FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Mopar, Dodge Journey
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
28 February 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12059-12062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0020; Notice 1]
FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FCA US, LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC) ``FCA US,'' has
determined that certain Mopar headlamp assemblies sold as aftermarket
equipment and installed as original equipment in certain model year
(MY) 2017-2018 Dodge Journey motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. FCA US filed a
noncompliance report for the replacement equipment dated March 14,
2019, and later amended it on April 9, 2019. FCA US also filed a
noncompliance report for the associated vehicles dated March 14, 2019,
later amended it on April 9, 2019, and April 25, 2019. FCA US
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 5, 2019, and filed a
supplemental petition on May 14, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces receipt of FCA US's petition.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 28,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket 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
[[Page 12060]]
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: FCA US has determined that certain MY 2017-2018 Dodge
Journey motor vehicles and replacement Dodge Journey headlamp
assemblies do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).
FCA US filed a noncompliance report for the replacement equipment dated
March 14, 2019, and later amended it on April 9, 2019. FCA US also
filed a noncompliance report for the associated vehicles dated March
14, 2019, later amended it on April 9, 2019, and April 25, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. FCA US subsequently petitioned NHTSA on April 5, 2019, and
filed a supplemental petition on May 14, 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 FCA US'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. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: Approximately 16,604 Mopar
headlamp assemblies sold as aftermarket equipment, manufactured between
August 2, 2017, and July 6, 2018, are potentially involved.
Approximately 84,908 MY 2017-2018 Dodge Journey motor vehicles,
manufactured between August 2, 2017, and July 6, 2018, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance: FCA US explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject headlamp assemblies, sold as aftermarket equipment and
equipped in certain MY 2017-2018 Dodge Journey motor vehicles contain a
front amber side reflex reflector that does not meet the photometric
requirements specified in paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the reflex reflector, in the subject headlamp assemblies,
do not meet the minimum photometry requirements at the observation
angle of 0.2 degrees.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108 includes
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 in paragraph S14.2.3 of FMVSS
No. 108, for the reflex reflector color.
V. Summary of FCA US's Petition:
The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of FCA US's petition, are the views and arguments provided by
FCA US. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency.
FCA US described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA US submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
A. For the purposes of FMVSS No. 108, the primary function of a
reflex reflector is to prevent crashes by permitting early detection of
an unlighted motor vehicle at an intersection or when parked on or by
the side of the road. Because reflex reflectors are not independent
light sources, their performance is wholly reliant upon the amount of
illumination they receive from vehicle headlamps. Ideally, a reflex
reflector would achieve its highest performance when the reflex
reflector is mounted at the height of another vehicle's lower beam `hot
spot.' Due to the significant range of permissible mounting heights for
headlamps (between 22 and 54 inches), achieving such ideal performance
is impractical. FMVSS No. 108, which establishes minimum performance
standards for reflex reflectors, specifies a range of acceptable
reflector mounting heights (not less than 15 inches or more than 60
inches) to ensure that reflex reflectors are exposed to enough
illumination to be effective. The standard also provides allowances in
the fore and aft location of reflex reflectors (e.g., as far to the
front as practicable). This flexibility provides vehicle manufacturers
with sufficient flexibility in mounting locations to ensure that the
mounting height remains in the appropriate range to ensure adequate
reflex reflector performance relative to headlamps that would
illuminate them.'' Decision on Petition for Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 82 FR 24204, May 25, 2017. (emphasis added by FCA US).
B. For reasons discussed below, and supported by a demonstration
project conducted by FCA US, FCA US submits that the reflex reflectors
on the subject vehicles perform adequately to meet the safety purpose
of the standard because they permit the early detection of an unlighted
motor vehicle at an intersection or when parked, notwithstanding their
deviation from certain photometric requirements.
1. FCA US believes that the failure of these reflex reflectors to
meet the photometric requirements does not reduce their effectiveness
in providing the necessary visibility for oncoming vehicles and that
the difference between the reflectivity provided by a compliant
reflector is not distinguishable from the reflectivity provided by a
noncompliant reflector. To demonstrate this point, FCA US conducted an
informal evaluation comparing the performance of a Dodge Journey
equipped with a known compliant reflex reflector with a Dodge Journey
equipped with a known noncompliant reflex reflector. This evaluation
was conducted with two Dodge Journey vehicles parked front end to front
end across the road surface, 100 feet (30.5 meters) away from vehicles
that used their headlamps as a source of illumination for observers to
evaluate the luminous intensity of each front side reflex reflector.
The 100 feet (30.5 meters) distance was chosen because that is the
distance specified in FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108 for testing
reflex reflectors using a goniometer in a photometric laboratory.
2. A 2019 Jeep Cherokee with LED projector headlamps and a 2019 Ram
1500 Pickup Truck with LED reflector headlamps were used as sources of
illumination. Sixteen volunteer evaluators (who were FCA US or FCA
Canada, Inc., employees) stood immediately in front of, and at the
centerline of, the vehicles whose headlamps were being used as the
source of illumination. Evaluators were asked if they were able to
distinguish a difference between the compliant and noncompliant reflex
reflectors. None of the evaluators were able to distinguish any
luminous intensity differences of the light being reflected in any of
the scenarios.
3. The reflex reflectors in the subject vehicles were mounted 32.31
to 32.62 inches from the ground to the center of the devices. The
headlamp mounting heights of the two vehicles used as sources of
illumination in the
[[Page 12061]]
evaluation are 34.89 inches for the Jeep Cherokee and 39.59 inches for
the Ram 1500. FCA US believes that these vehicles cover the range of
typical headlamp mounting heights for vehicles on the road today.
Nevertheless, FCA US is undertaking another round of evaluations using
a vehicle with a lower headlamp mounting height as a source of
illumination to try to demonstrate a ``worst-case'' scenario. FCA US
expects to supplement this petition with the results of that further
evaluation in the near future. (See Supplement to FCA US Petition,
dated May 14, 2019.)
FCA's Evaluation: A subjective evaluation was conducted on a Dodge
Journey with a headlamp assembly containing a front side reflex
reflector known not to meet FMVSS No. 108/CMVSS No. 108 photometric
requirements compared to a Dodge Journey with a headlamp assembly
containing a front side reflex reflector known to meet FMVSS No. 108/
CMVSS No. 108 photometric requirements. This evaluation was conducted
at 6:30 a.m., Friday, March 22, 2019, in the Lighting Tunnel at the FCA
Canada Automotive Research and Development Center in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada. Sixteen FCA US employees, with various job responsibilities,
participated in this subjective evaluation.
This evaluation was conducted with two Dodge Journey vehicles
parked front end to front end across the road surface, 100 feet (30.5
meters) away from vehicles that used their headlamps as a source of
illumination for observers to evaluate the luminous intensity of each
front side reflex reflector. The 100 feet (30.5 meters) distance was
chosen because that is the distance that is specified in FMVSS No. 108
and CMVSS No. 108 for testing reflex reflectors using a goniometer in a
photometric laboratory.
A black Dodge Journey was parked across the left side of the
pavement with a passenger-side headlamp containing a front side reflex
reflector known to not meet FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108 photometric
requirements. A red Dodge Journey was parked across the right side of
the pavement with a driver-side headlamp containing a front side reflex
reflector known to meet FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108 photometric
requirements.
A 2019 Jeep Cherokee with LED projector headlamps and a 2019 Ram
1500 Pickup Truck with LED reflector headlamps were used as sources of
illumination. Evaluators stood immediately in front of, and at the
centerline of, the vehicles whose headlamps were being used as the
source of illumination. Evaluators were asked if they were able to
distinguish a difference between the reflex reflectors.
Five different scenarios were subjectively evaluated as described
below:
Subjective Evaluation A: Jeep Cherokee Low beam Headlamps used as
light source at center of the pavement shining towards the two Dodge
Journey Vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation B: Jeep Cherokee High beam Headlamps used as
light source at center of the pavement shining towards the two Dodge
Journey Vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation C: Jeep Cherokee Low beam Headlamps used as
light source at the left edge of pavement (146 inches to the left of
the centerline of pavement) shining towards the two Dodge Journey
vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation D: Jeep Cherokee Low beam Headlamps used as
light source at the right edge of pavement (150 inches to the right of
the centerline of pavement) shining towards the two Dodge Journey
vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation E: Ram 1500 Pickup Truck Low beam Headlamps
used as light source at the center of the pavement shining towards the
two Dodge Journey vehicles.
Findings: None of the sixteen evaluators were able to distinguish
any luminous intensity differences of the light being reflected to
their eyes from the Dodge Journey front side reflex reflectors that
were being illuminated by the headlamps of the source vehicles in the
five subjective evaluations that were conducted.
FCA US submitted a supplemental petition dated May 14, 2019, and
provided the following supplemental information:
Background: Reflex reflectors are devices used on vehicles to give
an indication to approaching drivers using reflected light from the
lamps of the approaching vehicle. A subjective evaluation of the ``on-
vehicle'' reflective performance of Dodge Journey Front Side Reflex
Reflectors was conducted to determine if human eyes are capable of
distinguishing between reflex reflectors known to not meet, and known
to meet, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 and CMVSS 108.
The original subjective evaluation was conducted on March 22, 2019,
in the Lighting Tunnel at the FCA Canada Automotive Research and
Development Center in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, with headlamps of two
different vehicles used as sources of illumination. The first vehicle
used as a source of illumination was a Jeep Cherokee that had a
headlamp mounting height of 34.89 inches above ground (as measured to
the center of the device). The second vehicle used as a source of
illumination was a Ram 1500 Pickup Truck that had a headlamp mounting
height of 39.59 inches above ground (as measured to the center of the
device).
This follow-up evaluation was conducted using an Alfa Romeo Giulia
that had a headlamp mounting height of 26.50 inches above ground (as
measured to the center of the device). This vehicle was chosen to
demonstrate a scenario of a vehicle with low headlamp mounting heights
being used as the source of illumination. (Please note the lettering is
sequential to those used in the previous March 22, 2019 report.)
FCA's Follow-up Evaluation: A subjective evaluation was conducted
on a Dodge Journey with a headlamp assembly containing a front side
reflex reflector known not to meet FMVSS No. 108/CMVSS No. 108
photometric requirements compared to a Dodge Journey with a headlamp
assembly containing a front side reflex reflector known to meet FMVSS
No. 108/CMVSS No. 108 photometric requirements. This evaluation was
conducted at 9:00 a.m., Friday, April 26, 2019, in the Lighting Tunnel
at the FCA Canada Automotive Research and Development Center in
Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Eight FCA US employees, with various job
responsibilities, participated in this subjective evaluation.
This evaluation was conducted with two Dodge Journey vehicles
parked front end to front end across the road surface, 100 feet (30.5
meters) away from an Alfa Romeo Giulia vehicle that used its headlamps
as a source of illumination for observers to evaluate the luminous
intensity of each front side reflex reflector. The 100 feet (30.5
meters) distance was chosen because that is the distance that is
specified in FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108 for testing reflex
reflectors using a goniometer in a photometric laboratory.
A red Dodge Journey was parked across the left side of the pavement
with a passenger-side headlamp containing a front side reflex reflector
known to not meet FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108 photometric
requirements. Another red Dodge Journey was parked across the right
side of the pavement with a driver-side headlamp containing a front
side reflex reflector known to meet FMVSS No. 108 and CMVSS No. 108
photometric requirements. These were the same headlamp assemblies and
side reflex reflectors that were used for the previous subjective
evaluation that occurred on March 22, 2019.
A 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia with Bi-Xenon Projector Headlamps (25 watt
D5S light sources) was used as the
[[Page 12062]]
source of illumination. Evaluators stood immediately in front of, and
at the centerline of, the Alfa Romeo Giulia vehicle while its headlamps
were being used as the source of illumination. Evaluators were asked if
they were able to distinguish a difference between the reflex
reflectors.
Four different scenarios were subjectively evaluated as described
below:
Subjective Evaluation F: Alfa Romeo Giulia Low Beam Headlamps used
as a light source at the center of the pavement shining towards the two
Dodge Journey vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation G: Alfa Romeo Giulia High Beam Headlamps used
as a light source at the center of the pavement shining towards the two
Dodge Journey vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation H: Alfa Romeo Giulia Low Beam Headlamps used
as a light source at the left edge of pavement (146 inches to the left
of the centerline of pavement) shining towards the two Dodge Journey
vehicles.
Subjective Evaluation J: Alfa Romeo Giulia Low Beam Headlamps used
as a light source at the right edge of pavement (150 inches to the
right of the centerline of pavement) shining towards the two Dodge
Journey vehicles.
Findings: None of the eight evaluators were able to distinguish any
luminous intensity differences of the light being reflected to their
eyes from the Dodge Journey front side reflex reflectors that were
being illuminated by the headlamps of the Alfa Romeo Giulia in the four
subjective evaluations that were conducted.
FCA US concluded by expressing its 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 and vehicles that
FCA US no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve equipment and 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 equipment
and vehicles under their control after FCA US 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. 2020-04106 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 13700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2020-04106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0020; Notice 1]
FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
Correction
In notice document 2020-04106, appearing on pages 12059-12062 in
the issue of Friday, February 28, 2020, make the following correction:
On page 12059, in the third column, on the tenth line from the top,
``February 28, 2020'' is corrected to read ``March 30, 2020.''
[FR Doc. C1-2020-04106 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D