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 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 

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 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) 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Notices 48813 

1To 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. 

2Cf. 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). 

3See, 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). 

4See 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’’). 

5See 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). 

6See 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 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 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: 


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 ClimateRelated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES