[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 96-129; Notice 2]


General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    This notice grants the application by General Motors Corporation 
(GM) of Warren, Michigan, to be exempted from the notification and 
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), and 30120(h) for a 
noncompliance with 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment.'' The basis of the application is that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on December 18, 
1996, and an opportunity afforded for comment (61 FR 66744).
    Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(2) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that any pair of 
lamps on the front of a passenger car, * * * other than parking lamps 
or fog lamps, may be wired to be automatically activated, as determined 
by the manufacturer of the vehicle, * * * provided that each such lamp 
is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less than 3 mm 
high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp.
    GM's description of the noncompliance follows:
    GM recently discovered that the combination park/turn signal lamp 
for the 1997 Pontiac Firebird vehicles had been released without the 
required ``DRL'' marking on the face of the lamp. The condition was 
corrected in September 1996. Approximately 4,500 vehicles were produced 
without ``DRL'' marked on the lamps.
    GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following reasons:

    The park/turn signal lamps meet all substantive requirements of 
FMVSS 108 for all functions; the sole noncompliance concerns the 
marking on the lamps for the voluntary DRL function.
    NHTSA adopted a lens marking requirement in the final rule 
promulgating DRL provisions because of a concern that state 
enforcement and vehicle inspection officials would not be able to 
``distinguish between legal and illegal lamps and lamp combinations 
in the absence of marking.'' 58 Fed. Reg. 3504 (1993).
    While NHTSA adopted ``DRL'' as the required marking, it had 
considered an alternate proposal to adopt the ``Y2'' identification 
code specified in SAE Recommended Practice J759, Lighting 
Identification Code, January 1995 (SAE J579). The agency chose to 
require the ``DRL'' marking apparently not because of a state 
inspection concern, but because the SAE specifications were not 
identical to the federal ones. NHTSA reasoned that ``to adopt the 
SAE designation would be inaccurate and confusing because it would 
signify adoption of the SAE requirements * * *'' Id.
    In this instance, the subject vehicles include the ``Y2'' 
marking specified by SAE J759. Thus, while the lamps do not meet the 
explicit federal marking requirements, they do provide an indication 
to state officials that the lamps are intended to be used as DRLs. 
Moreover, the concern expressed by NHTSA in the final rule about the 
SAE designation does not apply here since the subject lamps meet the 
substantive requirements of both FMVSS 108 and SAE J759.
    The owner's manual for the Firebird explains that the DRL 
function is provided by the park/turn signal lamp. A state inspector 
who is unclear about the ``Y2'' designation would have alternate 
means of confirming that the turn signal portion of the lamp 
properly provides a DRL function.
    The population of subject vehicles is small, so any confusion 
created by the condition would be minimal.
    GM is not aware of any customer complaints concerning the 
absence of the ``DRL'' marking.
    No comments were received on the application.

Discussion and Recommendation

    The agency has carefully reviewed GM's analyses. Because the lens 
marking requirement was initially promulgated by the agency to enable 
state enforcement and vehicle inspection officials to distinguish 
between legal and illegal lamps and lamp combinations, NHTSA believes 
that the omission of the ``DRL'' marking will not compromise motor 
vehicle safety for the reasons expressed by GM.
    Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, the petitioner has 
met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and the agency grants GM's 
application for exemption from notification of the noncompliance as 
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from remedy as required by 49 U.S.C. 
30120. (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8.)

    Issued on: March 31, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-8537 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P