[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