[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15669-15672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7960]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7744; Notice 3]


General Motors Corporation; Notice of Appeal of Denial of 
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM), of Warren, Michigan, has appealed 
a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) that denied its application for a decision that its 
noncompliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' be deemed 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal 
Register on August 14, 2000, (65 FR 49632). On July 23, 2001, NHTSA 
published a notice in the Federal Register denying GM's petition, 
stating that the petitioner had not met its burden of persuasion that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of GM's appeal is published in accordance 
with NHTSA regulations (49 CFR 556.7 and 556.8) and does not represent 
any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits 
of the appeal.
    GM manufactured 201,472 Buick Century and Buick Regal models 
between October 1998 and June 1999, some of whose headlamps do not meet 
the photometric requirements in FMVSS No. 108 for test points above the 
horizontal (intended for overhead sign illumination). To evaluate the 
noncompliance, GM randomly collected 10 pairs of lamps from production 
and photometrically tested them. Additionally, GM tested the same 10 
pairs of lamps using accurately-rated bulbs. These are bulbs that have 
their filaments positioned within strict tolerances. In large-scale 
bulb production, the filament positions vary slightly and, therefore, 
can produce varying photometric output. The photometric output of a 
lamp using an accurately-rated bulb is intended to closely represent 
the output that was intended in its design, and not that which would 
occur in a mass-produced headlamp as sold on motor vehicles.
    The test results indicated that five test points (production bulbs) 
and three test points (accurately-rated bulbs), respectively, failed to 
meet the minimum candela requirements. The test results also indicated 
that the amount of light below the minimum required was generally less 
than 10 percent at all noncomplying test points. However, seven 
failures at certain test points that were greater than 16 percent below 
the minimum, with the maximum variation being 24.4 percent (at 1.5 
degrees up) with a production bulb. Transport Canada conducted tests on 
headlamps used on the same types of vehicles, and found that all the 
test points in question met the requirements. GM believes that these 
results show the noncomplying results were related to manufacturing 
variations and were present in only a portion of the lamps.
    GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with 
the following statements:

    The test points at issue are all above the horizon and are 
intended to measure illumination of overhead signs. They do not 
represent areas of the beam that illuminate the road surface, and 
the headlamps still fulfill applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard 108 requirements regarding road illumination.
    For years the rule of thumb has been that a 25 percent 
difference in light intensity is not significant to most people for 
certain lighting conditions.
    GM has not received any complaints from owners of the subject 
vehicles about their ability to see overhead signs.
    GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries, owner complaints or 
field reports related to this condition for these vehicles.

    GM also cited a number of inconsequentiality applications that the 
agency has granted in the past as support for granting its application. 
Those cited were submitted by GM [59 FR 65428; December 19, 1994], 
Subaru of America, [56 FR 59971; November 26, 1991], and Hella, Inc. 
[55 FR 37602; September 12, 1990]. GM also cited a University of 
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) report entitled 
``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp Intensities'' 
(UMTRI-97-4, February 1997)
    In the only public comment received, Advocates stated its 
``strongest opposition to NHTSA granting a finding of inconsequential 
noncompliance for the GM headlamps which are the subject of this 
notice.'' Advocates first pointed out that it believes GM's purported 
lack of complaints about inadequate headlamp illumination has ``no 
merit whatever.'' It believes that it is unlikely that drivers would 
attribute their driving errors or crashes to a faulty beam. Further, it 
believes it unlikely that an investigating officer at a crash scene 
would consider the characteristics of the beam pattern as the causal 
factor. It goes on to say that crashes may have occurred as a result of 
the noncompliance of which GM is not aware.
    Advocates also discussed the importance of overhead lighting. It 
stated that:

    It is especially crucial for adequate levels of lighting to fall 
on the surfaces of high-mounted retroreflectorized traffic control 
devices that advise of vehicle maneuvers, speed limit changes, 
warnings of hazardous conditions, and destination information to 
ensure driver confidence and safety in executing the moment-to-
moment driving task.

    Advocates referred to the amendment of FMVSS No. 108 on January 12, 
1993 [58 FR 3856] that added minimum photometric requirements for 
headlamps for illumination of overhead signs. Advocates reiterated the 
agency's rationale for this rulemaking, namely that some manufacturers 
were introducing headlamps in the 1980s and 1990s that widely departed 
from the traditional U.S. beam pattern. These headlamps were providing 
inadequate light above the horizontal to illuminate overhead signs.
    After review of its application the agency disagreed with GM that 
the noncompliances were inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As 
Advocates correctly noted in its comment, the sole purpose of the 1993 
final rule was to establish photometric minima above the horizon so 
that headlamps would sufficiently illuminate overhead signs. Without 
any test point minima specified, some manufacturers were

[[Page 15670]]

designing headlamps that provided very little light above the horizon. 
Because States were choosing retroreflectorized overhead signs rather 
than the more expensive self-illuminated ones, the agency determined 
that it should address the increasing need for illumination of overhead 
reflectorized signs.
    In setting these minima, the agency expected the industry to design 
its headlamps to ensure that production variability would not result in 
noncompliances. GM's own compliance tests showed failures that were as 
much as 24.4 percent below the required minima. Each of the ten 
headlamps GM tested had noncomplying test points, with all but two 
having failures that were greater than 14.1 percent below the minimum 
requirement. This testing indicated that there may be a serious flaw in 
the design and/or production of these lamps.
    Although GM stated that Transport Canada tested and found all lamps 
to be compliant, the company did not provide any substantiating data, 
or even the number of headlamps tested by Transport Canada. The agency 
contacted Transport Canada and obtained the test data on the subject 
vehicles. Initially, there were four failures at the relevant test 
points. The failures were resolved by reaiming the headlamps one-
quarter degree, an adjustment allowed by the standard. After reaiming, 
Transport Canada found the lamps to be in compliance at the four test 
points where they had previously failed. Although these four lamps were 
found to be in compliance, the need to reaim certain points and the 
marginal compliance at others shows that the design of the lamps was 
marginal.
    A January 1991 study conducted by UMTRI (UMTRI-91-3) recommended 
certain minimum intensity levels for test points above the horizontal 
that are intended to illuminate signs. UMTRI divided its 
recommendations for minima between three types of retroreflectorized 
signs: enclosed lens, encapsulated lens, and microprismatic, each 
respectively more reflective than the previous. The first two are most 
relevant, as microprismatic signs comprised only about three percent of 
the current signs at that time. UMTRI concluded that, for a test point 
1.5 degrees up, the minimum intensities for the enclosed and 
encapsulated lens signs were 700 and 250 candela (cd), respectively. 
The standard currently requires a minimum of 200 cd. In setting this 
level, the agency expected manufacturers to factor in a certain level 
of design variability to assure compliance. GM's poorest performing 
lamp provided about 150 cd at this test point. The agency finds this 
unacceptable. As Advocates pointed out in its comments, there are many 
critical maneuvers that must be undertaken in low light situations, and 
to not provide sufficient light to illuminate signs is a detriment to 
motor vehicle safety.
    GM cited a number of the agency's previous grants of 
inconsequentiality applications that were based upon our conclusion 
that a change in luminous intensity of approximately 25 percent must 
occur before the human eye can discern a difference. GM also cited an 
UMTRI report [UMTRI-97-4; February 1997] to support its position.
    The agency determined that these actions and the 1997 UMTRI report 
did not support GM's conclusion. The previous actions and the UMTRI 
report all dealt with an observer's ability to see a headlamp or a 
signal light, not the ability to see the light reflected back from 
headlamp-illuminated signs or other reflectors. The inconsequential 
applications that GM cited all involved signal lighting with 
deficiencies in photometric requirements. In all cases, the agency was 
confident that the noncompliant signal lights would still be visible to 
nearby drivers. Because signal lighting is not intended to provide 
roadway illumination to the driver, a less than 25 percent reduction in 
light output at any particular test point is less critical.
    Regarding the UMTRI study on just-noticeable differences for lower-
beam headlamps, the research and findings are mostly analogous to those 
of the signal lighting research. UMTRI's study was designed to evaluate 
the just-noticeable differences for glare intensities of oncoming 
headlamps. Like the signal light research, it was performed from the 
point of view of a driver observing differences in headlamp 
intensities. The agency was not persuaded by GM's contentions about the 
meaning of this research. In its report, UMTRI states:

    The applications of (just noticeable differences) derived from 
judgments about the subjective brightnesses of lamps viewed directly 
seems less of a leap in the case of signal lamp functions, and of 
those aspects of headlamps that involve direct viewing (primarily 
discomfort glare), than in the case of headlamp functions that 
involve the illumination of objects. The primary reason for caution 
in extending the current results to illuminated objects is that the 
range of luminances of such objects (e.g., a pedestrian at 100 
meters illuminated by headlamps at night) will be much lower than 
the luminances of the headlamps themselves. The [research] can 
therefore be used more confidently to justify applying the 25 
percent limit for inconsequential noncompliance to a photometric 
test point that specifies a maximum for glare protection than to one 
that specifies a minimum for seeing light. Further work on the 
effects of changes in lamp intensity on the visibility of 
illuminated objects is desirable to clarify more completely the 
issue of inconsequential noncompliance for headlamps.
    In its appeal, GM offers this new information to support its 
petition:
    GM recently obtained and tested twenty-one pairs of headlamps 
from used 1999 Regal and Century vehicles built between August 1998 
and March 1999. The 42 headlamps all exceed the minimum photometric 
requirements of FMVSS 108. This was true for the sign illumination 
test points as well as all other test points. [GM stated that t]he 
weathering of the lenses over the past two to three years accounts 
for this change in performance.
    Because overhead sign illumination is affected by the output of 
both headlamps, GM asked two independent lighting research experts 
to analyze overhead sign illumination based on the test results of 
the ten pairs of headlamps. Their report shows that the combined sum 
of the illumination from any combination of two of those headlamps 
exceeds twice the minimum illumination from each headlamp required 
by FMVSS 108. The system light output, therefore, exceeds the 
implicit functional requirement of the standard.
    This evidence, which [GM describes] in greater detail below, 
indicates that customers driving these vehicles are and have been 
experiencing no less than the amount of overhead sign illumination 
that FMVSS 108 requires. On this basis, the noncompliance is 
inconsequential and [thus, GM requested] reconsideration of NHTSA's 
decision.

Photometric Test Data From Field Headlamps

    GM collected 42 headlamps from twenty-one vehicles and all 
photometric test points were measured. Each bulb appeared to be the 
original bulb for the headlamp assembly and the bulbs were not 
disturbed before testing. Visual aim was used because of the 
condition with the operation of the VHAD that lead to a recall 
campaign (NHTSA No. 99V356000, GM No. 99093).
    The vehicles were produced between August 18, 1998 and February 
15, 1999. Three of the vehicles were owned by GM employees and 
eighteen were selected at random at auto auctions in Detroit and 
Flint, Michigan. All 42 headlamps exceeded the minimum photometric 
requirements for the sign illumination test points found in FMVSS 
108 (as summarized below).

[[Page 15671]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Requirement       Average          Range
                           Test point                                (Candela)       (Candela)       (Candela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Headlamp:
    0.5U, 1R-3R.................................................             500             674        501-1214
    4U-8L.......................................................              64             114          88-148
    4U-8R.......................................................              64              91          64-125
    2U-4L.......................................................             135             159         136-198
Right Headlamp:
    0.5U, 1R-3R.................................................             500             895        577-2679
    4U-8L.......................................................              64              82          64-107
    4U-8R.......................................................              64             135         109-196
    2U-4L.......................................................             135             308         274-346
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [GM's] hypothesis was that these results were caused by 
weathering of the lens coating, which increases light scatter. 
Weathering is caused by exposure to temperature changes, 
precipitation, and contact with dust, stones, and other 
environmental factors. This is a well-known phenomenon that occurs 
in lamps that meet fully the haze requirement in S5.1.2, as these 
lamps do. To test our hypothesis, the lenses of four of the tested 
lamps were removed and replaced with a new, unused lens. The 
photometric results with the original and new lenses were:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Average with
                                                    Requirement    Average with      original
                   Test point                         Average       new lenses        lenses      Percent change
                                                                     (Candela)       (Candela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Headlamp:
    0.5U, 1R-3R.................................             500             577             632             8.7
    4U-8L.......................................              64              87             117            25.6
    4U-8R.......................................              64              72             122            40.9
    2U-4L.......................................             135             126             183            31.1
Right Headlamp:
    0.5U, 1R-3R.................................             500             957             864           -10.7
    4U-8L.......................................              64              74              90            17.7
    4U-8R.......................................              64             128             154            16.9
    2U-4L.......................................             135             263             289             9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the averages, the results for the original lenses exceeded 
those for the new lenses for all but one test point.
    In the group of 42 lamps, [GM] also compared the performance of 
the lamps from the ten newest and eleven oldest vehicles. No 
significant difference was observed.
    Because of weathering, the headlamps on these vehicles now meet 
the photometric requirements that some of the new headlamps did not 
meet. The noncompliance of the new, unused lamps is, therefore 
inconsequential.

Combined Light Output From Left and Right Low-beam Headlamps

    The test point values for each headlamp were set by NHTSA to 
achieve a certain overall level of sign illumination. 58 FR 3856, 
3858 (Jan. 12, 1993). At least two headlamps are required by the 
standard. To assess the impact of the noncompliance on the 
illumination of overhead signs, one should examine the light output 
of both headlamps. [GM] asked two well-known researchers in the 
field of vehicle lighting to do so.
    Their analysis was based on the 1999 photometric data from an 
independent test laboratory for ten pairs of headlamps with 
production bulbs. The combined light output from a left and a right 
headlamp was calculated for three different scenarios:
    Worst case: The worst performing left lamp was paired with the 
worst performing right lamp. For each test point, the worst case 
headlamps were selected separately.
    Best case: As above, but using the best performing left and 
right headlamps.
    Average case: The mean values were paired for the left and right 
headlamps.
    The result, even in the worst case scenario, is illumination of 
overhead signs that is greater than twice the minimum photometric 
requirements for a single headlamp. When pairing the worst 
performing left and right headlamps, the combined light exceeded 
twice the requirement by 20% for 4U-8R, 6% for 4U-8L, 45% for 2U-4L, 
26% for 1.5U-1R to 3R, and 11% for 0.5U-1R to 3R. The points at 
which left and right lamps failed were consistently different, so 
the margin by which each exceeded the points at which they passed 
offset the failures when the results are combined.
    Consistent with FMVSS 108, these vehicles could have been 
equipped with left and right headlamps that each precisely met (but 
did not exceed) the overhead sign illumination test point 
requirements. While some of these vehicles were equipped with lamps 
that did not meet some of the individual test points (and exceed 
others), the overhead sign illumination from these vehicles is no 
less than what is lawful. Indeed, the requirements are exceeded by 
six to forty-five percent for the worst case.
    In denying the petition, NTHSA noted that it expected 
manufacturers to account for design variability. GM's design and 
performance requirements do account for expected variability to 
assure compliance. In this instance, variability exceeded reasonable 
expectations and a noncompliance occurred. When the light that can 
reach overhead signs from both headlamps on these vehicles is 
considered, the performance not only meets the implied requirement, 
but meets it with a margin. This demonstrates that the noncompliance 
is inconsequential.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the application appealing NHTSA's decision described 
above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that two 
copies be submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the 
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment 
closing date: May 2, 2002.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

[[Page 15672]]

    Issued on: March 28, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-7960 Filed 4-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P