[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 73 (Thursday, April 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20112-20114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8500]



[[Page 20112]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-11041, Notice 2]


Toyota Motor Corporation, Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) has determined that certain 2000-
2001 Model Year (MY) Celicas are equipped with daytime running lamps 
(DRLs) whose location fails to comply with the spacing requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, 
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.'' Toyota has filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.'' Toyota has also applied to be exempted from 
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C chapter 301--
``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal 
Register (67 FR 1270) on January 9, 2002. Opportunity was afforded for 
public comment until February 8, 2002. One comment was received from 
Koito Manufacturing Co., LTD. (Koito), a lighting manufacturer, and two 
comments were received from individuals, Steve Johnson and Margaret 
Coleman.
    Paragraph S5.5.11 (a)(4) of FMVSS No. 108 states that ``* * * if 
not optically combined with a turn signal lamp, [the DRL] is located so 
that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the 
nearest turn signal lamp is not less than 100mm, unless * * * the 
luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 candela at any 
location in the beam * * *''
    Between May 7, 1999 and June 18, 2001, Toyota produced 92,794 MY 
2000-2001 Celicas with DRLs that do not meet the FMVSS No. 108 minimum 
spacing requirements relating to turn signals. As stated above, unless 
the maximum luminous intensity of the DRL is not more than 2,600 
candela (cd) at any location in the beam, the optical center of the 
turn signal must be at least 100 millimeters (mm) from the lighted edge 
of the DRL. The peak intensity of the Celica DRLs is 5,880 cd and the 
distance between the optical center of the turn signal and the lighted 
edge of the DRL is 45.6 mm. Thus, the spacing is too close and the DRL 
peak intensity is too high.
    Toyota supports its application for inconsequential noncompliance 
with the following:

    Toyota conducted subjective evaluations of turn signal 
visibility using 20 contractors for the subject vehicles under 
various conditions, and confirmed that visibility for the subject 
vehicles is substantially better than vehicles that were modified to 
meet the minimum turn signal/maximum DRL luminous intensity 
permitted by the standard. According to Toyota's evaluation, the 
flashing of the subject turn signals can be readily discerned by a 
driver in an oncoming vehicle at a distance of 300 feet, and much 
more so than vehicles with modified signals/DRLs. The assessment 
distance of 300 feet is the same used in NHTSA's own evaluation of 
turn signal masking, as described in the final rule published in the 
Monday, January 11, 1993, Federal Register (58 FR 3500).
    In addition to the subjective measures, [Toyota also provides] 
the following technical factors which contribute to good visibility 
of the turn signal lamps:
    The turn signal lighted area is 45.1 cm \2\, two times larger 
than the 22 cm \2\ required by FMVSS 108.
    The luminous intensity of the subject vehicle's turn signal 
lamps [is] 568 cd, or 2.8 times the minimum value of 200 cd.
    The substantial distance from the turn signal optical center 
(bulb filament axes) to the DRL's lighted edge is 82 mm, exceeding 
80% of the requirements. In this case, the ``substantial'' distance 
refers to the distance from the turn signal's optical center to the 
actual lighted edge ``A'' [as shown in the figure below], although 
the theoretical lighted edge is point ``C'' (45.6mm). In [the figure 
below], the lighted range from A to C of the reflector emits only 
light which is parallel to the axis of the DRL, which can only be 
seen by drivers in oncoming vehicles that are looking along the 
optical axis of the DRL. However, as one moves off center, this 
light is no longer visible. Therefore the perceptible DRL's lighted 
area, except for the unique case where the eye-point is on the 
optical axis of the DRL, is actually from A to B (as shown in the 
figure).
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 20113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AP04.404

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    The subject vehicles meet all of the requirements of [Canadian 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS)] 108 and the identical DRL 
requirements [that] are found in FMVSS 108 prior to October 1, 1995.
    Finally, although Toyota has sold approximately 100,000 of the 
subject vehicles since the summer of 1999 in the USA and Canada, it 
has not received any customer complaints [or] accident reports that 
alleged problems with turn signal visibility or masking.
    As stated above, three public comments were received. The first 
comment was from Koito. It supported Toyota's position that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. Koito stated that the 
requirements for DRL/turn signal spacing and maximum intensity contain 
two points that are ``contradictory and controversial in terms of motor 
vehicle safety.'' Regarding the situation when the turn signal lamp is 
located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of the DRL, CMVSS No. 
108, the Canadian standard, requires that the DRL have an intensity of 
2,600 cd or less or that the front turn signal lamp have its minimum 
luminous intensities multiplied by a factor of 2.5. FMVSS No. 108 
requires these two conditions to be met concurrently. Koito states that 
this ``difference generates some controversial difficulties in 
designing a DRL for [the] U.S. and Canadian market because a design 
could be a violation of [law] while it is fully supported by the 
requirement of the other country.''
    Regarding the luminous intensity requirements, Koito points out 
that FMVSS No. 108 does not require any limitation of luminous 
intensity when a DRL is optically combined with a lower beam headlamp, 
provided that a turn signal located within 100 mm of the DRL has its 
minimum required luminous intensities multiplied by 2.5. Koito states 
that there are many examples of lower beam headlamps that have a 
luminous intensity of 2,600 cd or higher because Figure 15 in FMVSS No.

[[Page 20114]]

108 allows a lower beam headlamp to have an intensity of up to 5,000 cd 
at test point H-V. In summation, Koito stated that the current wording 
of FMVSS No. 108 does not fully explain its technical legitimacy.
    The second comment was from Mr. Steve Johnson, an individual. Mr. 
Johnson is in favor of denying the petition due to the large margin of 
noncompliance. He also stated that, when he encountered one of the 
subject vehicles making a turn about 240 feet away from him, he could 
not see the turn signal due to the glare from the DRL. When the vehicle 
had begun to make the turn and the DRL was pointed away from his line 
of sight, he could then see the turn signal.
    The third comment was from Ms. Margaret Coleman, also an 
individual. Ms. Coleman stated her dislike for DRLs and recommended 
that the DRLs on the subject vehicles be disconnected. She did not 
comment on the merits of Toyota's rationale for granting its petition.
    The reason for specifying a spacing relationship is to lessen the 
likelihood of motor vehicle crashes, deaths, and injuries, by ensuring 
visibility of a vehicle's turn signal lamps in daylight. In this case, 
Toyota claimed that, although the DRLs on the Celica do not meet the 
spacing requirements, the visibility of the vehicles is substantially 
better than vehicles that comply with the permissible spacing 
requirements. Toyota measured the distance from the DRL's lighted edge 
to the optical center of the nearest turn signal lamp as 45.6 mm, not 
the required minimum of 100 mm. Also, the DRL emits more than twice the 
maximum luminous intensity specified in the standard for being located 
closer than 100 mm from the turn signal's optical center. However, 
Toyota found in subjective testing that the turn signals could be 
readily discerned by a driver in an oncoming vehicle at a distance of 
300 feet. It believes that this is better performance than vehicles 
with compliant DRL/turn signal spacing.
    The agency has reviewed Toyota's rationale for granting the 
petition and does not agree. Toyota produced almost 100,000 vehicles on 
which the required spacing between the DRL and turn signal is 
approximately 55 percent below the minimum required distance. The 
agency notes that the noncompliance would not have occurred if the DRL 
had an intensity of 2,600 cd or less. However, Toyota chose not to do 
this.
    Toyota based part of its rationale for granting the petition on the 
subjective evaluations of 20 contractors. We do not find this type of 
subjective evaluation persuasive, particularly when noncompliances are 
far from minimum required levels.
    Toyota also discussed an alternative method of measuring the 
distance between the DRL's lighted edge and the optical center of the 
turn signal. The above figure outlines these two spacing measurements. 
Toyota stated that the spacing of 45.6 mm between the DRL's lighted 
edge and the turn signal's optical center (line C to the optical 
center) would only be seen when looking along the optical axis of the 
DRL. In other positions, the DRL's lighted edge (line A) would be seen 
by observers as being 82 mm from the turn signal's optical center. The 
agency does not find merit in this rationale. First, the distance 
measured from line A is 18 mm less than the minimum requirement. This 
is still a significant difference. Second, although the distance from 
line C to the turn signal's optical center (45.6 mm) may not best 
represent the DRL's lighted edge in all conditions, it does represent a 
worst-case scenario. The intent of the standard is to account for all 
possible viewing locations. Certainly, there will be situations where 
opposing drivers will be looking along the optical axis of the subject 
vehicles' DRL. For example, if a vehicle is attempting to make a left 
turn in front of oncoming traffic, drivers of the oncoming vehicles may 
be in a position where the turn signal is not visible. Mr. Johnson 
described a similar situation in his comments.
    In its comments on the petition, Koito stated that the FMVSS No. 
108 requirements for DRL/turn signal spacing and intensity are not the 
same as those in the Canadian standard. It referred to ``difficulties 
in designing a DRL for [the] U.S. and Canadian market.'' While it is 
true that, in this case, FMVSS No. 108 is more stringent than CMVSS No. 
108, we note that it is still possible to build a vehicle having DRLs 
that meets both standards albeit using a different type of DRL 
configuration. In any event, vehicles sold in the United States are 
required to meet United States standards.
    Finally, Koito stated that ``the current wording of FMVSS No. 108 
does not fully explain its technical legitimacy.'' Explanation of the 
rationale for a requirement is not contained in the regulatory language 
in the standard. Generally, it is found in the preambles to the notice 
of proposed rulemaking and the final rule in the Federal Register. The 
final rule amending FMVSS No. 108 to add the current spacing 
requirements was published on December 16, 1993 (58 FR 65673).
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Toyota 
has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it 
describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that it 
should not be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of 
the statute. Accordingly, its application is hereby denied and it must 
proceed to notify and remedy as required by statute, at no cost to the 
consumer.

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

    Issued on: April 8, 2004.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 04-8500 Filed 4-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P