Notice2026-18546
General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
General Motors, LLC (GM) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2024 Cadillac XT4, Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon 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 April 25, 2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on May 17, 2024, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of GM's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57957-57959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18546]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0048; 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) 2024 Cadillac XT4, Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon 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 April 25, 2024, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on May 17, 2024, 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 13, 2026.
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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> 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
[[Page 57958]]
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7479.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: GM determined that certain MY 2024 Cadillac XT4,
Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon motor vehicles do not fully comply
with paragraphs S7.2.5, S7.4.4, and S7.7.5 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108) and filed
a noncompliance report on April 25, 2024, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. GM petitioned
NHTSA on May 17, 2024, 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 10,241 MY 2024 Cadillac XT4,
Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon motor vehicles, manufactured between
November 16, 2023, and March 19, 2024, were reported by the
manufacturer.
III. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S7.2.5, S7.4.5, and S7.7.5 of
FMVSS No. 108 include the requirements relevant to this petition.
Paragraphs S7.2.5, S7.4.5, and S7.7.5 require that taillamps, side
marker lamps, and license plate lamps, respectively, meet the
activation requirements outlined in Table 1-a. Specifically, taillamps,
side marker lamps, and license plate lamps on all passenger cars,
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV), trucks, and buses, less than
2,032 millimeters (mm) (80 inches) in overall width must be activated
when the parking lamps are activated.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FMVSS No. 108 does not require parking lamps on vehicles
with an overall width equal to or greater than 2,032 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Noncompliance: GM explains that, under specific conditions,
when the parking lamps are activated, the taillamps, side marker lamps
and license plate lamp are not activated as required by Table I-a of
FMVSS No. 108. GM describes the conditions as having the master
lighting control switched from ``AUTO'' to ``OFF,'' while the ambient
lighting conditions are dark, and the vehicle's transmission is not in
the ``PARK'' position.
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 states that the subject noncompliance would be apparent to a
driver of a subject vehicle because the parking lamps will remain
``on,'' i.e., activated, and be visible in dark conditions, and that
the noncompliance, i.e., the deactivation of the taillamps, side marker
lamps, and license plate lamp, will persist only as long as all three
of the conditions stated in section IV, above, are met exactly as
described. For example, GM states that if the driver turns the master
lighting control to ``OFF'' while the vehicle's transmission is in the
``PARK'' position, the subject noncompliance will not occur. Next, GM
states that if the master lighting switch is set to positions other
than ``OFF,'' the parking lamps will activate and deactivate
simultaneously with the taillamps, side marker lamps and license plate
lamp. Finally, GM states that if the driver shifts the subject
vehicles' transmission into the ``PARK'' position, after triggering the
subject noncompliance to occur, and while the master lighting control
is set to ``OFF,'' the parking lamps will deactivate and remain
deactivated if the vehicle is subsequently put into a transmission
state other than ``PARK.''
GM outlines several reasons why the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
A. This noncompliance does not adversely impact the safety function
of the parking lamps.
GM states that because the noncompliance cannot arise when a
subject vehicle's transmission is in ``PARK,'' or is immediately
corrected if the transmission is subsequently put into ``PARK,'' the
parking lamps' function ``to mark the vehicle when parked or serve as a
reserve front position indicating system in the event of headlamp
failure'' is unaffected.
B. The parking lamps remaining activated while a vehicle with the
subject noncompliance is operated in a propulsion gear in the dark has
no negative impact and may improve vehicle safety.
GM states that the noncompliance ``can only occur at night'' and
with a subject vehicle's transmission in a gear other than ``PARK.'' GM
asserts that under these operating conditions, having parking lamps
activated \2\ has no adverse safety impact, suggesting that safety will
be improved by illuminating the vehicle to other roadway users, and
providing some visibility for the driver in very dark conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Parking lamps are activated without the required taillamps,
side marker lamps or license plate lamp activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The noncompliance is highly detectible and corrected through
routine vehicle operations.
Further, GM states that because the noncompliance ``can only occur
when it is dark,'' the driver will be ``immediately'' aware that the
parking lamps did not deactivate, and that their continued illumination
will be readily apparent as shown in Figure 1 of its petition.\3\ GM
adds that the noncompliance can be corrected in multiple ways, by
changing the position
[[Page 57959]]
of the master lighting control or the vehicle's transmission. See Item
C. in Section II. of GM's petition for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Figure 1 of GM's petition is a photograph showing the
surface reflection from a vehicle's parking lamps only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The noncompliance only occurs after a unique set of
circumstances that do not reflect typical driver behavior in the field.
GM claims that a driver adjusting the master lighting control from
``AUTO'' to ``OFF'' while driving in dark conditions are not reflective
of expected driver behavior in the field. GM states that it expects
most drivers to utilize automatic light operation, particularly while
driving at night, and that either in response to the noncompliance
occurring, or a desire to turn off all exterior lighting, a driver
would be expected to stop the vehicle and put the transmission in the
``PARK'' position to adjust the lighting control.
E. GM is not aware of any related field reports.
GM is not aware of any customer or warranty complaints associated
with this noncompliance.
F. NHTSA has granted similar petitions.
GM believes that the following inconsequential noncompliance
petitions granted by NHTSA support the granting of the current
petition.
<bullet> General Motors LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 83 FR 7848 (Feb. 22, 2018). The
noncompliance in GM's 2018 petition concerned parking lamps that were
not activated as required by Table 1-a of FMVSS No. 108 while
taillamps, side marker lamps, license plate lamps and headlamps
continued to operate.
<bullet> Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 14325 (Mar. 14, 2022).
The noncompliance in DTNA's petition concerned automatic illumination
of the stop lamps in the absence of brake activation when the low air
brake pressure warning indicator light illuminated.
GM contends that the activation of the parking lamps provides a
safety benefit, even if the taillamps, side marker lamps, and license
plate lamp are not activated, compared to operating the subject vehicle
in the dark without any lamps. GM maintains that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because it
only occurs when the parking lamps are not required under a unique set
of circumstances, is not reflective of typical driver behavior, and
will correct itself through normal vehicle operations.
GM adds that the subject noncompliance was addressed in production
for all applicable vehicles manufactured on or after March 19, 2024.
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. 2026-18546 Filed 9-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 11, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.