General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
| Citation | 86 FR 48812 |
| Record Number | 2021-18766 |
| Published date | 31 August 2021 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |
48812
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Notices
for FRA to make requested materials,
information and, records publicly
available under FOIA. Unless prohibited
by law and to the extent permitted
under the FOIA, contents of application
and proposals submitted by successful
applicants may be released in response
to FOIA requests.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–18737 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0117; Notice 2]
General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY
: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION
: Denial of petition.
SUMMARY
: General Motors, LLC (GM) has
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6 motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM
filed a noncompliance report dated
October 26, 2016. GM also petitioned
NHTSA on November 18, 2016, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202)
366–5304, facsimile (202) 366–5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Overview: GM has determined that
certain MY 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6
motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108). GM filed a noncompliance
report dated October 26, 2016, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. GM subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on November 18, 2016,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 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.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published on April 11, 2017, in the
Federal Register (82 FR 17518), with a
30-day public comment period. One
comment was received. To view the
petition, all supporting documents, and
any comments, log onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number
‘‘NHTSA–2016–0117.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
12,475 MY 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6
motor vehicles manufactured between
September 4, 2015 and October 18, 2016
(the subject vehicles) are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that
the noncompliance is that the software
in the subject vehicles’ parking lamp’s
electronic control unit (ECU) was
programmed incorrectly, causing the
ECU to misinterpret the signals from the
vehicle’s body control module (BCM).
This results in a higher than expected
light output that may exceed the
maximum values permitted in
paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the nine failed test points
exceeded the maximum allowed value
by 2.3% to 74.8%. Eight of the nine
failed test points exceeded the
maximum allowed value by 25% or
more.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108, titled
‘‘Photometry’’ includes the
requirements relevant to this petition:
Each parking lamp must be designed to
conform to the photometry requirements
of Table XIV of paragraph S7.8.13, when
tested according to the procedure of
paragraph S14.2.1. Table XIV specifies
various minimum and maximum
photometric intensity requirements for
parking lamps at specified test points.
V. Summary of GM’s Petition:
GM describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, GM offers
the following reasoning:
(a) The subject vehicles’ parking
lamp-headlamp combination does not
exceed the maximum permitted glare
values for headlamps specified in
FMVSS No. 108:
GM states that NHTSA’s August 2014
denial of Mercedes-Benz USA’s petition
for parking lamps that exceeded
maximum photometric values, focused
on a concern that the parking lamps
could cause glare to oncoming drivers
(79 FR 50733).
The subject vehicles will expose
oncoming drivers to the combined
photometric output of the parking lamps
and headlamps. GM claims that, when
considering glare in real-world
application, the critical issue is not the
photometric output value of the parking
lamp alone, but the performance of the
parking lamp in conjunction with the
headlamps. GM asserts that most
appropriate way to assess this combined
effect is to measure the parking lamp-
headlamp combination at the traditional
headlamp glare points (points above the
horizon in the photometric beam pattern
that limit light output in the path of
oncoming drivers).
GM states that when two samples of
the subject vehicles’ parking lamp-
headlamp combinations were evaluated
in the laboratory against recognized
glare points, the output fell below, or
within, the acceptable value of
headlamp glare points specified in
FMVSS No. 108.
According to GM, it is possible for a
vehicle to incorporate parking lamps
and headlamps whose outputs are near,
or at the maximum allowed values
while remaining compliant. For
headlamps, that output would be at or
near the maximum specified
photometric values, and for parking
lamps that output would be at or near
125 candela (cd) at all test points above
the horizon. According to GM, a parking
lamp with this output value in close
proximity to the headlamp at or near
maximum output could create
combined output with a glare value
exceeding the maximum allowable
headlamp photometric glare values by
125 cd. GM asserts that the combination
would still be compliant, because the
headlamp’s glare measurement falls
within the permitted values for the
headlamp alone, and the parking lamp
values correspond to the permitted
values for parking lamps.
However, GM states that the parking
lamp-headlamp combination in the
subject vehicles are below the
prescribed glare values for a compliant
headlamp and well below the value of
the theoretical combined parking lamp-
headlamp output.
GM argues that the photometric
output of the subject vehicles’ parking
lamps will not cause a glare that
presents an unreasonable risk to the
safety of oncoming drivers.
(b) GM’s claim that the
noncompliance has no impact on turn
signal performance: GM recognizes
previous statements by NHTSA that a
parking lamp that exceeds the
maximum permitted photometric values
could mask the turn signal and thereby
impair the turn signal performance (See
79 FR 50733). GM argues that because
the parking lamps in the subject
vehicles are optically combined with
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:08 Aug 30, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48813
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Notices
1
To energize the park function on the Cadillac
CT6, power and ground are required along with an
input signal that duplicates the signal from the
vehicle instructing the lamp to illuminate at the
Park lamp intensity. This is a Pulse Width
Modulation (PWM) signal with a certain frequency
and duty cycle. In the Hella lab, that PWM signal
was duplicated using a specially built signal
generator consisting of a standard PWM Signal
Generator and a 47 nF capacitor. The park lamp was
energized, using the PWM simulator, to duplicate
the subject condition photometry. To energize the
lower beam function on the Cadillac CT6, only
power and ground is required at its design voltage.
2
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).
3
See, e.g., 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).
4
See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
565 F.2d 754, 759 (DC 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’’).
5
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).
6
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).
the turn signals (i.e., when the turn
signal is activated, the parking lamp is
extinguished on the side of the active
turn signal), the parking lamp does not
bear on and cannot impair the
performance of an activated turn signal.
(c) GM’s belief that the
noncompliance will be addressed in the
subject vehicles with a service update
bulletin: GM stated it its petition that it
will issue Service Update Bulletin
16078 to address the noncompliance
condition in each of the subject vehicles
at their next dealership visit or service
appointment. Cadillac CT6 owners are
provided, free of charge, Cadillac
Premium Care Service for three years or
36,000 miles covering routine
maintenance including: Oil changes, tire
rotation, air filter replacement and
multi-point vehicle inspection. The
subject vehicles will also invariably
enter dealerships for other reasons. GM
argues that most of the subject vehicles
will be corrected during their regular
warranty period. The Service Update
Bulletin will be issued to dealers once
sufficient service parts become
available.
GM concludes by again contending
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.
In a letter dated February 13, 2017,
subsequent to receipt of GM’s petition,
GM provided the following additional
information pertaining to photometric
testing of the subject parking lamps:
(a) GM states that the photometric testing
of the subject park function was conducted
by HELLA KGaA Hueck & Co., the supplier
of the lamp, at the Hella lab. The parking
lamp and headlamp were mounted in design
position relative to each other on a
goniometer. The park function and the lower
beam were energized simultaneously.
1
(In
GM’s letter, it provided a table evaluating the
headlamp glare values in CT6 headlamp-
parking lamp combinations.)
(b) To verify that the results of the Hella
testing correlate to on-vehicle performance,
GM tested the CT6 parking lamps in GM’s
full vehicle dark room. In this test, GM
mounted a photometer 10 meters from each
headlamp on approximately the optical axis
(the optical center of the beam pattern, where
the horizontal and vertical axes of the beam
pattern cross). All other lamps were covered
except the parking lamp on one side of the
vehicle. The vehicle was started, and the
parking lamps were energized. The lux
output of the lamp was measured and then
converted into candela. This process was
repeated for the parking lamp on the other
side of the vehicle. The values were similar
and verified a correlation with the Hella lab
data on the goniometer.
The full petition and all supporting
documents submitted by GM can be
viewed by logging onto the FDMS
website at https://www.regulations.gov/
and following the online search
instructions to locate docket number
‘‘NHTSA–2016–0117.’’
VI. Public Comments: One comment
was received by an anonymous source,
which stated the following: ‘‘This letter
is written in resistance to the General
Motors petition for inconsequential
noncompliance that appeared in the
Federal Register on April 11. It was
Docket NHTSA–2016–0117; Notice 1.
You need to consider this request to be
moot. In their request, General Motors
admits to another noncompliance that
must be corrected on the cars affected
by the park lamp brightness. General
Motors admits that the park lamp is
turned off when the turn signal lamp is
used. This is a noncompliance because
the parking lamp is required to be on
and steady burning when the headlights
are on. They can fix the park lamp
brightness problem when they do the
recall to make sure the park lamps stay
on when the turn signal lamps are on.’’
VII. NHTSA’s Analysis: The burden of
establishing the inconsequentiality of a
failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard—as opposed
to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications—is more
substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found
many such noncompliances
inconsequential.
2
Potential performance
failures of safety-critical equipment, like
seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise
protect.
3
In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries as evidence that the issue is
inconsequential to safety. The absence
of complaints does not mean vehicle
occupants have not experienced a safety
issue, nor does it mean that there will
not be safety issues in the future.
4
Arguments that only a small number
of vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment are affected also do not
justify granting of an inconsequentiality
petition.
5
Similarly, mere assertions that
only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually
exhibit a noncompliance are
unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential occupants that could be
adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the
noncompliance poses an
inconsequential risk to safety. Rather,
NHTSA focuses on the consequence to
an occupant who is exposed to the
consequence of that noncompliance.
6
NHTSA has reviewed GM’s petition,
all supplemental information, and the
anonymous comment; and has made the
decision to deny GM’s petition for the
following reasons:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:08 Aug 30, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
48814
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Notices
7
GM argues in its petition that glare from the
parking lamp does not present an unreasonable risk
to the safety of oncoming drivers however that it
not the standard by which NHTSA makes
determinations of inconsequential noncompliance.
GM argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential because the subject
vehicles’ parking lamp-headlamp
combination does not exceed the
maximum permitted glare values for
headlamps specified in FMVSS No. 108.
While NHTSA agrees that the parking
lamp-headlamp combination does not
appear to exceed test points
representing the vicinity of an oncoming
driver’s eyellipse (e.g., 1U—1.5L–L;
0.5U—1.5L–L; 1.5U—1R- R; 0.5 U—1R–
3R; 0.5 U—1R–3R), it is noteworthy that
glare points are not distinctly defined in
FMVSS No. 108. Based on the data
provided by GM, 8 out of 19 test points
for the subject parking lamp exceeded
the FMVSS No. 108 maximum allowed
value of 125 cd, seven of which
exceeded the maximum allowed values
by 38% to 113%. As such, these lamps
will be noticeably brighter than a
compliant lamp and can potentially be
distracting to other drivers.
7
Further, it does not appear that a
comprehensive set of data was provided
by GM. While GM provided data for
combined lower beam and parking lamp
photometry, GM provided no data
pertaining exclusively to the lower
beam or the turn signal photometry. In
addition, GM only provided select test
points for lower beam photometry
combined with the parking lamps.
It is important to note that paragraph
S7.1.1.12 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies
the ratio requirements between the front
turn signal lamps and the parking
lamps/clearance lamps. This establishes
the requirement that turn signal lamps
have three to five times (dependent on
the test point) the luminous intensity of
the parking lamps when turn signal
lamps are combined with parking
lamps. If the turn signal lamps are not
sufficiently bright enough to be
discernable from the parking lamp, then
other drivers may not be able to clearly
identify the vehicles intent to turn,
which poses an increased risk to motor
vehicle safety.
While GM argues that extinguishing
the parking lamp on the side of the
vehicle with the active turn signal
prevents impairment of the performance
of the activated turn signal, NHTSA
does not find this compelling because
extinguishing the parking lamp violates
the steady burning requirement of
FMVSS No. 108. See 49 CFR 571.108,
Table 1–a (requiring that the parking
lamp ‘‘be activated when the headlamps
are activated in a steady burning state’’).
In the event that the turn signal lamp
fails to activate and the parking lamp is
still extinguished, this will reduce the
visibility of the vehicle, thus, increasing
the risk to motor vehicle safety.
Per the activation requirements for
parking lamps, as specified in Table 1–
a of FMVSS No. 108, NHTSA agrees
with the public comment submitted
which states that the parking lamp is
required to be on, be steady burning
when the headlights are activated, and
should not be deactivated when the turn
signal lamp is used.
GM has offered to issue a service
bulletin directing dealers to remedy the
noncompliance when the vehicles are
brought in for service. NHTSA notes
that a manufacturer’s decision to
conduct a service campaign is not a
substitute for conducting a recall since
consumers will neither be notified of
the noncompliance nor informed to
return to the dealership for a free
remedy.
NHTSA’s Decision: As indicated in
the analysis of GM’s petition provided
above, NHTSA finds that GM has not
demonstrated that the noncompliance of
the subject vehicles with FMVSS No.
108 is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, NHTSA hereby
denies GM’s petition and GM is
consequently obligated to provide
notification of, and a free remedy for,
that noncompliance pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.8)
Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021–18766 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Federal Insurance Office Request for
Information on the Insurance Sector
and Climate-Related Financial Risks
AGENCY
: Federal Insurance Office,
Departmental Offices, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION
: Request for Information.
SUMMARY
: The Federal Insurance Office
(FIO) of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this
Request for Information (RFI), following
the May 20, 2021 Executive Order on
Climate-Related Financial Risk, to
solicit public input on FIO’s future work
relating to the insurance sector and
climate-related financial risks. FIO’s
efforts will focus on three initial
climate-related priorities, which are
described below. Additionally, this RFI
seeks input on how FIO’s data
collection and dissemination authorities
can best be used by FIO in support of
these priorities, as well as to monitor
and assess the insurance sector and
climate-related financial risks.
DATES
: Submit written comments on or
before November 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Submit comments
electronically through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov, in accordance
with the instructions on that site, or by
mail to the Federal Insurance Office,
Attn: Elizabeth Brown, Senior Insurance
Regulatory Policy Analyst,
Elizabeth.Brown@treasury.gov, (202)
597–2869, Room 1410 MT, Department
of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.
Because postal mail may be subject to
processing delays, it is recommended
that comments be submitted
electronically. If submitting comments
by mail, please submit an original
version with two copies. Comments
should be captioned ‘‘FIO Insurance
Sector and Climate-Related Financial
Risks.’’ In general, Treasury will post all
comments to www.regulations.gov
without change, including any business
or personal information provided such
as names, addresses, email addresses, or
telephone numbers. All comments,
including attachments and other
supporting materials, are part of the
public record and subject to public
disclosure. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Steven Seitz, Director, Federal
Insurance Office, Steven.Seitz@
treasury.gov, (202) 531–0915; Stephanie
Schmelz, Deputy Director,
Stephanie.Schmelz@treasury.gov, (202)
341–5258; Elizabeth Brown, Senior
Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst,
Elizabeth.Brown@treasury.gov, (202)
597–2869 or Bret Howlett, Senior
Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst,
Bret.Howlett@treasury.gov, (202) 570–
3916. Persons who have difficulty
hearing or speaking may access these
numbers via TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Background
The Insurance Sector and Climate-
Related Financial Risks
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reported this
year that ‘‘[h]uman-induced climate
change is already affecting many
weather and climate extremes in every
region across the globe. Evidence of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:08 Aug 30, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
