Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63413

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection: (a) installation of a U.S.-

model seat belt in the driver’s position,

or a belt webbing actuated microswitch

inside the driver’s seat belt retractor; (b)

installation of an ignition switch

actuated seat belt warning lamp and

buzzer. The petitioner states that the

vehicle is equipped with combination

lap and shoulder restraints that adjust

by means of an automatic retractor and

release by means of a single push button

at both front designated seating

positions, and with combination lap and

shoulder restraints that release by

means of a single push button at both

rear designated seating positions.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact

Protection: installation of reinforcing

beams.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: installation of a rollover valve

in the fuel tank vent line between the

fuel tank and the evaporative emissions

collection canister.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

the bumpers on the non-U.S. certified

1974 Alfa Romeo GTV must be

reinforced or replaced with U.S.-model

components to comply with the Bumper

Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to the vehicle to meet

the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on November 21, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–31172 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3150]

General Motors Corporation; Denial of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM)

determined that certain of its 1996 J/L/

N model cars fail to comply with the

requirements of 49 CFR 571.101,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 101, ‘‘Controls and

Displays,’’ and filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Information Reports.’’ GM also applied

to be exempted from the notification

and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on March 7, 1997, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (62

FR 10618). This document denies the

application.

The report submitted by GM states

that the company has built cars in

which some interior lights may come on

while the car is moving, for a period

that may last as long as half an hour.

The only way the driver can turn them

off is to remove the fuse because the

light switch will not extinguish them.

This is a noncompliance with S5.3.5 of

FMVSS No. 101, which requires that

sources of illumination forward of a

transverse vertical plane 4.35 inches

rearward of the manikin ‘‘H’’ point, with

the driver’s seat in its rearmost driving

position, that are not used for controls

and displays, are not a telltale, and are

capable of being illuminated while a

vehicle is in motion, have either (1)

light intensity which is manually or

automatically adjustable to provide at

least two levels of brightness, (2) a

single intensity that is barely discernible

to a driver who has adapted to dark

ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a

means of being turned off.

GM’s description of the noncompliance follows

‘‘Vehicles involved: Certain of these 1996

makes and models (with estimated number of

cars): Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire

(J cars) coupes and convertibles from start of

production to January 16, 1996 (115,351

cars); Pontiac Grand Am, Oldsmobile

Achieva, and Buick Skylark (N cars) from

start of production to October 31, 1995

(74,902 cars); and Chevrolet Corsica and

Chevrolet Beretta (L cars) from start of

production to November 13, 1995 (61,738

cars).

Noncompliance: ‘‘These vehicles are

equipped with interior lights that illuminate

when a door is opened or when the driver

activates a switch. Power to the lights is

turned on and off by a control module, rather

than by direct action of the door or light

switches. One of the parts in the control

module is a field effect transistor (FET).

Because of manufacturing variances in the

FETs, the condition of the FET in some

modules, in combination with the

programming of the module, can cause a

situation where the module will not turn on

the lights when the door is opened. Five

minutes later, there is a fifty percent chance

that the lights will turn on. If that does not

happen, there is an increasing chance at ten,

fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, and thirty

minutes that the lights will turn on. If the

lights are turned on at one of those five

minute increments, they will then remain on

for up to thirty minutes, unless the fuse is

removed to cut power to the module. Moving

the light switch or ignition to ‘‘off’’ will not

cause the module to turn off the lights.

In August 1995, GM found a 1996 N car in

which the interior lights failed to turn on

when a door was opened. In September, GM

determined the cause of the problem and its

supplier of FETs began inspecting 10% of

them. In October, GM started its own

screening of all incoming FETs. In January

1996, GM learned of and began investigating

the potential for the lights to come on and

stay on.

Even in the affected cars, this condition is

intermittent. The incidence is higher during

cold weather and in vehicles with interior

light configurations that place a higher load

on the circuit.

This table identifies the lights in these

vehicles that are forward of a transverse

vertical plane 4.35 inches rearward of the

mannequin ‘‘H’’ point with the driver’s seat

in its rearmost driving position:

Chassis Body type and options Dome lamp

Map lights in

rearview mirror

Footwell

lamps

J ............. Coupe ....................................................................................................................... X ........................ ........................

Coupe and GT w/sunroof ........................................................................................ ........................ X ........................

N ............ Convertible ............................................................................................................... ........................ X ........................

Base

trim

.................................................................................................................................. ........................ X
63414 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

Chassis Body type and options Dome lamp

Map lights in

rearview mirror

Footwell

lamps

Uplevel

trim

X ............................................................................................................................... ........................ X

With

sunroof

.................................................................................................................................. X X

L ............. All ............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ X

Based on GM’s examination of cars and

modules, no more than 9.5% of the vehicles

with modules built before 100% inspection

of FETs began have a FET that could lead to

this problem.

Field experience indicates the actual

incidence is much lower. Within the total

estimated population of 251,991 cars that are

potentially affected, GM has paid for

replacement of the modules in just under one

percent (2,464) under warranty (through

October 31, 1996). For cars with modules

made after the 100% inspection of FETs

began, the rate is about 0.5%. Because the

module performs several functions, there are

other unrelated malfunctions that could lead

to replacement of the module and, absent the

FET problem, the rate of warranty

replacements for cars of comparable age is

0.3%. Therefore the rates attributable to the

FET estimated to be approximately 0.7 and

0.2% respectively.

GM has received no reports of accidents or

injuries related to this condition.

To help assess the magnitude of the

interior light during nighttime driving, GM

measured the luminance values (light on

windshield surface) from the driver’s eye

position in representative vehicles, with the

exterior lights on (low beam) and with the

interior lights both off and on. The test setup

is shown in Attachment B.

The measurements were made in a

darkened laboratory with a flat black surface

ten feet ahead of the cars. A white paper

target was placed on the windshield, so that

the total light impinging on the windshield

was measured, not just what was reflected

from the glass surface. The instrument panel

illumination was at the maximum setting. A

Minolta Luminance Meter, Model LS–1200

(range: 0.001 to 299900 cd/m(2), was used.

These values are in foot-lamberts and are

the average of two readings for each car:

Car Interior

lights off

Interior

lights on

J coupe with sunroof ................................................................................................................................................ .03 .16

N coupe with sunroof ............................................................................................................................................... .03 .16

J convertible ............................................................................................................................................................. .05 .12

N with base trim ....................................................................................................................................................... .05 .23

J coupe ..................................................................................................................................................................... .03 .21

N with uplevel trim ................................................................................................................................................... .04 .38

L ............................................................................................................................................................................... .07 .14

Average .................................................................................................................................................................... .04 .20

Attachment C shows the range of

luminance levels for human vision and the

zones of photopic, mesopic, and scotopic

vision. Adaptation occurs when the

luminance changes from one zone to another.

The levels with the interior lights both off

and on within the mesopic (‘‘rod and cone’’)

zone.’’ [Attachments B and C are on file with

the application in NHTSA’s Docket Room.]

GM supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following.

‘‘1. Driving in total darkness, with no lights

from other vehicles, no street lighting, and no

light from buildings is the worst case, but it

is also infrequent. Daylight is half of the day,

but only 18.3% of vehicle trips and 20.2% of

vehicle miles occur from 7:00 p.m. through

6:00 a.m. (From 1990 NPTS Databook,

Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,

vol. II, figure 5.27). Based on 1993 data from

the Federal Highway Administration, 1.045

billion of the annual 1.623 billion passenger

car miles traveled were on ‘‘urban’’ roads,

streets, and highways (from Highway

Statistics 1993, Table VM–1).

2. As measured in GM’s test, the change in

luminance level that a driver would

experience is small and, significantly, does

not cross one of the adaptation boundaries.

3. Glare is an undesirable, but inevitable

feature of night-time driving and drivers can

successfully adapt to it. A recent report for

NHTSA by Jan Theeuwes and John

Alferdinck, The Relationship Between

Discomfort Glare and Driving Behavior, DOT

HS 808 452 (1996), shows that adaptation

includes driving more slowly and investing

more effort. Major sources of glare include

the lights of other vehicles, street lights, and

lights on building, parking lots, signs, and

billboards adjoining streets and highways.

The headlights of a nearby vehicle can easily

be many times brighter than any of these

interior lights.

4. On some of these cars, the only affected

lights are in the footwells, below the

instrument panel. While they are in the area

covered by the standard, they are not in the

driver’s forward field of view and, as a matter

of common sense, are less likely to be a

source of troublesome glare. On other cars,

map lights mounted in the rearview mirror

assembly are involved. These lights point

downward and are also much less likely to

be a source of troublesome glare.

5. This condition cannot occur in 90.5% of

the cars. Field data shows that the actual

incidence is much lower.

6. Many drivers will be alerted to the

presence of a problem because they will

notice that the interior lights are not on when

they enter their cars. Because the absence of

interior lights when entering the cars at night

is an inconvenience, drivers will be likely to

return the cars to dealers for repair. Many

cars are likely to be repaired before the driver

experiences illumination of the interior lights

during night-time driving.

7. GM has received no reports associating

this condition with any kind of an accident

or injury.

To reach the worst case condition, several

low probability events have to coincide—the

car has to be one of the 9.5% potentially

affected, the car has to be driven at night, the

illumination from external sources must be

unusually low, and the condition must

manifest itself. Further, even if this series of

unlikely events occurs, data indicate the

driver should be able to successfully adapt to

the increased light, as he/she does on a

regular basis to other sources of light.

Therefore, because the expected coincidence

of these events is extremely low and the

effects on the driver are minimal; this

condition is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety.’’

No comments were received on the

application.

The purpose of S5.3.5 is to ensure the

accessibility and visibility of motor

vehicle controls and displays and to

facilitate their selection under daylight

and nighttime conditions, in order to

reduce the safety hazards caused by the

diversion of the driver’s attention from

the driving task, and by mistakes in

selecting controls. The operator of a GM

vehicle that is noncompliant with

FMVSS No. 101 in the manner

described is likely to be confronted
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63415

unexpectedly with activation of the

interior lamps while the vehicle is in

motion. This would be likely to divert

the driver’s attention from the driving

task. It would also create a level of

interior glare for up to 30 minutes that

would not otherwise occur. Compliance

with S5.3.5 should remove interior glare

from the driver’s forward field of view.

GM conducted tests to compare the

light on the windshield surface with the

interior lights on and off. These tests

were performed in a darkened

laboratory with a black surface 10 feet

ahead of the test vehicle. This is a

simulation of the worst-case scenario for

the increased glare, as there would be

no other light sources from buildings,

other cars, or street lamps. The contrast

between the relatively dark

surroundings and the interior lights

would provide the most glare

discomfort. GM found that when the

interior lights were turned on, the

luminance values ranged from two to

over nine times greater (an average of

five times greater) than when the

interior lights were turned off. In the

agency’s opinion, this is excessive glare

for many low-light driving scenarios

and is the type of situation NHTSA

sought to preclude with S5.3.5.

To justify granting its application, GM

sought to persuade the agency that the

likelihood of the noncompliance

occurring is, in fact, small. For the

noncompliance to happen, it argued that

the vehicle must be one of the 9.5

percent that is affected, that it must be

driven at night, that the light from

external sources must be ‘‘unusually

low,’’ and that the condition must

manifest itself. In GM’s view, the

probability of this series of events

occurring is low.

NHTSA disagrees with this rationale,

in part because it does not believe that

the light from external sources must be

‘‘unusually low’’ for there to be an

effect. NHTSA staff conducted a few

informal tests using their own vehicles.

Uniformly, when these individuals

turned on the interior dome and map

lights during night time driving, they

found the light to be an impairment to

their vision. These tests were conducted

in relatively unlit areas as well as areas

with some ambient light from street

lamps and buildings. In all cases, the

impediment to vision was significant.

Further, to determine whether the

conclusions made performing the

informal tests would also be reached

with the subject vehicles, agency staff

examined a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier.

The vehicle was examined in a garage

with moderate ambient light. This

examination reinforced the agency’s

view that the noncompliance is

detrimental to safety. The dome light

and the two map lights (integrated with

the dome light) not only created

distracting reflections in the

windshield, but also on the side

windows and the interior rear view

mirror. The tests that GM conducted

only considered the light on a piece of

paper attached to the windshield. This

measurement does not consider these

other reflections, which are distracting

in nature. Based on NHTSA’s judgment,

the noncompliance could hinder vision

in areas with ambient light that is more

than ‘‘unusually low.’’ NHTSA has

concluded that a safety problem could

occur as a result of the noncompliance

in areas with higher glare from exterior

light sources.

GM also believes that even if the

interior lights turn on, the driver will be

able to adapt successfully to the glare

created, specifically arguing that the

change in luminance level is small and

does not cross one of the ‘‘adaptation

boundaries.’’ Attachment C of GM’s

petition contains a table showing three

consecutive ranges of luminance values:

photopic, mesopic, and scotopic. GM

states that visual adaptation must occur

when the luminance values go from one

level to the next. It therefore asserts that,

because the luminance values attained

in its tests are all within the mesopic

level, there will be an insignificant

effect on the driver’s vision.

NHTSA disagrees with this rationale

as well. When comparing the luminance

values a driver would experience with

the interior lights both off and on, GM

found a maximum increase of 900

percent with the lights on, with an

average increase of 500 percent. While

the range of the luminance values may

remain within one of the adaptation

levels, it is NHTSA’s judgment that

increasing the interior light in a vehicle

by nine times will have a significant

effect on the driver’s vision. With such

a large increase in glare, it could be

difficult to operate a vehicle at night.

This situation could be further

exacerbated if an inexperienced or

elderly driver were operating the

vehicle. Inexperienced drivers may not

yet be familiar with adapting to

commonly-encountered glare, and the

elderly may have lost their ability to

cope with it effectively.

Finally, GM states that glare, although

undesirable, is inevitable and drivers

can successfully adapt to it. It cites in

support a study by Jan Theeuwes and

John Alferdinck, The Relationship

Between Discomfort Glare and Driving

Behavior, DOT HS 808 452 (1996).

However, the authors of the study

analyzed the effects of glare from

sources such as other vehicles, building,

signs, et al, on driving habits, and

concluded that, to adapt to glare, drivers

went more slowly and invested more

effort. A study which is more on point

was conducted by the University of

Michigan Transportation Research

Institute (UMTRI) in 1985 (UMTRI-85–

31). This study measured the effects of

various vehicle interior lighting systems

on driver sight distance at night, and

found that turning on the interior

lighting systems of a vehicle could

reduce forward sight distance by as

much as 20 percent. Further, the effect

was much more pronounced for

rearward visibility, though the test data

obtained couldn’t be translated into

rearward visibility distance. UMTRI did

conclude that objects behind the test

subjects, when viewed in the rearview

mirror, are much more likely not to be

visible when the interior lights are

illuminated. This study shows that

drivers will not completely adapt to the

increased light created by interior lights

during nighttime driving.

GM also stated that oncoming

headlamps can be ‘‘many times brighter

than any of these interior lights.’’

NHTSA agrees that, to adapt to the

glare, the drivers would naturally go

more slowly and invest more effort in

the task of driving because their vision

is impaired. However, the agency sees

inconsistencies when comparing the

adaptation to the interior lights of the

subject vehicles and to the external light

sources mentioned in the study. The

external light sources such as those from

oncoming cars and street lights are

inevitable because they provide

necessary illumination of surroundings.

A driver must learn to adapt to these

forms of glare because they are very

common. Conversely, the interior light

illumination during night driving is not

common. Since it is not the practice of

drivers to drive at night with their

interior lights on, it is unlikely that the

driver of one of GM’s noncompliant

vehicles has ever had to cope with such

a situation. Further, the nature of

external light sources is that they are

fairly transient. Because a vehicle is

moving, the external glare is usually not

constant, but a light source within the

vehicle would provide constant internal

glare, and up to 30 minutes of it.

In summary, NHTSA does not agree

with GM’s argument that the

noncompliance reflects a rare problem

that will create insignificant problems

should it arise. Of the approximately

20,000 vehicles that have not yet been

repaired, some will inevitably suffer this

noncompliance at night. Moreover,

NHTSA believes that this

noncompliance has the potential to

create an unsafe situation which is
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