General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Sierra
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
10 January 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1282-1284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00221]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0097; Notice 1]
General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that the seat belt
assemblies in certain model year (MY) 2017-2018 Chevrolet Silverado and
GMC Sierra heavy duty motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. GM
filed a noncompliance report dated September 14, 2017, and amended it
on September 22, 2017. GM also petitioned NHTSA on October 6, 2017, for
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 9,
2018.
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 in the title 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 Delivery: 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) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
[[Page 1283]]
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 comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM has determined that the seat belt assemblies in
certain MY 2017-2018 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy duty
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. GM filed a noncompliance report dated
September 14, 2017, and amended it on September 22, 2017, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
GM also petitioned NHTSA on October 6, 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.
This notice of receipt of GM 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: Approximately 38,048 MY 2017-2018 Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Sierra heavy duty motor vehicles, manufactured
between July 18, 2016, and August 7, 2017, are potentially involved.
The double cab versions of the subject vehicles are not included in
this petition.
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles were equipped with seat belt assemblies that do not
conform to the upper-torso seat belt elongation requirements specified
in paragraph S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209. Specifically, the seat belt
assemblies were built with load-limiting torsion bars measuring 9.5 mm
on the driver side and 8.0 mm in diameter on the passenger side,
instead of 12 mm as specified by GM.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209 states, in
pertinent part:
S4.4 Requirements for assembly performance.
. . .
(b) Type 2 seat belt assembly. Except as provided in S4.5, the
components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly including webbing, straps,
buckles, adjustment and attachment hardware, and retractors shall
comply with the following requirements when tested by the procedure
specified in S5.3(b): . . .
(5) The length of the upper torso restraint between anchorages
shall not increase more than 508 mm when subjected to a force of
11,120N. . . .
V. Summary of GM's Petition: As background, GM stated that smaller
diameter torsion bars are regularly used in retractor assemblies in
full size trucks--including variants of the subject vehicles--that are
subject to S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, and thus exempt from S4.4(b)(5) of
FMVSS No. 209. GM says this is because, when combined with a deploying
frontal airbag, the seat belt retractors equipped with lower diameter
torsion bars provide at least the same level of occupant protection in
frontal crashes while optimizing belt force deflection characteristics.
However, the subject vehicles were not certified to S5.1 of FMVSS No.
208 and, accordingly, were not intended to be equipped with these
smaller diameter torsion bars because they were required to meet the
elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209
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 reasoning:
A. Testing data indicates that the Subject Vehicles Meet the Belted
Frontal Crash Performance Testing Requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No.
208: GM has conducted dynamic frontal crash testing on 2500 series
vehicles that were substantially similar to the subject vehicles and
were equipped with the same load-limiting seat belt retractors with the
lower-diameter torsion bars (the ``Tested Vehicles'').\1\ The tested
vehicles comply with the belted frontal crash performance testing
requirements under S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208.\2\ In fact, the tested
vehicles performed below the injury assessment reference limits
specified in S5.1.1(a) even when tested at 35 mph, which subjects the
vehicle to 36% more energy than at the 30 mph testing standard provided
in the regulation. The tested vehicles were also rated by NHTSA with an
overall 4-Star NCAP score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The subject vehicles and tested vehicles share the same
frame, body structure, powertrains and under-hood crush space;
instrument panel, steering column and wheel, seats, seat-belt
anchorages, and general interior vehicle layout/spatial
relationships; and driver and passenger frontal airbags. In similar
configurations, the subject vehicles and test vehicles have similar
mass.
\2\ S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208 specifies the belted barrier test
requirements for certain vehicles not certified to S14 of FMVSS No.
208 (i.e. those with a GVW >8,500 lbs. or an unloaded weight >5,500
lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM expects that the subject vehicles will perform nearly the same
as the tested vehicles in dynamic frontal crash testing, and would
therefore also meet all of the belted barrier test requirements
specified by S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208.
GM believes, consistent with NHTSA's past guidance,\3\ that the
dynamic belted frontal barrier crash testing of S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No.
208 is a more appropriate means to evaluate occupant protection than
the static seat belt elongation testing requirements of S4.4(B)(5) of
FMVSS No. 209 for
[[Page 1284]]
vehicles with seat belts equipped with load limiters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In its 1991 rulemaking modifying FMVSS No. 209 to exclude
certain dynamically tested seat belts from some of the static seat-
belt testing requirements, NHTSA acknowledged that it ``has long
believed it more appropriate to evaluate the occupant protection
afforded by vehicles by conducting dynamic testing . . .'' versus
static tests such as the elongation requirements in S4.4(b)(5) of
FMVSS No. 209. Final Rule, 56 FR 15295, 15295 (April 16, 1991).
Further, ``[s]ince the dynamic test measures the actual occupant
protection which the belt provides during a crash, there is no
apparent need to subject that belt to static testing procedures that
are surrogate and less direct measures of the protection which the
belt would provide to its occupant during a crash.'' Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 55 FR 1681 (January 18, 1990) (emphasis added).
NHTSA's rationale for creating these exemptions applies to the
subject vehicles even though they may not all technically be
``subject to'' S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 and therefore exempt from FMVSS
No. 209's elongation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. GM believes the subject vehicles will provide no less protection
to occupants in a frontal crash than vehicles equipped with seat belt
retractors utilizing the 12 mm torsion bars: GM believes that replacing
the retractors installed in the subject vehicles with retractors that
have the larger torsion bars would not result in an added safety
benefit to the occupants of these vehicles in frontal crashes. That is,
the subject vehicles will provide no less occupant protection than
vehicles built with the larger 12 mm diameter torsion bars that meet
the elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209. Further,
seat belt retractors equipped with the lower-diameter torsion bars may
reduce upper torso injury potential in frontal crashes as compared to
retractors with the larger-diameter torsion bars.
C. NHTSA precedent supports granting this petition: NHTSA has
previously ruled that failure to comply with certain of FMVSS No. 209's
static testing requirements can be inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety where the manufacturer demonstrates by dynamic testing that the
noncompliant seat belt assembly preforms similarly to a compliant
assembly. On May 3, 2002, GM submitted an inconsequentiality petition
to NHTSA relating to certain trucks and SUV's that were built with
damaged and inoperative ``vehicle-sensitive'' emergency-locking
retractors (ELRs), which lock the seat belts under rapid deceleration.
Notwithstanding the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 209 caused by this
condition, GM asserted that the failure was inconsequential to vehicle
safety because the ELRs in these vehicles also had a redundant
``webbing-sensitive'' mechanism, which locks the belts when the webbing
is rapidly extracted. GM presented dynamic testing data (including some
data developed using the test procedures set forth in FMVSS No. 208)
demonstrating that the webbing-sensitive system ``offered a level of
protection nearly equivalent to that provided by a compliant ELR.''
NHTSA granted GM's petition, in part, and ruled the noncompliance
in certain of the vehicles subject to the petition was inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety:
[O]n the basis of the sled test and simulation data provided by
GM, the agency has concluded that GM has adequately demonstrated
that the potential safety consequences of the failure of the
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanisms in the ELRs in the C/K vehicles
to function properly are inconsequential. While the webbing-
sensitive systems in these vehicles do allow slightly increased belt
payout compared to a functional vehicle-sensitive system, and lock
slightly later in crash event, these differences do not appear to
expose a vehicle occupant to a significantly greater risk of injury.
General Motors Corporation, Ruling on Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004). In
its decision, NHTSA also noted specifically that ``the dummy injury
measurements did not increase significantly and were well below the
maximum values permitted under FMVSS No. 208.''
Here, GM expects that the subject vehicles will provide no less
protection to occupants in the designated seating positions in frontal
crashes than vehicles equipped with seat belt retractors conforming to
S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209.
D. GM is not aware of any injuries or customer complaints
associated with this condition: After searching VOQ, TREAD and internal
GM databases, GM is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition.
E. GM has corrected the noncompliance in vehicle production and in
service parts inventory: GM has corrected the noncompliance in
production. Vehicles produced after August 7, 2017, have seat belt
assemblies containing retractor torsion bars that meet GM's original
specifications and comply with S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209. Retractor
assemblies with this condition that were manufactured as service parts
are no longer available for sale and all affected inventory has been
purged. Any such seat belt assembly previously sold as service parts
could only have been installed on a subject vehicle because these seat
belt assemblies are not compatible with prior model year (i.e. 2015 or
2016) versions of the Silverado or Sierra HD due to a different type of
wiring connector used.
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.
To view GM's petition, analyses, and test data in their entirety,
you can visit https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets and search for the docket ID
number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
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
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 M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-00221 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P