Document ID: NHTSA-2019-0063-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: General Motors, LLC
Posted Date: 2022-03-04T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12546-12548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0063; Notice 2]

General Motors, 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: General Motors, LLC, (GM) has determined that certain model 
year (MY) 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor vehicles do not fully comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM filed a noncompliance 
report dated May 15, 2019. GM subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 7, 
2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the 
denial of GM's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5304, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    GM has determined that certain MY 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor 
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of 
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 
CFR 571.108). GM filed a noncompliance report dated May 15, 2019, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. GM subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 7, 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 GM's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on February 12, 2020, in the Federal Register 
(85 FR 8095). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0063.''

II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 726,959 MY 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor vehicles 
manufactured between May 21, 2009, and July 13, 2017, are potentially 
involved.

III. Noncompliance

    GM explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles are 
equipped with lower beam headlamps that do not meet the photometry 
requirements of paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108. 
Specifically, a reflection from the headlamps' housing is directed 80 
degrees outboard and 45 degrees upward, as measured from each lamp's 
optical axis, which illuminates two small areas high above the vehicle. 
When tested by GM, this reflection from a single point on each lamp 
measured approximately 450-470 candela (cd). This is more than three 
times brighter than the designated maximum of 125 cd at test points 
10[deg]U to 90[deg]U, as stated in Table XIX-a.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 include the 
requirements relevant to this petition. 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 paragraph S14.2.5 using any replaceable 
light source designated for use in the system under test.

V. Summary of GM's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of GM's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by GM 
and do not reflect the views of the Agency. GM described the subject 
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, GM submitted the following reasoning:

    1. The noncompliance caused by this reflection has no effect on 
vehicle safety for oncoming or surrounding vehicles. The narrow 
reflection in question does not create a safety risk for oncoming or 
surrounding drivers, due to the extreme angle of the reflection. 
This angle, 80 degrees outboard and 45 degrees upward from each 
lamp's optical axis, is far above the range where the reflection 
could cause glare for oncoming or surrounding drivers, including the 
industry-recognized ``glare points'' referenced in Table XIX of 
FMVSS No. 108 at the following

[[Page 12547]]

ranges: 0.5[deg]U-1.5[deg]L to L, 1[deg]U-1.5[deg]L to L, 0.5[deg]U-
1[deg]R to R, 1.5[deg]U-[deg]R to R.
    2. The noncompliance caused by this reflection has no effect on 
vehicle safety for drivers of the subject vehicles. The areas 
illuminated by the narrow reflections in question are not visible to 
drivers of the subject vehicles. These two small areas appear high 
above the vehicle, one to the far left and the other to the far 
right of the vehicle, well outside of the driver's view.
    GM says, while these reflections may be somewhat perceptible in 
certain extremely dense fog or snow conditions, there would be no 
effect on vehicle safety due to the small size and far outboard 
location in the driver's peripheral field of view. GM claims that 
any detectable light due to such reflection would be negligible 
compared to other outside sources of illumination such as glare from 
oncoming traffic or fog glare forward of the vehicle.
    3. GM is aware of only a single customer inquiry associated with 
this condition and is not aware of any crashes or injuries. GM 
reviewed all relevant field data and found just a single customer 
inquiry within the US and Canadian vehicle population of nearly 
820,000 vehicles sold, 726,595 of which were sold in the US and 
92,747 were sold in Canada, over eight model years. The customer 
stated, ``Left head lamp seems to have a portion of the light that 
shines up in the trees at near a 45-degree angle.'' GM identified no 
other related field reports, including in warranty, Transportation 
Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD), 
Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ), and legal data.
    4. GM claims that the headlamps comply with recognized industry 
standards. GM cited S6.1.1 of the SAE International Standard J1383, 
Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps (May 26, 2010), 
which sets forth certain industry-recognized intensity and size 
limits on headlamp photometrics. Specifically, for a zone extending 
20[deg] left to 20[deg] right, and 10[deg] to 60[deg] up from the 
lamp optical axis, the light projected cannot exceed 550 candelas 
and cannot occupy more than five percent of the zone's total area. 
The reflection from the subject lamps is well outside of this zone. 
Even if the reflections were within this zone, the headlamps would 
remain compliant, as the reflection would not exceed the maximum of 
five percent of the total area or the maximum of 550 candelas.
    5. According to GM, the headlamps comply with applicable 
requirements for global regions, including UNECE R1123. S6.2.4 and 
Annex 3, Figure B of UNECE R112 specify photometric test points for 
the passing beam (i.e., lower beam headlamp). The photometric points 
extend to 4[deg] above the lamp optical axis. The subject reflection 
is well above those test points.
    6. The subject condition has been corrected for service parts 
and does not affect current-generation vehicles. GM is purging all 
affected service and replacement headlamps from dealer stock. The 
supplier, Stanley, has redesigned service and replacement headlamps 
to eliminate the reflections that cause the issue by adding graining 
to specific portions of the reflector. At the time of the original 
submission, GM projected the redesigned lamps would be available on 
June 12, 2019. Current-generation GMC Terrain vehicles (model years 
2018 and newer) use a different headlamp design and are not affected 
by this condition.

    GM concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be exempted 
from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

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.\1\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical 
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed 
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 is 
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against 
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ The Safety Act is 
preventive, and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or 
injuries to occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall. 
See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. 
Cir. 1977). Indeed, the very purpose of a recall is to protect 
individuals from risk. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA 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.'' \3\ ``[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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motor vehicle headlamps are, among other things, required to 
provide forward illumination for driving conditions in a manner that 
does not cause safety consequences for the driver of the vehicle, or 
other roadway drivers. In particular, this can include sources of glare 
caused by light reflected back to the driver or other roadway drivers.
    Paragraph S10.15.6 with Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 requires a 
maximum luminous intensity of 125 cd at test points within the 
boundaries of 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R. GM 
explains that in the subject vehicles, the lower beam headlamps have a 
reflection from the headlamp housing that is 80 degrees outboard and 45 
degrees upward, which when measured has a luminous intensity of 450-470 
cd that exceeds the 125 cd limit.
    NHTSA concurs with GM's argument that the operator of the 
noncompliant vehicle will not likely be affected as the reflection is 
directed outboard. However, NHTSA does not concur with GM's argument 
that the narrow reflection has no effect on oncoming or surrounding 
vehicles due to its extreme angle. The requirement of having a maximum 
of 125 cd at test points 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R 
reduces the presence of glare and veiling glare from oncoming or 
surrounding vehicles. The beam of light coming from the noncompliant 
headlamp exceeds the photometric requirement by more than three times, 
and may cause glare or be distracting to surrounding vehicles. 
Furthermore, certain weather conditions such as snow and fog could 
result in light from the noncompliant lamp causing veiling glare to 
other motorists driving in the proximity of the vehicle having the 
noncompliant lamp.
    NHTSA reviewed GM's other arguments that their products met other 
standards (SAE J1383 and UNECE R112) and did not find these arguments 
compelling because those standards are not substitutes for the 
requirements contained in FMVSS No. 108. Additionally, GM's explanation 
that the subject condition has been corrected for service parts and 
does not affect current-generation vehicles does not address the 
vehicles in the recall population and is

[[Page 12548]]

therefore not a basis to not carry out a recall.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that GM has 
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
GM's petition is hereby denied, and GM is consequently obligated to 
provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(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. 2022-04540 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P