Document ID: NHTSA-2019-0124-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: North America Subaru, Inc.
Posted Date: 2020-06-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39037-39040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13927]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0124; Notice 1]

North America Subaru, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: North America Subaru, Inc., (NASI) on behalf of Subaru 
Corporation and Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) has determined that 
certain model year (MY) 2016--2020 Subaru Impreza motor vehicles do not 
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Subaru filed 
a noncompliance report dated October 10, 2019. Subaru also

[[Page 39038]]

petitioned NHTSA on October 23, 2019, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This document announces receipt of Subaru's petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
may 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 dockets. 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: Subaru has determined that certain MY 2016--2019 
Subaru Impreza motor vehicles do not fully comply with S7.4.13.1 of 
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 
CFR 571.108). Subaru filed a noncompliance report dated October 10, 
2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Subaru also petitioned NHTSA on October 23, 
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.
    This notice of receipt, of Subaru's petition, is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 63,697 MY 2016--2020 Subaru 
Impreza 4 door and approximately 124,703 Subaru Impreza Stationwagon, 
totaling 188,400 motor vehicles manufactured between September 23, 
2016, and August 7, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: NASI explains that the noncompliance is that 
the subject vehicles are equipped with headlamp assemblies that do not 
meet the requirements of paragraphs S8.1.11 and S10.15.6 of FMVSS No. 
108. Specifically, the left front and right front halogen headlamp 
assemblies, containing the side reflex reflector and low beam 
reflector, may not fully meet requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 108. 
When tested, four of four headlamp assemblies (samples LH1, LH2, LH3 
and LH4) failed to comply at certain test points.
    IV. Rule Requirements: S8.1.11 and S10.15.6 of FMVSS No. 108 
include 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 of S14.2.3, for the 
reflex reflector as specified by FMVSS No. 108. Each replaceable bulb 
headlamp must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of 
Table XVIII for upper beam and Table XIX for lower beam as specified in 
Table II-d for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when 
tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5 using any replaceable 
light source designated for use in the system under test.
    V. Summary of NASI's Petition:
    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V. 
Summary of NASI's Petition, are the views and arguments provided by 
Subaru. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect 
the views of the Agency.
    NASI described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety. NASI submitted the following views and arguments in support of 
its petition:
    1. NASI submits that the nonconformance relating to side reflex 
reflector photometry is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety for the following reasons:
    a. Real world testing conducted by Subaru showed that noncompliant 
and compliant reflex reflectors are equally detectable in real world 
conditions. An overview of cognitive performance testing of the 
compliant and noncompliant reflex reflectors is attached to this 
petition. The test set-up simulated a condition typical of a vehicle 
approaching an unlit, perpendicular vehicle stalled in the driving 
lane. This test condition simulates a real world condition where side 
reflex reflectors would support improved visibility of that vehicle. 
The test results show that, with respect to light reflectance and their 
ability to be detected, there is no noticeable difference observable 
between the fully compliant reflex reflector and the reflex reflector 
that marginally under-complies at select test points.
    b. At a majority of the test points where the tested reflex 
reflectors were found to have measured intensities below the required 
minimum values, the measured values were generally only slightly less 
than the required minimum. For two of the four lamp assemblies tested, 
there was one point (point HV) where measured values slightly exceeded 
the 25% threshold cited by NHTSA and others in the past as being the 
threshold at which the difference between two lamp intensities

[[Page 39039]]

of less than 25% cannot be detected reliably by most drivers (see DOT 
report, Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive 
Signal Lamp Intensities, DOT HS 808 209, September 1994). The two 
measured values were below the required minimums by 26.9% (sample LH1) 
and 27.7% (sample LH4). We note that, on average (for the four samples 
tested by Calcoast), the HV test point was only 24.8% below the 
required minimum. We also note, as mentioned above, that the cognitive 
performance testing conducted by Subaru found there to be no noticeable 
differences in detectability for the compliant and noncompliant reflex 
reflectors in question.
    c. For a dynamic situation, light reflecting at a particular test 
point will be observed for only a short period of time. Compared to a 
light source that is constantly illuminated, the intensity originating 
from a reflex reflector is more fleeting to an observer. Reflex 
reflector intensity varies significantly depending on the angle of the 
driver's eyes to the reflector's central axis. Larger angles mean less 
light will be seen from the reflex reflector. Smaller angles mean more 
light will be seen from the reflex reflector. As a result, a 
nonconformity at a given test point for a reflex reflector will 
generally have a minimal impact on detectability. Thus, minor 
nonconformances at any one test point should be inconsequential with 
respect to safety risk.
    d. It has been recognized by NHTSA in the past that it is 
inherently difficult to manufacture all lamps to comply with all test 
points and that random failures do occur. FMVSS 108 requires lighting 
equipment be designed to conform to relevant requirements as opposed to 
simply comply with relevant requirements. According to NHTSA (see 62 FR 
63416), occasional random noncompliances are to be expected in this 
very complicated design and manufacturing process and it is for this 
reason that the ``designed to comply'' provision is contained in the 
lighting standard. See commentary from the Oct. 12, 2018 (83 FR 51766) 
NPRM in which NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS 108 to permit the 
certification of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems. In that 
notice, the Agency noted that, historically, there has never been an 
absolute requirement that every motor vehicle lighting device meets 
every single photometric test point to comply with FMVSS No. 108.
    e. NHTSA has previously granted Subaru and General Motors petitions 
for inconsequentiality involving side reflex reflectors which were 
determined to be nonconforming at select test points by varying 
degrees. See 56 FR 59971 (November 26, 1991) for Subaru and 57 FR 45867 
(October 5, 1992) for General Motors.
    f. NASI is not aware of any field or customer complaints related to 
the performance of the side reflex reflectors contained the subject 
headlamp assemblies, nor have we been made aware of any accidents or 
injuries that have occurred relating to the performance of these lamp 
assemblies.
    2. NASI submits that the nonconforming condition relating to low 
beam photometry is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety for the following reasons:
    a. In compliance testing conducted by CALCOAST-ITL on behalf of 
NHTSA (see NHTSA Report No. 108-CAN-19-002), two of four headlamps 
assemblies tested (samples LH1 and LH4) failed to comply with certain 
low beam photometry requirements in S10.15.6.
    i. Sample LH1:
     Headlamp assembly sample LH1 photometry was measured at 
twenty-four test points. At two of the twenty-four test points, sample 
LH1 exceeded the maximum allowable luminous intensity values by small 
amounts (11.4% and 4.7%). At one of the twenty-four test points, sample 
LH1 was below the minimum acceptable luminous intensity value by 13.0%.
     At 21 of 24 test points, sample LH1 complied with the 
specified luminous intensity values listed in Table XIX-a (LB2V).
    ii. Sample LH4:
     Headlamp assembly sample LH4 photometry was measured at 24 
test points. At two of the twenty-four test points, the sample LH4 
exceeded the maximum allowable luminous intensity values by small 
amounts (16.8% and 19.4%). At 22 of 24 test points, sample LH4 complied 
with the specified luminous intensity values listed in Table XIX-a 
(LB2V).
    iii. For both sample LH1 and LH4, test points at which the max. 
allowable luminous intensity values were exceeded at test points 1.0 
degree and 0.5 degree up from the horizontal, respectively. These test 
points, which were taken in the range of 1.5 degrees to 9.9 degrees 
left of center, are in place to ensure that glare is minimized to 
oncoming drivers. In the UMTRI report entitled ``Just Noticeable 
Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp Intensities'' (UMTRl-97-4), testing 
was conducted to evaluate ``just noticeable differences'' or JNDs for 
glare intensities of oncoming low-beam headlamps. Specifically, UMTRI 
looked at whether the 25% rule established by NHTSA for signal lamps 
would be applicable for the range of intensities relevant to low-beam 
headlamps. Based on the testing conducted by UMTRI using low-beam 
headlamps, UMTRI concluded that applying the 25% limit for 
inconsequential noncompliance to a photometric test point that 
specifies a maximum for glare protection would be appropriate. Given 
the UMTRI conclusion, we believe that the small exceedances in max 
intensities for these two test points are inconsequential to safety.
    iv. For sample LH1, test point 4.0D 20.0R was the third point which 
was noncompliant per the measurements taken. This test point measures 
light intensity down and to the right (4 degrees below the horizontal 
and 20 degrees to the right of center). The minimum intensity value 
ensures adequate light down and far right (e.g., sidewalk to the right 
of the vehicle). Sample LH1's measured light intensity was 13% less 
than the required value.
    Of the four samples tested by Calcoast, only one sample was 
noncompliant at this test point. This degree of nonconformity was 
minimal (13% below the required value). When the other three samples 
were tested, the measured intensities at this test point over-complied 
by margins of 47.2%, 27.8% and 2.8%.
    For sample LH1, a point within the Zone 10U-90U/90L-90R at 10.00U-
7.3R exceeded the maximum permissible intensity threshold by 8.7%. The 
maximum allowable intensity of 125 candelas in this zone was 
established to reduce the amount of glare to the driver of the car with 
the subject headlamp in driving conditions involving poor weather 
(rain, fog, snow, etc.). The consequence of one of four samples having 
a measurement of 8.7% above the maximum allowable value is 
inconsequential given the exceedance is far less than the 25% just 
noticeable difference.
    As discussed previously in this petition, it has been recognized by 
NHTSA in the past that it is inherently difficult to manufacture all 
lamps to comply with all test points and that random failures do occur. 
FMVSS 108 requires lighting equipment be designed to conform to 
relevant requirements as opposed to simply comply with relevant 
requirements. Occasional random non-compliances are to be expected (see 
62 FR 63416). This is why there has never been an absolute requirement 
that every motor vehicle lighting device meets every single photometric 
test point to comply with FMVSS 108 (see 83 FR 51766).

[[Page 39040]]

    Based on the data before us, we believe that the light intensity 
measured at test point 4.0D 20.0R for one of four samples tested is 
inconsequential to safety.
    3. NASI is not aware of any field or customer complaints related to 
the low-beam performance of the subject headlamp assemblies, nor have 
we been made aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred 
relating to the performance of these lamp assemblies.
    4. For the foregoing reasons, NASI submits that the subject non-
compliance does not present an unreasonable risk, is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety and requests an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and associated regulations at 49 CFR 
part 556.
    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 vehicles that NASI no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Subaru 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(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. 2020-13927 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P