|
|---|
|
FCA US, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 15 September 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Dodge Journey |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56749-56751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0020; Notice 2]
FCA US, 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: FCA US, LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC) ``FCA,'' has
determined that certain Mopar branded headlamp assemblies sold as
aftermarket equipment and installed as original equipment in certain
model year (MY) 2017-2018 Dodge Journey motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. FCA filed a
noncompliance report for the replacement equipment dated March 14,
2019, and later amended it on April 9, 2019. FCA also filed a
noncompliance report for the associated vehicles dated March 14, 2019,
and later amended it on April 9, 2019, and April 25, 2019. FCA
subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on April 5, 2019, and
filed a supplemental petition on May 14, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This document announces the denial of FCA'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
FCA has determined that certain MY 2017-2018 Dodge Journey motor
vehicles and replacement Dodge Journey headlamp assemblies do not fully
comply with paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). FCA filed a
noncompliance report for the replacement equipment dated March 14,
2019, and later amended it on April 9, 2019. FCA also filed a
noncompliance report for the associated vehicles dated March 14, 2019,
and later amended it on April 9, 2019, and April 25, 2019, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
FCA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 5, 2019, and filed a
supplemental petition on May 14, 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 FCA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 28, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 12059). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System's
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0020.''
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved
Approximately 16,604 Mopar headlamp assemblies sold as aftermarket
equipment, manufactured between August 2, 2017, and July 6, 2018, are
potentially involved. Approximately 84,908 MY 2017-2018 Dodge Journey
motor vehicles, manufactured between August 2, 2017, and July 6, 2018,
are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
FCA explains that its subject vehicles and equipment are
noncompliant because the subject headlamp assemblies, sold as
aftermarket equipment and equipped in certain MY 2017-2018 Dodge
Journey motor vehicles, contain a front amber side reflex reflector
that does not meet the photometric requirements specified in paragraph
S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector, in the
subject headlamp assemblies, does not meet the minimum photometry
requirements at the observation angle of 0.2 degrees.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S8.1.11 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 FCA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of FCA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
FCA. They do not reflect the views of NHTSA.
FCA described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA submitted the following views and arguments in support of its
petition:
1. FCA cites a prior NHTSA decision \1\ on a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance and quotes NHTSA, in part, as stating:
``For the purposes of FMVSS No. 108, the primary function of a reflex
reflector is to prevent crashes by permitting early detection of an
unlighted motor vehicle at an intersection or when parked on or by the
side of the road.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See DRV, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82 FR 24204, May 25, 2017.
\2\ Emphasis added by FCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Per FCA, the reflex reflectors on the subject vehicles ``perform
adequately to meet the safety purpose of the standard because they
permit the early detection of an unlighted motor vehicle at an
intersection or when parked, notwithstanding their deviation from
certain photometric requirements.''
3. FCA believes that ``the failure of these reflex reflectors to
meet the photometric requirements does not reduce their effectiveness
in providing the necessary visibility for oncoming vehicles and that
the difference between the reflectivity provided by a compliant
reflector is not distinguishable from the reflectivity provided by a
noncompliant reflector.'' FCA compared the performance of two Dodge
Journey vehicles, one equipped with a compliant front side reflex
reflector and the other a noncompliant front side reflex reflector
parked front end-to-front end across a road's surface. Observers
[[Page 56750]]
used a different vehicle's headlamps as a source of illumination to
evaluate the luminous intensity of each front side reflex reflector;
that source of illumination was located 100 feet (30.5 meters) away
from the two Dodge Journey vehicles. FCA chose an illumination distance
of 100 feet (30.5 meters) because that is the same distance specified
in FMVSS No. 108 for testing reflex reflectors using a goniometer in a
photometric laboratory.
4. With regard to FCA's evaluation, FCA chose vehicles with varying
mounting heights, which included a 2019 Jeep Cherokee with LED
projector headlamps, a 2019 Ram 1500 Pickup Truck with LED reflector
headlamps, and a 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia with Bi-Xenon projector
headlamps as sources of illumination. Sixteen FCA employees (and only
eight for the Alfa Romeo tests) volunteered as evaluators and stood
immediately in front of, and at the centerline of, the vehicles whose
headlamps were being used as the source of illumination. None of the
evaluators were able to distinguish any luminous intensity differences
in the light being reflected in any of the scenarios. FCA believes that
these vehicles cover the range of typical headlamp mounting heights for
vehicles on the road today.
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--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\3\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues is the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\4\ NHTSA also 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.'' \5\
``[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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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).
\5\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\6\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary function of a reflex reflector is to prevent crashes by
permitting early detection of an unlighted motor vehicle at an
intersection or when parked on or by the side of a road. The purpose of
these reflectors is to accurately depict the size of a vehicle when
parked or disabled in the dark, which minimizes the risk of motor
vehicle crashes.
The subject reflex reflectors failed 5 out of the 10 required test
points where the photometry measurements were, at best, 68.6% below the
minimum requirement. In other words, at specific test points, the
reflex reflectors provide less than one-third of the illuminance that a
compliant reflex reflector provides (i.e., a reflex reflector which
meets the minimum safety standard).
NHTSA does not find FCA's subjective evaluation described above
sufficiently compelling to grant this petition. FCA's evaluation
attempts to show that the average human eye cannot discern a difference
in the luminous intensity between FCA's noncompliant reflectors and
other compliant reflectors that meet the minimum safety standard.
However, FCA's evaluation was limited to occupants standing no more
than 100 feet from the test vehicles, and only at certain angles. While
FMVSS No. 108 specifies a measurement distance for reflex reflector
photometry of 100 feet, real world performance is not limited to a
static distance measurement established in a minimum safety standard.
For these reasons, NHTSA does not believe that FCA's subjective
evaluation is sufficient to support a determination of inconsequential
noncompliance.
As previously stated, the subject reflex reflectors failed by a
significant margin to meet the minimum safety requirement at multiple
required test points. Compared to a reflex reflector that meets the
minimum safety standard, the subject reflex reflectors, at some test
points, provided less than one-third of the required illuminance of a
compliant reflex reflector. Therefore, NHTSA's evaluation of
consequentiality of the subject noncompliance is based, in part, on
NHTSA's determination that the performance failure of the subject
reflex reflectors deviates to such a significant degree that it would
be noticeable to drivers of other motor vehicles. Consequently, the
subject noncompliance creates a risk to motor vehicle safety.
Another factor considered in the evaluation of this petition is a
NHTSA study on the effectiveness of side marker lamps,\7\ which showed
that the addition of side marker lamps prevents 106,000 accidents,
93,000 nonfatal injuries and $347 million in property damage annually.
While this study only relates to side marker lamps, the benefits are
similar for reflex reflectors. Reflex reflectors aid in the visibility
of parked or unlighted motor vehicles at night and are often mounted in
the same or similar location as side marker lamps, and therefore, a
performance failure of a reflex reflector is also consequential to
motor vehicle safety due to reduced visibility for drivers of other
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See An Evaluation of Side Marker Lamps for Cars, Trucks and
Buses, DOT HS-806-430 (July 1983). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/806430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, given the magnitude of the performance failure of the
subject reflex reflectors, the subject reflex reflectors create a risk
that drivers of other vehicles will not detect a parked and unlighted
motor vehicle early enough to avoid a vehicle crash. Consequently,
NHTSA has determined that the subject noncompliance creates a risk to
motor vehicle safety by failing to prevent motor vehicle crashes, which
was the purpose of NHTSA's FMVSS No. 108 standard. See 49 CFR 571.108,
S2.
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that FCA has not met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance
of the affected equipment and vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, FCA's petition is hereby denied. FCA is
consequently obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy
for, that noncompliance, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
[[Page 56751]]
(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. 2022-19994 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P