Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40781

occupant injury due to interior fire and

that the noncompliance presents no

reasonably anticipated risk to motor

vehicle safety.

On October 30, 1997, NHTSA wrote

Ford for additional information about

the tests described in the application.

Ford responded to the request on

November 20, 1997. Following an

evaluation of the information provided

by Ford, on December 4, 1998, the

agency requested Ford to conduct an

additional ‘‘composite’’ test, i.e., with

the cover, plus pad, and foam bun. The

additional test would simulate another

possible ‘‘worst case scenario’’ different

from the one Ford performed. Ford did

not conduct the additional test

requested by the agency and requested

to be provided with an opportunity to

explain its position. On February 19,

1998, NHTSA and representatives from

Ford met at the agency. The Ford

representatives explained why they

believed that sufficient data were

already provided to NHTSA for

reviewing the application. Subsequent

to the meeting, Ford sent a letter to

NHTSA on March 12, 1998, formally

responding to the agency’s December 4,

1997, request. The March 12, 1998,

letter explained that the term ‘‘worst

case scenario’’ used in the Ford

application was intended to describe its

‘‘functional composite’’ test results

which simulate long term vehicle use

conditions (durability performance). All

the above-mentioned correspondence

has been placed in the docket.

NHTSA has thoroughly evaluated the

data Ford provided and carefully

considered its subsequent explanations

about the data. It agrees with Ford. The

agency has concluded that the ‘‘plus

pad’’ in the noncompliant Ford Explorer

and Mercury Mountaineer vehicles is

unlikely to pose a flammability risk due

to the unlikelihood of its exposure to an

ignition source, if the exterior cover is

not present in the first instance.

NHTSA’s evaluation of the

consequentiality of this noncompliance

should not be interpreted as a

diminution of the agency’s safety

concern for the flammability of interior

materials. Rather, it represents NHTSA’s

assessment of the gravity of this specific

noncompliance based upon the likely

consequences. Ultimately, the issue is

whether this particular noncompliance

is likely to create a risk to safety.

NHTSA is not aware of any occupant

injuries to date in vehicle post-crash

fires that were caused by burning of

console armrests in the Ford Explorer

and Mercury Mountaineer vehicles.

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA has

decided that Ford Motor Company has

met its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, the application is granted,

and Ford Motor Company is exempted

from providing the notification of the

noncompliance that is required by 49

U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the

noncompliance, as required by 49

U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: July 27, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–20383 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4008; Notice 1]

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that certain 1998 GMC

Sonoma pickup trucks, GMC Jimmy and

Oldsmobile Bravada sport utility

vehicles are equipped with daytime

running lamps (DRLs) that fail to meet

the spacing requirements of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

108—Lamps Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment. Pursuant to

section 30118 and 30120 of Title 49 of

the United States Code, GM applied to

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) for a decision

that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Concurrently, in accordance with 49

CFR 556.4(b)(6), GM has submitted a 49

CFR 573.5 noncompliance notification

to the agency.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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 application.

The DRLs on the noncompliant

vehicles are provided by the upper

beam headlamps operating at reduced

intensity, with a maximum output of

approximately 6,700 candela per lamp.

As such, FMVSS 108 requires the DRL

be located ‘‘so the distance from its

lighted edge to the optical center of the

nearest turn signal lamp is not less than

100 mm.’’ (The DRLs on the

noncompliant vehicles are not

deactivated when the turn signal or

hazard flashers are activated. If they

were deactivated under those

conditions, they would comply with the

spacing requirements of FMVSS 108

(see S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv))). In this case, the

122,455 vehicles involved provide less

than the requisite 100 mm clearance

between the DRL and the turn signal. As

a result, they fail to meet the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

GM believes that this noncompliance

is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety for the following reasons:

1. The subject vehicles meet all

requirements of Canadian Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 108 (CMVSS108)

and the identical DRL requirements

found in FMVSS 108 prior to October 1,

1995.

2. CMVSS 108 requires turn signals

that are located less than 100 mm from

a DRL to have increased intensities of

21⁄2 times the minimum photometric

values to help assure the turn signals are

readily visible. The subject vehicles

have turn signals that are much brighter.

When photometered, the turn signals on

the noncompliant vehicles were actually

more than four times brighter than the

minimum required intensities. This

increased brightness helps to assure the

turn signals are not masked by the DRL.

3. The method for determining the

optical center of the turn signal is open

to some interpretation. Traditionally,

automobile manufacturers have used the

filament axes as the determining factor.

Transport Canada has supported this

methodology. More recently, some

manufacturers have used the centroid of

the lamp as the optical center.

Depending on the method used, the turn

signal of the noncompliant vehicles is

either 71 mm (using centroid) or 85 mm

(using filament axes) away from the

DRL. Therefore the condition is within

15 percent, or using the more

conservative figure, within 30 percent of

the requirement. (For the purposes of

the application all other references to

optical center of the turn signal will be

based on the centroid, which generates

a more conservative estimate of the

distance between the turn signal and

lighted edge of the DRL.)

4. Regardless of the whether the

distance is within 15 percent or 30

percent of the 100 mm requirement, the

turn signal and the DRL diagonal to

each other. Therefore, the closest lighted

edge of the DRL is the corner of the

lamp (see figure 1). This portion of the

lamp does not significantly contribute to

the DRL beam pattern, and therefore

does not have a significant potential to

mask the turn signal.

5. Photometric values of the turn

signal 71 mm from the DRL, are not

significantly different than a turn signal

100 mm from the DRL. To demonstrate

this, on-vehicle evaluations of the turn
40782 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices

signal output were made using a videobased photometer (digital CCD camera

system). First, the photometric output of

the turn signal was measured with the

DRL activated. Then a portion of the

DRL was blocked, as shown in Figure 2,

and the output of the turn signal was remeasured with the modified DRL

activated. The zonal values of the turn

signal changed an average of just 12.7

percent. The largest difference in turn

signal output was found in zone 5,

closest to the DRL, and it only changed

17.5 percent.

6. Subjective evaluations were run

using GM personnel whose jobs do not

involve vehicle lighting. They were

asked to rate the relative visibility of

turn signals on the subject vehicles and

other vehicles that meet the FMVSS 108

spacing requirement. The results, shown

in figure 3, indicate the visibility of

subject turn signals is substantially

better than vehicles that just meet the

minimum requirement. In addition, the

turn signals are rated nearly identical to

vehicles modified to be fully compliant

to the requirements, and preferred only

slightly less than turn signals on the

Chevrolet Blazer (which is a similar

vehicle whose turn signal/DRL spacing

meets the requirements of FMVSS 108).

A copy of the report Subjective

Evaluation by GM Truck Group

Engineering Operations, Milford

Proving Ground, Publication Date: 22

May 1998, has been placed in Docket

No. NHTSA–98–4008; Notice 1.

7. The turn signals on the

noncomplying vehicles are 116 square

centimeters, which is larger than typical

turn signals found on similar vehicles.

FMVSS 108 requires the functional

lighted area of a turn signal lamp to be

a minimum of 22 square centimeters.

(Table III of FMVSS 108 requires turn

signals meet SAE J588 NOV’84—TURN

SIGNAL LAMPS FOR USE ON MOTOR

VEHICLES LESS THAN 2032 MM IN

OVERALL WIDTH. SAE J588 NOV84

S5.3.2 requires, ‘‘The functional lighted

lens area of single compartment lamp

shall be at least . . . 22 square

centimeters for a front [turn signal]

lamp.’’) Therefore, the subject turn

signals provide 5.3 times the area

necessary to meet the requirement. The

larger size of the turn signal helps to

minimize any potential for masking by

the DRL.

GM believes the noncompliance

discussed here is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. In consideration of

the foregoing, GM applied for a decision

that it be exempted from the notification

and remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C.

30118 and 30120 for this specific

noncompliance with FMVSS 108.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written date, views, and

arguments on the application of GM

described above. Comments should refer

to the Docket Number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, Room PL 401,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC, 20590. It is requested but not

required that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: August 31,

1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on July 24, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

BILLING CODE 4910–M
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40783
40784 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Notices 40785

[FR Doc. 98–20382 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M