Gillig, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Gillig
|
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
12 February 2019
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3544-3548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0021; Notice 2]
Gillig, 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: Gillig LLC (Gillig) has determined that certain model year
(MY) 1997-2016 Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment. Gillig filed a noncompliance report
dated February 24, 2017. Gillig also petitioned NHTSA on March 24,
2017, and supplemented its petition on May 10, 2017, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA,
telephone (202) 366-5304, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Gillig LLC (Gillig) has determined that certain model year (MY)
1997-2016 Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully comply with paragraph
S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated
February 24, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. As stated in the
noncompliance report, turn signal lights that do not meet the
requirements of the standard may not be sufficiently visible to other
drivers or pedestrians, potentially increasing the risk of a crash.
Gillig also petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2017, and supplemented its
petition on May 10, 2017, 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.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on October 4, 2017, in the Federal Register (82
FR 46346). No comments were received.
II. Buses Involved
Approximately 17,138 MY 1997-2016 Gillig Low Floor buses,
manufactured between December 31, 1997, and February 3, 2017, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Gillig stated that it installed six different generations of turn
signal assemblies in the subject buses; however, after receiving two
complaints that their Generation 7 turn signal assemblies were not
sufficiently visible, Gillig and the turn signal manufacturer went back
and tested the previous generations to see if they met the requirements
of FMVSS No. 108. Test
[[Page 3545]]
results for generations 1 through 6 of the turn signal assemblies
showed that they do not meet all the minimum photometry requirements of
paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S7.1.1.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition:
When tested according to the procedure of S14.2.1, each
front turn signal lamp must be designed to conform to the base
photometry requirements plus any applicable multipliers as shown in
Tables VI-a and VI-b for the number of lamp compartments or
individual lamps and the type of vehicle it is installed on.
V. Summary of Gillig's Petition
Gillig described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Gillig submitted the following
arguments:
1. Analysis: For front turn signals, the FMVSS No. 108 photometry
requirements provide that ``when tested according to the procedure of
S14.2.1, each front turn signal lamp must be designed to conform to the
base photometry requirements plus any applicable multipliers \1\ for
the number of lamp compartments or individual lamps and the type of
vehicle it is installed on.'' See FMVSS No. 108, S7.1.1.13.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All of the designs of the turn signal assemblies employ a
reflector. Since the spacing from the geometric centroid of the turn
signal to the lighted edge of the lower beam of the headlamp is
greater than 100 mm, a multiplier is not applicable. (FMVSS No. 108,
S7.1.1.10.3, S7.1.1.10.4(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A front turn signal lamp meets the photometry requirements of FMVSS
No. 108 if it: (1) Meets the minimum photometric intensity (PI)
requirement in each of the five test groups, (2) none of the values for
the individual test points are less than 60% of its own minimum PI
value, and (3) the minimum PI value between test points is not less
than the lower specified minimum value of the two closest adjacent test
points on a horizontal or vertical line. Stated another way, an
individual test point may be up to 40% below its minimum PI value as
long as the group in which it is contained achieves the overall group
minimum PI value. Based on this approach, even if the turn signal did
not meet the minimum photometry requirements at multiple individual
test points, the assembly complies with the standard as long as the
overall light intensity of all the test points included within the
group does not fall below the required minimum value of the group. (See
61 FR 1663; January 23, 1996) (``The photometric requirements for turn
signal lamps may be met at zones or groups of test points, instead of
at individual test points.'')
Gillig, in concert with Hamsar Diversco (Hamsar), its lighting
supplier, conducted a series of compliance testing for Generations 1 to
6. In order to accurately execute the tests, Hamsar used CAD drawings
of the Gillig Low Floor bus to construct an aluminum test stand
fixture. The test stand precisely matched the orientation and angle at
which the turn signal would have been installed on a Gillig Low Floor
bus. Hamsar then conducted a series of tests measuring the PI output
using samples of each of the available generations of turn signals. A
summary of test data shows:
(a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest generations), the
assemblies meet the minimum photometric intensity (PI) requirements for
3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19
individual test points. The turn signal's overall PI output of 1271
candelas is approximately 25% below the combined minimum requirements
for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
(b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 13 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 3 turn signals of 2506 candelas is 47% greater
than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710
candelas).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition, the integrated side markers for Generation 3
turn signals were tested and meet all photometric requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 4 turn signals of 2120 candelas is 24% greater
than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710
candelas).
(d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 8 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 5 turn signals of 1403 candelas is only 18% below
the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
(e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 6, the assemblies also
meet the minimum photometric intensity for 3 of 5 test groups and
allowable 60% of minimum photometric intensity at 12 of 19 individual
test points. The overall photometric intensity output for Generation 6
turn signals of 4201 candelas is 146% greater than the combined minimum
requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
Gillig states that for the test groups in each generation that meet
the PI requirements, the values for those groups well exceed the
minimum values for the group. The PI output for groups exceeding the
minimum values in Generations 1 and 2 achieve 119%-242% of minimum
values. The PI output for Generation 3 turn signals achieve 105%-575%
of minimum values. The PI output for Generation 4 turn signals achieve
109%-386% of minimum values. The PI output for Generation 5 turn
signals achieve 224%-267% of minimum values. Finally, the PI output for
Generation 6 turn signals achieve 114%-1022% of minimum values.
Gillig further contends that the turn signals are sufficiently
bright and visible overall and there is little if any perceptible
difference in light output when compared with a compliant turn signal.
The comparisons also illustrate how visually similar the performance of
the earlier generations of the assemblies are to the FMVSS No. 108
standard, and why their noncompliance garnered no attention, by Gillig
or its customers, in over twenty years of production.
2. NHTSA has Previously Granted Petitions Where Lighting Equipment
Did Not Meet the Photometry Requirements: Gillig contends that from its
inception, the Safety Act has included a provision recognizing that
some noncompliances pose little or no safety risk. In applying this
recognition to particular fact situations, Gillig asserts that the
agency considers whether the noncompliance gives rise to ``a
significantly greater risk than . . . in a compliant vehicle.'' See 69
FR 19897-19900 (April 14, 2000).
Relying on this same principle, Gillig contends that despite the
technical noncompliance with the PI requirements, the light output in
Generation 1-6 turn signals is sufficiently bright and does not create
a greater risk than turn signal assemblies that fully meet the
photometric parameters. Gillig states that NHTSA has considered
deviations from these photometric parameters on numerous occasions,
frequently finding that there is no need for a recall remedy campaign
when there are other factors contributing to the overall brightness of
the equipment.
[[Page 3546]]
For example, the agency granted a petition by General Motors \3\
where its turn signals met the photometry requirements in 3 of 4 test
groups and produced, on average, 90% of the required PI output. For the
three complying groups of turn signals, the assemblies exceeded the
light intensity requirements by at least 20%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 61 FR 1663-1664 (January 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillig further states that the agency granted similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance where the product did not meet the
photometric intensity requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013); 55 FR 37602 (September 12,
1990); 61 FR 1663 (January 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, Gillig asserts that because the PI output of the compliant
test groups within Generations 3, 4 and 6 exceeds the candela
requirements by a substantial margin, a range of 24%-146% above, the
additional candela offsets the overall performance of the turn
signals.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 63 FR 70179 (December 18, 1998); 61 FR 1663-1664 (January
22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillig observes that in some instances, involving reduced
photometric output, NHTSA has denied the petition on the basis that the
condition created a measurable impact on the driver's ability to see
objects on or above the road.\6\ In contrast, according to Gillig, the
only indication of such an impact involves the Generation 7 assemblies
for which Gillig is in the process of conducting a recall remedy
campaign. Gillig states that there is no indication that the deviation
in performance for Generations 1-6 has led to any difficulty in seeing
and responding to the turn signals, and as supported by the field
history, the turn signal assemblies have operated successfully for
years and in some cases decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 66 FR 38340 (July 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillig states that the agency has long considered changes in light
output in the range presented here as being visually imperceptible to
vehicle occupants or other drivers.\7\ Gillig also states that the
agency has noted that turn signals, unlike headlamps, do not affect
road illumination so that a reduced amount of light output would not,
by itself, create an increased risk to the public.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 59 FR 65428 (December 19, 1994).
\8\ 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, according to Gillig, the environment in which the Gillig
turn signals are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. Gillig
explains that because the buses in which the subject turn signals are
installed are predominantly public transit buses, they are managed by
fleet operators and undergo regular maintenance and reviews by skilled
technicians.\9\ Part of that process includes a pre-trip inspection.
That protocol requires a review of the bus's operating systems,
including a review of the turn signals. Consequently, according to
Gillig, if the photometric intensity of the Generations 1-6 lights were
inadequate, trained professional service personnel and drivers would
have identified this over the years, and in some cases, decades of pre-
trip inspections.\10\ Gillig states it has never received a complaint,
notice or report related to visibility concerns with the Generation 1-6
turn signals, underscoring the overall visibility of the turn signals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ According to Gillig, the typical life cycle for a public
transit bus is either 12 years or 500,000 miles, meaning that the
majority of the vehicles with Generation 1-6 turn signals may no
longer be in service. However, arguments that only a small number of
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected by a
noncompliance do not justify granting an inconsequentiality
petition.
\10\ 64 FR 44575 (August 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillig concludes by stating 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.
3. Supplemental Petition: In April 2017, and as part of its ongoing
quality review process, Gillig contracted with an independent lighting
certification laboratory (Calcoast-ITL) to conduct a series of
additional compliance tests for the turn signals included in
Generations 1-6. In order to accurately execute the testing, CAD
drawings of the front of the Gillig Low Floor bus were used to
construct an aluminum test stand fixture. The test stand precisely
matched the orientation and angles at which the right and left front
turn signals would have been installed on the bus. The laboratory then
conducted a series of tests measuring the PI output using samples of
each of the available generations of turn signals. The testing was
certified to have been conducted in accordance with the FMVSS 108 Test
Procedure (TP-108-13). A summary of the test data provides:
(a) For Generations 1 and 2 (the oldest generations), the
assemblies meet the minimum photometric intensity (PI) requirements for
3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of minimum PI at 13 of 19
individual test points. The turn signal's overall PI output of 1364
candelas is approximately 20% below the combined minimum requirements
for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
(b) For turn signals in Generation 3, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 3 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 3 turn signals of 2387 candelas is 40% greater
than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710
candelas).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In addition, the integrated side markers for Generation 3
turn signals were tested and meet all photometric requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) For turn signals in Generation 4, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 4 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 15 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 4 turn signals of 3307 candelas is 93% greater
than the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710
candelas).
(d) For turn signals in Generation 5, the assemblies meet the
minimum PI requirements for 2 of 5 test groups and allowable 60% of
minimum PI at 12 of 19 individual test points. However, the overall PI
output for Generation 5 turn signals of 2385 candelas is only 39% below
the combined minimum requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
(e) For turn signal assemblies in Generation 6, the assemblies also
meet the minimum photometric intensity for 4 of 5 test groups and
allowable 60% of minimum photometric intensity at 17 of 19 individual
test points. The overall photometric intensity output for Generation 6
turn signals of 5655 candelas is 231% greater than the combined minimum
requirements for all 5 groups (1710 candelas).
Thus, the new PI output for groups that exceed the minimum values
are:
Generations 1 and 2 achieve 122%-267% of minimum values.
Generation 3 achieves 192%-428% of minimum values.
Generation 4 achieves 125%-598% of minimum values.
Generation 5 achieves 367%-445% of minimum values.
Generation 6 achieves 143%-1185% of minimum values.
As a result, according to Gillig, the groups that exceed the
minimum values in each lamp compensate for the groups that are below
the minimums to the extent that the overall PI outputs of the most
recent four generation of lights (Generations 3-6) significantly exceed
the overall PI output required for a front turn signal lamp (1710
candelas).
As part of Gillig's supplemental petition, it included a video
which shows a side-by-side comparison of
[[Page 3547]]
Generation 1-6 turn signal assemblies with a newer generation of turn
signal that exceeds all FMVSS No. 108 minimum requirements for
photometry. Gillig says that the comparisons were performed with the
lights in their various generations installed on the same bus as it was
driven through a turning maneuver (filmed indoors to control ambient
lighting throughout the comparisons). Gillig believes that it is
evident from the multiple angles in the video that the lights from
Generation 1-6 are so bright and large that they are virtually
indistinguishable from the newer version.
Gillig's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the heading of this
notice.
VI. NHTSA Analysis
As part of Gillig's petition, Gillig submitted third-party
compliance test reports which indicated that the turn signal lamps
failed to meet the turn signal lamp photometry requirements in Table VI
of FMVSS No. 108 as outlined below:
Generation 1 and 2 turn signal lamps--
[cir] Two out of the five groups failed to meet the group minimum
photometric intensity.
[cir] Six out of the nineteen test points fell below 60% of the
minimum requirement (the values ranged from 32% to 49% of the minimum
requirement).
Generation 3 turn signal lamps--
[cir] Two out of the five groups failed to meet the group minimum
photometric intensity.
[cir] Four out of the nineteen test points fell below 60% of the
minimum requirement (the values ranged from 40% to 53% of the minimum
requirement).
Generation 4 turn signal lamps--
[cir] Two out of the five groups failed to meet the group minimum
photometric intensity.
[cir] Four out of the nineteen test points fell below 60% of the
minimum requirement (the values ranged from 41% to 50% of the minimum
requirement).
Generation 5 turn signal lamps--
[cir] Three out of the five groups failed to meet the group minimum
photometric intensity.
[cir] Seven out of the nineteen test points fell below 60% of the
minimum requirement (the values ranged from 14% to 55% of the minimum
requirement).
Generation 6 turn signal lamps--
[cir] Two out of the five groups failed to meet the minimum
photometric intensity.
[cir] Two out of the nineteen test points fell below 60% of the
minimum requirement (the values ranged from 30% to 50% of the minimum
requirement).
The above summary indicates that the turn signal lamps in these
vehicles are noncompliant.
According to Gillig, the assemblies were certified as compliant
using an axis of reference that did not correspond to the actual
orientation of the lighting as installed on the bus. Gillig's petition
concerns the ability of the lamps to meet FMVSS No. 108 for certain
test points when tested at their final installation angle.
NHTSA does not find Gillig's arguments persuasive that the
noncompliant light output from the installed lamps is inconsequential
to safety, as explained below:
Consistent with what was previously stated in 63 FR 1663 (January
23, 1996), NHTSA herein reiterates that the photometric requirements
for turn signal lamps may be met at zones or groups of test points,
instead of at individual test points as long as each individual test
point is at least 60% of the minimum requirement. However, Gillig
attempted to justify the noncompliance by pointing to the sum of all
group minimums. Overall photometric intensity output, as described in
Gillig's petition, is not defined by FMVSS No. 108 as the cumulative
value of group minimums. Rather, FMVSS No. 108 per Table VI-a footnote
1 permits a test point in a group to be less than the minimum required
value, if and only if it is also not less than 60% of the minimum and
the group minimum can be still met when adjacent test points within the
group make up the difference. A group failing to meet the group minimum
requirements is a noncompliance. In addition, it should also be noted
that if a test point in a group has a value that is less than 60% of
the minimum required value, then it is also non-compliant. The lamps as
installed in Gillig's buses do not meet minimums and therefore will
provide insufficient output to signal appropriately to motorists and
pedestrians. The need for safety for this requirement is to have a
vehicle's turn signal be clearly visible at all zones/groups.
Furthermore, based on NHTSA's review of the submitted test reports,
it appears that the turn signal lamps subject to the petition were not
tested for visibility in their installed position. Having insufficient
visibility would create a potentially unsafe condition if other
motorists or pedestrians could not see the turn signal as intended by
the standard.
NHTSA reviewed Gillig's referenced inconsequential non-compliance
petitions used to support its petition and found them to be
unpersuasive. 61 FR 1663-1664 (January 22, 1996) showed failed
photometric values of 10% below the minimum and 78 FR 46000 (July 30,
2013) showed photometric values of 4% below the lower limit, both of
which are supported by 55 FR 37602 (September 12, 1990) and ``Driver
Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp
Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994) where a reduction of 25%
of luminous intensity is required before the human eye can detect the
difference between two lamps. 55 FR 37602 (September 12, 1990) and
``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal
Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994) does not apply to
Gillig's petition since each generation contained a failing group
ranging from 41% to 77% below the required group minimum. 63 FR 70179
(December 18, 1998) is unpersuasive as this pertains to stop lamps
which have different activation requirements than turn signal lamps and
more than one light source will always be illuminated, as opposed to
turn signal lamps. 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001) is irrelevant because
the term ``less critical'' does not necessarily mean it does not impact
safety. 64 FR 44575 (August 16, 1999) is irrelevant because replacement
of a turn signal bulb will restore optimal performance to the turn
signal assembly and a more rigorous maintenance schedule is intended to
compensate for an improper turn signal bulb outage indicator.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Gillig has not
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Gillig's petition is hereby denied and Gillig is obligated to provide
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 through 30120.
[[Page 3548]]
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019-01920 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P