[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33603-33604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15699]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7739; Notice 2]


Utilimaster Corporation; Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Utilimaster Corporation (Utilimaster) has determined that some of 
its vehicles do not comply with some requirements of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment,'' and has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' 
Utilimaster has also applied to be exempted from the notification and 
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' 
on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Federal 
Register on August 14, 2000 (65 FR 49631). Opportunity was afforded for 
public comment until September 13, 2000. No public comments were 
received.
    Table 1 of FMVSS No. 108, lists motor vehicle lighting equipment, 
other than headlamps, required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, trailers, and buses of 80 or more inches in overall width. The 
requirements for clearance and identifications are contained in Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J592e, ``Clearance, Sidemarker, 
and Identification Lamps,'' July 1972, which is incorporated by 
reference in FMVSS No. 108. SAE J592e requires that these lamps provide 
at least 0.62 candela at 10 degrees down and 45 degrees to the left and 
right.
    Utilimaster determined that, between September 30, 1997 and October 
6, 1999, it produced 2,730 walk-in van trucks that do not comply with 
the aforementioned photometric requirements. These trucks have light 
emitting diode (LED) front clearance and identification lamps mounted 
at a 30 degree off-vertical set-back position. The photometric 
noncompliances were as much as 69 percent below the minimum 
requirement.
    Utilimaster supports its application for inconsequential 
noncompliance by stating that the lighting array and coverage of the 
clearance, identification, side marker and parking lamps on the subject 
vehicles provide (and even exceed) the requisite outboard visibility 
under FMVSS No. 108 on a systems basis. Although the clearance and 
identification lamps on the subject vehicles do not meet two 
requirements in the standard, the petitioner believes that the system 
of lighting as installed on these vehicles meets the standard's intent 
of providing a visually safe vehicle. It bases its position on the fact 
that the company is using a front turn signal and parking lamp that 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. The light intensity at these 
greater angles (45 degrees) is 50 percent greater than that required 
for clearance lamps (0.93 cd minimum compared with 0.62 cd minimum 
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 side marker lamps cover the 45 degree to 
the front to 45 degree to the rear, downward angles of light, so that 
there is no degradation of visibility to the side of the vehicle. The 
light from the side marker lamps exactly parallels the outboard light 
from the parking lamps.
    Utilimaster believes that the noncompliance in no way compromises 
the safety of vehicles on which the clearance and identification lamps 
have

[[Page 33604]]

been installed as original equipment. It claims that the lighting 
system as a whole on these vehicles provides functionally equivalent 
lighting to FMVSS 108 requirements.
    We have reviewed the application and disagree with Utilimaster that 
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Utilimaster replaced an incandescent lamp assembly with one that uses 
LEDs. LEDs emit a very distinct beam of light along their longitudinal 
axis with almost no light being emitted laterally. This is very 
different from incandescent light sources, which usually produce light 
in a much wider pattern. The 30 degree off-vertical set-back position 
of the lamps tilts the top of the LED-equipped lamps too far back for 
them to meet the intensity requirements at 10 degrees down and 45 
degrees to the right and left. With the increasing prevalence of LEDs 
in signal lamp assemblies, we believe it is important to stress to lamp 
and vehicle manufacturers that LED lamp assemblies' different 
characteristics must be taken into account. Simply replacing lamps that 
use incandescent bulbs with similarly-sized LED-equipped lamps could 
have adverse effects on the performance of the lighting system. In this 
case, the subject lamps have photometric failures that are as high as 
69 percent below the required performance.
    To support its application, Utilimaster states that, for the areas 
in which the clearance and identification lamps are possibly 
noncompliant, the parking and side marker lamps provide additional 
light to account for these deficiencies. It states that ``on a system 
basis, the lighting array and coverage of the clearance, 
identification, side marker, and parking lamps on the subject vehicles 
provide--and even exceed--the requisite outboard visibility under FMVSS 
108.'' We disagree that the parking and side marker lamps serve as 
adequate substitutes for the deficient areas in the clearance and 
identification lamps.
    Regarding the clearance lamps, their intended purpose is to show 
the overall width and height of a vehicle. The front parking lamps do 
not accomplish this because they are not near enough to the edge of the 
vehicle nor as high as practicable. We call attention to a September 4, 
1996, agency interpretation that was requested by Pace American, Inc. 
We stated that ``locating a clearance lamp within six to eight inches 
of the outermost edges of a trailer that is 80 or more inches in 
overall width does not indicate `overall width' within the meaning of 
Standard No. 108.'' The center of the front parking lamps on the 
subject vehicles is more than 12 inches from the edge of the vehicle. 
Thus, they do not accurately reflect the width of the vehicle due to 
their inboard mounting. It is also readily apparent that, because the 
parking lamps are mounted next to the headlamps, they do not help to 
indicate the height of the subject vehicles.
    Regarding the identification lamps, their intended purpose is to 
identify vehicles with a width of greater than 80 inches (2032 
millimeters). Utilimaster's argument that the intent of the standard is 
met because the front parking lamps provide light in the areas in which 
the subject identification lamps are deficient is not convincing. The 
grouping of the three identification lamps is unique to vehicles wider 
than 80 inches (2032 millimeters). If these lamps are not visible, the 
front parking lamps are not sufficient to give the same recognition, as 
they do not provide the universal message that a grouping of three 
identification lamps at the top front of the vehicle does.
    To support its position, Utilimaster cites four inconsequential 
noncompliance applications which the agency granted. It believes that 
they all support its position that the lamps on a vehicle should be 
viewed as a system, where deficient areas in some lamps can be 
accounted for with light provided by other lamps. It did not elaborate 
further on the similar characteristics of their applications.
    First, Utilimaster cites a General Motors application in which 
vehicles had turn signals that failed by 10 percent in a particular 
zone (group of test points). The agency granted the application based 
on the fact that the other zones in the turn signal lamp exceed the 
required light output by 20 percent (61 FR 1663). While Utilimaster's 
vehicles do have other sources of light to account for some of the 
deficiencies in the subject lamps, its noncompliances are as much as 69 
percent below the required minimum level. This is far below the level 
of noncompliance exhibited by the vehicles covered by the GM 
application. Further, the additional light in the noncompliant GM turn 
signals is provided from other zones in the same lamp, not by some 
other auxiliary lamp.
    The second application Utilimaster cites also resulted in a grant 
to GM (63 FR 70179). GM produced vehicles in which the center high-
mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) is partially obscured by blackout paint on 
the rear window. One of the reasons the agency gave to support granting 
the application was that the stop lamps on the vehicles ``far exceed 
the minimum photometric performance levels.'' The CHMSL and stop lamps 
are designed to notify other drivers of the same event. The lamps that 
Utilimaster is trying to supplement with additional light from the 
parking lamps have a very specific meaning, which will not be conveyed 
by the front parking lamps.
    Utilimaster cites a third application from GM which involves 
daytime running lamps (DRLs) that were too close to the turn signals. 
In this case, a factor the agency gave in granting the application (64 
FR 28864) was that the turn signal was of greater than usual intensity 
and would not be masked by the DRL. We don't understand how this 
reasoning is relevant to Utilimaster's situation.
    Finally, Utilimaster cites the grant of an application from the 
American Transportation Corporation (ATC) regarding noncompliant air 
brakes (65 FR 1946). The air brake systems did not meet the volumetric 
requirements for the brake chambers. The vehicles' stopping capability 
was not compromised by the noncompliance and the agency granted ATC's 
application based on this. We again don't understand how this reasoning 
is relevant to Utilimaster's situation.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
applicant has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
it describes is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Its 
application is hereby denied, and it must notify and remedy the 
noncompliance as required by the statute.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 
and 501.8)

    Issued on: June 18, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-15699 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P