[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1778-1779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7744, Notice 4]


General Motors Corporation; Denial of Appeal of Decision on 
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 determination that the 
noncompliance of certain GM vehicles with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment,'' be deemed inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM had 
applied to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety.'' Notice of receipt of 
the original 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 (66 FR 38340), stating that 
the petitioner had not met its burden of persuasion that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    GM appealed, and notice of the appeal was published in the Federal 
Register on April 2, 2002 (67 FR 15669). Opportunity was afforded for 
public comment until May 2, 2002. The only comment received was from 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Advocates restated 
its previous position recommending that the agency deny the 
application.
    GM manufactured 201,472 Buick Century and Buick Regal models 
between October 1998 and June 1999; some of whose headlamps did not 
meet the minimum photometric requirements for test points above the 
horizontal (intended for overhead sign illumination). GM tested ten 
pairs of headlamps and submitted photometric data with its original 
petition. The agency has reviewed this data from 2000 again and notes 
substantial evidence of noncompliance in this data. For the right side 
lamps, there was a total of 6 noncompliant test points (all upward). 
For the left side lamps, there was a total of 28 noncompliant test 
points (25 upward test points and 3 downward test points). While 
Standard 108 allows \1/4\ degree of re-aim for each test point to 
account for equipment variation, the data show that the left side lamps 
originally failed an additional 21 test points (12 upward and 9 
downward) before passing through the use of re-aim.

[[Page 1779]]

GM unsuccessfully argued in its original petition that the test points 
at issue were intended to measure illumination of overhead signs and 
did not represent areas of the beam pattern that illuminate the road 
surface. GM also contended that a general ``rule of thumb'' implied 
that a 25% difference in light intensity is not significant to motor 
vehicle safety. The 25% rule of thumb cited by GM in its original 
petition has been applied to the observation of signal lamps, and not 
reflected light from lower beam headlamps.
    In the notice denying GM's first application, the agency stated 
that the photometric minima above the horizon were added to 
headlighting performance requirements in the 1993 final rule for the 
purpose of ensuring that headlamps would sufficiently illuminate 
overhead signs. Because States were choosing to use retroreflectorized 
overhead signs rather than the more expensive self-illuminated ones, 
there was an increasing need for illumination of overhead signs. 
Without any test point minima specified, some manufacturers were 
designing headlamps that provided very little light above the 
horizontal. These photometric minima were established through a 
rulemaking proceeding. As part of that rulemaking, research by the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) linking required sign detection 
distances needed to initiate proper motorist reactions to the overhead 
signs was considered. Based on this research, the FHWA had proposed 
photometric minima approximately double those that were established. In 
the final rule published January 12, 1993 [58 FR 3856], the agency 
indicated that the rulemaking addresses a safety issue, a conclusion 
also supported by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Beam 
Pattern Task Force. Specifically, SAE J1383 ``Performance Requirements 
for Motor Vehicles Headlamps'' was modified in June of 1990 to include 
the same photometric minima (the SAE document lists minima for 
inclusive test zones instead of just test points) adopted by this 
agency in the 1993 final rule.

    In its appeal, GM stated the following 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. The 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 
[a separate] ten pairs of [new, unused] 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.

    GM concluded that the new data indicate 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, 
GM argued the noncompliance is inconsequential and thus, GM requested 
NHTSA to reverse its earlier decision.
    Advocates restated its previous opposition to granting the 
application. In its view, the issue is not whether the lamps eventually 
came into compliance, but whether they were compliant at the time of 
manufacture and sale. It asserts that GM's rationale is mooted by GM's 
own admission that the lamps were noncompliant at the time of 
manufacture. Advocates concludes that adoption of such a stance by the 
agency would render compliance with a standard contingent upon 
fortuitous, later in-service conditions.
    After considering the arguments presented by GM, the comment of 
Advocates, and other relevant facts in this proceeding, we have decided 
to deny GM's appeal.
    First, we believe that GM's argument about changed performance of 
the headlamps due to two or three years of weathering of the lenses is 
not relevant to whether the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. Just as the issue of whether a vehicle complies, or 
does not comply, with a safety standard is determined based on the 
performance of the vehicle when it is new, the issue of whether a 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety is determined 
based on the performance of the vehicle when it is new. However, we 
will consider the current performance of these headlamps in the context 
of whether it is appropriate to require GM to replace all of the 
noncompliant lamps.
    Second, we do not accept GM's argument about combining values for 
the sign light test points on a set of lamps. GM did not present any 
evidence that sign light at a right side test point complements the 
light from a left side test point in the real world. The consultants 
cited by GM do not address this issue. Their report assumes that the 
lateral offset of the two lamps from each other is relatively small in 
relation to the distances at which traffic signs are typically viewed. 
Consequently, the report assumes that a given traffic sign will be 
located at only slightly different horizontal angles in relation to the 
left and right headlamp. However, GM did not present any data to 
justify this assumption in a real world testing environment, or to 
demonstrate that light from the right hand lamp is complementary to the 
intensities for sign light test points of a left hand lamp. 
Furthermore, the agency previously rejected the argument that other 
lamps can compensate for noncompliant lamps, in a denial of an 
inconsequentiality petition filed by Nissan in 1997.
    In that denial [62 FR 63416], NHTSA rejected Nissan's argument that 
a bright Center High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL) can compensate for a 
noncompliant stop lamp. The agency found that the Nissan noncompliance 
could lead drivers following the subject vehicles to mistake the dim 
stop lamps as tail lamps, increasing the risk of a crash.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
GM's appeal is hereby denied.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: January 5, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-500 Filed 1-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P