94-8811. AM General Corp.; Receipt of Petition For Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-8811]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: April 13, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    [Docket No. 94-26; Notice 01]
    
     
    
    AM General Corp.; Receipt of Petition For Determination of 
    Inconsequential Noncompliance
    
        AM General Corporation of Livonia, Michigan has determined that 
    some of its vehicles fail to comply with Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of 49 CFR 
    571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, ``Lamps, 
    Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,'' and has filed an 
    appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573. AM General has also 
    petitioned to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements 
    of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et 
    seq.) on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
    relates to motor vehicle safety.
        This notice of receipt of a petition is published under section 157 
    of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) 
    and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of 
    judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
        Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 states in part that ``* * * 
    no part of the vehicle shall prevent * * * any other lamp from meeting 
    the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 
    SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.''
        AM General determined that certain of its 1992-1994 HUMMER vehicles 
    do not meet the requirements of Paragraph S5.3.1.1 in Standard No. 108. 
    The HUMMER is a truck. Its gross vehicle weight rating is 10,300 
    pounds. The noncompliant vehicles were built from July 1992 through 
    February 1994, and are those models equipped with an optional rear-
    mounted, swingaway carrier for a full-size spare tire.
        AM General stated that the HUMMER is required to be equipped with 
    identification lamps at the rear of the vehicle, since the width of the 
    HUMMER exceeds 80 inches. The HUMMER has three identification lamps 
    (left-side, center, and right-side) mounted on a horizontal bar just 
    above the rear bumper. The noncompliance is that the optional spare 
    tire and its carrier, supported by the rear bumper, obstruct some 
    visibility of each of the three identification lamps. On 578 vehicles, 
    built from July 1992 through January 1994, a photometric noncompliance 
    exists at the 10U 45R test point on the right lamp, and the 10U 45L 
    test point on the left and center lamps.
        AM General explained that its solution for this problem was to 
    lower the lamps by 0.75 inch. However, ``[s]ubsequent to implementing 
    this revision, it was discovered that a small hex screw head (\1/4\ x 
    \5/8\) on the spare tire carrier now obstructed the [V 10]D test point 
    on the center lamp with the lamp in the revised lower position.'' The 
    vehicles involved in this second noncompliance were built in February 
    1994. The actual number of vehicles is not known at this time.
        AM General stated it believes the first noncompliance among the 578 
    vehicles is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and 
    offered the following rationale:
    
        The obscuration of the lamps by the wheel/tire assembly affects 
    only a 10 U45 test point for each lamp * * *. [T]his typically 
    reduces the visibility angle from 10 deg. to about 7 deg.. At a 
    following distance of 12 feet in an adjacent lane, this reduces the 
    effective visibility point by less than 8 [inches] * * *.
        The obscuration occurs only in close proximity to the vehicle. 
    Since an identification lamp is a steady-burning market lamp, not a 
    signaling lamp, its function is most important as a vehicle 
    approaches from the rear. For approaching vehicles in which the 
    operator's seating position is high above the ground, such as a bus 
    or a heavy truck, the lamp would be fully visible to the operator 
    until the operator was about 25 [feet] behind. For conventional 
    passenger cars, the lamp will remain visible until the operator is 
    12-15 [feet] behind. (This assumes a go/no go visibility situation. 
    In reality the lower portion of the lamp lens will still be visible 
    at these distances, although the photometric output is reduced).
        The rear surface of the HUMMER is already highly   decorated  
    with  multiple   marker lamps * * *. In addition to the partially 
    obstructed identification lamp(s), at least one identification lamp 
    is always visible from either side. A clearance lamp is supplied on 
    the rear of each fender, as well as two taillamps * * *. With so 
    much prominent lighting on the rear of the vehicle we believe that 
    the loss of visibility of a portion of each lamp in only a very 
    small visibility regime represents no hazard to motor vehicle 
    safety. Any following vehicle in an adjacent lane will have more 
    than sufficient indication of the size and presence of the vehicle.
    
        AM General also stated it believes the second noncompliance among 
    the vehicles built in February 1994 is inconsequential as it relates to 
    motor vehicle safety, and offered the following rationale:
    
        The obscuration of the lamp affects only the V [10]D test point. 
    As described above, the HUMMER is already amply equipped with rear 
    marker lamps, and any following vehicle will have more than adequate 
    notice of the presence of the vehicle.
    
        Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
    arguments on the petition of AM General, described above. Comments 
    should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section, 
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 400 Seventh 
    Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required 
    that six 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 
    petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the 
    Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
        Comment closing date: May 13, 1994.
    
    (15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 
    501.8)
    
        Issued on: April 7, 1994.
    Barry Felrice,
    Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 94-8811 Filed 4-12-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/13/1994
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-8811
Dates:
May 13, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: April 13, 1994, Docket No. 94-26, Notice 01