Weldon, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 6646-6648 [2022-02311]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6646
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices
www.stb.gov. A recording of the public
commentary phase of the hearing, the
conference, and the evidentiary phase of
the hearing, as well as a transcript of
each, will be posted on the Board’s
website when they become available.
It is ordered:
1. A public hearing in this proceeding
will commence on February 15, 2022.
All portions of the hearing taking place
on February 15, 2022, and February 16,
2022, will be held online using video
conferencing.
2. By February 7, 2022, any person
who is not one of the Parties identified
above and wishes to speak at the public
portion of the hearing shall file with the
Board a notice of intent to participate
identifying the entity, if any, the person
represents, the proposed speaker, and
the amount of time requested, and also
summarizing the key points that the
speaker intends to address. Also by
February 7, 2022, such persons shall
submit, via email at Hearings@stb.gov,
the email address of the speaker.
3. Notices of intent to participate will
be posted to the Board’s website and
need not be served on any other persons
or entities.
4. Counsel for Amtrak, CSXT, NSR,
and the Port are directed to appear at a
conference before the Board on February
16, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., or immediately
following the conclusion of the public
commentary phase of the hearing,
whichever is later.
5. Amtrak, CSXT, NSR, and the Port
are directed to appear at the evidentiary
phase of the hearing before the Board
beginning on March 9, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.
6. All evidence previously filed in
this proceeding is accepted into the
record.
7. This decision is effective on its
service date.
8. This decision will be published in
the Federal Register.
Decided: February 1, 2022.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs,
Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2022–02416 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2021–1086]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Aviation
Maintenance Technician Schools;
Correction
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
The FAA published a
document in the Federal Register of
November 23, 2021, concerning request
for comments about the FAA’s intention
to request the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval to renew an
information collection, in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The document was published
with an incorrect docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tanya Glines by email at: Tanya.glines@
faa.gov; phone: 202–380–5896.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Correction: In the Federal Register of
November 23, 2021, FR Doc. 2021–
25472, on page 66615, in the third
column, correct the docket number to
read:
SUMMARY:
[Docket No. FAA–2021–1086]
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1,
2022.
Tanya A. Glines,
Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA Safety
Standards, Aircraft Maintenance Division.
[FR Doc. 2022–02356 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0107 Notice 2]
Weldon, Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
AGENCY:
Weldon, a Division of Akron
Brass Company, has determined that
certain backup lamps do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Weldon filed a
noncompliance report dated November
7, 2018, and subsequently petitioned
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NHTSA on November 30, 2018, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This notice announces
the denial of Weldon’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366–5304, Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Weldon has determined that certain
backup lamps it manufactures do not
fully comply with paragraph S14.4.1 of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). Weldon filed a
noncompliance report dated November
7, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 556,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
November 30, 2018, 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 Weldon’s petition
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on July 15, 2020, in
the Federal Register (85 FR 42977). 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–2018–
0107.’’
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 6,315 rear
combination lamps manufactured
between June 6, 2018, and June 25,
2018, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Weldon explains that its subject rear
combination lamp is noncompliant
because its backup lamp does not meet
the requirements for color as specified
in paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the subject backup lamp,
when tested in accordance with the
Tristimulus Method, fell outside the
required boundaries for white light.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S14.4.1, S14.4.1.4.2, and
S14.4.1.4.2.3, of FMVSS No. 108
includes the requirements relevant to
this petition. The color of a sample
device must comply when tested by
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
either the Visual Method or the
Tristimulus Method. When tested using
the Tristimulus method, the backup
lamp color must comply with the color
of light emitted within the following
boundaries for white (achromatic):
• x = 0.31 (blue boundary)
• y = 0.44 (green boundary)
• x = 0.50 (yellow boundary)
• y = 0.15 + 0.64x (green boundary)
• y = 0.38 (red boundary)
• y = 0.05 + 0.75x (purple boundary)
V. Summary of Weldon’s Petition
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Weldon’s Petition,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by Weldon and do
not reflect the views of the Agency.
Weldon describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Weldon
offers the following reasoning:
1. Weldon states that backup lamps
are intended to signal to other drivers
that a vehicle is in reverse gear. Weldon
says that despite the slight deviation
from the white color boundaries, the
backup lamps, when engaged, are fully
illuminated and are still sufficiently
white in color that they will not create
confusion (at any distance) that the
truck is in the reverse gear. The lamps
still comply with the luminous intensity
photometry requirements of FMVSS No.
108. Weldon contends that even with
the color specification noncompliance,
these backup lamps fulfill the intended
purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies
to signal lamps, namely to ensure
signals are understood by other road
users.
2. Weldon also argues that the
vehicles for which the lamps have been
supplied have full backup lamp
functionality. This creates no safety risk,
as the backup lamps are fully functional
and remain completely illuminated.
Further, Weldon states, the difference in
color white light is very slight, so much
so that the color is nearly imperceptible
to the human eye at any distance. The
lamps are sufficiently visible, effective,
would not be confused with any other
signal lamp, and do not create a safety
risk.
3. In considering past petitions
involving FMVSS No. 108, Weldon
contends that NHTSA has previously
considered and found deviations from
the standard which were not perceptible
to the human eye and/or did not affect
the illumination or brightness of the
lamp were inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. According to Weldon,
NHTSA has found that deviation from
the photometric parameters were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
inconsequential to safety when the
overall intensity of the equipment was
near to the required parameters to not be
perceptible to the human eye. Weldon
asserts that NHTSA has historically
employed a rule that a margin of up to
25 percent deviation from FMVSS No.
108 photometric intensity requirements
is reasonable to grant a petition of
inconsequentiality for noncompliant
signal lamps. See ‘‘Driver Perception of
Just Noticeable Differences of
Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities,’’
(herein, ‘‘UMTRI Report’’) DOT HS 808
209, Sept. 1994 (described by Weldon as
a study sponsored by NHTSA that
demonstrated that a change in luminous
intensity of 25 percent or less is not
noticeable by most drivers and is a
reasonable criterion for determining the
inconsequentiality of noncompliant
signal lamps). According to Weldon,
NHTSA has stated that it has granted
such inconsequentiality petitions when
it was ‘‘confident that the noncompliant
signal lights would still be visible to
nearby drivers.’’ 1 Moreover, Weldon
notes that NHTSA has stated that
‘‘because signal lighting is not intended
to provide roadway illumination to the
driver, a less than 25 percent reduction
in light output at any particular test
point is less critical.’’ Id. Weldon points
out that NHTSA has stated the UMTRI
Report’s findings to be ‘‘mostly
analogous to those of the signal lighting
research.’’ Id. Weldon also states that
NHTSA granted a petition for a
determination of inconsequentiality to
General Motors for turn signals that met
the photometry requirements in just
three of four test groups and produced,
on average, 90 percent of the required
photometric intensity.2 Weldon further
states that NHTSA has granted similar
petitions for lamps that do not comply
with photometric requirements in other
slight ways.
4. Conversely, Weldon states that
NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality
petitions in cases where headlamps do
not meet the minimum FMVSS
requirements, thus, causing an
increased safety risk.3 The purpose of
headlamps, as opposed to rear signal
lighting, is roadway illumination, which
1 See General Motors Corporation; Denial of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001).
2 See General Motors Corporation; Grant of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 61 FR 1663 (January 22, 1996).
3 See General Motors Corporation; Denial of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001), for a
denial of inconsequentiality petition where points
on the headlamp used for overhead sign
illumination were substantially below the
photometric minimum values, which impaired
driver visibility.
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6647
is crucial to road safety. Insufficient
roadway illumination from
nonconforming headlamps creates an
increased safety risk to the public and
thus is held to a higher standard than
the 25 percent deviation of the UMTRI
Report. Id. Backup indicator taillamps,4
unlike headlamps, do not illuminate the
road for drivers, and thus deviation
from the FMVSS No. 108 color
requirement of the standard does not
impede visibility. Weldon says the
backup lamps in question are still
entirely visible (that is, the brightness of
the tail lamps is not affected) 5 and still
appear white to the human eye at any
distance, as demonstrated by Weldon’s
findings. The lamps fulfill the intended
purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies
to signal lamps, which is to make a
driver’s operating signals understood.
Further, Weldon states that despite the
slight deviation from the white light
boundaries, the backup lamps would be
understood to signal that the truck is in
reverse gear and create no additional
safety risk and fulfill the intent of
FMVSS No. 108.
5. Weldon has not received any
reports related to the performance of the
lamps from the field and is not aware of
any accidents or injuries related to the
issue.
Weldon concludes 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 burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply
with a performance requirement in a
standard—as opposed to a labeling
requirement with no performance
implications—is more substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the
Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.6
Potential performance failures of safetycritical equipment, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
An important issue to consider in
determining inconsequentiality is the
safety risk to individuals who
4 NHTSA notes that Weldon uses the incorrect
term ‘‘backup indicator taillamps’’. NHTSA believes
that Weldon is referring to a ‘‘backup lamp.’’
5 NHTSA believes that Weldon means that the
backup lamp intensity is not affected.
6 Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition
for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14,
2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was
expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to
vehicle occupants or approaching drivers).
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
6648
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2022 / Notices
experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise
protect.7 In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries to show that the issue is
inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most
importantly, the absence of a complaint
does not mean there have not been any
safety issues, nor does it mean that there
will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 8
‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases
good luck and swift reaction have
prevented many serious injuries does
not mean that good luck will continue
to work.’’ 9
One purpose of vehicle backup lamps
is to indicate that a motor vehicle has
engaged its reverse gear and is intending
to move in that direction, which is a
safety-critical alert to both pedestrians
and drivers of other vehicles. Another
purpose of the backup lamps is to serve
as an illumination device so the driver
can see what is behind the vehicle when
moving in reverse.10
As an illumination device, the driver
relies on the correct color of light for
proper color rendering. Color rendering
of the environment, provided by a lamp
whose color is within the range of
permissible chromaticity coordinates,
allows the driver to properly see objects,
obstacles, pedestrians, etc. when
conducting this maneuver. Based on the
chromaticity plot provided by Weldon
for this lamp, the lamp color is outside
the white boundary as required by
FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA does not agree
with Weldon’s arguments that the color
of light emitted by backup lamps is
inconsequential to safety. With respect
to Weldon’s argument related to
granting other petitions where a
deviation from the requirement is not
perceptible to the human eye and/or did
not affect the illumination or brightness
of the lamp, Weldon states in its own
petition that in the subject
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
7 See
Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR
35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had
no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect
on the proper operation of the occupant
classification system and the correct deployment of
an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013)
(finding occupant using noncompliant light source
would not be exposed to significantly greater risk
than occupant using similar compliant light
source).
8 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR
21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
9 United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an
unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as
potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and
where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be
expected to occur in the future’’).
10 See 49 CFR 571.108 S4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Feb 03, 2022
Jkt 256001
noncompliance, there is a noticeable
difference between the compliant lamp
and the noncompliant lamp when
viewed side-by-side.
Equally important, NHTSA does not
find Weldon’s arguments concerning
NHTSA’s past decisions related to the
research documented in the ‘‘Driver
Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp
Intensities’’ paper relevant to this
petition since the application of the
study is limited to luminous intensity of
signal lamps and irrelevant to color
requirements.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Weldon has
not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Weldon’s petition
is hereby denied and Weldon is
consequently obligated to provide
notification of and free 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)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022–02311 Filed 2–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0118]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Special
Permit; Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PHMSA is publishing this
notice to solicit public comments on a
request for a special permit received
from the Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT). The special
permit request is seeking relief from
compliance with certain requirements
in the federal pipeline safety
regulations. At the conclusion of the 30day comment period, PHMSA will
review the comments received from this
notice as part of its evaluation to grant
or deny the special permit request.
DATES: Submit any comments regarding
this special permit request by March 7,
2022.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comments should reference
the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in
the following ways:
• E-Gov website: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number for the special permit
request you are commenting on at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, please
submit two (2) copies. To receive
confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at https://
www.Regulations.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Note: There is a privacy statement
published on https://www.Regulations.gov.
Comments, including any personal
information provided, are posted without
changes or edits to https://
www.Regulations.gov.
Confidential Business Information:
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information
that is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this
notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask
PHMSA to give confidential treatment
to information you give to the agency by
taking the following steps: (1) Mark each
page of the original document
submission containing CBI as
‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second
copy of the original document with the
CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI.
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6646-6648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0107 Notice 2]
Weldon, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Weldon, a Division of Akron Brass Company, has determined that
certain backup lamps do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Weldon filed a noncompliance report dated
November 7, 2018, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 30,
2018, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the denial
of Weldon's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), (202) 366-5304, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Weldon has determined that certain backup lamps it manufactures do
not fully comply with paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Weldon
filed a noncompliance report dated November 7, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 556, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 30, 2018, 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 Weldon's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 15, 2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
42977). 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-2018-0107.''
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 6,315 rear combination lamps manufactured between
June 6, 2018, and June 25, 2018, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Weldon explains that its subject rear combination lamp is
noncompliant because its backup lamp does not meet the requirements for
color as specified in paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically,
the subject backup lamp, when tested in accordance with the Tristimulus
Method, fell outside the required boundaries for white light.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraphs S14.4.1, S14.4.1.4.2, and S14.4.1.4.2.3, of FMVSS No.
108 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. The color of a
sample device must comply when tested by
[[Page 6647]]
either the Visual Method or the Tristimulus Method. When tested using
the Tristimulus method, the backup lamp color must comply with the
color of light emitted within the following boundaries for white
(achromatic):
x = 0.31 (blue boundary)
y = 0.44 (green boundary)
x = 0.50 (yellow boundary)
y = 0.15 + 0.64x (green boundary)
y = 0.38 (red boundary)
y = 0.05 + 0.75x (purple boundary)
V. Summary of Weldon's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Weldon's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Weldon and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Weldon describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Weldon offers the following reasoning:
1. Weldon states that backup lamps are intended to signal to other
drivers that a vehicle is in reverse gear. Weldon says that despite the
slight deviation from the white color boundaries, the backup lamps,
when engaged, are fully illuminated and are still sufficiently white in
color that they will not create confusion (at any distance) that the
truck is in the reverse gear. The lamps still comply with the luminous
intensity photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Weldon contends
that even with the color specification noncompliance, these backup
lamps fulfill the intended purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies to
signal lamps, namely to ensure signals are understood by other road
users.
2. Weldon also argues that the vehicles for which the lamps have
been supplied have full backup lamp functionality. This creates no
safety risk, as the backup lamps are fully functional and remain
completely illuminated. Further, Weldon states, the difference in color
white light is very slight, so much so that the color is nearly
imperceptible to the human eye at any distance. The lamps are
sufficiently visible, effective, would not be confused with any other
signal lamp, and do not create a safety risk.
3. In considering past petitions involving FMVSS No. 108, Weldon
contends that NHTSA has previously considered and found deviations from
the standard which were not perceptible to the human eye and/or did not
affect the illumination or brightness of the lamp were inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. According to Weldon, NHTSA has found that
deviation from the photometric parameters were inconsequential to
safety when the overall intensity of the equipment was near to the
required parameters to not be perceptible to the human eye. Weldon
asserts that NHTSA has historically employed a rule that a margin of up
to 25 percent deviation from FMVSS No. 108 photometric intensity
requirements is reasonable to grant a petition of inconsequentiality
for noncompliant signal lamps. See ``Driver Perception of Just
Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities,''
(herein, ``UMTRI Report'') DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994 (described by
Weldon as a study sponsored by NHTSA that demonstrated that a change in
luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most
drivers and is a reasonable criterion for determining the
inconsequentiality of noncompliant signal lamps). According to Weldon,
NHTSA has stated that it has granted such inconsequentiality petitions
when it was ``confident that the noncompliant signal lights would still
be visible to nearby drivers.'' \1\ Moreover, Weldon notes that NHTSA
has stated that ``because signal lighting is not intended to provide
roadway illumination to the driver, a less than 25 percent reduction in
light output at any particular test point is less critical.'' Id.
Weldon points out that NHTSA has stated the UMTRI Report's findings to
be ``mostly analogous to those of the signal lighting research.'' Id.
Weldon also states that NHTSA granted a petition for a determination of
inconsequentiality to General Motors for turn signals that met the
photometry requirements in just three of four test groups and produced,
on average, 90 percent of the required photometric intensity.\2\ Weldon
further states that NHTSA has granted similar petitions for lamps that
do not comply with photometric requirements in other slight ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See General Motors Corporation; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23,
2001).
\2\ See General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 61 FR 1663 (January 22,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conversely, Weldon states that NHTSA has denied
inconsequentiality petitions in cases where headlamps do not meet the
minimum FMVSS requirements, thus, causing an increased safety risk.\3\
The purpose of headlamps, as opposed to rear signal lighting, is
roadway illumination, which is crucial to road safety. Insufficient
roadway illumination from nonconforming headlamps creates an increased
safety risk to the public and thus is held to a higher standard than
the 25 percent deviation of the UMTRI Report. Id. Backup indicator
taillamps,\4\ unlike headlamps, do not illuminate the road for drivers,
and thus deviation from the FMVSS No. 108 color requirement of the
standard does not impede visibility. Weldon says the backup lamps in
question are still entirely visible (that is, the brightness of the
tail lamps is not affected) \5\ and still appear white to the human eye
at any distance, as demonstrated by Weldon's findings. The lamps
fulfill the intended purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies to signal
lamps, which is to make a driver's operating signals understood.
Further, Weldon states that despite the slight deviation from the white
light boundaries, the backup lamps would be understood to signal that
the truck is in reverse gear and create no additional safety risk and
fulfill the intent of FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See General Motors Corporation; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38341 (July 23,
2001), for a denial of inconsequentiality petition where points on
the headlamp used for overhead sign illumination were substantially
below the photometric minimum values, which impaired driver
visibility.
\4\ NHTSA notes that Weldon uses the incorrect term ``backup
indicator taillamps''. NHTSA believes that Weldon is referring to a
``backup lamp.''
\5\ NHTSA believes that Weldon means that the backup lamp
intensity is not affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Weldon has not received any reports related to the performance
of the lamps from the field and is not aware of any accidents or
injuries related to the issue.
Weldon concludes 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 burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\6\ Potential
performance failures of safety-critical equipment, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who
[[Page 6648]]
experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise
protect.\7\ In general, NHTSA does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries to show that the issue is inconsequential to
safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a complaint does not mean
there have not been any safety issues, nor does it mean that there will
not be safety issues in the future.'' \8\ ``[T]he fact that in past
reported cases good luck and swift reaction have prevented many serious
injuries does not mean that good luck will continue to work.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\8\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\9\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One purpose of vehicle backup lamps is to indicate that a motor
vehicle has engaged its reverse gear and is intending to move in that
direction, which is a safety-critical alert to both pedestrians and
drivers of other vehicles. Another purpose of the backup lamps is to
serve as an illumination device so the driver can see what is behind
the vehicle when moving in reverse.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 49 CFR 571.108 S4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an illumination device, the driver relies on the correct color
of light for proper color rendering. Color rendering of the
environment, provided by a lamp whose color is within the range of
permissible chromaticity coordinates, allows the driver to properly see
objects, obstacles, pedestrians, etc. when conducting this maneuver.
Based on the chromaticity plot provided by Weldon for this lamp, the
lamp color is outside the white boundary as required by FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA does not agree with Weldon's arguments that the color of light
emitted by backup lamps is inconsequential to safety. With respect to
Weldon's argument related to granting other petitions where a deviation
from the requirement is not perceptible to the human eye and/or did not
affect the illumination or brightness of the lamp, Weldon states in its
own petition that in the subject noncompliance, there is a noticeable
difference between the compliant lamp and the noncompliant lamp when
viewed side-by-side.
Equally important, NHTSA does not find Weldon's arguments
concerning NHTSA's past decisions related to the research documented in
the ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive
Signal Lamp Intensities'' paper relevant to this petition since the
application of the study is limited to luminous intensity of signal
lamps and irrelevant to color requirements.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Weldon
has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Weldon's petition is hereby denied and Weldon is consequently obligated
to provide notification of and free 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)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-02311 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
