Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government Topics:  GMC Yukon

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Jeffrey Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
June 11, 2015


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33334-33336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0125; Notice 1]


General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt 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 paragraph S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. GM 
has filed an appropriate report dated November 5, 2014, pursuant to 49 
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

[[Page 33335]]


DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. GM's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), GM submitted a petition 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.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    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 Text: Paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS No. 108, as detailed in 
Table I-a, requires in pertinent part that the activation of parking 
lamps must be ``Steady burning. 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/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 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:
     Cycling the vehicle's ignition on and off 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 mentions that while the condition affects the parking lamps 
and DRL's 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, 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.
    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 GM no longer

[[Page 33336]]

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 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 Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-14255 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute