Document ID: NHTSA-2018-0107-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Weldon
Posted Date: 2020-07-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42977-42979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0107 Notice 1]

Weldon, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Weldon, a Division of Akron Brass Company, has determined that 
certain LED backup lamps do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 
Associated Equipment. Weldon filed a noncompliance report dated 
November 7, 2018, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 30, 
2018, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of 
Weldon's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 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 docket. 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

    Weldon has determined that certain LED backup lamps do not fully 
comply with paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Weldon filed a 
noncompliance report dated November 7, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
556, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and 
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 30, 2018, 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 Weldon's petition 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 petition.

II. Equipment Involved

    Approximately 6,315 LED backup lamps manufactured between June 6, 
2018, and June 25, 2018, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Weldon explains that the noncompliance is that the subject LED 
backup lamps do not meet the requirements for color as required by 
paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the subject LED 
backup lamps, when tested in accordance with the Tristimulus Method, 
fell slightly outside the required boundaries for white light.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S14.4.1 of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. The color of a sample device must comply 
when tested by either the Visual Method or the Tristimulus Method.

V. Summary of Weldon's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V. 
Summary of Weldon's Petition, are the views and arguments provided by 
Weldon. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect 
the views of the Agency. Weldon described the subject noncompliance and 
stated their belief that the noncompliance is

[[Page 42978]]

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Weldon submitted the following 
reasoning:
    1. Weldon first became aware of a potential issue with the white 
color parameters in late September 2018, when the customer observed 
that the vehicle backup lamps, when viewed side by side in production, 
appeared to have a slightly different color hue and then brought the 
issue to Weldon's attention and requested that Weldon test the color of 
the lamps. Samples were sent to a third-party laboratory for 
colorimetry testing. Thereafter, Weldon received the third-party 
laboratory's test results, which it analyzed and considered. The lamps 
at issue were tested using the proper colorimetry testing using the 
Tristimulus Method. An average of three readings of the lamps were 
taken at the design voltage. The LED functions were measured at t = 0 
and t = 10 minutes. The result found that the supposed white color lamp 
fell slightly outside the required boundaries for white light.
    2. Backup lamps are intended to signal to other drivers that a 
vehicle is in reverse gear. Weldon says that despite the slight 
deviation from the white color boundaries, the backup lamps, when 
engaged, are fully illuminated and are still sufficiently white in 
color that they will not create confusion (at any distance) that the 
truck is in the reverse gear. The lamps still comply with the luminous 
intensity photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Even with the color 
specification noncompliance, these backup lamps fulfill the intended 
purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies to signal lamps, namely to 
ensure signals are understood by other road users.
    3. Weldon stated that NHTSA has long recognized that some 
deviations from the FMVSS pose little or no safety risk. In applying 
this recognition to particular situations, the Agency considers whether 
a deviation gives rise to ``a significantly greater risk than . . . in 
a compliant vehicle.'' See 69 FR 19897-990 (April 14, 2004). The 
vehicles for which the lamps have been supplied have full backup lamp 
functionality. This creates no safety risk, as the backup lamps are 
fully functional and remain completely illuminated. Further, the 
difference in color white light is very slight, so much so that the 
color is nearly imperceptible to the human eye at any distance. The 
lamps are sufficiently visible, effective, would not be confused with 
any other signal lamp, and do not create a safety risk.
    4. In considering past petitions involving FMVSS No. 108, Weldon 
mentions that NHTSA has previously considered and found deviations from 
the standard that were not perceptible to the human eye and/or did not 
affect the illumination or brightness of the lamp were inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has found that deviation from the 
photometric parameters were inconsequential to safety when the overall 
brightness of the equipment was near to the required parameters to not 
be perceptible to the human eye. NHTSA has historically employed a rule 
that a margin of up to 25 percent deviation from FMVSS No. 108 
photometric intensity requirements is reasonable to grant a petition of 
inconsequentiality for noncompliant signal lamps. See ``Driver 
Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp 
Intensities'' (herein, ``UMTRI Report''), DOT HS 808 209, Sept. 1994 (a 
study sponsored by NHTSA that demonstrated that a change in luminous 
intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most drivers and 
is a reasonable criterion for determining the inconsequentiality of 
noncompliant signal lamps). NHTSA has stated that it has granted such 
inconsequentiality petitions when it was ``confident that the 
noncompliant signal lights would still be visible to nearby drivers.'' 
See 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001). In fact, NHTSA has stated that 
``because signal lighting is not intended to provide roadway 
illumination to the driver, a less than 25 percent reduction in light 
output at any particular test point is less critical.'' Id. NHTSA views 
the UMTRI Report's findings to be ``mostly analogous to those of the 
signal lighting research.'' Id. NHTSA granted a petition for a 
determination of inconsequentiality to General Motors for turn signals 
that met the photometry requirements in just three of four test groups 
and produced, on average, 90 percent of the required photometric 
intensity. See 61 FR 1663 (Jan. 22, 1996). NHTSA has granted similar 
petitions for lamps that do not comply with photometric requirements in 
other slight ways.
    5. Conversely, NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality petitions in 
cases where headlamps do not meet the minimum FMVSS requirements, thus, 
causing an increased safety risk. See 66 FR 38341 (July 23, 2001) 
(denying petition where points on the headlamp used for overhead sign 
illumination were substantially below the photometric minimum values, 
which impaired driver visibility). The purpose of headlamps, as opposed 
to rear signal lighting, is roadway illumination, which is crucial to 
road safety. Insufficient roadway illumination from nonconforming 
headlamps creates an increased safety risk to the public and thus is 
held to a higher standard than the 25 percent deviation of the UMTRI 
Report. Id. Backup indicator taillamps, unlike headlamps, do not 
illuminate the road for drivers, and thus deviation from the FMVSS No. 
108 color requirement of the standard does not impede visibility. The 
backup lamps in question are still entirely visible (that is, the 
brightness of the tail lamps is not affected) and still appear white to 
the human eye at any distance, as demonstrated by Weldon's findings. 
The lamps fulfill the intended purpose of FMVSS No. 108 as it applies 
to signal lamps, which is to make a driver's operating signals 
understood. Despite the slight deviation from the white light 
boundaries, the backup lamps would be understood to signal that the 
truck is in reverse gear and create no additional safety risk and 
fulfill the intent of FMVSS No. 108.
    6. Weldon has not received any reports related to the performance 
of the white LED lamps from the field and is not aware of any accidents 
or injuries related to the issue.
    Weldon concluded by expressing the belief 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.
    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 equipment that Weldon no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control 
after Weldon notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

[[Page 42979]]

(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. 2020-15227 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P