Weldon, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Weldon
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
15 July 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42977-42979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15227]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0107 Notice 1]
Weldon, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Weldon, a Division of Akron Brass Company, has determined that
certain LED 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 receipt of
Weldon's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before August 14, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Weldon has determined that certain LED backup lamps 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.
This notice of receipt of Weldon's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 6,315 LED backup lamps manufactured between June 6,
2018, and June 25, 2018, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Weldon explains that the noncompliance is that the subject LED
backup lamps do not meet the requirements for color as required by
paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the subject LED
backup lamps, when tested in accordance with the Tristimulus Method,
fell slightly outside the required boundaries for white light.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The color of a sample device must comply
when tested by either the Visual Method or the Tristimulus Method.
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. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Weldon described the subject noncompliance and
stated their belief that the noncompliance is
[[Page 42978]]
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Weldon submitted the following
reasoning:
1. Weldon first became aware of a potential issue with the white
color parameters in late September 2018, when the customer observed
that the vehicle backup lamps, when viewed side by side in production,
appeared to have a slightly different color hue and then brought the
issue to Weldon's attention and requested that Weldon test the color of
the lamps. Samples were sent to a third-party laboratory for
colorimetry testing. Thereafter, Weldon received the third-party
laboratory's test results, which it analyzed and considered. The lamps
at issue were tested using the proper colorimetry testing using the
Tristimulus Method. An average of three readings of the lamps were
taken at the design voltage. The LED functions were measured at t = 0
and t = 10 minutes. The result found that the supposed white color lamp
fell slightly outside the required boundaries for white light.
2. 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. 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.
3. Weldon stated that NHTSA has long recognized that some
deviations from the FMVSS pose little or no safety risk. In applying
this recognition to particular situations, the Agency considers whether
a deviation gives rise to ``a significantly greater risk than . . . in
a compliant vehicle.'' See 69 FR 19897-990 (April 14, 2004). 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, 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.
4. In considering past petitions involving FMVSS No. 108, Weldon
mentions that NHTSA has previously considered and found deviations from
the standard that 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. NHTSA has found that deviation from the
photometric parameters were inconsequential to safety when the overall
brightness of the equipment was near to the required parameters to not
be perceptible to the human eye. 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 (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). 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.''
See 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001). In fact, 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. NHTSA views
the UMTRI Report's findings to be ``mostly analogous to those of the
signal lighting research.'' Id. 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. See 61 FR 1663 (Jan. 22, 1996). NHTSA has granted similar
petitions for lamps that do not comply with photometric requirements in
other slight ways.
5. Conversely, NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality petitions in
cases where headlamps do not meet the minimum FMVSS requirements, thus,
causing an increased safety risk. See 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001)
(denying petition where points on the headlamp used for overhead sign
illumination were substantially below the photometric minimum values,
which impaired driver visibility). 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, 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. The
backup lamps in question are still entirely visible (that is, the
brightness of the tail lamps is not affected) 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. 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.
6. Weldon has not received any reports related to the performance
of the white LED lamps from the field and is not aware of any accidents
or injuries related to the issue.
Weldon 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.
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, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject equipment that Weldon no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control
after Weldon notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
[[Page 42979]]
(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. 2020-15227 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P