Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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. 202118737 Filed 83021; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 491006P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Docket No. NHTSA20160117; Notice 2

General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA, Department of Transportation DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:

General Motors, LLC GM has determined that certain model year MY 20162017 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
3665304, facsimile 202 3665930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM has determined that certain MY 20162017 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. 30118d and 30120h 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.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:08 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 NHTSA20160117.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 12,475 MY 20162017 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 lamps electronic control unit ECU was programmed incorrectly, causing the ECU to misinterpret the signals from the vehicles 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 GMs 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 NHTSAs August 2014
denial of Mercedes-Benz USAs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00154

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 lampheadlamp 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 lampheadlamp 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 headlamps 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 lampheadlamp 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 GMs 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
E:FRFM31AUN1.SGM

31AUN1