[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 96-129; Notice 2]
General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
This notice grants the application by General Motors Corporation
(GM) of Warren, Michigan, to be exempted from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), and 30120(h) for a
noncompliance with 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment.'' The basis of the application is that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published on December 18,
1996, and an opportunity afforded for comment (61 FR 66744).
Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(2) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that any pair of
lamps on the front of a passenger car, * * * other than parking lamps
or fog lamps, may be wired to be automatically activated, as determined
by the manufacturer of the vehicle, * * * provided that each such lamp
is permanently marked ``DRL'' on its lens in letters not less than 3 mm
high, unless it is optically combined with a headlamp.
GM's description of the noncompliance follows:
GM recently discovered that the combination park/turn signal lamp
for the 1997 Pontiac Firebird vehicles had been released without the
required ``DRL'' marking on the face of the lamp. The condition was
corrected in September 1996. Approximately 4,500 vehicles were produced
without ``DRL'' marked on the lamps.
GM supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance with
the following reasons:
The park/turn signal lamps meet all substantive requirements of
FMVSS 108 for all functions; the sole noncompliance concerns the
marking on the lamps for the voluntary DRL function.
NHTSA adopted a lens marking requirement in the final rule
promulgating DRL provisions because of a concern that state
enforcement and vehicle inspection officials would not be able to
``distinguish between legal and illegal lamps and lamp combinations
in the absence of marking.'' 58 Fed. Reg. 3504 (1993).
While NHTSA adopted ``DRL'' as the required marking, it had
considered an alternate proposal to adopt the ``Y2'' identification
code specified in SAE Recommended Practice J759, Lighting
Identification Code, January 1995 (SAE J579). The agency chose to
require the ``DRL'' marking apparently not because of a state
inspection concern, but because the SAE specifications were not
identical to the federal ones. NHTSA reasoned that ``to adopt the
SAE designation would be inaccurate and confusing because it would
signify adoption of the SAE requirements * * *'' Id.
In this instance, the subject vehicles include the ``Y2''
marking specified by SAE J759. Thus, while the lamps do not meet the
explicit federal marking requirements, they do provide an indication
to state officials that the lamps are intended to be used as DRLs.
Moreover, the concern expressed by NHTSA in the final rule about the
SAE designation does not apply here since the subject lamps meet the
substantive requirements of both FMVSS 108 and SAE J759.
The owner's manual for the Firebird explains that the DRL
function is provided by the park/turn signal lamp. A state inspector
who is unclear about the ``Y2'' designation would have alternate
means of confirming that the turn signal portion of the lamp
properly provides a DRL function.
The population of subject vehicles is small, so any confusion
created by the condition would be minimal.
GM is not aware of any customer complaints concerning the
absence of the ``DRL'' marking.
No comments were received on the application.
Discussion and Recommendation
The agency has carefully reviewed GM's analyses. Because the lens
marking requirement was initially promulgated by the agency to enable
state enforcement and vehicle inspection officials to distinguish
between legal and illegal lamps and lamp combinations, NHTSA believes
that the omission of the ``DRL'' marking will not compromise motor
vehicle safety for the reasons expressed by GM.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, the petitioner has
met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance herein described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and the agency grants GM's
application for exemption from notification of the noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from remedy as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120. (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
and 501.8.)
Issued on: March 31, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-8537 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
