[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 157 (Monday, August 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49631-49632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7739; Notice 1]


Utilimaster Corporation; Receipt of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Utilimaster Corporation has determined that some of the 2730 walk-
in van trucks that it manufactured during the period September 30, 1997 
through October 6, 1999, contain a noncompliance with Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS ) 108,

[[Page 49632]]

``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Utilimaster has 
petitioned for a determination that this condition is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 
49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.''
    This notice of receipt of an application 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 application.
    The noncompliant trucks, supplied to fleet accounts, have light 
emitting diode (LED) front clearance and identification lamps mounted 
at a 30-degree set-back position. At least a portion of these lamps do 
not comply with the 0.62 candela requirement at 20-degrees down. The 
noncompliance involves two of the required test points of Standard 108.
    Utilimaster believes that this noncompliance with FMVSS 108 is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Its reasoning is that the 
lighting array and coverage of the clearance, identification, 
sidemarker and parking lamps on the subject vehicles provide (and even 
exceed) the requisite outboard visibility under FMVSS 108. Although the 
clearance and identification lamps on the subject walk-in van vehicles 
do not meet two requirements of FMVSS 108, Utilimaster believes that 
the system of lighting as installed on these vehicles meets the intent 
of FMVSS 108 for the purpose of providing a visually safe vehicle. 
Utilimaster bases its position on the fact that the company is using a 
front turn signal and parking lamp which is actually designed to meet 
the greater photometric angles required of turn signal and clearance 
lamp applications.
    More specifically, the front turn signal and parking lamps mounted 
on each side of the front of the walk-in vans provide light out to a 
45-degree angle both left and right instead of the 20-degree angle left 
and right required for parking lamps. The light intensity at these 
greater angles (45 degrees) is 50 percent greater than that required 
for clearance lamps (0.93 cd min. compared with 0.62 cd min. required). 
In addition, these front turn signal/parking lamps are mounted low on 
the subject vehicles so that the light output covers the lower angles 
where the clearance and identification lamps are deficient. Further, 
the front sidemarker lamps cover the 45 degree to the front to 45 
degree to the rear low angles of light, so that there is not any 
degradation of visibility to the side of the vehicle. The light from 
the sidemarker lamps exactly parallels the outboard light from the 
parking lamps.
    The petitioner believes that the noncompliance in no way 
compromises the safety of vehicles on which the clearance and 
identification lamps have been installed as original equipment. The 
lighting system as a whole on these vehicles provides functionally 
equivalent lighting to FMVSS 108 requirements.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the application described above. Comments should refer to 
the docket number and be submitted to : U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, D.C., 20590. It is requested that two copies be 
submitted.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing 
date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting 
materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also 
be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the 
application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment 
closing date: September 13, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: August 8, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-20600 Filed 8-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P