[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17518-17519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07168]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0117; Notice 1]


General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt 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.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain 
model year (MY) 2016-2017 Cadillac CT6 vehicles do not fully comply 
with paragraph S7.8.13 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM filed 
a defect report dated October 26, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. GM also 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.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 12,475 MY 2016-2017 Cadillac 
CT6 vehicles manufactured between September 4, 2015, and October 18, 
2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that the 
software in the subject vehicles' Park/Position 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 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%.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108 states:

S7.8.13 Photometry. Each parking lamp must be designed to conform to 
the photometry requirements of Table XIV, when tested according to 
the procedure of S14.2.1, as specified by this section. . .

    Table XIV specifies various minimum and maximum photometric 
intensity requirements for parking lamps at specified test points.
    V. Summary of GM's Petition: GM described the subject noncompliance 
and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, GM submitted 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:

[[Page 17519]]

    In its August 2014 denial of Mercedes-Benz USA's petition for 
too bright parking lamps, NHTSA indicated a concern that the parking 
lamps could cause glare to oncoming drivers. (79 FR 50733, at 50734)

    Oncoming drivers to the subject vehicles will be exposed to the 
combined photometric output of the parking lamps and headlamps. This 
means, 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. 
The 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) recognized by NHTSA 
in FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J1383.
    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.
    It should be noted, that 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 head lamps, 
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 at all test points above the horizon. 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. And yet 
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, 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.
    Consequently, GM believes 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) The noncompliance has no impact on turn signal performance: 
NHTSA has also expressed concern that a parking lamp that exceeds 
maximum permitted photometric values could mask the turn signal and 
thereby impair the turn signal performance. (See 79 FR 50733, at 50735) 
However, the parking lamps in the subject vehicles are optically 
combined with the turn signals--when the turn signal is activated, the 
parking lamp is extinguished on the side of the active turn signal. 
Consequently, the parking lamp does not bear on and cannot impair the 
performance of an activated turn signal.
    (c) The noncompliance will be addressed in the subject vehicles 
with a service update bulletin: GM 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. Therefore, GM expects 
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 concluded by expressing the belief 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:
    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, they provided a 
table evaluating the headlamp glare values in CT6 headlamp-parking lamp 
combinations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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.
    To view GM's petition and test data and analyses in its entirety 
you can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID 
number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that GM no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after GM 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-07168 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P