[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2865-2866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1505]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 95-57; Notice 2]
General Motors Corp.; Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM) of Warren, Michigan, determined
that some of its vehicles failed to comply with the requirements of 49
CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' and filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.'' GM also applied to be exempted from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor
Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 26,
1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 38392).
Paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that ``all other
lamps [not mentioned in Paragraphs S5.5.10(a-c) which includes all stop
lamps such as center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs)] shall be wired
to be steady-burning.''
During the 1995 model year, GM manufactured a total of 96,607 GMC
and Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles with
CHMSLs that were inadvertently wired in a manner which permits the
CHMSLs to momentarily flash under certain conditions while the driver
is in the process of activating or deactivating the hazard flashers. As
a result, they do not meet the requirement of Paragraph S5.5.10(d) that
they be ``wired to be steady-burning.'' While GM designed the vehicles
to meet this requirement, it subsequently discovered a transient
contact condition inside the multi-function (stop lamp, CHMSL, turn
signal, and hazard flasher) switch which occasionally causes the CHMSL
to flash while the driver is in the process of turning the hazard
flasher switch ``on'' or ``off.'' The error was corrected in production
in March 1995 by adding a brake lamp relay to the I/P harness to
provide isolation from the multi-function switch transient.
GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with
the following:
The CHMSL performs properly at all times when the service brakes
are applied. The transient condition will not occur if the service
brakes are applied when the driver activates or deactivates the
hazard flasher switch. Therefore, the CHMSL will not flash when it
is required to be steady-burning. The CHMSL will not flash if the
ignition switch is in the ``off'' position. Thus, the condition will
not occur if the hazard flashers are turned ``off'' or ``on'' when
the ignition is off and the vehicle is parked at the side of the
road, for example.
If the CHMSL flashes at all, it will illuminate a maximum of
three times during the transient condition, with each pulse lasting
0.5 [millisecond (ms)] to 4.0 ms. The entire unintended event, in
its worst case, lasts no more than 125.8 ms. This extremely short
duration is likely to go entirely unnoticed by following drivers in
many instances. In the event that it is noticed, it is not likely to
be confused with anything other than the hazard flashers. Since the
flashers will be activated while the unintended condition occurs,
but the brake lamps will not be, this will not present a safety
risk.
The CHMSL otherwise meets all of the requirements of FMVSS 108.
In a 1989 interpretation, NHTSA discussed the difference between
the requirements that stop lamps be steady-burning and hazard
warning lights flash. NHTSA explained:
Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady-burning, and
hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn
signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that the
stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in
motion, while hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the
vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily
recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning
begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove
confusing to motorists, thereby diluting the effectiveness.
August 8, 1989 letter from S.P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
to L.P. Egley
While this condition technically causes a lamp which is
ordinarily steady burning to begin to flash, it will not likely
``prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its
effectiveness,'' because it will not occur if the service brakes are
applied. Even if the condition were mistaken for a brake signal
(which is doubtful since CHMSLs do not flash with brake lamp
activation), the following driver would not likely react to it.
According to recent research studies conducted by GM, as well as
field data, it takes a following driver at least 0.5 seconds to
react to a signal and apply the service brakes once [a] preceding
vehicle's brake lamps are activated. Given the extremely short
duration of the transient CHMSL condition, the misinterpreted signal
would be gone long before the following driver could respond.
Hazard flashers are not frequently used. Thus, the exposure of
following drivers to the noncompliant condition would be very
limited. This is particularly true because of the transient nature
of the condition, its short duration, and the fact that it will not
occur at all if the service brakes are applied or the vehicle's
ignition is off.
GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints, or
field reports related to this condition.
No comments were received on the application.
GM states that ``[t]he entire unintended event, in its worst case,
lasts no more than 125.8 ms.'' This is \1/8\th of a second. As GM
further stated, according its research studies and field data, it takes
a following driver at least half a second to react to a signal and to
apply the service brakes once a preceding vehicle's brakes are
activated. NHTSA finds this a convincing argument that the transient
activation of the CHMSL, a false signal, is highly unlikely to mislead
a following driver
[[Page 2866]]
into applying the service brakes when there is no need to do so.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that the
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
herein described is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, the
applicant is hereby exempted from its obligations to provide notice of
the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and to remedy the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
Issued on: January 23, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-1505 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
