General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Cadillac Escalade, Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Silverado, Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, GMC Sierra
|
Claudia W. Covell
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
16 April 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16428-16430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07827]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0140; 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) 2014-2016 GM motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims
and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds)or Less. GM filed a noncompliance Report dated December 6, 2016,
and then amended their report on April 7, 2017. GM subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on January 5, 2017, and later revised it on April 7,
2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerrin Bressant, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-1110, facsimile (202)
366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM has determined that certain MY 2014-2016 GM motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.4.2(e) of FMVSS No. 110,
Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds)or Less (49 CFR 571.110). GM filed a
noncompliance report dated December 6, 2016, and then amended their
report on April 7, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. GM subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on January 5, 2017, and later revised it on April 7, 2017,
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 May 11, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
22058). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) web page at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instruction to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0140.''
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 130,088 of the following MY
2014-2016 GM motor vehicles manufactured between August 7, 2014, and
June 15, 2015, are potentially involved:
2015-2016 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2016 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2015 Cadillac SRX
2015-2016 Chevrolet Tahoe
2015-2016 GMC Yukon
2015-2016 GMC Yukon XL
2014-2015 GMC Sierra
2014-2015 Chevrolet Silverado
2015-2016 Chevrolet Suburban
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles are equipped with wheels supplied by Citic Dicastal
Co. LTD (Dicastal) that are marked with unregistered date of
manufacture marks that were not previously disclosed to NHTSA and
therefore, do not comply with paragraph S4.4.2(e) of FMVSS No. 110.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.4.2(e) of FMVSS No. 110 titled
``Rim Markings for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars'' includes the
requirements relevant to this petition:
Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case
of a single-
[[Page 16429]]
piece wheel, each wheel disc shall be marked with the information
listed in paragraphs S4.4.2 (a) through (e), in lettering not less than
3 millimeters in height, impressed to a depth or, at the option of the
manufacturer, embossed to a height of not less than 0.125 millimeters.
The month, day and year or the month and year of
manufacture, expressed either numerically or by use of a symbol, at the
option of the manufacturer. For example: ``September 4, 2001'' may be
expressed numerically as: ``90401'', ``904, 01'' or ``01, 904'';
``September 2001'' may be expressed as: ``901'', ``9, 01'' or ``01,
9''.
Any manufacturer that elects to express the date of
manufacture by means of a symbol shall notify NHTSA in writing of the
full names and addresses of all manufacturers and brand name owners
utilizing that symbol and the name and address of the trademark owner
of that symbol, if any.
The notification shall describe in narrative form and in
detail how the month, day, and year or the month and year are depicted
by the symbol. Such description shall include an actual size graphic
depiction of the symbol, showing and/or explaining the
interrelationship of the component parts of the symbol as they will
appear on the rim or single piece of wheel disc, including dimensional
specifications, and where the symbol will be located on the rim or
single piece wheel disc.
The notification shall be received by NHTSA not less than
60 calendar days before the first use of the symbol.
V. Summary of GM's Petition: GM described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, GM submitted the following reasons:
(a) This is not a safety issue: Neither the marking method nor the
timely disclosure of it to NHTSA have any effect on the operation,
performance, or safety of the affected vehicles. For example, the
required date marks do not serve any safety purpose and do not provide
any safety benefit. The purpose of the date mark is traceability in the
event a future wheel defect is discovered. For example, if it were
discovered that Dicastal wheels manufactured in January 2015 had a
defect (e.g., high porosity in the casting) a dealer could use the date
marking to determine if a given wheel was in the suspect population.
The affected wheels on GM's vehicles have accurate date markings
and can be traced in the event of a defect. Except for a small
percentage of affected wheels, the markings have all been disclosed to
NHTSA. Disclosed or not, however, GM and its dealers can still trace
the wheels because the unregistered date marks contain sufficient
information to clearly identify the month and year of manufacture.
Therefore, the issue is more of a procedural one, and the fact that
these date marks were not registered with NHTSA in a timely manner
presents no substantive safety issue and is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
(b) NHTSA has granted similar requests: Granting this petition
would be consistent with NHTSA's past decisions involving wheel
markings required by FMVSS No. 110. For example, NHTSA recently granted
a petition for inconsequential treatment related to a noncompliance
with FMVSS No. 110's requirement that the source of the published
nominal dimensions be marked on the rims. In that case, NHTSA agreed
that the incorrect rim marking had no effect on the performance and
safety of the tire/rim combination. Here, the connection to safety is
even more attenuated because the markings on the wheels are correct,
they were just not disclosed to NHTSA in a timely manner. For at least
the same reasons NHTSA found incorrect rim markings inconsequential to
vehicle safety, GM requests that NHTSA come to the same conclusion
regarding the correct, but unregistered, markings in this case as being
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
(c) The issue has been corrected: Dicastal corrected the issue in
production on April 25, 2015, when it stopped using unregistered date
marks. Since then, the manufacture date marks on GM's Dicastal wheels
have been properly disclosed to NHTSA and comply with FMVSS No. 110.
GM 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.
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
petition.
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S4.4.2(e), requires that a
manufacturer using a symbol to identify the date of manufacture on its
rims provide a detailed narrative to NHTSA of how the month, day and
year, or month and year, are depicted by the symbol, and notify NHTSA
not less than 60 calendar days before the first use of the symbol. In
this case, GM did not properly submit the symbol information or notify
NHTSA before first use.
GM pointed out that the actual marking method nor the timely
disclosure of the method to NHTSA would have any effect on the
operation, performance, or safety of the affected vehicles and that the
main reason for date codes on rims is for traceability in the event of
a recall. NHTSA would agree that date of manufacture stamped on the
rim, if correct, is essential for identifying production scope in the
event of a recall, but the marking itself does not affect the
performance and safety of the rims. Since this issue was brought to the
attention of the agency, GM has submitted the required notification and
details of the date symbols used on the impacted vehicle rims, and the
agency confirmed that the symbols used provide the month and year
information required.
GM concluded by noting the fact that the issue was corrected in
production on April 25, 2015. Dicastal subsequently registered the
marking method(s) by filing the required submission with NHTSA on May
13, 2015.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that GM has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 110 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby granted and GM is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a 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,
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 16430]]
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.
Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-07827 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P