GMC and Chevrolet engineering analysis EA10004
Interior Door Handle Laceration Risk. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this engineering analysis about the latch on 7 model years (2007). Opened May 23, 2010, closed Jul 18, 2011 after 14 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedThe investigated concern involved chrome plating on interior door handles that could peel or separate from the plastic base material. This de-lamination could result in a sharp edge and pose a risk of laceration. In some cases, consumers reported minor hand/skin lacerations. Of these reported injuries, the vast majority of injuries were to adults. Ninety percent of claims associated with interior door handle de-lamination were related to the front doors. In addition to the above Tahoe/Yukon vehicles, other GMT 900 series C/K vehicles (Avalanche, Escalade, Sierra, Silverado, and Suburban) have a trim level that utilizes the chrome plated interior door handles and were included in the analysis. The resultant population group had a total of 746 complaint reports with 309 injury incidents and 43,619 unique VIN regular warranty claims over a combined 451,745 vehicle population. The door handle supplier was changed in September 2006 with new tooling and process in place by October 2006. The base population prior to the September 2006 vendor change accounted for the bulk (or 89%) of all complaints and comparable injury reports and warranty claims. Due to the nature of the failure (thin chrome plating peeling off the door handle), only minor hand/skin laceration injuries similar to a paper cut were recorded. All but a few did not require professional medical treatment such as surgical or liquid sutures (i.e. stitches).Less than 10% of injury reports had specifically involved a 3-10 year old child. This was due to the fact that 90% of the claims were associated with door handles located in the front seating area (where the window glass panels usually have less solar tinting than rear window glass panels) where children are not normally seated. In July 2010, GM issued a Special Coverage Policy (SCP 09239) on the base vehicles to extend the warranty coverage to 10 years/100k miles. Recent data indicate that the base population complaint and injury reporting have subsided since the implementation of the SCP campaign. In June 2011, GM added the remaining interim population (Sep-Oct 2006) to the SCP. A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.
A Engineering Analysis is the deeper stage, usually upgraded from a Preliminary Evaluation: NHTSA tests, requests engineering documents and decides whether a safety defect exists. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themAlso named: 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2007 GMC Yukon; 2007 GMC Yukon Denali; 2007 GMC Yukon Denali XL; 2007 GMC Yukon XL; 2007 GMC Yukon XL 1500; 2007 GMC Yukon XL 2500.
A vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs EA10004 a recall?
No. A engineering analysis is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is EA10004 still open?
No. It closed on Jul 18, 2011 without a recall.
Which vehicles does EA10004 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 7 model years: 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2007 GMC Yukon, 2007 GMC Yukon Denali, 2007 GMC Yukon Denali XL, 2007 GMC Yukon XL, 2007 GMC Yukon XL 1500 and more. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.