Document ID: NHTSA-2007-0042-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: General Motors Corporation
Posted Date: 2008-04-25T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22459-22460]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-142]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0042; Notice 2]

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

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that certain model 
year 2005, 2006 and 2007 Cadillac STS passenger cars equipped with 
sunroofs do not fully comply with paragraph S4(e) of 49 CFR 571.118, 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, Power-Operated 
Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems. On October 3, 2007, GM filed 
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports identifying approximately 
60,042 model year 2005, 2006 and 2007 Cadillac STS passenger cars that 
do not comply with the paragraph of FMVSS No. 118 cited above.
    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 the petition was published, 
with a 30-day public comment period, on December 10, 2007 in the 
Federal Register (72 FR 69727). No comments were received. To view the 
petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2007-0042.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. Stuart 
Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287, 
facsimile (202) 493-0073.
    GM certified these vehicles to paragraph S4(e) of 49 CFR 571.118, 
which requires in pertinent part:

    S4. Operating requirements. * * * power operated window, 
partition, or roof panel systems may be closed only in the following 
circumstances: * * *
    (e) During the interval between the time the locking device 
which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off 
and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the 
case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of 
its front doors;

    GM explains that for 60 seconds after the vehicles are started, if 
the engine is turned off and a front door is opened, the sunroof module 
software allows the sunroof to be closed if someone in the vehicle 
activates the control switch. If more than 60 seconds elapses from the 
starting of the vehicle, this condition will not occur.
    GM stated that it is not aware of any incidents or injury related 
to the subject condition.
    GM included an analysis of the risk associated with the subject 
condition and a detailed explanation of the reasons why it believes the 
noncompliance to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    In summary, GM states that for all of the subject vehicles:
     The subject condition affects only the sunroof, not the 
power windows.
     The subject condition requires multiple actions that must 
occur within a 60 second time period. First, the following sequence of 
actions must occur: driver starts engine, driver turns off engine, and 
driver or front passenger opens a front door. After this sequence of 
actions and still within the 60 second time frame, occupants must take 
additional actions: Push the sunroof close switch and position an 
occupant to create the risk of sunroof entrapment. All of these actions 
must occur within one 60 second time frame.
     If the sunroof switch is pushed steadily and then 
released, the sunroof promptly stops moving.
     The sunroof incorporates an auto-reverse system. This 
system will activate whenever the sunroof is closing in the express 
close mode. Therefore, sunroof entrapment requires the completion of 
the initial sequence of engine start/engine stop/front door open 
actions, and also requires an occupant to press and hold the sunroof 
closure switch and position an occupant within the sunroof--all within 
the 60 second window and in such a manner that the auto-reverse is not 
effective in preventing sunroof entrapment.
     The Agency has granted similar petitions in the past.
     GM is not aware of any injures or incidents related to the 
subject condition.
    GM states that it believes that because the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no further corrective 
action is warranted. GM has also informed NHTSA that it has corrected 
the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated 
in future production.

NHTSA Decision

    The following explains our rationale.
    The purpose of paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 118 is to minimize the 
likelihood of death or injury to occupants from accidental operation of 
power windows, partitions, and roof panels. We believe that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for a number 
of reasons. It is very unlikely that the entire sequence of events--
starting the engine, turning the engine off, opening a front door, a 
person becoming positioned in the sunroof opening, and pushing the 
sunroof close button--will occur in less than 60 seconds. We also 
believe that the risk exposure time is likely further reduced as the 
sunroof, normally closed at the time of engine start, would have to 
first be opened then closed, with the opening time subtracted from the 
60 second interval.
    The noncompliant situation does not involve power windows, where 
entrapment is rare but a realistic possibility. Power window openings 
are physically more accessible to occupants than the sunroof opening 
and thus present a higher risk of entrapment to persons in the vehicle, 
especially unattended occupants (normally children).
    The subject vehicle sunroof can be closed either by continuous 
actuation of the sunroof switch, or by a momentary touch and release of 
the same switch which initiates an express-close mode. In the first 
mode, the sunroof ceases movement upon release of the switch. This 
allows immediate operator sunroof closure control minimizing the 
entrapment risk. During the express-close mode, the vehicle 
incorporates an auto-reverse feature that is designed to reverse 
sunroof motion before it can exert a force of 100N (22.5lbf.) or more 
on a foreign object or person. We believe this added feature will 
further minimize the risk of entrapment to an occupant (normally a 
child).
    Lastly, GM indicates that it is not aware of any injuries, owner 
complaints

[[Page 22460]]

or field reports related to this noncompliance.
    Based on the above, NHTSA has decided that GM has met its burden of 
persuasion that the sunroof noncompliance described is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is granted and the 
petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification 
of, and a remedy for, the noncompliances under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 
30120.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: April 18, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E8-8989 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P