelihood 
of driver confusion or inappropriate responses. In reaching this 
view, we have considered the following situations and would invite 
the agency's consideration of them as well:
    A driver who turns on the hazard flasher switch does so in order 
to alert others to some situation that the driver judges to be a 
highway safety hazard. Indeed, the owner's manual in each of these 
vehicles states as much: Your hazard warning flashers let you warn 
others. They also let police know you have a problem.
    When the driver turns them on, the hazard lamps on these 
vehicles commence flashing immediately after the driver releases the 
switch. In this situation, any momentarily illuminated CHMSL would 
augment the hazard alert to following drivers.
    If the hazard flasher switch is being turned off, the CHMSL 
could be illuminated momentarily while the hazard lamps are 
flashing. A following driver is unlikely to react inappropriately to 
a momentary CHMSL illumination when two hazard lamps are already 
flashing.
    In many situations, it seems likely that a driver suddenly 
approaching a hazard situation might want to slow down, and 
therefore the service brakes would be applied when the hazard switch 
is depressed. In this case, the CHMSL would remain illuminated by 
the service brakes as required by FMVSS 108. This situation would 
pose no safety or compliance issue because the CHMSL would already 
be on.
    The CHMSL (and the remainder of the vehicle lighting) otherwise 
meets all of the requirements of FMVSS 108.
    GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints or 
field reports for the subject vehicles related to this condition.
    NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for a 
similar condition. In 1995, General Motors applied for 
inconsequential treatment for a noncompliance while the hazard 
switch was being used (reference Mr. Milford Bennett letter to Dr. 
Ricardo Martinez dated June 16, 1995). The agency subsequently 
granted inconsequential treatment for this condition (reference 
Docket 95-57, Notice 2 published in the Federal Register, 61 Fed. 
Reg. 2865, January 29, 1996). No one opposed the application. NHTSA 
found in that situation that ``the transient activation of the 
CHMSL, a false signal, is highly unlikely to mislead a following 
driver,'' at 2865-2866.
    The current situation would appear to be even less of a highway 
safety issue, because (a) the previous condition could occur at 
various positions within the normal operating travel of the hazard 
switch, while the current condition can only occur at the extreme 
bottom of travel of the hazard switch; and (b), the previous 
condition could involve up to three momentary flashes of the CHMSL, 
while the current condition only has the potential for a single 
momentary illumination of the CHMSL.

    No public comments were received in the docket designated for this 
action. However, there was a comment submitted to a related application 
submitted by GM. Notice of receipt of this application was published on 
August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48280). There has been no agency decision yet on 
whether to grant or deny this application. In this application, GM 
states that activating the hazard warning lamps on the same subject 
vehicles could also enable the power windows to be operated. This is a 
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 118, ``Power-operated Window, Partition, 
and Roof Panel Systems.'' In its comments urging denial of GM's power 
window-related application, the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) also 
states that the agency should deny GM's application regarding FMVSS No. 
108. CAS offered no rationale to support this assertion except to state 
``[b]oth of these problems suggest the need for the swift 
implementation of an actual remedy, not the broad exemption GM suggests 
it should receive.''
    We have reviewed the application and agree with GM that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. We can 
foresee no negative effects on motor vehicle safety if a vehicle's 
CHMSL is briefly illuminated as described upon activation of the hazard 
warning lamps. The intended use of a hazard warning lamp and the 
momentary activation of a CHMSL do not provide a conflicting message. 
The illumination of the CHMSL is intended to signify that the vehicles 
brakes are being applied and that the vehicle might be decelerating. 
Hazard warning lamps are intended as a more general message to nearby 
drivers that extra attention should be given to the vehicle. A brief 
illumination of the CHMSL while activating the hazard warning lamps 
would not confuse the intended general message, nor would the brief 
illumination in the absence of the other brake lamps cause confusion 
that the brakes were unintentionally applied.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we do not deem this 
noncompliance to be a serious safety problem warranting notification 
and remedy. Accordingly, we have decided that the applicant has met its 
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described above is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, its application is 
granted and the applicant is exempted from providing the notification 
of the noncompliance that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from 
remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)


    Issued on: June 12, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-15275 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P