General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Sierra
|
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
10 November 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71713-71717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24866]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0097; Notice 2]
General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that the seat belt
assemblies in certain model year (MY) 2017-2018 Chevrolet Silverado
heavy duty 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 later 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. This document
announces the denial of GM's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Hench, Office of Chief
Counsel, telephone 202-366-2262, facsimile 202-366-3820, or Mr. Jack
Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-
0661, facsimile 202-366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview:
GM has determined that the seat belt assemblies in certain MY 2017-
2018 Chevrolet Silverado heavy duty and GMC Sierra heavy duty motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No.
209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). 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, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of GM's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 10, 2018, in the Federal Register (83
FR 1282). 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-2017-0097.''
II. Vehicles Involved
This petition concerns approximately 38,048 MY 2017-2018 Chevrolet
Silverado heavy duty and GMC Sierra heavy duty (Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) of 9,300-13,400 lbs) motor vehicles, manufactured between
July 18, 2016, and August 7, 2017. The double cab versions of the
subject vehicles are not included in this petition.
III. Noncompliance
GM explains the noncompliance as 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
in diameter on the driver side and 8.0 mm on the passenger side,
instead of 12 mm for both sides as specified by GM.
[[Page 71714]]
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Except as provided in paragraph S4.5 of
FMVSS No. 209, when tested by the procedure specified in paragraph
S5.3(b), the length of the upper torso restraint between anchorages
shall not increase more than 508 mm when subjected to a force of 11,120
N.
V. Summary of GM's Petition
GM stated that smaller diameter torsion bars in the noncompliant
trucks are regularly used in retractor assemblies in other full-size
trucks, including variants of the subject vehicles. Due to their
smaller size and weight rating, these similar variants are subject to
S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, and exempt from S4.4(b)(5) of FMVSS No. 209.\1\
GM contends that the seat belt retractors with undersized torsion bars
inadvertently installed in the subject vehicles 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S4.5 of FMVSS No. 209 exempts load-limited seat belts
installed at a designated seating position subject to S5.1 of FMVSS
No. 208 from the elongation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
1. GM Indicates 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 it describes as substantially similar to the subject
vehicles and equipped with the same load-limiting seat belt retractors
with the lower-diameter torsion bars (the ``Tested Vehicles'').\2\
According to GM, the tested vehicles comply with the belted frontal
crash performance testing requirements under S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No.
208.\3\ The petition also states that 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 percent
more energy than at the 30 mph testing standard provided in the
regulation. GM contends that the tested vehicles were also rated by
NHTSA with an overall 4-Star NCAP score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ 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 cites statements made by NHTSA in prior rulemaking notices \4\
to support its position 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 vehicles with
seat belts equipped with load limiters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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). GM believes
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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. The petition contends that 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, GM states that 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.
3. GM Believes NHTSA Precedent Supports Granting the Petition
GM states that NHTSA has previously ruled that failure to comply
with certain FMVSS No. 209 static testing requirements can be
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, where the manufacturer
demonstrates by dynamic testing that the noncompliant seat belt
assembly performs similarly to a compliant assembly. On May 3, 2002, GM
submitted an inconsequentiality petition to NHTSA relating to certain
trucks and SUVs 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 contends it
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.''
GM states that 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:
On 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 that ``the dummy injury measurements did
not increase significantly and were well below the maximum values
permitted under FMVSS No. 208.''
[[Page 71715]]
Here, GM argues 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)(5) of FMVSS No. 209.
4. GM Is Not Aware of any Injuries or Customer Complaints Associated
With the Condition
As of September 22, 2017, after searching VOQ, TREAD and internal
GM databases, GM stated it was not aware of any crashes, injuries, or
customer complaints associated with this condition.
5. GM Has Corrected the Noncompliance in Production Vehicles and
Service Part Inventory
GM states that it has corrected the noncompliance in production.
According to GM, 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)(5) of FMVSS No. 209. The
petition also states that retractor assemblies with this condition that
were manufactured as service parts are no longer available for sale and
all affected inventory has been purged. Further, GM contends that any
such seat belt assembly previously sold as a service part 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 concludes 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.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
1. General Principles
Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (the ``Safety Act'') with the express purpose of reducing motor
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. 49 U.S.C.
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory FMVSS 49 U.S.C.
30111. The Secretary has delegated this authority to NHTSA. 49 CFR
1.95.
NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after the agency has determined that the
performance requirements are objective, practicable, and meet the need
for motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with an FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with an FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a free
remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has recognized that,
under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance could be
``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It, therefore, established
a procedure under which NHTSA may consider whether it is appropriate to
exempt a manufacturer from its notification and remedy (i.e., recall)
obligations. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) & 30120(h). The agency's regulations
governing the filing and consideration of petitions for
inconsequentiality exemptions are set out at 49 CFR part 556.
Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and
then only after notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
interested members of the public to present information, views, and
arguments on the petition. In addition to considering public comments,
the agency will draw upon its own understanding of safety-related
systems and its experience in deciding the merits of a petition. An
absence of opposing argument and data from the public does not require
NHTSA to grant a manufacturer's petition.
Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 defines the term
``inconsequential.'' The agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. In some instances,
NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of
demonstrating that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For
example, a label intended to provide safety advice to an owner or
occupant may have a misspelled word, or it may be printed in the wrong
format or the wrong type size. Where a manufacturer has shown that the
discrepancy with the safety requirement should not lead to any
misunderstanding, NHTSA has granted an inconsequentiality exemption,
especially where other sources of correct information are available.
See, e.g., General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (Dec. 20, 2016).
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\5\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\6\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \7\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\7\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\8\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\9\ Similarly, NHTSA has
[[Page 71716]]
rejected petitions based on the assertion that only a small percentage
of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a
noncompliance. The percentage of potential occupants that could be
adversely affected by a noncompliance does not determine the question
of inconsequentiality. Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence
to an occupant who is exposed to the consequence of that
noncompliance.\10\ These considerations are also relevant when
considering whether a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\10\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to GM's Arguments
NHTSA has considered GM's arguments and determined that the load-
limiting retractor installed with torsion bars measuring 9.5 mm in
diameter on the driver side and 8.0 mm on the passenger side, instead
of 12 mm as specified by GM, is not inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. NHTSA, therefore, denies GM's request for an inconsequentiality
determination, for the following reasons:
a. NHTSA Does Not Find the Dynamic Testing of Similar Vehicles
Compelling in This Case
GM believes that the noncompliance of load limiters, mistakenly
installed with torsion bars measuring 9.5 and 8.0 mm in diameter on the
driver and passenger side instead of 12 mm as specified by GM, is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. A load limiter is a seat belt
assembly component that controls tension on the seat belt and modulates
the forces imparted to a vehicle occupant during a crash. Load limiters
are intended primarily to reduce upper torso injuries caused by the
compressive force applied by the relatively narrow seat belt. They may
work in concert with an air bag system to optimize occupant protection
in a crash and provide overall crash energy management. Section S4.5 of
FMVSS No. 209 exempts a belt with a load limiter from the standard's
elongation requirements if it is installed at a seating position
subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208--that is,
``subject to'' a belted crash test specified in FMVSS No. 208.
GM argues that the crash testing it performed on the 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 shows that the noncompliant seat belts in
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 S4.5 of FMVSS No. 209.
GM also cites a prior grant of an inconsequentiality petition for
certain of the FMVSS No. 209 static requirements based, in part, on
dynamic test data.
The agency disagrees with GM's assessment. NHTSA has more recently
considered this issue, its putative inconsequentiality, and whether
testing supporting compliance with FMVSS No. 208 may support finding a
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 209 inconsequential. See BMW of North
America, LLC; Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC; and Autoliv, Inc.;
Decisions of Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 19994
(May 7, 2019). In any case, the petition cited by GM as precedent,
General Motors Corporation, Ruling on Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004),
concerns a different requirement in FMVSS No. 209: Lock up within 25 mm
versus elongation. The petition states that ``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.'' However, whether the subject vehicles would be capable of
meeting the test requirements of FMVSS No. 208 S5.1.1(a) is not at
issue. This is not a compliance requirement or option for the front
outboard seats in the subject vehicles. Rather, the issue is whether
the subject vehicles' noncompliance with FMVSS No. 209 S4.4(b)(5) is
inconsequential to safety. We do not agree that the test results for
the tested vehicles are sufficient for this showing. We explain our
reasoning below.
The subject vehicles were neither subject to, nor tested to,
S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 208. GM contends, however, that the belted
frontal barrier impact data used to certify compliance of certain
variants of the 2500 vehicles is a valid surrogate for the subject
vehicles with the smaller diameter torsion bars. GM indicated that the
tested vehicles were ``substantially similar'' to the subject vehicles.
However, a simple examination of the GVWR comparison between the two
sets of vehicles indicates that this is a questionable conclusion. The
tested vehicles were 2500 series and the subject vehicles were 2500,
3500, and 3600 series. As reported by GM, the 2500 series have a GVWR
range of 9,300-10,000 lbs. The 3500 and 3600 are encompassed in a GVWR
range of 10,000-13,400 lbs.
GM's argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that if the
subject vehicles were tested using the FMVSS No. 208 procedure, the
tested weight of the subject vehicles would be similar to the tested
weight of the tested vehicles. We have no reason to believe that GM has
not optimized the sharing of the occupant restraint contribution from
the seat belt for the tested vehicles to the parameters required by the
FMVSS No. 208 barrier impacts. However, just as important for the
agency's consideration of this issue is the difference in the GVWR
range for the subject and tested vehicles. GM contends that ``[t]he
primary difference between the Subject Vehicles and Tested Vehicles is
that the Subject Vehicles have increased capacity suspension
components, which do not affect the vehicles' crash performance.'' This
statement seems to ignore that with these differences in the subject
vehicles comes the much greater GVWR range of subject vehicles compared
to the tested vehicles. With this much greater fully loaded mass would
potentially come much different frontal crash dynamics.
Although GM states the subject and tested vehicles share many of
the same structural components related to crash energy management, the
fact remains that the subject vehicles may require much more energy to
be managed because of the GVWR differences. For example, it could be
theorized that this additional mass may extend the crash pulse
duration. Similarly, managing this additional energy could mean
additional vehicle crush, essentially changing the shape of the crash
pulse. Differences in pulse shape and duration may change the optimal
sharing of restraint between the seat belt and air bag. This change in
crash pulse may also affect the air bag deployment timing.
In summary, we are not convinced that the crash test data provided
in the GM submission is sufficient to show that the smaller torsion bar
placed in the
[[Page 71717]]
subject vehicles would be inconsequential to safety. In real-world
frontal crashes, with subject vehicles loaded near the GVWR, we believe
the crash pulse duration and shape may differ from what would be seen
in an FMVSS No. 208 frontal barrier test, affecting the optimization of
the occupant restraint system that includes the lower diameter torsion
bars in the seat belt load limiters.
More generally, GM's assessment also ignores the crucial role that
the static testing requirements of FMVSS No. 209 play in acting as a
safety backstop for crash scenarios that are not accounted for in
dynamic tests such as those conducted by GM. Dynamic tests are meant to
assess whether a vehicle's occupant protection systems work cohesively
in certain representative crashes. However, there are countless crash
and pre-crash scenarios that these sorts of tests do not cover, which
is why static requirements of FMVSS No. 209 are intended to ``fill in
the gaps'' to ensure that the vehicle's seat belt equipment maintains a
minimum level of performance in untested scenarios.
For example, dynamic tests do not account for the fact that a seat
belt assembly is intended to protect occupants even when they are out-
of-position. The agency believes it is essential to ensure seat belt
assemblies perform their important safety function of not exceeding the
permitted maximum webbing pay-out/elongation, to protect occupants who
may be out-of-position during a crash, and the resulting increased risk
of that occupant striking the vehicle's interior structure.
b. The Absence of Complaints Does Not Support GM's Petition
GM stated that they received no complaints and knew of no reported
injuries related to the noncompliance when they filed this petition in
September of 2017. NHTSA does not consider the absence of complaints or
injuries to show that the issue is inconsequential to safety; the
absence of a complaint does not mean there have been no safety issues,
nor that there will not be any in the future. In any event, three
injuries involving 2500 series vehicles' seat belt assemblies were
reported in the Early Warning Reporting database in the second quarter
of 2018.
c. That GM Has Corrected the Noncompliance for Vehicles Produced After
August 7, 2017, Does Not Support the Merits of Its Petition
Manufacturers are legally obligated to correct new vehicle
production. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a); 30115(a). A manufacturer cannot
certify or manufacture for sale a vehicle it knows to be noncompliant.
Id. The fact that new vehicle production has been corrected simply
informs the agency that the noncompliance is limited to the affected
vehicles described in the petition. Therefore, the fact that new
vehicle production has been corrected does not factor into our analysis
of whether the noncompliance is inconsequential and will not justify
our granting an inconsequentiality petition.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that GM has not met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 209 noncompliance
in the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, NHTSA hereby denies GM's petition. GM is therefore
obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118 through 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-24866 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P