63416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

consequential to motor vehicle safety

even in conditions where there are

external light sources.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated

above, GM has not met its burden of

persuasion that the noncompliance

herein described is inconsequential to

safety and its application is denied.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: November 21, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–31266 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3149]

Nissan Motor Corporation, U.S.A.;

Denial of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Nissan Motor Manufacturing

Corporation USA, (Nissan) determined

that certain Nissan Sentra 4-door sedans

fail to comply with the requirements of

49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 108, ‘‘Lamps,

Reflective Devices and Associated

Equipment,’’ and filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Information Report.’’ Nissan also

applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) on the

basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of an application

was published on December 18, 1996,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (61 FR 66744). This notice

denies the application.

Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108

requires that each motor vehicle shall be

equipped with certain lamps and

reflective devices designed to conform

to applicable SAE Standards or

Recommended Practices referenced in

the Standard. The stop lamp function of

a rear combination lamp assembly must

meet the photometric performance

requirements of SAE J586 FEB84. To

determine photometric performance,

measurements of light intensity are

taken at 19 test points in a geometric

grid. The grid is further broken down

into five separate zones. The measured

test point values that are located within

a zone are added together to provide a

zone total which must meet a minimum

value.

Based on its tests, Nissan believes that

the taillamp function of the combination

lamps in certain Nissan Sentra 4-door

sedans meet or exceed all test criteria

and is in compliance with Standard No.

108. Further, the stop lamp function of

certain rear combination lamp

assemblies in those vehicles meet the

requirements in Zones 1, 2, 4, and 5.

However, in certain lamps, the

minimum requirements in Zone 3 for

the stop lamp function were not met.

The photometric results for the tested

lamps of the Sentra 4-door sedan stop

lamp function in Zone 3 are discussed

in the decision portion of this notice,

and are set forth in Nissan’s application,

which has been filed in the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket Section.

According to Nissan, from December

11, 1995, through September 1996, the

company manufactured approximately

65,000 1996 and 1997 model year

Nissan Sentra 4-door sedans with

combination tail/stop lamp assemblies

that it determined did not comply with

the stop lamp photometric requirements

of SAE J586 FEB84 as incorporated by

reference in Standard No. 108. J586

FEB84 defines 19 test points for stop

lamps that must emit a specified range

of light intensity. These test points are

grouped into five zones and their

intensities are summed to arrive at a

total within each zone. Each zone’s total

has a required value, measured in

candela, that must be met, with none of

the test points falling below 60 per cent

of its specified value.

Nissan stated that it discovered that

the total candela of the five test points

measured across Zone 3 in some lamps

that it tested did not meet the required

minimum of 380 candela for Zone 3. All

other zone totals were within Standard

No. 108’s specifications for the stop

lamp function, and all the Standard’s

criteria were met for the taillamp

function.

Nissan supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

Nissan [we] believe the failure of the stop

lamp portion of the rear combination lamp

assembly to meet photometric requirements

in one of five zones is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety for the following

reasons:

A NHTSA sponsored study titled ‘‘Driver

Perception of Just Noticeable Difference[s] in

[of Automotive] Signal Lamp Intensities’’

[DOT HS 808 209, September 1994]

demonstrated a change in luminous intensity

of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most

drivers. Since all of the stop lamps Nissan

tested, except one, were closer to the

standard than 25 percent, the noncompliance

is likely undetectable to the human eye. The

single worst case sample was 25.5 percent

below the standard in zone 3 but exceeds the

photometric requirements of zones one, two,

four, and five and meets or exceeds all other

FMVSS and SAE requirements.

The stop lamp is more than five times

brighter than the tail lamp. A following

driver will have no problem detecting the

moment of brake application.

The two combination lamp assemblies are

supplemented by a Center High Mounted

Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The Sentra’s CHMSL

illuminates at over two times the minimum

standard to provide not only strong warning

of brake application to the following driver,

but also vehicles further back in the traffic

flow. Nissan believes the supplementary

benefit of the bright CHMSL helps to

compensate for any diminished stop lamp

performance.

The combination tail/stop lamp assemblies

are mounted high in the vehicle’s body near

the beltline. This mounting location provides

excellent line of sight visibility to a following

driver.

Nissan is not aware of any accidents,

injuries, owner complaints or field reports

related to this condition.

In similar situations NHTSA has granted

the applications of various other petitioners.

See, for example, 61 Federal Register,

January 22, 1996 (petition by General

Motors); 56 Federal Register 59971,

November 26, 1991 (petition by Subaru of

America); and 55 Federal Register 37601,

September 12, 1990 (petition by Hella Inc).

No comments were received on the

application.

NHTSA has carefully considered

Nissan’s arguments and the facts in this

case. It is reassuring to have Nissan

affirm that, in spite of the photometric

failures, the stop lamp ‘‘is more than

five times brighter than the tail lamp,’’

as is the Sentra’s mandated center

highmounted stop lamp. However, this

is no less than what Standard No. 108

already requires for the pair of stop

lamps. Because the pair of stop lamps

are mounted within the range of height

from the road specified by Standard No.

108, the fact that they may be mounted

near the beltline is regarded as a neutral

safety factor for purposes of this

discussion. In the final analysis, it

appears to NHTSA that the company

has understated the magnitude of the

noncompliance in comparison with the

data it has submitted, and that the

severity of the noncompliance reflects

flaws in Nissan’s design and

manufacturing process that cannot be

overlooked regardless of compensating

factors such as the location of other stop

lamps and the conformance of the stop

lamps in question with the other four

zonal requirements.

The agency deems it relevant to its

decision to deny Nissan’s application to

discuss briefly the accommodation that

Standard No. 108 already makes for

manufacturers by imposing less than the

absolute performance requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63417

established by other Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. As Nissan

indicates, the first step in determining

the photometric compliance of a

lighting device with Standard No. 108 is

to measure the candela at a number of

discrete test points, and then compare

them with the values (minimum or

maximum) established by the standard.

When NHTSA initially proposed in late

1966 that lamps ‘‘comply’’ with

Standard No. 108, industry represented

that it could not manufacture every

lamp to meet every single test point

without a substantial cost penalty

unjustified by safety. NHTSA accepted

this argument. In adopting Standard No.

108, the agency specified that lamps be

‘‘designed to comply’’ with applicable

photometric specifications. On a

number of occasions since, NHTSA has

stated that it will not consider a lamp

to be noncompliant if its failure to meet

a test point is random and occasional.

Thus, historically, there has never been

an absolute requirement that every

motor vehicle lighting device must meet

every single photometric test point in

order to comply with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA further accommodated the

industry when Standard No. 108

adopted the SAE’s zonal system as an

alternative method of determining

photometric compliance of certain

lamps. Under this system, individual

test points are grouped into a ‘‘zone’’

with nearby test points. The values are

measured and added. If the sum equals

or exceeds the total of the minimum

required for all test points within the

zone, the zone is judged to comply even

if one or two of its test points fail to

meet its individual candela

specification, (as long as the failure is

not less than 60 percent of the

prescribed value.) Thus, an individual

test point within a zone may fail by up

to 40 percent.

Nissan asks that NHTSA go even

further in accepting a lower level of

performance, citing three instances in

which it believes that the agency has

granted inconsequentiality applications

where failures of luminous intensity of

less than 25 percent have occurred, the

threshold at which it believes

differences in light output become

noticeable.

The agency has reviewed the cases

cited by Nissan (GM, Subaru, Hella) in

order to judge whether they afford a

precedent for granting this

inconsequentiality application. NHTSA

has concluded that none of the cases are

on point, and, further, that the agency

should clarify the apparent

misunderstanding of its comments

regarding 25 percent luminous intensity

differences.

GM determined that turn signal lamps

on Buick Century passenger cars failed

to meet Zone 3 by an average of 10

percent among the 17 lamps tested

while the three compliant zones

exceeded the light intensity

requirements by at least 20 percent.

Because the failures averaged far less

than 25 percent, GM argued that they

would not be detectable by the naked

eye. However, NHTSA granted the

application on the basis that, overall,

the performance of the lamps would be

consistent with that of lamps meeting

the minimum requirements in every

zone. In the case of Nissan, the

magnitude of failure was considerably

greater; a number of individual test

point failures exceed 25 percent, up to

35.6 percent below the minimum

requirement. Even using the zonal

method, 18 of 34 zones tested fail to

meet Standard No. 108, one zone failing

by up to 25.5 percent.

Subaru discovered that amber front

side reflex reflectors on some of its

vehicles failed to meet Standard No.

108’s performance requirements. Subaru

contended that the luminance

transmittance failures were all less than

20 percent of the minimum values

specified by the standard. According to

demonstrations that it had conducted,

observers could not differentiate

between the reflected light of complying

and noncomplying reflectors at

distances of 30 , 60, and 100 meters.

NHTSA accepted this argument and

granted the application. NHTSA notes

that, in this instance, the

inconsequential effect of the

noncompliance was demonstrated by

tests with observers, and that the

failures were at individual test points

and not zones, as in the Nissan

noncompliance. Further, conformance

of stop lamps is demonstrably more

important to motor vehicle safety than

that of front side reflex reflectors.

In the Hella case, NHTSA testing had

discovered that eight of 18 combination

stop/taillamps had exceeded the

maximum candela permissible at

certain test points for the taillamp

function. Hella argued that none of its

failures exceeded the maximum

intensity by more than 20 percent.

NHTSA granted the application on the

basis that real-world voltages were

typically lower than test voltages, and

that any excessive candela values would

be reduced upon installation and even

further reduced as the lamp aged. In

other words, the probability of the

noncompliant lamps contributing to

glare was reduced in the real world

because, as installed and used, their

noncompliant maxima may have been

reduced to a level of near conformance.

Again, the failure was small and was for

test point failures rather than zone

failures. The actual effect of real world

voltages on the Nissan lamps is not

known, but is of little consequence

because, except for vehicle voltage, the

effect of all external events such as dirt

and age is to lower the lamp’s intensity.

This makes a dim stop lamp an even

greater risk.

As stated, NHTSA wishes to clarify its

occasional statements that differences in

light output do not become noticeable

until there is a differential of 25 percent

between the light sources being

compared. This language was based on

a study conducted by NHTSA titled

‘‘Driver Perception of Just Noticeable

Differences of Automotive Signal

Lamps’’ (DOT HS808209). In outlining

its rationale, Nissan seems to

misunderstand the research done on

‘‘just noticeable differences’’ (JND).

First, the research on JND is based on

individuals looking at lamps from a

single vantage point in front of the

lamps, that is, comparing intensities of

single test points.

It is not valid to use the JND

justification for judging the effect of

zonal intensity failures. Drivers do not

look at zones when they observe lamps,

they look at the lamp from very narrow

angles based on the distance between

their eyes and the distance to the lamp.

Using the JND justification on zones

would imply that drivers would be

looking at lamps from all the test points

in the zone simultaneously and

somehow integrating the numerous

intensities into some false

representation of how intense the lamp

should be. This is simply not the case.

For this reason, the JND argument is not

applicable to zone failures.

Because it is the central portion, Zone

3 is the most critical area of the stop

lamp. It is aimed directly at the

following traffic. With respect to

Nissan’s noncompliance, 104 of the 170

test points (the total number of test

points from the group of lamps tested)

in Zone 3 did not meet the minimum

requirements. This shows that the

noncompliances are very specific to one

particular zone. It also suggests an

apparent failure of quality control

procedures rather than random test

point noncompliances throughout all

five zones. Occasional random

noncompliances are to be expected in

this very complicated design and

manufacturing process. It is for this

reason that the ‘‘designed to comply’’

provision is contained in the lighting

standard. Further, NHTSA has always

interpreted the ‘‘designed to comply’’

requirement to include well-defined

quality control procedures.
63418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

1This petition is a refiling of OTC’s April 15,

1997 submission in STB Docket No. AB–477 (SubNo. 1X). On August 1, 1997, the Board denied the

petition without prejudice to OTC’s filing an

abandonment application. OTC did not adhere to

the Board’s directive in the August 1 decision in

filing this petition for exemption. Consequently,

although the Board is publishing notice of the filing

of the instant petition based on representations

made therein, OTC is advised that the petition may

be rejected if opposition is received.

On the vehicles that NHTSA tested,

fourteen test points failed by more than

25 percent, with the worst case test

point being over 35 percent. When using

the zone compliance measurement, 18

out of the 34 zones tested failed to meet

the minimum requirements, one zone

failing the zone total by slightly over 25

percent. Again, the agency believes that

these are not random, occasional

failures of the type that NHTSA

sometimes encounters in the course of

its compliance testing. Instead, the

pervasiveness of the failures is evidence

of flaws in Nissan’s design and

manufacturing process.

To further support granting its

application, Nissan staff brought two

identical Sentras equipped with

noncomplying lamps for NHTSA staff to

examine. The stop lamps on these

vehicles were examined both in a garage

which was moderately lighted and

outside in daylight where the skies were

overcast. Nissan performed photometric

testing on each vehicle before they were

examined and found that on one

vehicle, the left and right stop lamps

produced a sum of 386 and 293 candela

in Zone 3, respectively. On the other

vehicle, the left and right stop lamps

produced a sum of 384 and 330 candela

in Zone 3, respectively. As previously

stated, the required minimum for Zone

3 is 380 candela. NHTSA staff examined

the vehicles from a number of different

distances and angles for approximately

five minutes in each setting.

Based on this examination, NHTSA

staff did not see a stark difference

between any of the stop lamps, although

most of the staff members could

determine that the lamp with the Zone

3 measurements of 293 candela was the

dimmest. However, this type of

examination does not convince NHTSA

that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to safety. In the real

world, drivers following one of the

subject vehicles would not always have

the luxury of intently examining the

vehicles from a number of angles for a

long period of time. They would, in

many cases, have to make split second

judgments as to whether the vehicle in

front of them has its brake lamps

illuminated.

Through crash data analysis, NHTSA

has found that many rear end crashes

occur as a result of a driver’s inattention

to the area ahead of the vehicle. Drivers

may be operating the radio, using a

cellular phone, or any number of nondriving related activities. To see the

vehicles in front of them, they must

often rely on their peripheral vision. In

these situations, it may not be readily

apparent that one of the subject vehicles

has its stop lamps illuminated. On the

subject vehicles, even the stop lamps

which comply with the minimum

requirement for Zone 3, do so by a

narrow margin. The worst failure among

the noncompliant lamps was over 25

percent below the minimum for Zone 3.

Because of this, the noncompliance has

the potential to confuse following

drivers as to whether it is a stop lamp

or a tail lamp which they are seeing. In

an emergency situation, when drivers

compare the subject lamps with other

nearby stop lamps or with their memory

of a stop lamp, they may not make the

correct judgment quickly enough. In

certain situations, a fraction of a second

may be all the time the driver has to

make the necessary crash avoidance

maneuver. This may not be ample time

for the driver to discern whether the

lamp is a tail lamp or a stop lamp. It is

this added level of risk associated with

these vehicles that must drive a decision

regarding safety consequences.

This concern about risk of incorrect

identification is supported by a 1986

study sponsored by NHTSA and

conducted by the University of

Michigan Transportation Research

Institute (UMTRI–86–28). In this study,

test subjects were presented with two

lamps intended to simulate a U.S. tail

lighting system. These lamps were

illuminated to 18, 40, 60, 80, and 100

candela. After the lamps were

illuminated to one of these levels, the

test subject was asked to quickly

determine, only by the brightness of the

lamps, whether they were signaling

braking or presence (vehicle’s taillamps

on). When the lamps were illuminated

to 80 candela, the test subjects

identified the lamps as signaling braking

90 percent of the time. When they were

illuminated to 60 candela, the test

subjects identified the lamps as

signaling braking 74 percent of the time.

Finally, when the lamps were

illuminated to 40 candela, the test

subjects identified the lamps as

signaling braking only 39 percent of the

time. Of the five test points in Zone 3,

the standard requires that three have a

minimum value of 80 candela and two

have minimum value of 70 candela.

Also, according to Nissan’s test data

submitted with its application, the

lowest value obtained at any test points

on the subject vehicles was 45.1

candela. These data lead NHTSA to

believe that the Nissan noncompliance

could lead drivers following the subject

vehicles to mistake the stop lamps for

tail lamps. Thus, the risk of being in a

crash would be higher for the Nissan

vehicles compared to vehicles with

complying lamps.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that the applicant has

failed to meet its burden of persuasion

that the noncompliance herein

described is inconsequential to safety,

and its application is denied.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on: November 21, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31264 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–477 (Sub–No. 3X)]

Owensville Terminal Company, Inc.—

Abandonment Exemption—in Edwards

and White Counties, IL and Gibson and

Posey Counties, IN

On November 7, 1997, Owensville

Terminal Company, Inc. (OTC) filed

with the Surface Transportation Board

(Board) a petition 1 under 49 U.S.C.

10502 for exemption from the

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to

abandon a line of railroad known as the

Browns-Poseyville line, between

milepost 205.0 at or near Browns, IL,

and milepost 227.5 near Poseyville, IN,

a distance of 22.5 miles in Edwards and

White Counties, IL, and Gibson and

Posey Counties, IN. The line traverses

U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 62818,

62844, 47616, and 47633. The line

includes the stations of Browns,

milepost 205.0; Grayville, milepost

213.5; Griffin, milepost 219.9; and

Stewartsville, milepost 225.4.

The line does not contain federally

granted rights-of-way. Any

documentation in the railroad’s

possession will be made available

promptly to those requesting it. The

interest of railroad employees will be

protected by the conditions set forth in

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979).

By issuance of this notice, the Board

is instituting an exemption proceeding

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final

decision will be issued by February 25,

1998.

Any offer of financial assistance

under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due