82_FR_17586 82 FR 17518 - General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

82 FR 17518 - General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 68 (April 11, 2017)

Page Range17518-17519
FR Document2017-07168

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.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017) 
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17518-17519]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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

17518 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 11, 2017 / Notices Decision notice and submitted by any of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: following methods: I. Overview: General Motors, LLC Accordingly, on the basis of the • Mail: Send comments by mail (GM), has determined that certain model foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that addressed to U.S. Department of year (MY) 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6 MY 1996 and 1997 Ferrari F50 Transportation, Docket Operations, M– vehicles do not fully comply with passenger cars manufactured prior to 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room paragraph S7.8.13 of Federal Motor September 1, 1997 that were not W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. originally manufactured to comply with Washington, DC 20590. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and all applicable FMVSS, are capable of • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments Associated Equipment. GM filed a being altered to conform to all by hand to U.S. Department of defect report dated October 26, 2016, applicable FMVSS. Transportation, Docket Operations, M– pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room Noncompliance Responsibility and Vehicles W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Reports. GM also petitioned NHTSA on Washington, DC 20590. The Docket November 18, 2016, pursuant to 49 The importer of a vehicle admissible Section is open on weekdays from 10 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 under any final decision must indicate a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. CFR part 556, for an exemption from the on the form HS–7 accompanying entry • Electronically: Submit comments notification and remedy requirements of the appropriate vehicle eligibility electronically by logging onto the 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that number indicating that the vehicle is Federal Docket Management System this noncompliance is inconsequential eligible for entry. VCP–62 is assigned to (FDMS) Web site at https:// as it relates to motor vehicle safety. MY 1996 and 1997 Ferrari F50 www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online This notice of receipt of GM’s petition passenger cars manufactured prior to instructions for submitting comments. is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and September 1, 1997 are admissible under • Comments may also be faxed to 30120 and does not represent any this notice of final decision. (202) 493–2251. agency decision or other exercise of Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Comments must be written in the judgment concerning the merits of the delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and English language, and be no greater than petition. 501.8). 15 pages in length, although there is no II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, limit to the length of necessary 12,475 MY 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6 attachments to the comments. If vehicles manufactured between Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. comments are submitted in hard copy September 4, 2015, and October 18, [FR Doc. 2017–07161 Filed 4–10–17; 8:45 am] form, please ensure that two copies are 2016, are potentially involved. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P provided. If you wish to receive III. Noncompliance: GM explains that confirmation that comments you have the noncompliance is that the software submitted by mail were received, please in the subject vehicles’ Park/Position DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION lamp’s electronic control unit (ECU) was enclose a stamped, self-addressed National Highway Traffic Safety postcard with the comments. Note that programmed incorrectly, causing the Administration all comments received will be posted ECU to misinterpret the signals from the without change to https:// vehicle’s body control module (BCM). [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0117; Notice 1] www.regulations.gov, including any This results in higher than expected personal information provided. light output that may exceed the General Motors, LLC, Receipt of All comments and supporting maximum values permitted in Petition for Decision of materials received before the close of paragraph S7.8.13 of FMVSS No. 108. Inconsequential Noncompliance business on the closing date indicated Specifically, the nine failed test points above will be filed in the docket and exceeded the maximum allowed value AGENCY: National Highway Traffic will be considered. All comments and by 2.3% to 74.8%. Eight of the nine Safety Administration (NHTSA), supporting materials received after the failed test points exceeded the Department of Transportation (DOT). closing date will also be filed and will maximum allowed value by 25%. ACTION: Receipt of petition. be considered to the fullest extent IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S7.8.13 of possible. FMVSS No. 108 states: SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain model year When the petition is granted or S7.8.13 Photometry. Each parking lamp must (MY) 2016–2017 Cadillac CT6 motor denied, notice of the decision will also be designed to conform to the photometry vehicles do not fully comply with be published in the Federal Register requirements of Table XIV, when tested pursuant to the authority indicated at according to the procedure of S14.2.1, as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard specified by this section. . . (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective the end of this notice. All comments, background Table XIV specifies various minimum Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM documentation, and supporting and maximum photometric intensity filed a noncompliance report dated materials submitted to the docket may requirements for parking lamps at October 26, 2016. GM also petitioned be viewed by anyone at the address and specified test points. NHTSA on November 18, 2016, for a times given above. The documents may V. Summary of GM’s Petition: GM decision that the subject noncompliance also be viewed on the Internet at https:// described the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor www.regulations.gov by following the and stated its belief that the vehicle safety. online instructions for accessing the srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES noncompliance is inconsequential as it DATES: The closing date for comments dockets. The docket ID number for this relates to motor vehicle safety. on the petition is May 11, 2017. petition is shown in the heading of this In support of its petition, GM ADDRESSES: Interested persons are notice. submitted the following reasoning: invited to submit written data, views, DOT’s complete Privacy Act (a) The subject vehicles’ parking lamp- and arguments on this petition. Statement is available for review in a headlamp combination does not exceed the Comments must refer to the docket and Federal Register notice published on maximum permitted glare values for notice number cited in the title of this April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). headlamps specified in FMVSS No. 108: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 11, 2017 / Notices 17519 In its August 2014 denial of Mercedes-Benz signal and thereby impair the turn headlamp glare values in CT6 USA’s petition for too bright parking lamps, signal performance. (See 79 FR 50733, at headlamp-parking lamp combinations.) NHTSA indicated a concern that the parking 50735) However, the parking lamps in lamps could cause glare to oncoming drivers. To verify that the results of the Hella (79 FR 50733, at 50734) the subject vehicles are optically testing correlate to on-vehicle combined with the turn signals—when performance, GM tested the CT6 parking Oncoming drivers to the subject the turn signal is activated, the parking vehicles will be exposed to the lamps in GM’s full vehicle dark room. lamp is extinguished on the side of the combined photometric output of the In this test, GM mounted a photometer active turn signal. Consequently, the parking lamps and headlamps. This parking lamp does not bear on and 10 meters from each headlamp on means, when considering glare in real cannot impair the performance of an approximately the optical axis (the world application, the critical issue is activated turn signal. optical center of beam pattern, where not the photometric output value of the (c) The noncompliance will be the horizontal and vertical axes of the parking lamp alone but the performance addressed in the subject vehicles with a beam pattern cross). All other lamps of the parking lamp in conjunction with service update bulletin: GM will issue were covered except the parking lamp the headlamps. The most appropriate Service Update Bulletin 16078 to on one side of the vehicle. The vehicle way to assess this combined effect is to address the noncompliance condition in was started, and the parking lamps were measure the parking lamp-headlamp each of the subject vehicles at their next energized. The lux output of the lamp combination at the traditional headlamp dealership visit or service appointment. was measured and then converted into glare points (points above the horizon in Cadillac CT6 owners are provided, free candela. This process was repeated for the photometric beam pattern that limit of charge, Cadillac Premium Care the parking lamp on the other side of light output in the path of oncoming Service for three years or 36,000 miles the vehicle. The values were similar and drivers) recognized by NHTSA in covering routine maintenance verified a correlation with the Hella lab FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J1383. including: Oil changes, tire rotation, air When two samples of the subject data on the goniometer. filter replacement and multi-point vehicles’ parking lamp-headlamp To view GM’s petition and test data vehicle inspection. The subject vehicles combinations were evaluated in the and analyses in its entirety you can visit will also invariably enter dealerships for laboratory against recognized glare other reasons. Therefore, GM expects https://www.regulations.gov by points, the output fell below, or within, that most of the subject vehicles will be following the online instructions for the acceptable value of headlamp glare corrected during their regular warranty accessing the dockets and by using the points specified in FMVSS No. 108. period. The Service Update Bulletin docket ID number for this petition It should be noted, that it is possible shown in the heading of this notice. will be issued to dealers once sufficient for a vehicle to incorporate parking service parts become available. NHTSA notes that the statutory lamps and headlamps whose outputs GM concluded by expressing the provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and are near, or at the maximum allowed belief that the subject noncompliance is 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to values while remaining compliant. For inconsequential as it relates to motor file petitions for a determination of head lamps, that output would be at or vehicle safety, and that its petition to be inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to near the maximum specified exempted from providing notification of exempt manufacturers only from the photometric values, and for parking the noncompliance, as required by 49 duties found in sections 30118 and lamps that output would be at or near U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 30120, respectively, to notify owners, 125 candela at all test points above the noncompliance, as required by 49 purchasers, and dealers of a defect or horizon. A parking lamp with this U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. noncompliance and to remedy the output value in close proximity to the In a letter dated February 13, 2017, headlamp at or near maximum output defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any subsequent to receipt of GM’s petition, could create combined output with a GM provided the following additional decision on this petition only applies to glare value exceeding the maximum information pertaining to photometric the subject vehicles that GM no longer allowable headlamp photometric glare testing of the subject parking lamps: controlled at the time it determined that values by 125 cd. And yet the The photometric testing of the subject the noncompliance existed. However, combination would still be compliant, park function was conducted by HELLA any decision on this petition does not because the headlamp’s glare KGaA Hueck & Co., the supplier of the relieve vehicle distributors and dealers measurement falls within the permitted lamp, at the Hella lab. The parking lamp of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for values for the headlamp alone, and the and headlamp were mounted in design sale, or introduction or delivery for parking lamp values correspond to the position relative to each other on a introduction into interstate commerce of permitted values for parking lamps. goniometer. The park function and the the noncompliant vehicles under their However, the parking lamp-headlamp lower beam were energized control after GM notified them that the combination in the subject vehicles are simultaneously.1 (In GM’s letter, they subject noncompliance existed. below the prescribed glare values for a provided a table evaluating the Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: compliant headlamp and well below the value of the theoretical combined 1 To energize the park function on the Cadillac delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and parking lamp-headlamp output. CT6, power and ground are required along with an 501.8) Consequently, GM believes the input signal that duplicates the signal from the Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, photometric output of the subject vehicle instructing the lamp to illuminate at the vehicles’ parking lamps will not cause Park lamp intensity. This is a Pulse Width Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Modulation (PWM) signal with a certain frequency [FR Doc. 2017–07168 Filed 4–10–17; 8:45 am] a glare that presents an unreasonable and duty cycle. In the Hella lab, that PWM signal risk to the safety of oncoming drivers. was duplicated using a specially built signal BILLING CODE 4910–59–P (b) The noncompliance has no impact generator consisting of a standard PWM Signal on turn signal performance: NHTSA has Generator and a 47 nF capacitor. The park lamp was energized, using the PWM simulator, to duplicate also expressed concern that a parking the subject condition photometry. To energize the lamp that exceeds maximum permitted lower beam function on the Cadillac CT6, only photometric values could mask the turn power and ground is required at its design voltage. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1


Document Created: 2017-04-11 00:48:54
Document Modified: 2017-04-11 00:48:54
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionReceipt of petition.
DatesThe closing date for comments on the petition is May 11, 2017.
FR Citation82 FR 17518 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR