[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63416-63418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-97-3149]


Nissan Motor Corporation, U.S.A.; Denial of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation USA, (Nissan) determined 
that certain Nissan Sentra 4-door sedans fail to comply with the 
requirements of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,'' and 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573 ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Information Report.'' Nissan also applied to be exempted 
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of an application was published on December 18, 
1996, and an opportunity afforded for comment (61 FR 66744). This 
notice denies the application.
    Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that each motor 
vehicle shall be equipped with certain lamps and reflective devices 
designed to conform to applicable SAE Standards or Recommended 
Practices referenced in the Standard. The stop lamp function of a rear 
combination lamp assembly must meet the photometric performance 
requirements of SAE J586 FEB84. To determine photometric performance, 
measurements of light intensity are taken at 19 test points in a 
geometric grid. The grid is further broken down into five separate 
zones. The measured test point values that are located within a zone 
are added together to provide a zone total which must meet a minimum 
value.
    Based on its tests, Nissan believes that the taillamp function of 
the combination lamps in certain Nissan Sentra 4-door sedans meet or 
exceed all test criteria and is in compliance with Standard No. 108. 
Further, the stop lamp function of certain rear combination lamp 
assemblies in those vehicles meet the requirements in Zones 1, 2, 4, 
and 5.
    However, in certain lamps, the minimum requirements in Zone 3 for 
the stop lamp function were not met. The photometric results for the 
tested lamps of the Sentra 4-door sedan stop lamp function in Zone 3 
are discussed in the decision portion of this notice, and are set forth 
in Nissan's application, which has been filed in the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration Docket Section.
    According to Nissan, from December 11, 1995, through September 
1996, the company manufactured approximately 65,000 1996 and 1997 model 
year Nissan Sentra 4-door sedans with combination tail/stop lamp 
assemblies that it determined did not comply with the stop lamp 
photometric requirements of SAE J586 FEB84 as incorporated by reference 
in Standard No. 108. J586 FEB84 defines 19 test points for stop lamps 
that must emit a specified range of light intensity. These test points 
are grouped into five zones and their intensities are summed to arrive 
at a total within each zone. Each zone's total has a required value, 
measured in candela, that must be met, with none of the test points 
falling below 60 per cent of its specified value.
    Nissan stated that it discovered that the total candela of the five 
test points measured across Zone 3 in some lamps that it tested did not 
meet the required minimum of 380 candela for Zone 3. All other zone 
totals were within Standard No. 108's specifications for the stop lamp 
function, and all the Standard's criteria were met for the taillamp 
function.
    Nissan supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    Nissan [we] believe the failure of the stop lamp portion of the 
rear combination lamp assembly to meet photometric requirements in 
one of five zones is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the 
following reasons:
    A NHTSA sponsored study titled ``Driver Perception of Just 
Noticeable Difference[s] in [of Automotive] Signal Lamp 
Intensities'' [DOT HS 808 209, September 1994] demonstrated a change 
in luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by 
most drivers. Since all of the stop lamps Nissan tested, except one, 
were closer to the standard than 25 percent, the noncompliance is 
likely undetectable to the human eye. The single worst case sample 
was 25.5 percent below the standard in zone 3 but exceeds the 
photometric requirements of zones one, two, four, and five and meets 
or exceeds all other FMVSS and SAE requirements.
    The stop lamp is more than five times brighter than the tail 
lamp. A following driver will have no problem detecting the moment 
of brake application.
    The two combination lamp assemblies are supplemented by a Center 
High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The Sentra's CHMSL illuminates at 
over two times the minimum standard to provide not only strong 
warning of brake application to the following driver, but also 
vehicles further back in the traffic flow. Nissan believes the 
supplementary benefit of the bright CHMSL helps to compensate for 
any diminished stop lamp performance.
    The combination tail/stop lamp assemblies are mounted high in 
the vehicle's body near the beltline. This mounting location 
provides excellent line of sight visibility to a following driver.
    Nissan is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints 
or field reports related to this condition.
    In similar situations NHTSA has granted the applications of 
various other petitioners. See, for example, 61 Federal Register, 
January 22, 1996 (petition by General Motors); 56 Federal Register 
59971, November 26, 1991 (petition by Subaru of America); and 55 
Federal Register 37601, September 12, 1990 (petition by Hella Inc).

    No comments were received on the application.
    NHTSA has carefully considered Nissan's arguments and the facts in 
this case. It is reassuring to have Nissan affirm that, in spite of the 
photometric failures, the stop lamp ``is more than five times brighter 
than the tail lamp,'' as is the Sentra's mandated center highmounted 
stop lamp. However, this is no less than what Standard No. 108 already 
requires for the pair of stop lamps. Because the pair of stop lamps are 
mounted within the range of height from the road specified by Standard 
No. 108, the fact that they may be mounted near the beltline is 
regarded as a neutral safety factor for purposes of this discussion. In 
the final analysis, it appears to NHTSA that the company has 
understated the magnitude of the noncompliance in comparison with the 
data it has submitted, and that the severity of the noncompliance 
reflects flaws in Nissan's design and manufacturing process that cannot 
be overlooked regardless of compensating factors such as the location 
of other stop lamps and the conformance of the stop lamps in question 
with the other four zonal requirements.
    The agency deems it relevant to its decision to deny Nissan's 
application to discuss briefly the accommodation that Standard No. 108 
already makes for manufacturers by imposing less than the absolute 
performance requirements

[[Page 63417]]

established by other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As Nissan 
indicates, the first step in determining the photometric compliance of 
a lighting device with Standard No. 108 is to measure the candela at a 
number of discrete test points, and then compare them with the values 
(minimum or maximum) established by the standard. When NHTSA initially 
proposed in late 1966 that lamps ``comply'' with Standard No. 108, 
industry represented that it could not manufacture every lamp to meet 
every single test point without a substantial cost penalty unjustified 
by safety. NHTSA accepted this argument. In adopting Standard No. 108, 
the agency specified that lamps be ``designed to comply'' with 
applicable photometric specifications. On a number of occasions since, 
NHTSA has stated that it will not consider a lamp to be noncompliant if 
its failure to meet a test point is random and occasional. Thus, 
historically, there has never been an absolute requirement that every 
motor vehicle lighting device must meet every single photometric test 
point in order to comply with Standard No. 108.
    NHTSA further accommodated the industry when Standard No. 108 
adopted the SAE's zonal system as an alternative method of determining 
photometric compliance of certain lamps. Under this system, individual 
test points are grouped into a ``zone'' with nearby test points. The 
values are measured and added. If the sum equals or exceeds the total 
of the minimum required for all test points within the zone, the zone 
is judged to comply even if one or two of its test points fail to meet 
its individual candela specification, (as long as the failure is not 
less than 60 percent of the prescribed value.) Thus, an individual test 
point within a zone may fail by up to 40 percent.
    Nissan asks that NHTSA go even further in accepting a lower level 
of performance, citing three instances in which it believes that the 
agency has granted inconsequentiality applications where failures of 
luminous intensity of less than 25 percent have occurred, the threshold 
at which it believes differences in light output become noticeable.
    The agency has reviewed the cases cited by Nissan (GM, Subaru, 
Hella) in order to judge whether they afford a precedent for granting 
this inconsequentiality application. NHTSA has concluded that none of 
the cases are on point, and, further, that the agency should clarify 
the apparent misunderstanding of its comments regarding 25 percent 
luminous intensity differences.
    GM determined that turn signal lamps on Buick Century passenger 
cars failed to meet Zone 3 by an average of 10 percent among the 17 
lamps tested while the three compliant zones exceeded the light 
intensity requirements by at least 20 percent. Because the failures 
averaged far less than 25 percent, GM argued that they would not be 
detectable by the naked eye. However, NHTSA granted the application on 
the basis that, overall, the performance of the lamps would be 
consistent with that of lamps meeting the minimum requirements in every 
zone. In the case of Nissan, the magnitude of failure was considerably 
greater; a number of individual test point failures exceed 25 percent, 
up to 35.6 percent below the minimum requirement. Even using the zonal 
method, 18 of 34 zones tested fail to meet Standard No. 108, one zone 
failing by up to 25.5 percent.
    Subaru discovered that amber front side reflex reflectors on some 
of its vehicles failed to meet Standard No. 108's performance 
requirements. Subaru contended that the luminance transmittance 
failures were all less than 20 percent of the minimum values specified 
by the standard. According to demonstrations that it had conducted, 
observers could not differentiate between the reflected light of 
complying and noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30 , 60, and 100 
meters. NHTSA accepted this argument and granted the application. NHTSA 
notes that, in this instance, the inconsequential effect of the 
noncompliance was demonstrated by tests with observers, and that the 
failures were at individual test points and not zones, as in the Nissan 
noncompliance. Further, conformance of stop lamps is demonstrably more 
important to motor vehicle safety than that of front side reflex 
reflectors.
    In the Hella case, NHTSA testing had discovered that eight of 18 
combination stop/taillamps had exceeded the maximum candela permissible 
at certain test points for the taillamp function. Hella argued that 
none of its failures exceeded the maximum intensity by more than 20 
percent. NHTSA granted the application on the basis that real-world 
voltages were typically lower than test voltages, and that any 
excessive candela values would be reduced upon installation and even 
further reduced as the lamp aged. In other words, the probability of 
the noncompliant lamps contributing to glare was reduced in the real 
world because, as installed and used, their noncompliant maxima may 
have been reduced to a level of near conformance. Again, the failure 
was small and was for test point failures rather than zone failures. 
The actual effect of real world voltages on the Nissan lamps is not 
known, but is of little consequence because, except for vehicle 
voltage, the effect of all external events such as dirt and age is to 
lower the lamp's intensity. This makes a dim stop lamp an even greater 
risk.
    As stated, NHTSA wishes to clarify its occasional statements that 
differences in light output do not become noticeable until there is a 
differential of 25 percent between the light sources being compared. 
This language was based on a study conducted by NHTSA titled ``Driver 
Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamps'' 
(DOT HS808209). In outlining its rationale, Nissan seems to 
misunderstand the research done on ``just noticeable differences'' 
(JND). First, the research on JND is based on individuals looking at 
lamps from a single vantage point in front of the lamps, that is, 
comparing intensities of single test points.
    It is not valid to use the JND justification for judging the effect 
of zonal intensity failures. Drivers do not look at zones when they 
observe lamps, they look at the lamp from very narrow angles based on 
the distance between their eyes and the distance to the lamp. Using the 
JND justification on zones would imply that drivers would be looking at 
lamps from all the test points in the zone simultaneously and somehow 
integrating the numerous intensities into some false representation of 
how intense the lamp should be. This is simply not the case. For this 
reason, the JND argument is not applicable to zone failures.
    Because it is the central portion, Zone 3 is the most critical area 
of the stop lamp. It is aimed directly at the following traffic. With 
respect to Nissan's noncompliance, 104 of the 170 test points (the 
total number of test points from the group of lamps tested) in Zone 3 
did not meet the minimum requirements. This shows that the 
noncompliances are very specific to one particular zone. It also 
suggests an apparent failure of quality control procedures rather than 
random test point noncompliances throughout all five zones. Occasional 
random noncompliances are to be expected in this very complicated 
design and manufacturing process. It is for this reason that the 
``designed to comply'' provision is contained in the lighting standard. 
Further, NHTSA has always interpreted the ``designed to comply'' 
requirement to include well-defined quality control procedures.

[[Page 63418]]

    On the vehicles that NHTSA tested, fourteen test points failed by 
more than 25 percent, with the worst case test point being over 35 
percent. When using the zone compliance measurement, 18 out of the 34 
zones tested failed to meet the minimum requirements, one zone failing 
the zone total by slightly over 25 percent. Again, the agency believes 
that these are not random, occasional failures of the type that NHTSA 
sometimes encounters in the course of its compliance testing. Instead, 
the pervasiveness of the failures is evidence of flaws in Nissan's 
design and manufacturing process.
    To further support granting its application, Nissan staff brought 
two identical Sentras equipped with noncomplying lamps for NHTSA staff 
to examine. The stop lamps on these vehicles were examined both in a 
garage which was moderately lighted and outside in daylight where the 
skies were overcast. Nissan performed photometric testing on each 
vehicle before they were examined and found that on one vehicle, the 
left and right stop lamps produced a sum of 386 and 293 candela in Zone 
3, respectively. On the other vehicle, the left and right stop lamps 
produced a sum of 384 and 330 candela in Zone 3, respectively. As 
previously stated, the required minimum for Zone 3 is 380 candela. 
NHTSA staff examined the vehicles from a number of different distances 
and angles for approximately five minutes in each setting.
    Based on this examination, NHTSA staff did not see a stark 
difference between any of the stop lamps, although most of the staff 
members could determine that the lamp with the Zone 3 measurements of 
293 candela was the dimmest. However, this type of examination does not 
convince NHTSA that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. In 
the real world, drivers following one of the subject vehicles would not 
always have the luxury of intently examining the vehicles from a number 
of angles for a long period of time. They would, in many cases, have to 
make split second judgments as to whether the vehicle in front of them 
has its brake lamps illuminated.
    Through crash data analysis, NHTSA has found that many rear end 
crashes occur as a result of a driver's inattention to the area ahead 
of the vehicle. Drivers may be operating the radio, using a cellular 
phone, or any number of non-driving related activities. To see the 
vehicles in front of them, they must often rely on their peripheral 
vision. In these situations, it may not be readily apparent that one of 
the subject vehicles has its stop lamps illuminated. On the subject 
vehicles, even the stop lamps which comply with the minimum requirement 
for Zone 3, do so by a narrow margin. The worst failure among the 
noncompliant lamps was over 25 percent below the minimum for Zone 3. 
Because of this, the noncompliance has the potential to confuse 
following drivers as to whether it is a stop lamp or a tail lamp which 
they are seeing. In an emergency situation, when drivers compare the 
subject lamps with other nearby stop lamps or with their memory of a 
stop lamp, they may not make the correct judgment quickly enough. In 
certain situations, a fraction of a second may be all the time the 
driver has to make the necessary crash avoidance maneuver. This may not 
be ample time for the driver to discern whether the lamp is a tail lamp 
or a stop lamp. It is this added level of risk associated with these 
vehicles that must drive a decision regarding safety consequences.
    This concern about risk of incorrect identification is supported by 
a 1986 study sponsored by NHTSA and conducted by the University of 
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI-86-28). In this 
study, test subjects were presented with two lamps intended to simulate 
a U.S. tail lighting system. These lamps were illuminated to 18, 40, 
60, 80, and 100 candela. After the lamps were illuminated to one of 
these levels, the test subject was asked to quickly determine, only by 
the brightness of the lamps, whether they were signaling braking or 
presence (vehicle's taillamps on). When the lamps were illuminated to 
80 candela, the test subjects identified the lamps as signaling braking 
90 percent of the time. When they were illuminated to 60 candela, the 
test subjects identified the lamps as signaling braking 74 percent of 
the time. Finally, when the lamps were illuminated to 40 candela, the 
test subjects identified the lamps as signaling braking only 39 percent 
of the time. Of the five test points in Zone 3, the standard requires 
that three have a minimum value of 80 candela and two have minimum 
value of 70 candela. Also, according to Nissan's test data submitted 
with its application, the lowest value obtained at any test points on 
the subject vehicles was 45.1 candela. These data lead NHTSA to believe 
that the Nissan noncompliance could lead drivers following the subject 
vehicles to mistake the stop lamps for tail lamps. Thus, the risk of 
being in a crash would be higher for the Nissan vehicles compared to 
vehicles with complying lamps.
    In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that the 
applicant has failed to meet its burden of persuasion that the 
noncompliance herein described is inconsequential to safety, and its 
application is denied.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

    Issued on: November 21, 1997.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-31264 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P