[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20574-20575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-10182]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7657-3]


General Motors North America, Inc., Grant of Application for 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    In response to an appeal from General Motors North America, Inc. 
(GM), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 
granting a GM petition for a determination that a noncompliance with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, ``Power Operated 
Windows, Partitions, and Roof Panel Systems'' is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety. This notice reconsiders NHTSA's previous denial 
of the GM petition.
    GM originally petitioned the agency on March 10, 2000. A notice 
requesting comment on the GM petition was published on August 7, 2000 
(65 FR 48280). The agency initially denied the petition (66 FR 50496), 
and GM submitted an appeal to the agency on December 21, 2001. All 
documents relating to the GM application and appeal are contained in 
the associated docket, NHTSA-2000-7657.
    GM determined that the noncompliance existed in some 1998-1999 
model year GM and Isuzu light trucks equipped with Retained Accessory 
Power (RAP), a convenience feature designed to allow operation of 
electrical accessories such as the radio and power windows during a 
timed interval immediately following ignition key removal and that is 
turned off by the opening of one of the front doors. In those vehicles, 
manipulation of the hazard flasher switch had the potential to 
inadvertently activate the RAP of a parked car without the key. This 
condition failed to meet the requirements of paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 
118 because it was possible for the power windows and sunroofs of the 
affected vehicles to be enabled without any use of the ignition key.
    FMVSS No. 118 sets limits on how and when power windows and 
sunroofs can be enabled, mainly by requiring the ignition key for their 
operation. The requirements in the standard are intended to ensure that 
a person in possession of the ignition key (presumably an adult) is 
present to supervise occupants, especially children, who might be 
injured if they were free to operate power windows and sunroofs without 
supervision.
    In its original application for inconsequential noncompliance, GM 
reasoned that a series of specific, unlikely events all would have to 
occur before an opportunity for injury from a power window or sunroof 
could exist in the affected vehicles. To wit, a child or children would 
have to be left unattended and unrestrained within the vehicle; the 
child or children would have to manipulate the hazard flasher switch on 
the top of the steering column in the requisite manner (which in some 
switches would require considerable bottoming force on the switch and/
or considerable side force, in order for RAP activation to occur), or 
the service brake pedal would have to be pressed in conjunction with 
pressing on the hazard flasher switch (although in some vehicles, no 
amount of force on the switch would activate RAP); and the child or 
children would then have to operate a power window or sunroof in such a 
way as to be injured by it prior to opening a door (which deactivates 
the RAP), or before twenty minutes had elapsed from the time of initial 
RAP activation (the maximum time that RAP remains active), and also 
before a parent or other adult returned. GM presented data and 
arguments to support the unlikely nature of these events, and concluded 
that the overall likelihood of an injury occurring as a result of the 
noncompliance was exceedingly small.
    NHTSA initially denied the GM application as discussed in the 
preceding Federal Register notice in this docket. On December 21, 2001, 
GM appealed NHTSA's denial. In its appeal, GM requested that NHTSA 
reconsider for a number of reasons. One reason GM stated was that the 
denial was inconsistent with the agency's prior decisions. Another 
reason used by GM was that, by the time it filed the appeal, an 
additional 19 months had elapsed, representing 1.5 million vehicle 
years, since it had first discovered the noncompliance, and no related 
incidents had been reported. The additional elapsed time brought the 
total vehicle-years that the noncomplying vehicles had been in the 
field without incident to 2.8 million.
    A subsequent comment filed in the docket by Delphi Corporation, 
which manufactured the hazard flasher switches in the affected GM 
vehicles, cited a NHTSA final rule from May 5, 1983, in which the 
agency amended FMVSS No. 118 to permit the use of the RAP feature in 
motor vehicles. In that notice, the agency acknowledged the possibility 
that under rare circumstances power windows might be operational as a 
result of the RAP feature without the driver being present in the 
vehicle. At the same time, the agency also recognized that similar 
possibilities existed whether RAP was

[[Page 20575]]

permitted or not. The agency stated the following:

    While there is a possibility under the new option for power 
windows to be operational without the driver being present in the 
vehicle, that possibility could arise only in rare circumstances. 
Further, similar possibilities exist under one of the existing 
options [in section S4 of FMVSS No. 118.] For example, under the new 
[RAP] option, a driver could get out of a vehicle, leaving the 
engine running, and close the door. The windows would still be 
operational. Then, if the driver's window were open so that he or 
she could reach through the open window instead of opening the door 
to shut the engine off, the windows would continue to be 
operational. Similarly, under one of the current options, power 
windows would be operable in the same circumstances, at least until 
the driver reached into the vehicle and shut off the engine.

    In other words, the agency recognized that the safety measures in 
the standard could not prevent power windows from being enabled in all 
instances in which a driver or adult passenger might not be present.
    After further consideration, we believe that the conditions under 
which RAP may be activated in the subject noncomplying GM vehicles are 
highly unlikely to occur and are similar to the unlikely circumstances 
contemplated in the final rule permitting the use of the RAP feature. 
We believe that it is, in fact, at least as unlikely for inadvertent 
RAP activation to occur in the subject noncomplying GM vehicles as it 
would be for RAP to be activated in a fully complying vehicle without a 
driver present in circumstances such as those discussed in the 1983 
final rule. Furthermore, the fact the agency knowingly permitted those 
slight safety issues in the 1983 final rule establishes that the agency 
believed such issues are inconsequential. The safety issue in the 
noncomplying GM vehicles, being similar to the ones acknowledged in 
1983, is therefore also inconsequential.
    In granting this GM petition, the agency is in no way de-
emphasizing the importance of the safety provisions in FMVSS No. 118. 
On the contrary, the agency maintains active involvement in issues 
relating to power window safety and has recently undertaken a study to 
determine the extent of non-crash motor vehicle events, especially 
those involving children, which result in injuries and fatalities due 
to motor vehicle power windows.
    For the reasons expressed above, the agency has reconsidered its 
previous decision to deny the GM petition, published in the Federal 
Register on October 3, 2001 (66 FR 50496). Accordingly, GM's 
application is granted and the applicant is exempted from providing the 
notification of the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and 
from remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: April 19, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-10182 Filed 4-24-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P