Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 39679-39681 [2020-14214]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 1, 2020 / Notices
has judged that the minimal difference
in photometric intensity between the
lamp that tested below standard and a
lamp meeting the minimum standard is
not perceptible to the human observer.
(See, Subaru of America, Grant of
Petition, 56 FR 59971 (Nov. 26, 1991);
Hella, Inc., Grant of Petition, 55 FR
37601 (Sept. 12, 1990)).
3. Moreover, in the subject vehicles,
the parking lamp wraps around the
corners of the headlamp assembly and
adds additional illumination in the
region where testing showed the
photometric intensity of the side marker
lamp to be slightly below standard. On
the affected MY 2019 Armada vehicles,
the parking lamps are on the same
circuit as the side marker lamps and
therefore always illuminate in
conjunction with the side marker lamps.
4. When tested as a unit in real-world
conditions, the photometric intensity of
the combined parking and side marker
lamps is above the required 0.62 cd for
all test points.
5. In the event the inner lens was to
move out of position, the
complimentary illumination from the
parking lamp compensates for the slight
reduction in photometric intensity of
the side marker lamp over an
exceedingly small range. Therefore, in
actual usage conditions, the presence of
an affected vehicle is conspicuous and
in Nissan’s judgment, there is no
perceivable difference in the visibility of
the subject vehicles compared to
compliant vehicles to drivers and
pedestrians on the road.
6. In similar situations, NHTSA has
granted the applications of other
petitioners in which a minor deviation
from the standard was deemed
imperceptible and therefore
inconsequential to safety (See, e.g.,
BMW of N.Am., LLC, Grant of Petition,
82 FR 55484 (Nov. 21, 2017); Osram
Sylvania Prods., Inc., Grant of Petition,
78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013)). While
Nissan recognizes that NHTSA has
denied petitions claiming
complimentary illumination, those
petitions are distinguishable due to the
greater extent of the reduction in
illumination over a wider affected area.
Nissan concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The intent of
FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce traffic
accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents, by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
01:53 Jul 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
providing adequate illumination on the
roadway, and by enhancing the
conspicuity of motor vehicles on the
public roads so that their presence is
perceived and their signals understood,
both in daylight and in darkness or
other conditions of reduced visibility.
Nissan offers two main arguments
supporting the notion that the
noncompliance at issue here is
inconsequential to safety. One
contention relies on the proximity of the
parking lamp to the side marker lamp
and the fact that both will be
illuminated simultaneously. As both
will be lit, Nissan contends that the
light from the parking lamp will offset
the substandard output of the side
marker lamp and result in no net loss of
visibility. Another contention is that the
condition causing the noncompliance
results in a photometric intensity test
result of 15% below the minimum
requirement at 1 of 14 test points, a loss
that cannot be detected by an unaided
human eye.
NHTSA finds the former argument
unpersuasive and the latter contention
to be compelling. The purpose of the
side marker is to aid in the visibility of
a motor vehicle at night. Nissan’s
argument of complementary
illumination from the parking lamp is
not convincing since the parking lamp
illumination is white, not amber and
could cause a passing motorist to have
difficulty determining what part of the
vehicle is approaching. In contrast to
the obvious difference between a white
parking light and an amber side marker
light, a small reduction in photometric
intensity is imperceptible. Nissan cited
multiple prior petitions where NHTSA
conceded this fact and granted petitions
for inconsequential noncompliance. The
granting of Hella Inc.’s (55 FR 37601)
and Subaru of America’s (56 FR 59971)
petitions, where the imperceptible
difference in illumination directed the
conclusion that a noncompliance was
inconsequential, are applicable here. As
the Agency explained when it granted
the inconsequentiality petition filed by
Hella, Inc. ‘‘a reduction of
approximately 25 percent in luminous
intensity is required before the human
eye can detect the difference between
the two lamps.’’
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that Nissan has met its burden of
persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
108 noncompliance in the affected
vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan’s
petition is hereby granted. Nissan is
consequently exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39679
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject
vehicles that Nissan no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Nissan notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–14215 Filed 6–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0064; Notice 2]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Toyota Motor North America,
Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013–2019
Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30,
2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of Toyota’s
petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
39680
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 1, 2020 / Notices
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366–5304, facsimile
(202) 366–3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
conform to the photometry requirements
of Table XVI-a, when tested according to
the procedure in paragraph S14.2.3 of
FMVSS No. 108, for the reflex reflector.
V. Summary of Toyota’s Petition
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary
of Toyota’s petition, are the views and
arguments provided by Toyota. They do
not reflect the views of the Agency.
Toyota described the subject
noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. Toyota
submitted the following views and
arguments in support of the petition:
1. The extent of the noncompliance
for the subject reflex reflectors is such
that the human eye is unable to
differentiate the reflected light of
noncompliant reflectors from the
reflected light of those that are
compliant.
The technical cause of the
noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day
when reflectors were left in the oven as
the oven cooled down. An assessment
was made of the maximum deviation
from the standard that could result from
this circumstance. Based on the 60 piece
parts study using the worst-case
annealing process, Toyota calculated at
4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1
percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval
calculation method, the worst possible
deviation from the standard would be
¥ 18 percent.
II. Vehicles Involved
The NHTSA sponsored study ‘‘Driver
Approximately 502,034 of the
Perception of Just Noticeable
following MY 2013–2019 Lexus motor
vehicles, manufactured between July 19, Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp
Intensities’’ (DOT HS 808 209,
2011, and May 21, 2019, are potentially
September 1994) and The University of
involved:
Michigan Transportation Research
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus ES350
Institute (UMTRI) ‘‘Just Noticeable
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus ES300h
• MY 2013–2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350 Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.’’ (UMTRI–97–4, February
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus GS450h
1997) found that a change in luminous
• MY 2016–2019 Lexus GS–F
intensity of 25 percent or less is not
III. Noncompliance
noticeable by most drivers. The agency
noted in 1990 when it granted an
Toyota explains that the
inconsequentiality petition filed by
noncompliance is that the subject
Hella, Inc., ‘‘a reduction of
vehicles are equipped with rear
reflectors that do not meet the minimum approximately 25 percent in luminous
intensity is required before the human
photometry requirements specified in
eye can detect the difference between
paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex two lamps.’’ See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the Agency stated
reflector in the subject vehicles may
that the same considerations can be
contain a photometry value 18 percent
applied to reflectors as to lamps.
below the required minimum.
To verify that a deviation of ¥ 18
IV. Rule Requirements
percent is not detectable to the human
eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted
Paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
evaluations of the reflected light from
FMVSS No. 108 includes the
the noncompliant part that was
requirements relevant to this petition.
Each reflex reflector must be designed to produced in the 60-piece study and
I. Overview
Toyota has determined that certain
MY 2013–2019 Lexus motor vehicles,
do not fully comply with paragraph
S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108). Toyota filed a noncompliance
report for the motor vehicles dated May
30, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Toyota
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
June 21, 2019, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential
Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Toyota’s petition
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on November 7, 2019,
in the Federal Register (84 FR 60143).
No comments were received. To view
the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019–
0064.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
01:53 Jul 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
another reflector that was approximately
20 percent higher in reflectivity. The
reflectors were mounted in a dark
tunnel and set up to simulate the
FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2
degrees. Ten panelists were instructed
to stand at a specific location 100 feet
from the reflectors at a height
approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to
the reflectors. They were asked if the
reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists
completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the
activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed.
This survey activity was then repeated
using two parts of equal reflectivity. In
these surveys, none of the panelists
were able to identify the noncompliant
part or correctly identify differences in
reflectivity.
In addition, Toyota installed the same
two parts that were checked in the dark
tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350.
Using the headlamps from another
vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind
the ES, Toyota members visually
observed the reflectivity between the
two parts at night and were unable to
distinguish a difference between the two
reflectors. They looked the same.
2. There are no known complaints
related to the noncompliance.
Toyota conducted a search of
consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner
Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no
report alleging that the rear reflectors
could not be seen or were not bright
enough. This search is current as of May
29, 2019.
3. In similar situations, NHTSA has
granted petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance relating to the subject
requirement of FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA has previously granted at
least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for
a tail lamp and one for a side reflex
reflector assembly. A brief summary of
the decisions is provided below:
• Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12,
1990)
In the petition, Hella argued that
industry experience and supporting
studies have established that the human
eye in the vast majority of cases cannot
detect a change in luminescence unless
it is more than a 25 percent increase or
decrease. NHTSA stated that a reduction
of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before
the human eye can detect the difference
between two lamps. Of the
noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest
disparity reported between a compliant
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 1, 2020 / Notices
lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6
cd, which is a 20 percent higher
luminous intensity than compliant
lamps. According to the SAE
Recommended Practice J576, this
differential cannot be detected by the
human eye. For this reason, the Hella
petition was granted.
• Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26,
1991)
Subaru submitted a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance in 1991
concerning the failures of luminous
intensity on the side reflex reflector.
NHTSA considered the petitioner’s
statement that observers could not
differentiate between the reflected light
of complying and noncomplying
reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and
100m. As the agency noted in 1990
when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ‘‘a
reduction of approximately 25 percent
in luminous intensity is required before
the human eye can detect the difference
between two lamps.’’ See 55 FR 37601,
37602. The agency applied the same
considerations to reflectors as to lamps.
The luminous transmittance failures of
the Subaru reflectors were all less than
20 percent of the minimum values
specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the
naked eye. For this reason, the petition
was granted.
Toyota concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis
Reflex reflectors make a vehicle
conspicuous to drivers of other vehicles
at night and at other times when there
is reduced ambient light including
dawn and dusk. The advance warning
provided by the rear reflex reflectors has
the potential to enable drivers to avoid
a collision when approaching from the
rear.
Due to a production error, the reflex
reflectors in the subject vehicles may be
at most 18% below the required
minimum. This error has been fixed in
production, and Toyota has not had any
complaints or reports of incidents due
to this noncompliance. Toyota has cited
multiple prior petitions where the
Agency granted a petition for decision
of inconsequential noncompliance
regarding noncompliant photometric
intensity. NHTSA concurs, particularly
in the cases of the Hella (55 FR 37601)
and Subaru (56 FR 59971) petitions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
01:53 Jul 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
where the imperceptible difference in
illumination makes this noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA finds that Toyota has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance of the
affected reflex reflectors is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Toyota’s petition is hereby
granted and Toyota is consequently
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject
vehicles that Toyota no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Toyota notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020–14214 Filed 6–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0142; Notice 2]
Hyundai Motor America, Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Hyundai Motor America
(Hyundai) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2012–2016 Hyundai
Accent motor vehicles do not fully
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39681
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection. Hyundai
filed a noncompliance report dated
December 12, 2016. Hyundai also
petitioned NHTSA on December 16,
2016, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This
document announces the grant of
Hyundai’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Jones, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202)
366–5294, facsimile (202) 366–5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Hyundai has determined that certain
MY 2012–2016 Hyundai Accent motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.1.5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR
571.208). Hyundai filed a
noncompliance information report
dated December 12, 2016, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Hyundai also petitioned
NHTSA on December 16, 2016,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Hyundai’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on April 7, 2017, in
the Federal Register (82 FR 17072). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management Systems (FDMS) website
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016–
0142.’’
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 6,445 MY 2012–2016
Hyundai Accent motor vehicles
manufactured between May 19, 2011,
and July 7, 2016, are potentially
involved. The affected vehicles are
those equipped with a non-folding rear
seat back and sold in the Puerto Rico
and Guam markets.
III. Noncompliance
Hyundai explains that the
noncompliance is that the affected
vehicles are equipped with a nonfolding rear seat back and a center rear
seat belt incorporating a release
mechanism that detaches both the lap
and shoulder portion at the lower
anchorage point and therefore do not
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39679-39681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0064; Notice 2]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30, 2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of Toyota's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway
[[Page 39680]]
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304,
facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Toyota has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Lexus motor
vehicles, do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). Toyota filed a noncompliance report for the motor
vehicles dated May 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Toyota's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 7, 2019, in the Federal Register (84
FR 60143). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0064.''
II. Vehicles Involved
Approximately 502,034 of the following MY 2013-2019 Lexus motor
vehicles, manufactured between July 19, 2011, and May 21, 2019, are
potentially involved:
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES300h
MY 2013-2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus GS450h
MY 2016-2019 Lexus GS-F
III. Noncompliance
Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
are equipped with rear reflectors that do not meet the minimum
photometry requirements specified in paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a
of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector in the subject
vehicles may contain a photometry value 18 percent below the required
minimum.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each reflex reflector must be
designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table XVI-a, when
tested according to the procedure in paragraph S14.2.3 of FMVSS No.
108, for the reflex reflector.
V. Summary of Toyota's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of Toyota's petition, are the views and arguments provided by
Toyota. They do not reflect the views of the Agency.
Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Toyota submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
1. The extent of the noncompliance for the subject reflex
reflectors is such that the human eye is unable to differentiate the
reflected light of noncompliant reflectors from the reflected light of
those that are compliant.
The technical cause of the noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day when reflectors were left in the
oven as the oven cooled down. An assessment was made of the maximum
deviation from the standard that could result from this circumstance.
Based on the 60 piece parts study using the worst-case annealing
process, Toyota calculated at 4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1 percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval calculation method, the worst
possible deviation from the standard would be - 18 percent.
The NHTSA sponsored study ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209,
September 1994) and The University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997) found that a change in
luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most
drivers. The agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25
percent in luminous intensity is required before the human eye can
detect the difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the Agency stated that the same considerations can
be applied to reflectors as to lamps.
To verify that a deviation of - 18 percent is not detectable to the
human eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted evaluations of the
reflected light from the noncompliant part that was produced in the 60-
piece study and another reflector that was approximately 20 percent
higher in reflectivity. The reflectors were mounted in a dark tunnel
and set up to simulate the FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2 degrees. Ten
panelists were instructed to stand at a specific location 100 feet from
the reflectors at a height approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to the
reflectors. They were asked if the reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed. This survey activity was then
repeated using two parts of equal reflectivity. In these surveys, none
of the panelists were able to identify the noncompliant part or
correctly identify differences in reflectivity.
In addition, Toyota installed the same two parts that were checked
in the dark tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350. Using the headlamps from
another vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind the ES, Toyota members
visually observed the reflectivity between the two parts at night and
were unable to distinguish a difference between the two reflectors.
They looked the same.
2. There are no known complaints related to the noncompliance.
Toyota conducted a search of consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no report alleging that the rear
reflectors could not be seen or were not bright enough. This search is
current as of May 29, 2019.
3. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the subject requirement of
FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA has previously granted at least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for a tail lamp and one for a side
reflex reflector assembly. A brief summary of the decisions is provided
below:
Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12, 1990)
In the petition, Hella argued that industry experience and
supporting studies have established that the human eye in the vast
majority of cases cannot detect a change in luminescence unless it is
more than a 25 percent increase or decrease. NHTSA stated that a
reduction of approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required
before the human eye can detect the difference between two lamps. Of
the noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest disparity reported between
a compliant
[[Page 39681]]
lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6 cd, which is a 20 percent higher
luminous intensity than compliant lamps. According to the SAE
Recommended Practice J576, this differential cannot be detected by the
human eye. For this reason, the Hella petition was granted.
Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991)
Subaru submitted a petition for inconsequential noncompliance in
1991 concerning the failures of luminous intensity on the side reflex
reflector. NHTSA considered the petitioner's statement that observers
could not differentiate between the reflected light of complying and
noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and 100m. As the
agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality petition
filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before the human eye can detect the
difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. The agency
applied the same considerations to reflectors as to lamps. The luminous
transmittance failures of the Subaru reflectors were all less than 20
percent of the minimum values specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the naked eye. For this reason,
the petition was granted.
Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
Reflex reflectors make a vehicle conspicuous to drivers of other
vehicles at night and at other times when there is reduced ambient
light including dawn and dusk. The advance warning provided by the rear
reflex reflectors has the potential to enable drivers to avoid a
collision when approaching from the rear.
Due to a production error, the reflex reflectors in the subject
vehicles may be at most 18% below the required minimum. This error has
been fixed in production, and Toyota has not had any complaints or
reports of incidents due to this noncompliance. Toyota has cited
multiple prior petitions where the Agency granted a petition for
decision of inconsequential noncompliance regarding noncompliant
photometric intensity. NHTSA concurs, particularly in the cases of the
Hella (55 FR 37601) and Subaru (56 FR 59971) petitions, where the
imperceptible difference in illumination makes this noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Toyota has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
of the affected reflex reflectors is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Toyota's petition is hereby granted and Toyota is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-14214 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
