[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38392-38393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18383]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 95-57; Notice 1]
General Motors Corporation; Receipt of Application for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
General Motors Corporation (GM) of Warren, Michigan, has determined
that some of its vehicles fail 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 has filed
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.'' GM has 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 in inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of an application 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 application.
In FMVSS No. 108, Paragraph S5.5.10(d) requires that ``all other
lamps [not mentioned in Paragraphs S5.510(a-c) which includes all stop
lamps such as enter 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
[[Page 38393]]
Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles that have 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 stated in Paragraph S5.5.10(d) that they be ``wired to be
steady-burning.'' While GM designed the subject vehicles to meet this
requirement, it subsequently discovered a transient contact condition
inside the multi-function (brake 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 supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance with
the following:
The CHMSL preforms 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on the application of GM described above. Comments should
refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, D.C., 20590. It is requested but not required
that six copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: August 25, 1995.
(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 21, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-18383 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P-M
