Document ID: NHTSA-2014-0125-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: General Motors, LLC
Posted Date: 2018-02-22T05:00Z

[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: http://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