General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 41355-41357 [2014-16552]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41355
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 / Notices
commercial sailing trips for tourists, i.e.,
day sailing, snorkeling tours.’’
Geographic Region: ‘‘Puerto Rico.’’
The complete application is given in
DOT docket MARAD–2014–0106 at
https://www.regulations.gov. Interested
parties may comment on the effect this
action may have on U.S. vessel builders
or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and
MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part
388, that the issuance of the waiver will
have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.vessel builder or a business that uses
U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a
waiver will not be granted. Comments
should refer to the docket number of
this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the
comments. Comments should also state
the commenter’s interest in the waiver
application, and address the waiver
criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s
regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Dated: July 8, 2014.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–16593 Filed 7–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0165; Notice 2]
General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Denial of petition.
General Motors, LLC (GM) 1
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2011 through 2013 Buick Regal
and MY 2013 Chevrolet Malibu
passenger cars may not fully comply
with the turn signal lamp failure
indicator requirement found in
paragraph S5.5.6 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. GM has filed an
appropriate report dated October 3,
2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Mr. Mike Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–2334, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. GM’s
petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at
49 CFR Part 556), GM submitted a
petition 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 the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on September 19,
2013, in the Federal Register (78 FR
43965). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–
0165.’’
I. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 109,563 MY 2011
through 2013 Buick Regal and MY 2013
Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars
manufactured from January 20, 2010
through September 18, 2012.
II. Noncompliance: GM explains that
the subject vehicles are equipped with
front turn signals, each of which
incorporates two light sources. When
both light sources of either front turn
signal fail, turn signal lamp failure
indication is provided as required by
paragraph S5.5.6 of FMVSS No. 108.
SUMMARY:
Years ................................................................................................................
Miles .................................................................................................................
No. of Burnouts ................................................................................................
SIM Vehicles ....................................................................................................
Failure IPTV .....................................................................................................
However, turn signal lamp failure
indication is not provided if only one of
the light sources fails in either front turn
signal assembly. If a single bulb fails to
illuminate, the turn signal is still
illuminated by the other bulb.
III. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.6 of
FMVSS No. 108 specifically states:
S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn
signal operating unit shall also have an
illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or
more turn signal lamps to operate shall be
indicated in accordance with SAE Standard
J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970
. . .
IV. Summary of GM’s Analyses: GM
stated its belief that the lack of turn
signal lamp failure indication is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
1. As delivered to the customer the
turn signal lamps function properly and
meet all requirements of FMVSS No.
108. This is not a situation where the
photometric output of the turn signals
fails to meet the requirements as
delivered to the customer. In fact, the
light output of the normally operating
turn signals greatly exceeds the
photometric requirements as produced.
2. Most drivers will never be affected
by the reduction of photometric output,
without outage indication as a result of
a single front bulb failure, because the
failure rate of the turn signal bulb is
extremely low. The bulb life of these
turn signals is three to four times the life
of the bulbs used in turn signals when
the turn signal lamps failure indication
requirement was incorporated into the
standard. The bulbs used in the subject
front turn signals have a tested life of
1,100 hours at 12.8 volts. Using this
information in a Monte Carlo simulation
analysis provides the following results:
2.5
31,250
0
10,000
0.000
5.0
62,500
0
10,000
0.000
1 General Motors, LLC is a manufacturer of motor
vehicles and is registered under the laws of the state
of Michigan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jul 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
7.5
93,750
1
10,000
0.400
10.0
125,000
4
10,000
4.000
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41356
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 / Notices
Consequently, it is extremely unlikely a
driver will experience a single turn
signal bulb failure over the life of the
vehicle, and thus the lack of outage
indication, with a single bulb failure, is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
3. With a single bulb, the turn signal
still functions and provides perceptible
indication that the vehicle may be
turning. In the extremely remote case
that both light sources were to fail, in
either front turn signal, bulb outage is
indicated as required by the standard.
4. In the Malibu vehicle, if an
outboard front turn bulb is not working,
the inboard bulb continues to meet the
photometric requirements. In this case,
the centroid of the light shifts and is
greater than 100 mm from the lit edge
of the low beam head lamp. The light
output of the inboard bulb easily meets
the minimum photometric requirements
specified in FMVSS No. 108.
5. If the inboard bulb burns out on the
Malibu, or either bulb on the Regal, the
remaining lamp continues to provide
light which meets the photometric
requirements in some zones, and comes
close to the requirements in most of the
remaining zones. This light exceeds the
standard turn signal photometric
requirements, but due to the location of
the turn signal (i.e., the turn signal
centroid within 100 mm of the lit edge
of the low beam lamp) the 2.5 multiplier
must be applied to photometric
requirements.
a. For the Malibu turn signal lamps,
the photometric requirements with the
2.5 multiplier, are met in three of the
five zones; and are within 25% of the
requirements in a 4th zone.
b. For the Regal turn signal lamps, the
photometric requirements with the 2.5
multiplier, are met in two of the five
zones; and are within 25% of the
requirements in two other zones. The
Malibu and Regal turn signal lamps
provide the required light under normal
driving conditions. In the unlikely
circumstance that a single bulb stops
functioning, the remaining bulb
continues to provide the minimum turn
signal light specified in the standard
and is generally within 25% of the
minimum required light after the 2.5
multiplier is applied. In the case of
these vehicles, GM’s analysis indicates
the light provided by the single bulb is
perceptible to the motoring public.
GM has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, GM believes that the
described noncompliance of its vehicles
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jul 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
V. NHTSA’s Analysis OF GM’s
Petition: General Principles: Federal
motor vehicle safety standards are
adopted only after the agency has
determined, following notice and
comment, that the performance
requirements are objective and
practicable and ‘‘meet the need for
motor vehicle safety.’’ See 49 U.S.C.
30111(a). Thus, there is a general
presumption that the failure of a motor
vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment to comply with a FMVSS
increases the risk to motor vehicle safety
beyond the level deemed appropriate by
NHTSA through the rulemaking
process. To protect the public from such
risks, manufacturers whose products fail
to comply with a FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under
which they must notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of the
noncompliance and provide a remedy
without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120.
However, Congress has recognized that,
under some limited circumstances, a
noncompliance could be
‘‘inconsequential’’ to motor vehicle
safety. ‘‘Inconsequential’’ is not defined
either in the statute or in NHTSA’s
regulations. Rather, the agency
determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts before it. The key issue in
determining inconsequentiality is
whether the noncompliance in question
is likely to increase the safety risk to
individuals of accidents or to individual
occupants who experience the type of
injurious event against which the
standard was designed to protect. See
General Motors Corp.; Ruling on
Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR
19897 (Apr. 14, 2004).
There have been instances in the past
in which NHTSA has determined that a
manufacturer has met its burden of
persuasion by demonstrating that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety. For example, there have been
instances where NHTSA granted
inconsequentiality petitions regarding
noncompliance with labeling
requirements. See, e.g., General Motors
Corp., Grant of Application for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61
FR 60746 (Nov. 29, 1996)
(noncompliance with FMVSS No. 115).
More rarely, NHTSA has granted
inconsequentiality petitions in cases of
noncompliance with performance
requirements where the noncompliance
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
was determined to be so minor as to be
inconsequential—for example, where
the noncompliance is expected to be
imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle
occupants or approaching drivers. See,
e.g., General Motors Corp., Grant of
Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR
70179 (Dec. 18, 1998) (noncompliance
with FMVSS No. 108); Subaru of
America, Inc., Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 18354 (Apr. 6,
2001) (noncompliance with FMVSS No.
108).
On the other hand, NHTSA has
denied petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance where required
equipment is completely missing from
the vehicle. For example, NHTSA
denied a petition for travel trailers not
equipped with rear identification lamps.
Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc., Denial
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71 FR
5409 (Feb. 1, 2006).
In addition, NHTSA has denied
inconsequentiality petitions for trailers
that were equipped with clearance and
identification lamps that did not meet
the minimum photometry requirements.
Utilimaster Corporation; Denial of
Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR
33603 (June 22, 2001).
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis of GM’s
Arguments: NHTSA has reviewed GM’s
petition and has determined that the
noncompliance is not inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
First, GM asserts that the turn signals
as delivered, comply with the
photometric requirements. However, the
agency finds that this should be true of
all newly manufactured motor vehicles
and finds that fact to be unrelated to the
requirements that apply in the event of
a turn signal failure.
Second, GM states that the tested life
of these turn signal bulbs is 1100 hours;
three to four times the life of the bulbs
used in turn signals when the bulb
outage indication requirement was
incorporated into the standard. As such,
GM believes that it is extremely unlikely
a driver will experience a single turn
signal bulb failure over the life of the
vehicle.
NHTSA notes that the requirements
for driver indication of a turn signal
failure became effective over 40 years
ago and since that time improvements
have been made to the life of turn signal
bulbs and motor vehicles. For light
sources, this includes the development
of long life bulbs and the introduction
of light emitting diodes (LEDs) into
motor vehicle applications. For
vehicles, the Federal Highway
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 135 / Tuesday, July 15, 2014 / Notices
Administration posted a chart of the
‘‘Average Age of Automobiles and
Trucks in Use, 1970–1999’’ that
indicates the average vehicle age in
1970 was 5.6 years. (this information
was compiled from Polk Company data
by Ward’s Communications, Ward’s
Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures from
2001) By 2013, Polk posted that the
average vehicle age that year was 11.4
years. (see https://www.polk.com/
company/news/polk_finds_average_
age_of_light_vehicles_continues_to_rise)
At the time that the bulb outage
indication requirement became part of
the FMVSS 108, SAE J573d DEC68
listed the average turn signal bulb
laboratory life as approximately 500
hours. Comparing that to the GM
specified bulb life of 1100 hours yields
a similar doubling of bulb life compared
to the increase in the average vehicle
age. Therefore, while the bulb life has
indeed increased, it has increased at a
rate similar to the average vehicle age
which mathematically makes a bulb
failure, when compared to vehicle life,
the same likelihood now as it was in
1970.
Additionally, GM did not make any
mention of the actual voltage that the
electrical systems of the vehicles in
question would be providing to the front
turn signal bulbs. Factors such as
voltage, heat, vibration and corrosion
are all important things to consider that
can have a significant effect on the life
of a bulb and no consideration was
given to these factors in GM’s petition.
For instance, GM technical bulletin 04–
08–42–002 indicated that for certain
vehicles, (2003–2004 Saturn ION) the
‘‘amount of voltage supplied to the front
headlamp assembly for the turn signal
circuit may cause the bulb to
prematurely wear out.’’
Other turn signal lamp failure modes
exist as well. For example, GM recall
06V–263 (2004–2005 Cadillac XLR)
described premature bulb failure due to
‘‘vibration within a loose fitting socket
or air entering the bulb due to an
inadequate seal.’’ Also, GM recalls 04V–
547 (2003–2004 Saturn ION) and 04V–
524 (2003 Chevrolet Cavalier and
Pontiac Sunfire), described turn signal
lamp failure due to ‘‘loss of’’ and
‘‘inadequate’’ ‘‘contact between the bulb
and socket.’’
As such, NHTSA believes that there
are many light source related failure
modes that can cause a turn signal lamp
to fail, and GM’s argument that a light
source failure is extremely unlikely
based on laboratory bulb life does not
adequately consider these other failure
modes.
Third, Fourth, and Fifth, GM offers
several scenarios regarding the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:46 Jul 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
photometric performance of the turn
signal lamp in the event that a single
light source were to fail. Each one of
GM’s scenarios relies on downgrading
the performance of the original
equipment turn signal lamp from a
large, two lighted section lamp, down to
a smaller, one lighted section lamp. This
results in a photometric performance
requirement reduction of ∼15% in the
zones, as well as similar reductions at
the individual test points. Even under
the requirements assumed by GM for its
scenarios, 75% of GM’s scenarios still
fail to meet even the reduced
requirements.
GM argues that despite the failure of
the lamps in these scenarios to meet the
photometric requirements at some of the
zones, it was within 25% of the
minimum zonal requirements. When
referring to these zonal failures, and
within ‘‘25%’’ of the zonal
requirements, it appears that GM is
making a just noticeable difference
(JND) argument relative to the zones. A
NHTSA study titled ‘‘Driver Perception
of Just Noticeable Differences of
Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities’’
[DOT HS 808 209, September 1994]
demonstrated that a change in luminous
intensity of 25 percent or less is not
noticeable by most drivers. However,
NHTSA has stated that it is not valid to
use the JND justification for judging the
effect of zonal intensity failures. Drivers
do not look at zones when they observe
lamps; they look at the lamp from very
narrow angles based on the distance
between their eyes and the distance to
the lamp. Using the JND justification on
zones would imply that drivers would
be looking at lamps from all the test
points in the zone simultaneously and
somehow integrating the numerous
intensities into some false
representation of how intense the lamp
should be. This is simply not the case.
For this reason, the JND argument is not
applicable to zone failures. (see
62FR63417)
VII. Prior Inconsequentiality Petitions:
NHTSA found one prior
inconsequentiality determination
regarding the turn signal bulb outage
requirements of FMVSS No. 108. In
1999, General Motors determined that it
had manufactured 209 Chevrolet S10
Electric Trucks that were non-compliant
with the requirement. The agency
granted GM’s petition on the basis that
these low volume trucks were mainly
used in fleets and that they would
receive regular periodic maintenance
where detection of the failure of a turn
signal lamp and replacement thereof
would be more likely than in privately
owned vehicles. As such, NHTSA felt
that the likelihood of these low volume
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41357
trucks having any sustained period of
outage would be a relatively infrequent
event. (see 64 FR 44575) In contrast, the
current situation involves 109,563
Chevrolet Malibu and Buick Regal
passenger cars which are likely to be
privately owned vehicles. Considering
that a partial failure may go unnoticed
by the vehicle owner, NHTSA believes
that the likelihood of a sustained period
of reduced turn signal performance due
to an outage would be high.
VIII. Decision: In consideration of the
foregoing, NHTSA has decided that GM
has not met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM’s
petition is hereby denied, and GM is
obligated to provide notification of, and
a remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Issued on: July 9, 2014.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014–16552 Filed 7–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
[Docket No. TTB–2014–0002]
Proposed Information Collections;
Comment Request (No. 48)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau; Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
As part of our continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, and as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
we invite comments on the proposed or
continuing information collections
listed below in this notice.
DATES: We must receive your written
comments on or before September 15,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Please note that TTB has
adopted a new method for receiving
public comments on its information
collections. As described below, you
may send comments on the information
collections listed in this document
using the ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ online
comment form for this document, or you
may send written comments via U.S.
mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer
accepts public comments via email or
fax.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41355-41357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16552]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0165; Notice 2]
General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) \1\ has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Buick Regal and MY 2013 Chevrolet Malibu
passenger cars may not fully comply with the turn signal lamp failure
indicator requirement found in paragraph S5.5.6 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. GM has filed an appropriate report dated October
3, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Motors, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and
is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mr. Mike
Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. GM's petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR Part 556), GM
submitted a petition 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 the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 19, 2013, in the Federal Register
(78 FR 43965). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0165.''
I. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 109,563 MY 2011
through 2013 Buick Regal and MY 2013 Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars
manufactured from January 20, 2010 through September 18, 2012.
II. Noncompliance: GM explains that the subject vehicles are
equipped with front turn signals, each of which incorporates two light
sources. When both light sources of either front turn signal fail, turn
signal lamp failure indication is provided as required by paragraph
S5.5.6 of FMVSS No. 108. However, turn signal lamp failure indication
is not provided if only one of the light sources fails in either front
turn signal assembly. If a single bulb fails to illuminate, the turn
signal is still illuminated by the other bulb.
III. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.6 of FMVSS No. 108 specifically
states:
S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit
shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or
more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance
with SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970 . . .
IV. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM stated its belief that the lack of
turn signal lamp failure indication is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
1. As delivered to the customer the turn signal lamps function
properly and meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This is not a
situation where the photometric output of the turn signals fails to
meet the requirements as delivered to the customer. In fact, the light
output of the normally operating turn signals greatly exceeds the
photometric requirements as produced.
2. Most drivers will never be affected by the reduction of
photometric output, without outage indication as a result of a single
front bulb failure, because the failure rate of the turn signal bulb is
extremely low. The bulb life of these turn signals is three to four
times the life of the bulbs used in turn signals when the turn signal
lamps failure indication requirement was incorporated into the
standard. The bulbs used in the subject front turn signals have a
tested life of 1,100 hours at 12.8 volts. Using this information in a
Monte Carlo simulation analysis provides the following results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years........................................... 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
Miles........................................... 31,250 62,500 93,750 125,000
No. of Burnouts................................. 0 0 1 4
SIM Vehicles.................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Failure IPTV.................................... 0.000 0.000 0.400 4.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41356]]
Consequently, it is extremely unlikely a driver will experience a
single turn signal bulb failure over the life of the vehicle, and thus
the lack of outage indication, with a single bulb failure, is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
3. With a single bulb, the turn signal still functions and provides
perceptible indication that the vehicle may be turning. In the
extremely remote case that both light sources were to fail, in either
front turn signal, bulb outage is indicated as required by the
standard.
4. In the Malibu vehicle, if an outboard front turn bulb is not
working, the inboard bulb continues to meet the photometric
requirements. In this case, the centroid of the light shifts and is
greater than 100 mm from the lit edge of the low beam head lamp. The
light output of the inboard bulb easily meets the minimum photometric
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108.
5. If the inboard bulb burns out on the Malibu, or either bulb on
the Regal, the remaining lamp continues to provide light which meets
the photometric requirements in some zones, and comes close to the
requirements in most of the remaining zones. This light exceeds the
standard turn signal photometric requirements, but due to the location
of the turn signal (i.e., the turn signal centroid within 100 mm of the
lit edge of the low beam lamp) the 2.5 multiplier must be applied to
photometric requirements.
a. For the Malibu turn signal lamps, the photometric requirements
with the 2.5 multiplier, are met in three of the five zones; and are
within 25% of the requirements in a 4th zone.
b. For the Regal turn signal lamps, the photometric requirements
with the 2.5 multiplier, are met in two of the five zones; and are
within 25% of the requirements in two other zones. The Malibu and Regal
turn signal lamps provide the required light under normal driving
conditions. In the unlikely circumstance that a single bulb stops
functioning, the remaining bulb continues to provide the minimum turn
signal light specified in the standard and is generally within 25% of
the minimum required light after the 2.5 multiplier is applied. In the
case of these vehicles, GM's analysis indicates the light provided by
the single bulb is perceptible to the motoring public.
GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 108.
In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of its
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
V. NHTSA's Analysis OF GM's Petition: General Principles: Federal
motor vehicle safety standards are adopted only after the agency has
determined, following notice and comment, that the performance
requirements are objective and practicable and ``meet the need for
motor vehicle safety.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a
remedy without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has
recognized that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance
could be ``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety.
``Inconsequential'' is not defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's
regulations. Rather, the agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts before it. The key issue in determining
inconsequentiality is whether the noncompliance in question is likely
to increase the safety risk to individuals of accidents or to
individual occupants who experience the type of injurious event against
which the standard was designed to protect. See General Motors Corp.;
Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
69 FR 19897 (Apr. 14, 2004).
There have been instances in the past in which NHTSA has determined
that a manufacturer has met its burden of persuasion by demonstrating
that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For example, there
have been instances where NHTSA granted inconsequentiality petitions
regarding noncompliance with labeling requirements. See, e.g., General
Motors Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 61 FR 60746 (Nov. 29, 1996) (noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 115).
More rarely, NHTSA has granted inconsequentiality petitions in
cases of noncompliance with performance requirements where the
noncompliance was determined to be so minor as to be inconsequential--
for example, where the noncompliance is expected to be imperceptible,
or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers. See, e.g.,
General Motors Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 70179 (Dec. 18, 1998)
(noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108); Subaru of America, Inc., Grant of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 18354
(Apr. 6, 2001) (noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108).
On the other hand, NHTSA has denied petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance where required equipment is completely missing from the
vehicle. For example, NHTSA denied a petition for travel trailers not
equipped with rear identification lamps. Weekend Warrior Trailers,
Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
71 FR 5409 (Feb. 1, 2006).
In addition, NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality petitions for
trailers that were equipped with clearance and identification lamps
that did not meet the minimum photometry requirements. Utilimaster
Corporation; Denial of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 33603 (June 22, 2001).
VI. NHTSA's Analysis of GM's Arguments: NHTSA has reviewed GM's
petition and has determined that the noncompliance is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
First, GM asserts that the turn signals as delivered, comply with
the photometric requirements. However, the agency finds that this
should be true of all newly manufactured motor vehicles and finds that
fact to be unrelated to the requirements that apply in the event of a
turn signal failure.
Second, GM states that the tested life of these turn signal bulbs
is 1100 hours; three to four times the life of the bulbs used in turn
signals when the bulb outage indication requirement was incorporated
into the standard. As such, GM believes that it is extremely unlikely a
driver will experience a single turn signal bulb failure over the life
of the vehicle.
NHTSA notes that the requirements for driver indication of a turn
signal failure became effective over 40 years ago and since that time
improvements have been made to the life of turn signal bulbs and motor
vehicles. For light sources, this includes the development of long life
bulbs and the introduction of light emitting diodes (LEDs) into motor
vehicle applications. For vehicles, the Federal Highway
[[Page 41357]]
Administration posted a chart of the ``Average Age of Automobiles and
Trucks in Use, 1970-1999'' that indicates the average vehicle age in
1970 was 5.6 years. (this information was compiled from Polk Company
data by Ward's Communications, Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures
from 2001) By 2013, Polk posted that the average vehicle age that year
was 11.4 years. (see https://www.polk.com/company/news/polk_finds_average_age_of_light_vehicles_continues_to_rise) At the time
that the bulb outage indication requirement became part of the FMVSS
108, SAE J573d DEC68 listed the average turn signal bulb laboratory
life as approximately 500 hours. Comparing that to the GM specified
bulb life of 1100 hours yields a similar doubling of bulb life compared
to the increase in the average vehicle age. Therefore, while the bulb
life has indeed increased, it has increased at a rate similar to the
average vehicle age which mathematically makes a bulb failure, when
compared to vehicle life, the same likelihood now as it was in 1970.
Additionally, GM did not make any mention of the actual voltage
that the electrical systems of the vehicles in question would be
providing to the front turn signal bulbs. Factors such as voltage,
heat, vibration and corrosion are all important things to consider that
can have a significant effect on the life of a bulb and no
consideration was given to these factors in GM's petition. For
instance, GM technical bulletin 04-08-42-002 indicated that for certain
vehicles, (2003-2004 Saturn ION) the ``amount of voltage supplied to
the front headlamp assembly for the turn signal circuit may cause the
bulb to prematurely wear out.''
Other turn signal lamp failure modes exist as well. For example, GM
recall 06V-263 (2004-2005 Cadillac XLR) described premature bulb
failure due to ``vibration within a loose fitting socket or air
entering the bulb due to an inadequate seal.'' Also, GM recalls 04V-547
(2003-2004 Saturn ION) and 04V-524 (2003 Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac
Sunfire), described turn signal lamp failure due to ``loss of'' and
``inadequate'' ``contact between the bulb and socket.''
As such, NHTSA believes that there are many light source related
failure modes that can cause a turn signal lamp to fail, and GM's
argument that a light source failure is extremely unlikely based on
laboratory bulb life does not adequately consider these other failure
modes.
Third, Fourth, and Fifth, GM offers several scenarios regarding the
photometric performance of the turn signal lamp in the event that a
single light source were to fail. Each one of GM's scenarios relies on
downgrading the performance of the original equipment turn signal lamp
from a large, two lighted section lamp, down to a smaller, one lighted
section lamp. This results in a photometric performance requirement
reduction of ~15% in the zones, as well as similar reductions at the
individual test points. Even under the requirements assumed by GM for
its scenarios, 75% of GM's scenarios still fail to meet even the
reduced requirements.
GM argues that despite the failure of the lamps in these scenarios
to meet the photometric requirements at some of the zones, it was
within 25% of the minimum zonal requirements. When referring to these
zonal failures, and within ``25%'' of the zonal requirements, it
appears that GM is making a just noticeable difference (JND) argument
relative to the zones. A NHTSA study titled ``Driver Perception of Just
Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' [DOT HS
808 209, September 1994] demonstrated that a change in luminous
intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most drivers.
However, NHTSA has stated that it is not valid to use the JND
justification for judging the effect of zonal intensity failures.
Drivers do not look at zones when they observe lamps; they look at the
lamp from very narrow angles based on the distance between their eyes
and the distance to the lamp. Using the JND justification on zones
would imply that drivers would be looking at lamps from all the test
points in the zone simultaneously and somehow integrating the numerous
intensities into some false representation of how intense the lamp
should be. This is simply not the case. For this reason, the JND
argument is not applicable to zone failures. (see 62FR63417)
VII. Prior Inconsequentiality Petitions: NHTSA found one prior
inconsequentiality determination regarding the turn signal bulb outage
requirements of FMVSS No. 108. In 1999, General Motors determined that
it had manufactured 209 Chevrolet S10 Electric Trucks that were non-
compliant with the requirement. The agency granted GM's petition on the
basis that these low volume trucks were mainly used in fleets and that
they would receive regular periodic maintenance where detection of the
failure of a turn signal lamp and replacement thereof would be more
likely than in privately owned vehicles. As such, NHTSA felt that the
likelihood of these low volume trucks having any sustained period of
outage would be a relatively infrequent event. (see 64 FR 44575) In
contrast, the current situation involves 109,563 Chevrolet Malibu and
Buick Regal passenger cars which are likely to be privately owned
vehicles. Considering that a partial failure may go unnoticed by the
vehicle owner, NHTSA believes that the likelihood of a sustained period
of reduced turn signal performance due to an outage would be high.
VIII. Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that GM has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No.
108 noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby denied, and GM is obligated to
provide notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 9, 2014.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-16552 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
