Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Notices 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 GMs 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 GMs petition, GM provided the following additional information pertaining to photometric testing of the subject parking lamps:

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

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 GMs letter, it provided a table evaluating the headlamp glare values in CT6 headlampparking lamp combinations.
b To verify that the results of the Hella testing correlate to on-vehicle performance, GM tested the CT6 parking lamps in GMs 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:08 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 NHTSA20160117.
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 NHTSA20160117; 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. NHTSAs Analysis: The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance requirement in a standardas opposed to a labeling requirement with no performance implicationsis 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 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00155

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

48813

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 GMs petition, all supplemental information, and the anonymous comment; and has made the decision to deny GMs petition for the following reasons:
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 vehicleswhile infrequentare 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.

E:FRFM31AUN1.SGM

31AUN1