[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10163-10164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19792; Notice 2]


Unified Marine, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Unified Marine, Inc. (Unified Marine) has determined that certain 
combination lamps it distributed for sale, which were produced in 2002 
through 2004, do not comply with 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), 
Unified Marine has petitioned for an exemption from the notification 
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of 
receipt of Unified Marine's petition was published, with a 30 day 
comment period, on December 15, 2004, in the Federal Register (69 FR 
75106). NHTSA received two comments.
    Approximately 52,665 combination lamps and combination lamp kits 
produced between December 2002 and July 2004 and marketed as ``Road 
Warrior by SeaSense'' are affected. These include the following 
combination lamps: 1,624 model 50080272 (right hand), 1,001 model 
50080274 (left hand), 1,612 model 80272, and 1,947 model 80274, as well 
as 46,481 model 50080270 combination lamp kits that consist of two 
lamps per kit.
    The subject rear combination lamps contain taillamps, stop lamps, 
turn signal lamps, rear reflex reflectors, and side marker lamps. In 
addition, the combination lamps designated for the left (driver's) side 
of the vehicle contain license plate lamps. FMVSS No. 108, S5.8.1, 
requires that each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated 
equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item 
of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, 
be designed to conform to the standard. As such, in order to comply 
with S5.8.1, the combination lamps must be designed to conform to the 
photometry, color, and other requirements specific to

[[Page 10164]]

the devices incorporated into the lamp combination.
    Unified Marine's noncompliance report indicates that the lamps may 
have incorrectly positioned circuit boards that, consequently, cause 
insufficient light output to meet the minimum color and photometry 
requirements of the standard.
    Unified Marine believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. 
Unified Marine states that

* * * our light has some deficiencies that are only detectable by 
highly sensitive testing equipment and not by visual means in actual 
use and therefore is not a safety issue. Upon review and extensive 
research, we have found out that the variations are not perceivable 
to the naked eye, and they are indeed inconsequential as they may 
only be seen in the laboratory environment. The lights are in no way 
unsafe in our opinion, and in fact much safer than the millions of 
conventional lights currently used in the marketplace.

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that the 
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In our 
review, we considered the two comments to the Federal Register notice, 
both of which favored denying this petition. One comment was from the 
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), a non-profit trade 
association representing North American manufacturers of vehicle safety 
equipment including vehicle lighting equipment. TSEI stated, ``the 
noncompliance appears to be systemic, pervasive and substantial, 
thereby creating a significant safety risk to the motoring public.'' 
TSEI offered the following as the basis for its assertions:

    Unified Marine has failed to provide specific data demonstrating 
that, with respect to each of the lamp functions that do not meet 
the photometric requirements, the reduced photometric output at the 
specified test points and zones [is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety]. * * * Unified Marine suggests that the sealed design of the 
subject products and the use of LEDs, rather than conventional 
lights, make its product safer than a fully compliant lamp. * * * 
[T]he fact that the noncompliant lamps used LED rather than 
conventional bulbs does not excuse Unified Marine from the 
photometric and other requirements of FMVSS No. 108. * * * [In 
addition,] without providing test results or any other supporting 
documentation or data, Unified Marine argues that its product ``has 
some deficiencies that are only detectable by highly sensitive 
testing equipment and not by visual means in actual use.'' * * * 
TSEI testing of the petitioner's product--using the same ``highly-
sensitive,'' industry-standard equipment apparently used by Unified 
Marine--reveals that it deviates substantially from the photometric 
requirements of FMVSS No. 108. * * * TSEI's own testing data reveal 
that the subject products overwhelmingly fail the photometric 
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108.

    The second comment was from Peterson Manufacturing Company 
(Peterson), a manufacturer of safety lighting equipment for all size 
vehicles. Peterson provided the following rationale for denial of the 
petition:

    Unified Marine states that the deficiencies are only detectable 
by ``highly sensitive testing equipment'' and not by visual means in 
actual use and therefore is not a safety issue. The photometric 
testing equipment referred to is common in the lighting industry as 
most manufacturers rely upon it for consistency, quality and 
reliability. * * * Unified Marine does not offer supporting test 
data to substantiate its claim of inconsequential noncompliance. 
Comparative test data show failures in 5 functions of the 5-function 
light and 6 functions of the 6-function light. The reflex readings 
were barely detectable and certainly discernable as failures to the 
naked eye. The side marker lamp failed 6 of 9 test points (67% 
failure rate) and the stop and turn function failed 4 of 5 zones 
(80% failure rate). These are not inconsequential.

    NHTSA agrees with the rationale presented by the two commenters. 
Unified Marine admits that the noncompliances are detectable by testing 
equipment, and as stated by TSEI and Peterson, this test equipment is 
the standard used by the lighting industry for consistency, quality and 
reliability.
    Additionally, NHTSA conducted its own testing \1\ of two UMI model 
50080270 kits (4 lamps) and found numerous photometry failures for this 
lamp model. For instance, all four stop lamps failed to meet the 
minimum required photometry for 3 of 5 required zones with failures 
ranging from 35% to 49% below the minimum required values. Further, all 
four stop lamps failed to meet the minimum taillamp/stop lamp intensity 
ratio at all four test points that require a stop lamp intensity of at 
least 5 times the taillamp intensity. The intensity ratio failures were 
in the range of 22% to 28% below the required minimum. When tested with 
an observation angle of 0.2 degrees, all four reflex reflectors 
exhibited failures at every test point ranging from 92% to 100% below 
the minimum required values. Further, all four side marker lamps 
exhibited failures at 45 degree test points with failures ranging from 
12% to 76% below the required minimums. Finally, of the two combination 
lamps that included license plate lamps, both license plate lamps 
failed to meet the minimum requirements at the same four (out of eight) 
required zones. These failures were all more than 73% below the 
required minimum values. These data show that these lamp models deviate 
substantially from the photometric requirements specified in FMVSS No. 
108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Calcoast Report No. 108-CCITL-04-1 may be found Docket No. 
NHTSA-2004-19792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unified Marine has not provided convincing objective data regarding 
the inconsequentiality of its noncompliance. NHTSA believes that the 
noncompliance margins described above represent a substantial reduction 
in performance below a minimally compliant device and this reduction is 
consequential to motor vehicle safety.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
it describes is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, its petition is 
hereby denied. Unified Marine must now fulfill its obligation to notify 
and remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h).

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

    Issued on: February 22, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-3990 Filed 3-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P