Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33603

be the First Avenue South Bridge. The

north terminus would be north of the

existing Battery Street Tunnel and will

be determined after project scoping to

(1) not preclude a possible connection

to the south Lake Union vicinity (the

Mercer Street Corridor connection to

Interstate 5), (2) not preclude a possible

realignment of the SR 99 corridor, and

(3) not preclude using the existing

Battery Street Tunnel and existing

Alaskan Way Viaduct facilities.

Improvement to the corridor are

considered necessary because the age,

design, and location of the existing

viaduct make it vulnerable to soil

liquefaction and could render the

structure unusable in a strong

earthquake. Built in the 1950’s, the

viaduct does not meet current seismic

standards. Damage sustained to the

structure during a February 2001

earthquake compounded its seismic

vulnerability. The structure also does

not meet current roadway design

standards for lane widths, shoulders,

and ramp sight distances and tapers,

which contribute to the number and

severity of traffic accidents. Four areas

along this section of SR 99 are

designated High Accident Locations

(HAL). The SR 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct

is one of two primary north-south

limited access routes through

downtown Seattle, and is a vital link in

the region’s roadway system.

Although alternatives have not yet

been identified, preliminary alternatives

under early consideration include:

taking no action, seismic retrofit of the

existing structure, in-kind replacement

of the current structure, replacement

with a new elevated structure of a

different configuration, replacement

with a tunnel, removal of the viaduct

and reconfiguration of the surface street

system, adding transit capacity, or

combinations of these solutions. The list

of alternatives to be addressed in the EIS

will be finalized after scoping has

occurred.

Letters soliciting comments on the

scope of the EIS and describing the

purpose, need, and potential

alternatives will be sent to appropriate

Federal, State, and local agencies,

Tribes, and to private organizations and

citizens who have previously expressed

or are known to have interest in this

proposal. Two meetings will be held to

identify the scope of issues to be

addressed, the major impacts, and the

potential alternatives. Both meetings

will be conducted on June 28, 2001, at

the Mountaineers Club, Olympus Room,

300 Third Avenue West, Seattle,

Washington. The first meeting, from

1:00 to 4:00 p.m., will focus on input

from agencies and Tribes. The second

meeting, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m., will

primarily be for the public. Written

scoping comments may be submitted to

Carol Hunter (WSDOT) at the address

provided above and are requested by

July 12, 2001. In addition, a public

hearing will be held following

circulation of the draft EIS.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues are

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

action and the EIS should be directed to

FHWA or WSDOT or the City of Seattle

at the addresses provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning, and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program.)

Issued on: June 18, 2001.

James A. Leonard,

Urban Transportation and Environmental

Engineer, Olympia, Washington, for the

Division Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–15730 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

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

33604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

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 similarlysized 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

BMW

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This document grants in full

the petition of BMW of North America,

Inc., (BMW) for an exemption of a highVerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:38 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 22JNN1