General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 58430-58432 [2022-20749]
Download as PDF
58430
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices
Issued in Washington, DC.
James Hatt,
Space Policy Division Manager, Office of
Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2022–20751 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA 2022–0024]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Request for New
Information Collection
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The FHWA invites public
comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) approval to submit one
information collection, which is
summarized below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. We
published a Federal Register Notice
with a 60-day public comment period
on this information collection on June
17, 2022. We are required to publish
this notice in the Federal Register by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Please submit comments by
October 26, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
within 30 days to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection. All comments
should include the Docket number
FHWA–2022–0024.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Transportation Pooled Fund
Excellence Award.
OMB Control Number: (if applicable).
Summary:
Respondents: Any participant in the
Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF)
program can submit a nomination of a
TPF study for the TPF Excellence
Award, including staff from the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
Background: FHWA is partnering
with the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Research Advisory
Committee (RAC) to further promote
research, innovation, and excellence
through a new TPF Program Excellence
Award.
For more than 45 years, the FHWA’s
TPF Program has enabled public and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
private entities to collaboratively
conduct cutting-edge transportation
research. Through the TPF Program,
participants are able to pool funds and
expertise to develop innovative
solutions at a lower cost while
extending the reach and impact of their
research.
The TPF Excellence Award will
recognize outstanding TPF studies that
have made significant advancements in
national research efforts in the areas of
safety, economic growth, equity, and/or
transformative climate solutions. The
future award will highlight the
importance of meaningful collaboration
and partnership in transportation
research. Administered through a
partnership between FHWA and the
AASHTO RAC, the biennial TPF
Excellence Award will recognize one
FHWA-led TPF study and one State
department of transportation (DOT)-led
study. Nominations would be received
between February 1 and May 1 every 2
yr. Nomination forms would be sent to
FHWA Division Offices and State DOTs
to solicit nominees.
Award: Any participant in the TPF
program can nominate a TPF study that
is completed and has posted a final
report by June 30 of the year submitted.
The nominator is responsible for
completing the nomination form that
summarizes the outstanding
accomplishments of the entry. FHWA
will use the collected information to
evaluate, showcase, and enhance the
public’s knowledge of research and
innovation conducted through these
TPF projects. Nominations will be
reviewed by an independent panel of
judges from various backgrounds. The
awards will be given every 2 yr. The
winners will be presented awards at the
completion of the process.
Frequency: The information will be
collected biennially.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 5 h per respondent per
application.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: It is expected that the
respondents will complete
approximately 20 applications for an
estimated total of 100 annual burden
hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Sergeson, 202–493–3166,
Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Office of
Corporate Research, Technology and
Innovation Management, TurnerFairbank Highway Research Center,
6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA
22101. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of
these information collections, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collections are
necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burdens could be
minimized, including use of electronic
technology, without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The
agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of these information
collections.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as
amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued On: September 21, 2022.
Michael Howell,
Information Collection Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022–20772 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0041; Notice 1]
General Motors, LLC, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
General Motors, LLC (GM),
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2018–2020 Chevrolet Suburban
and Tahoe motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. GM filed an
original noncompliance report dated
March 31, 2022. GM subsequently
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices
petitioned NHTSA on April 22, 2022,
for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This
document announces receipt of GM’s
petition.
Send comments on or before
October 26, 2022.
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 may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal
Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website 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.
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Angeles, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, (202) 366–5304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM determined that
certain MY 2018–2020 Chevrolet
Suburban and Tahoe motor vehicles do
not fully comply with paragraph S6.5.2
of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment. (49
CFR 571.108).
GM filed an original noncompliance
report dated March 31, 2022, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. GM petitioned NHTSA on
April 22, 2022, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential
Defect or Noncompliance.
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 another exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
329,344 MY 2018–2020 Chevrolet
Suburban and Tahoe motor vehicles
manufactured between May 22, 2017,
and April 8, 2020, are potentially
involved:
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that
the headlamp lens equipped in the
subject vehicles does not fully comply
with the marking requirements as stated
in paragraph S6.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the headlamp lens’ in the
subject vehicles are not marked ‘‘DRL’’
to indicate that there is a daytime
running lamp (DRL) function in the
headlamp assembly that is not optically
combined with a headlamp function.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S6.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition.
FMVSS No 108, 6.5.2 requires each
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58431
original equipment and replacement
lamp used as a DRL, unless optically
combined with a headlamp, to be
permanently marked ‘‘DRL’’ on its lens
in letters not less than 3 mm high.
V. Summary of GM’s Petition: The
following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of GM’s Petition,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by GM. They have
not been evaluated by the Agency and
do not reflect the views of the Agency.
GM describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
GM explains that the missing DRL
marking on the headlamp lens is the
result of a supplier error that occurred
in the course of the change of the design
of the DRL. GM says that the DRLs meet
all of the performance requirements
given in FMVSS No. 108 and other than
the missing DRL marking, the subject
headlamp assemblies comply with all
marking requirements as stated in
FMVSS No. 108.
GM details the history and purpose of
the DRL marking to support its belief
that the subject noncompliance does not
affect vehicle safety. GM says that before
the DRL marking requirement was
added to FMVSS No. 108, the laws on
vehicle lighting varied between states
and that while no state laws directly
prohibited the use of DRLs some of
those laws did have the incidental effect
of prohibiting the use of DRLs. In 1993,
NHTSA published the final rule
updating FMVSS No. 108 1 to allow
DRLs to be installed as optional lighting
equipment. GM says that NHTSA added
the ‘‘DRL’’ marking provision as an
accommodation to states because
NHTSA recognized that any update to
DRL performance requirements would
preempt the laws of those states which
had effectively precluded the use of
DRLs. GM states that the DRL marking
requirement allowed the local
authorities to distinguish between
illegal vehicle lamps and lighting
combinations and legal lamps that had
been certified as meeting the DRL
performance requirements. Therefore,
GM believes that the DRL marking
requirement was never intended to have
any effect on the operation or function
of the DRLs; and, accordingly, the
absence of the marking does not have an
impact on motor vehicle safety.
GM acknowledges that local
authorities needed to distinguish
between permitted and illegal vehicle
headlighting was a relevant concern in
1 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment, 58 FR 3500 (January 11, 1993).
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
58432
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2022 / Notices
the early 1990s but GM believes the DRL
marking requirement no longer holds
the same significance because of the
increased prevalence of DRLs being
installed in vehicles as standard
equipment.
GM says that it has not received any
complaints, reports, or claims as a result
of the subject noncompliance. GM also
states that it has not found any reports
from consumers complaining that their
vehicles did not pass a state inspection
or that drivers have been cited by local
law enforcement because the ‘DRL’
marking was not present.
Furthermore, GM says that the MY
2018–2020 Chevrolet Tahoe and
Suburban motor vehicles without the
DRL marking are also offered for sale in
Canada, where the DRL marking is not
a requirement. GM says that because the
DRL marking is not required by the
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, this supports their belief that
‘‘the marking requirement is an artifact
of the piecemeal approach to vehicle
lighting regulation in the United States
that existed decades ago and has no
bearing on motor vehicle safety or the
performance of the headlamp system.’’
GM believes that NHTSA’s analysis of
certain petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance support granting the
subject petition. According to GM, for
inconsequentiality petitions submitted
by OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.,2
and General Motors, LLC,3 NHTSA has
previously granted these where, like in
this petition, the only compliance
related issue is that the light source does
not meet the associated marking
requirement. Specifically, GM noted
that the key point in the analysis of both
those petitions was that NHTSA
determined that inadvertently installing
a lamp by following the marking on the
light source would not create an
enhanced safety risk because the two
light sources were interchangeable.
Furthermore, GM claims that since the
DRL is a non-replaceable lamp within
the headlamp assembly, the whole
headlamp assembly will need to be
replaced. Thus, the ‘‘DRL’’ marking does
not and was never intended to
communicate any information related to
its replacement and does not provide
any information to the consumer on the
compatible types of replacement light
sources. GM cites a petition submitted
2 OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 22943 (April 17, 2003).
3 General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR
5644 (January 18, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Sep 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,4
to be similar to the subject petition
where GM says NHTSA found that
because consumers and other entities
would identify replacement lamps
through other means and would in no
way rely upon the missing voltage
marking, the noncompliance posed little
if any risk to motor vehicle safety.
In a denial of a petition submitted by
Great Dane, LLC,5 GM says NHTSA
reasoned that the absence of a
certification label reduces the safety
effectiveness of certain items of motor
vehicle equipment, the same
considerations do not apply to the
subject noncompliance. GM claims that
in contrast to the Grant Dane petition,
the ‘‘DRL’’ marking serves a
fundamentally different purpose in that
consumers do not inspect the headlamp
lens for the presence of the mark and
the mark does not communicate any
details about the performance. GM goes
on to refer to a petition NHTSA granted
that was submitted by Porsche Cars
North America, Inc.,6 where tires did
not include the ‘‘DOT’’ certification
mark. In this case, GM states NHTSA
determined that the noncompliance was
inconsequential because the affected
tires complied with the relevant
FMVSSs and contained a vehicle
certification label.
GM concludes by stating its belief that
the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety and 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.
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
4 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 82 FR 26733 (June 8, 2017).
5 Great Dane, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 23018
(April 18, 2022).
6 Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 86 FR 184 (January 4, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022–20749 Filed 9–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2022–0102]
Use of Inland Ports for Storage and
Transfer of Cargo Containers
Notice of request for
information.
ACTION:
This notice requests
comments and information from
representatives from across the supply
chain, as well as the general public,
pertaining to the feasibility of, and
strategies for, identifying Federal and
non-Federal sites for storage and
transfer of cargo containers, to assist the
Department of Transportation in
preparing the report required by Section
24 of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
(OSRA), which was signed into law on
June 16, 2022.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 26, 2022. DOT will
consider comments filed after this date
to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Docket Number DOT–
OST–2022–0102 by any of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submission: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Search by using
the docket number (provided above).
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the electronic docket site.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor (W12–140), Washington,
DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: W12–140 of the
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
numbers.
SUMMARY:
Note: All comments received, including
any personal information, will be posted
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58430-58432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20749]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0041; 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) 2018-2020 Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM filed an
original noncompliance report dated March 31, 2022. GM subsequently
[[Page 58431]]
petitioned NHTSA on April 22, 2022, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces receipt of GM's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before October 26, 2022.
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 may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-5304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM determined that certain MY 2018-2020 Chevrolet
Suburban and Tahoe motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S6.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment. (49 CFR 571.108).
GM filed an original noncompliance report dated March 31, 2022,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. GM petitioned NHTSA on April 22, 2022, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
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
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 329,344 MY 2018-2020 Chevrolet
Suburban and Tahoe motor vehicles manufactured between May 22, 2017,
and April 8, 2020, are potentially involved:
III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the headlamp lens equipped in
the subject vehicles does not fully comply with the marking
requirements as stated in paragraph S6.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the headlamp lens' in the subject vehicles are not marked
``DRL'' to indicate that there is a daytime running lamp (DRL) function
in the headlamp assembly that is not optically combined with a headlamp
function.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. FMVSS No 108, 6.5.2
requires each original equipment and replacement lamp used as a DRL,
unless optically combined with a headlamp, to be permanently marked
``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less than 3 mm high.
V. Summary of GM's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of GM's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by GM. They have not been evaluated by the
Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. GM describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
GM explains that the missing DRL marking on the headlamp lens is
the result of a supplier error that occurred in the course of the
change of the design of the DRL. GM says that the DRLs meet all of the
performance requirements given in FMVSS No. 108 and other than the
missing DRL marking, the subject headlamp assemblies comply with all
marking requirements as stated in FMVSS No. 108.
GM details the history and purpose of the DRL marking to support
its belief that the subject noncompliance does not affect vehicle
safety. GM says that before the DRL marking requirement was added to
FMVSS No. 108, the laws on vehicle lighting varied between states and
that while no state laws directly prohibited the use of DRLs some of
those laws did have the incidental effect of prohibiting the use of
DRLs. In 1993, NHTSA published the final rule updating FMVSS No. 108
\1\ to allow DRLs to be installed as optional lighting equipment. GM
says that NHTSA added the ``DRL'' marking provision as an accommodation
to states because NHTSA recognized that any update to DRL performance
requirements would preempt the laws of those states which had
effectively precluded the use of DRLs. GM states that the DRL marking
requirement allowed the local authorities to distinguish between
illegal vehicle lamps and lighting combinations and legal lamps that
had been certified as meeting the DRL performance requirements.
Therefore, GM believes that the DRL marking requirement was never
intended to have any effect on the operation or function of the DRLs;
and, accordingly, the absence of the marking does not have an impact on
motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, 58 FR 3500 (January 11, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM acknowledges that local authorities needed to distinguish
between permitted and illegal vehicle headlighting was a relevant
concern in
[[Page 58432]]
the early 1990s but GM believes the DRL marking requirement no longer
holds the same significance because of the increased prevalence of DRLs
being installed in vehicles as standard equipment.
GM says that it has not received any complaints, reports, or claims
as a result of the subject noncompliance. GM also states that it has
not found any reports from consumers complaining that their vehicles
did not pass a state inspection or that drivers have been cited by
local law enforcement because the `DRL' marking was not present.
Furthermore, GM says that the MY 2018-2020 Chevrolet Tahoe and
Suburban motor vehicles without the DRL marking are also offered for
sale in Canada, where the DRL marking is not a requirement. GM says
that because the DRL marking is not required by the Canadian Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards, this supports their belief that ``the marking
requirement is an artifact of the piecemeal approach to vehicle
lighting regulation in the United States that existed decades ago and
has no bearing on motor vehicle safety or the performance of the
headlamp system.''
GM believes that NHTSA's analysis of certain petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance support granting the subject petition.
According to GM, for inconsequentiality petitions submitted by OSRAM
SYLVANIA Products, Inc.,\2\ and General Motors, LLC,\3\ NHTSA has
previously granted these where, like in this petition, the only
compliance related issue is that the light source does not meet the
associated marking requirement. Specifically, GM noted that the key
point in the analysis of both those petitions was that NHTSA determined
that inadvertently installing a lamp by following the marking on the
light source would not create an enhanced safety risk because the two
light sources were interchangeable. Furthermore, GM claims that since
the DRL is a non-replaceable lamp within the headlamp assembly, the
whole headlamp assembly will need to be replaced. Thus, the ``DRL''
marking does not and was never intended to communicate any information
related to its replacement and does not provide any information to the
consumer on the compatible types of replacement light sources. GM cites
a petition submitted by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,\4\ to be
similar to the subject petition where GM says NHTSA found that because
consumers and other entities would identify replacement lamps through
other means and would in no way rely upon the missing voltage marking,
the noncompliance posed little if any risk to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 22943 (April 17,
2003).
\3\ General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 5644 (January 18, 2017).
\4\ Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 26733 (June 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a denial of a petition submitted by Great Dane, LLC,\5\ GM says
NHTSA reasoned that the absence of a certification label reduces the
safety effectiveness of certain items of motor vehicle equipment, the
same considerations do not apply to the subject noncompliance. GM
claims that in contrast to the Grant Dane petition, the ``DRL'' marking
serves a fundamentally different purpose in that consumers do not
inspect the headlamp lens for the presence of the mark and the mark
does not communicate any details about the performance. GM goes on to
refer to a petition NHTSA granted that was submitted by Porsche Cars
North America, Inc.,\6\ where tires did not include the ``DOT''
certification mark. In this case, GM states NHTSA determined that the
noncompliance was inconsequential because the affected tires complied
with the relevant FMVSSs and contained a vehicle certification label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Great Dane, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 23018 (April 18, 2022).
\6\ Porsche Cars North America, Inc.; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 86 FR 184 (January 4,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and 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.
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)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-20749 Filed 9-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P