[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68233-68244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32655]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4813; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF75
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to Standard No. 108, the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, which are intended
to harmonize the geometric visibility requirements of the United States
for signal lamps and reflectors with those of the Economic Commission
for Europe (ECE). Harmonization of motor vehicle safety regulations
worldwide, without reducing safety, would allow manufacturers to
produce products in compliance with a single world vehicle standard
rather than several, thus reducing costs and improving the flow of
trade.
The amendments proposed would adopt either the ECE geometric
visibility specifications or those of the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), as an option to the present requirements. One of these
specifications would be chosen for inclusion in the final rule.
Mandatory compliance with the chosen specification would be required
approximately five years after issuance of the final rule.
This action responds to comments to a notice of proposed rulemaking
published on this subject in 1995, which implemented the grant of a
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Groupe de Travail Bruxelles
1952.
DATES: Comments are due March 10, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number indicated above
and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Van Iderstine, Office of Safety
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5275; FAX: 202-366-4329).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary notice of proposed
rulemaking is based upon a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on October 26, 1995 (60 FR 54833, Docket No. 95-72; Notice
1). The reader is referred to that notice for further background on
this rulemaking action.
Harmonization of Geometric Visibility Requirements
As the NPRM explained, the Groupe de Travail Bruxelles 1952
(``GTB'') is composed of vehicle and lamp manufacturers from Europe,
Japan, and the United States. GTB is an advisory group for the two
organizations operating under the United Nations' Economic Commission
for Europe (ECE) that are involved in establishing motor vehicle
lighting standards: the Meeting of Experts on Lighting and Light
Signalling (GRE) and the Working Party on the Construction of Motor
Vehicles (WP29).
GTB is seeking to ``harmonize'' the geometric visibility
requirements of the United States and Europe through petitioning NHTSA
for an amendment to Standard No. 108, and petitioning GRE and WP29 for
amendments to ECE Regulation No. 48 Uniform Provisions Concerning the
Approval of Vehicles With Regard to the Installation of Lighting and
Light-Signalling Devices (``ECE R48''), specifically ECE R48.01. Under
present lighting regulations, motor vehicle manufacturers must produce
four different lighting packages for the same vehicle in order for it
to be sold in the United States, the United Kingdom, continental
Europe, and Japan. Harmonizing these lighting requirements, without
reducing safety, would reduce costs to manufacturers and purchasers,
and improve the flow of trade.
In its petition of June 15, 1994, GTB asked NHTSA to amend or
introduce geometric visibility requirements for the following lamps and
reflectors: backup lamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, stop lamps
including the center high-mounted stop lamp, parking lamps, taillamps,
rear fog lamps, reflectors (front, intermediate, side, and rear),
marker lamps (front, intermediate, and side), and daytime running
lamps. The petition noted that rear fog lamps are not presently
included in Standard No. 108, and that many items of lighting equipment
are not presently subject to geometric visibility requirements.
The NPRM explained that ``geometric visibility'' is not a defined
term in Standard No. 108. It refers to the visibility of a lamp or
reflector mounted on a vehicle through a range of viewing angles from
left to right, and from up to down, with reference to the lens
centerpoint (e.g., from 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right). With the
exception of the center high-mounted stop lamp (S5.1.1.27), the
geometric visibility requirements for motor vehicle lamps are not set
out in full in the text of Standard No. 108, but are contained in
related SAE Standards that have been incorporated by reference in
Standard No. 108. SAE requirements are not uniform and were adopted on
an ad hoc basis.
The changes that GTB requested would affect passenger cars only,
and would expand the range of visibility requirements for many lamps,
especially turn signal lamps and parking lamps. GTB believed that a
majority of vehicles being sold in the United States in 1994 already
met the requirements. For those that do not, the petitioner suggested
that ``the necessary design changes should not be difficult to
implement, assuming that adequate lead time is provided.''
[[Page 68234]]
The Amendments That NHTSA Proposed in 1995
The NPRM proposed a new paragraph S5.1.1.30, applicable to the
vehicles covered by Tables III and IV (i.e., those less than 2032 mm
(80 inches) in overall width). Proposed S5.1.1.30 would allow continued
conformance to any visibility requirements existing in Standard No. 108
or a requirement for the ``geometric visibility of at least 12.5 square
centimeters for the light-emitting surface through a field of view as
indicated in Table V, except for side marker lamps and reflex
reflectors which have no area requirement.'' Although the petitioner
did not request a phaseout of the existing requirements, the agency
proposed that the existing requirements be phased out in favor of the
harmonized requirements after two years, as part of its effort to
promote the compatibility of standards worldwide. The definition of
``Light-emitting Surface'' that appears in SAE Standard J387
``Terminology, Motor Vehicle Lighting'' would be added and defined to
mean ``that part of the exterior surface of the lens that encloses the
light source and is required for conformance with photometric and
colorimetric requirements.'' This definition was deemed necessary
because the term appeared in the proposed requirement.
The NPRM would have added new Table V to cover 15 items of lighting
equipment (lamps and reflectors), including rear fog lamps. While a
rear fog lamp is not required by Standard No. 108, if a manufacturer
chooses to provide one, the lamp would be required to meet the
geometric visibility requirements (but no other requirements would
apply at the present time).
The visibility requirements were expressed with relation to the
Horizontal (H) and Vertical (V) axes of the lamp or reflector. As an
example, the geometric visibility requirement for a front turn signal
lamp would be that it should be seen through a range from minus 45
degrees to plus 45 degrees at Horizontal, and minus 15 degrees to plus
15 degrees at Vertical.
NHTSA, however, did not propose to adopt ECE's backup lamp
geometric visibility requirements because of a possibly adverse effect
on safety. Standard No. 108 requires that the center of the backup lamp
lens be seen from anywhere on a vertical transverse plane located 3
feet behind the vehicle and extending 3 feet on either side of the
vehicle, starting from 2 feet and ending at 6 feet above the road
surface. For a minivan whose backup lamps are about 33 inches above the
road surface, Standard No. 108's requirements creates upward visibility
angles greater than 45 degrees. For passenger cars with lower lamp
heights, the angles are even larger. Allowing these angles to be as
small as ECE's 15 degrees upward would allow a significant reduction in
the ability of a pedestrian to see the lamp's signal.
In its efforts to promote worldwide compatibility of standards,
NHTSA also proposed to allow amber as an optional color for rear side
marker lamps and reflectors, in addition to the red which has been
required for vehicles sold in the United States.
Another aspect of motor vehicle lighting that NHTSA thought could
be appropriate for harmonization was the regulation of front and rear
fog lamps. These are not items of motor vehicle equipment mandated by
Standard No. 108. They are regulated by the States as each jurisdiction
deems appropriate. NHTSA had no information as to the extent that
European and Japanese manufacturers must modify the fog lamps and their
installations on their vehicles in order to meet the regulations of the
States. The NPRM asked whether NHTSA should assert its jurisdiction
over that aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance and specify
performance requirements (in addition to geometric visibility) for
front and rear fog lamps as optional equipment, that would preempt
State regulations and could afford windows of harmonization with the
ECE standards. The performance requirements that appeared appropriate
to NHTSA were those of SAE Standard J583 JUN93 ``Front Fog Lamps'' and
SAE Standard J1319 JUN93 ``Fog Tail Lamp''.
Responses to the 1995 Proposal; the 1998 SNPRM
There were 25 commenters to the notice: GTB (the petitioner), Truck
Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), Nissan N.A., Osram-Sylvania (O-S),
David Cameron of Embry-Riddle Aero. Univ. (Cameron), Chrysler
Corporation (Chrysler), Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety
(Advocates), Mercedes-Benz of N.A. (MBNA), GE Lighting (GE), Koito Mfg.
Co. (Koito), Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A. (Fiat), Porsche Cars North America
(Porsche), American Honda Motor Co. (Honda), Ichikoh Industries
(Ichikoh), Wisconsin DOT (WDOT), United States Motorcycle Manufacturers
Association (USMMA), Sierra Products (Sierra), Hella Inc. (Hella),
Volvo Cars of N.A. (Volvo), Volkswagen (VW), G.J.M. Meekel (Chairman,
GRE), and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA).
Front and rear fog lamps: On the issue of federal regulation of
front and rear fog lamps, those who commented were unanimous in their
support for regulation. This issue has been addressed separately by a
termination notice to assure NHTSA the freedom to pursue efforts with
industry to achieve internationally harmonized performance that can be
adopted in the future in the lighting standard (62 FR 8883, February
27, 1997).
Amber color for rear side marker and reflex reflectors: There was
significantly mixed opinion on whether amber should be an alternative
to red as a color for rear side marker and reflex reflectors. TSEI
strongly opposed allowing amber for side-mounted devices at the rear,
especially for large trucks. It argued that at night the only true
indicator of the end of the vehicle is a red lamp at the end of a
string of amber lamps down the side of the vehicle. The agency agrees
that this is an important point and that it ought to be especially
cautious in permitting a color change for rear side markers and reflex
reflectors on large vehicles or trailers.
Cameron did not specifically comment for or against this proposal.
However, he argued that the only red lamps on a vehicle should be stop
lamps and that all other lamps could be white or amber. This infers he
would support amber for the rear side marker lamps and reflectors.
AAMA agreed with amber as a rear marker color for light duty
vehicles and saw no safety issues involved with the change.
Advocates strongly opposed allowing amber, stating that there are
no data on which to make such a monumental change to safety policy, and
suggested a supplemental NPRM that would discuss the issue in depth.
The agency does not agree that there were no data presented supporting
the proposal. There is a research report titled ``Side Marker Lamps for
Passenger Cars'', TNO Defense Research, TM 1994 C-14, by Jan Theeuwes
and J.W.A.M. Alferdink. The report supports the use of a system of
front and rear amber side marker lamps. It studied the likelihood of
vehicles with amber markers being recognized earlier than non-amber-
equipped vehicles, and concluded that there would be a safety benefit.
Notwithstanding this report, NHTSA believes that a significant
change in the standardized signals used by vehicles in the United
States for many years should be accompanied by additional supportive
data. The study cited above does not contain data indicating whether it
is important for drivers to know which end of a vehicle is about to
emerge into their path. That is the key issue here.
[[Page 68235]]
Additionally, the European system of all-amber side marker lamps
and reflex reflectors is very different from the U.S. system of amber
at the front (and at intermediate positions on long vehicles) and red
at the rear. Only vehicles longer than 6 meters (19.5 ft.) in Europe
are required to have side marker lamps and reflex reflectors. For all
other vehicles, these devices are optional. Because of this, the
European vehicle fleet has virtually no light duty vehicles with side
marker lamps and reflectors. Even when fitted, the mounting location is
appreciably different than in the U.S. In Europe, the devices must be
located in the first third of the vehicle on the side and in the last
third of the vehicle on the side. This contrasts significantly with the
requirement of Standard No. 108 that the devices be located as far
forward or as far rearward as practicable.
Given these major differences and the lack of data noted above,
NHTSA has decided to terminate rulemaking that would allow an option of
providing amber rear side marker lamps and reflectors.
Geometric Visibility
The NPRM proposed to add most of the harmonized geometric
visibility requirements requested by GTB. However, the agency did not
propose to incorporate the intensity measurement method for determining
geometric visibility that is currently used in ECE Regulation 48.
Instead, NHTSA proposed to determine geometric visibility based on a
projected lens area measurement method, which is the approach long used
in Standard No. 108. As noted above, the agency had decided not to
reference Regulation 48 in its proposal.
All but one of the commenters agreed that the proposed GTB
alternative geometric visibility requirements would be acceptable as an
alternative. However, many commented that NHTSA should have proposed to
have the ECE intensity measurement method as an alternative method to
the proposed area measurement method as a way of determining geometric
visibility. Others noted that the current SAE standards have different
and smaller angles of geometric visibility for turn signal and parking
lamps, and for reflex reflectors. Advocates did not agree with the
proposal and asked for a supplemental NPRM that would discuss the
issues in depth.
Mercedes, Koito, Fiat, Honda, Ichikoh, Sierra, GTB, Volvo,
Volkswagen, Meekel, and AAMA all asked the agency to include the ECE
intensity measurement method as an alternative method of determining
geometric visibility. Essentially, this method determines the geometric
visibility of a lamp by measuring the intensity of the lamp's
illumination throughout the range of the defined geometric visibility
angles. To determine compliance, a test of intensity is performed with
the test lamp installed in the vehicle or an appropriate part thereof
to assure that the intensity is available at the pertinent locations,
irrespective of the remainder of the vehicle body design and its
potential for blocking the signal. In Europe, this typically entails
having a working prototype or production lamp and testing it on a real
or simulated vehicle body. Testing cannot be conducted until after
significant development and prototyping of both the lamp and vehicle
are completed.
The intensity measurement method contrasts with the area
measurement method, long used in Standard No. 108. This method
specifies a minimum projected luminous lens area of the lamp as
installed on the vehicle which must be seen throughout the prescribed
visibility angles. While testing can be performed on a prototype
vehicle as in the European method, the advantage of the American method
is that compliance can be judged by the manufacturer by using only
computer-generated engineering drawings at a time in the vehicle
development stage long before any actual hardware is produced. This
helps achieve a greater certainty of production compliance and fewer
running changes than the use of the intensity measurement method.
TSEI recommended that NHTSA adopt the contemporary SAE standards
for geometric visibility performance, instead of a version of the ECE
requirements. The SAE standard permits the manufacturer to choose a
geometric visibility either based on area or on intensity, but
specifies an inboard (toward the center of the vehicle) angle for turn
signals and parking lamps of 20 degrees and not 45 degrees as in the
European standard and GTB's requested table (the comments of Nissan and
O-S agreed). TSEI also recommended deletion of reflex reflectors
from the proposal because it considers the 45 degree horizontal angle
to be too large.
The issue of adopting contemporary standards is timely, because the
agency intends to incorporate the latest versions of all currently
referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in a comprehensive revision
of Standard No. 108 to be proposed late in 1998. Consequently, the
agency will need to decide whether to require the SAE angles or the
GTB/ECE angles and whether or when they should become mandatory. It is
not necessary for this supplemental NPRM to decide this issue, but only
to propose that the SAE values be considered as well as the GTB/ECE
values. The SAE values are similar to the GTB/ECE values except for the
turn signal lamps, parking lamps, and reflex reflectors as mentioned
above. With adequate lead time either the SAE values or the GTB/ECE
values could become mandatory, with the GTB/ECE values for those lamps
slightly more difficult to meet because of aerodynamically shaped
front-ends of vehicles, but offering greater visibility to vehicles at
intersections.
TSEI's comment that the reflex reflector angle of 45 degrees is too
large is based upon the fact that Standard No. 108 requires reflex
reflector performance only to angles of 20 degrees left and right. Thus
requiring these devices to be seen at 45 degrees would, in TSEI's view,
make the angle too large for visibility needs. However, current reflex
reflectors provide light return at angles larger than 20 degrees, often
out to 30 degrees. Thus, logic would suggest that geometric visibility
should be something greater than just the photometric performance of
the reflector. Also, it should be noted that the contemporary SAE
Standard J2041 Reflex Reflectors for use on Vehicles 2032 mm or More in
Width, specifies reflective performance to the left and right of 45
degrees. It would appear that the geometric visibility of reflex
reflectors on wider vehicles would of necessity also be at least 45
degrees or larger to the left and right. While these J2041 devices are
not yet specified for all wide vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires all
trailers over 10,000 pounds GVWR to be equipped with conspicuity
treatment that replaces normally required reflex reflectors and that
provides retroreflective performance out to 45 degrees on the side and
rear. In summary, geometric visibility angles larger than required for
the specified photometric performance are appropriate for improving
vehicle conspicuity. The ECE values are reasonable for all vehicles and
TSEI's objection is not persuasive.
Nissan commented that 45 degree inboard geometric visibility for
parking and front turn signal lamps is too large to be practicable and
too costly. The fronts of vehicles are becoming more rounded and may
present difficulty in meeting inboard (toward the vehicle center)
visibility angles, especially if the design incorporates recessed lens
faces for front park and turn lamps. The front fascia toward the center
of the vehicle can become obstructive to a lamp's light
[[Page 68236]]
emission, and impair its geometric visibility. The 45-degree inboard
requirement for parking lamps and front and rear turn signal lamps has
existed in the ECE regulations for many years with the requirement
being a minimum of 0.05 and 0.3 candela respectively. Only recently as
a result of GTB action did the ECE regulation accept the area
measurement method for the narrower geometric visibility angles typical
of SAE standards. When the ECE regulations changed, the inboard angles
became 45 degrees at a time when the SAE angles were zero inboard. More
recently, the SAE changed inboard angles to 20 degrees. This is the
angle in the current SAE standards and the angle that Nissan, and the
other commenters on this issue, TSEI and O-S, prefer. Permitting
the inboard angle to be 20 degrees would make the requirement less
costly. However, the argument about practicability appears not well
taken, since millions of cars are produced annually in Europe that meet
the 45 degrees inboard requirement.
The GTB, Koito, Fiat and Ichikoh commented that for the rear turn
signal lamps, there appeared to be an error in that the proposed values
were -15 to +45 degrees instead of the more typical -45 to +45 degrees
range. This has been corrected in the proposed tables.
The NPRM proposed a new definition of ``light-emitting surface.''
This is refined in the supplementary NPRM. NHTSA now proposes slightly
different definitions of lens area and uses those definitions in the
proposed specifications for geometric visibility. NHTSA also intends to
use these definitions in its anticipated forthcoming administrative
revision of Standard No. 108.
With respect to the first term, NHTSA proposes a redefinition of
``effective projected luminous lens area.'' This is currently defined
as:
that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp
axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs
light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include mounting
hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or
produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of
uncontrolled light from small areas \1/2\ deg. radius around the
test point).
Under the proposal, ``effective projected luminous lens area'' would be
redefined as:
the area of the projection of the effective light-emitting surface
of a lamp on a plane specified to define the functional lighted lens
area or the geometric visibility of the lamp.
This requires a definition of the term ``effective light-emitting
surface.'' Under the proposal, this term would be defined to mean:
that portion of the light-emitting surface of a lamp that directs
light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include mounting
hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or
produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of
uncontrolled light from an area of \1/2\ degree radius around a test
point.
These two definitions are taken directly from the existing definition
of ``effective projected luminous lens area'' quoted above. The
revision is considered necessary to clarify what lamp parts constitute
the measurable surface of a lamp lens and how the area of that surface
is specified. Essentially, there is no substantive change.
The NPRM had proposed that any changes to geometric visibility be
applied to vehicles of overall width less than 2032 mm (80 in.). This
was in response to GTB which had asked that the changes apply to
passenger cars. In the U.S., the present geometric visibility
requirements apply to all motor vehicles. NHTSA decided to extend GTB's
request to cover all vehicles that are like passenger cars in terms of
required lighting (i.e., those covered by Tables III and IV of Standard
No. 108, except for motorcycles). However, doing so would leave wider
vehicles (those covered by Tables I and II of Standard No. 108) subject
to the present requirement after the 5-year phase-in period. NHTSA
views it as inconsistent and illogical to have different visibility
requirements based on whether a vehicle's overall width is less or
greater than 2032 mm (80 in.). Motorcycles and wider vehicles should be
afforded the same safety and harmonization benefits that passenger car-
like vehicles will have upon completion of this rulemaking. Having a
single requirement for the geometric visibility of lighting devices
installed on all vehicles, one that is more objective than the present
requirement, should enhance safety and simplify the compliance
responsibility of manufacturers. Consequently, the proposals in this
notice cover wider vehicles as well as narrower ones.
In summary, the agency is requesting comments on two proposals for
geometric visibility, but will adopt only one. The first proposal would
amend Standard No. 108 to add S5.1.1.30 and Tables V and VI (the GTB/
ECE specifications for lens area and luminous intensity).
Alternatively, Standard No. 108 would be amended to add a different
S5.1.1.31 and different Tables VII and VIII (the specifications of the
SAE for lens area and luminous intensity). This nomenclature
(S5.1.1.30, Tables V and VI or the alternative S5.1.1.31 and Tables VII
and VIII) has been chosen for the NPRM to distinguish one proposal from
the other. The final rule, of course, will adopt the new paragraph and
Tables in the sequence that exists at the time of the final rule. For
five years after adoption of the final rule, a manufacturer would be
allowed to comply with either the lens area or luminous intensity
geometric visibility specifications of the alternative adopted, or the
visibility requirements that currently exist in Standard No. 108. The
agency is proposing that the new requirements become mandatory
approximately 5 years after the final rule is published, and that
compliance with the current requirements would no longer be permitted
after that date. Thus, after that 5-year period, manufacturers would be
required to meet the geometric visibility requirements specified in the
final rule for either lens area or luminous intensity of the
alternative adopted.
The agency wishes to give notice that, once a manufacturer has
chosen a visibility option and certifies compliance to it, the agency
will regard that choice as irrevocable. Failure to comply with the
option selected will constitute a noncompliance warranting notification
and remedy as required by statute. However, if the manufacturer
complies when its lamps are tested to another visibility option, that
fact would afford a basis for seeking an inconsequentiality
determination which, if granted, would relieve it from its obligation
to notify and remedy.
Lead Time
Many did not comment on the issue of lead time. Of those who did,
AAMA did not want a mandatory requirement, Chrysler asked for lead time
enough for vehicle production life cycles. O-S and GTB requested at
least four years; Nissan and Ichikoh wanted five years and TSEI asked
for ten. Choosing to have alternatives added to the existing
requirements would do little to improve the visibility of signals,
unless it were in the best interest of manufacturers to build a single
vehicle for the world market. The fact that some commenters do not want
the newly harmonized requirements to be mandatory implies that they are
not so much interested in harmonization as they are in being able to
pick whatever requirement suits their needs. NHTSA believes that this
rulemaking action presents an opportunity to provide better performance
while helping to reduce costs through harmonization. For the reasons
discussed above, NHTSA has decided to issue this supplemental NPRM
which proposes to allow a manufacturer to choose one of two
[[Page 68237]]
methods to be used for determining compliance with the proposed
geometric visibility requirements. Either method would achieve a lamp
whose signal is visible at the requisite angles.
Proposed Effective Date
The amendments would be effective 30 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. At that time, manufacturers would
have the option until the fifth September 1st following the issuance of
the final rule to conform to either the present or the harmonized
geometric visibility requirements. On and after the fifth September
1st, manufacturers would have to comply with the harmonized
specifications. As noted previously, it is likely that many of the
proposed requirements are already being met by manufacturers selling in
world markets.
However, when compliance with the final rule becomes mandatory, it
will affect U.S. vehicle lines that are not sold in world markets.
NHTSA therefore seeks comments on the appropriateness of a 5-year
leadtime for mandatory compliance with the final rule, and a discussion
of related costs or other impacts upon the commenter.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. The purpose of the rulemaking action is to clarify an
existing requirement and to harmonize regulations. It is anticipated
that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. Vehicles presently selling
in world markets are presumed to comply with the proposed rule. NHTSA
has asked for comments on the costs and other impacts associated with a
5-year leadtime for mandatory compliance of those vehicles not
presently complying. This could involve relocation of certain lamps and
reflectors and associated sheet metal changes, or redesign of lamps or
reflectors. These could be easily accommodated within the present or
next design cycle. If the comments received indicate that the impacts
are more than minimal, NHTSA will prepare a full regulatory evaluation
before issuing a final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the
environment. The composition of lighting equipment would not change
from those presently in production.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601
et seq). I certify that this rulemaking action would not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The proposed amendment would
primarily affect manufacturers of motor vehicles. Manufacturers of
motor vehicles are generally not small businesses within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small
business in part as a business entity ``which operates primarily within
the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)) SBA's size standards are
organized according to Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC),
SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small
business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.
For manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA
estimates there are at most five small manufacturers of passenger cars
in the U.S. Because each manufacturer serves a niche market, often
specializing in replicas of ``classic'' cars, production for each
manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per year. Thus, there are at most
500 cars manufactured per year by U.S. small businesses.
In contrast, in 1998, there are approximately nine large
manufacturers producing passenger cars, and light trucks in the U.S.
Total U.S. manufacturing production per year is approximately 15 to 15
and a half million passenger cars and light trucks per year. NHTSA does
not believe small businesses manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S.
passenger car and light truck production per year.
Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would
not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles ought not
to change as the result of a final rule based upon this supplemental
NPRM.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. However, for the first time, Standard No. 108
would impose an affirmative compliance obligation upon fog lamps, that
of geometric visibility. This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b),
states would be preempted from having geometric visibility requirements
for fog lamps that differ from those of Standard No. 108 under a final
rule. Heretofore, regulation of fog lamps has been entirely a matter of
state law (unless they impaired the effectiveness of lighting equipment
required by Standard No. 108, in which event they were not allowed
(S5.1.3, 49 CFR 571.108)).
Civil Justice
A final rule based on this proposal would not have any retroactive
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. Because this proposed rule would not have a $100
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.
Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
[[Page 68238]]
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.108 would be amended by:
a. adding to paragraph S4, in alphabetical order, a new definition
of ``Effective light-emitting surface,'' and revising the definition of
``Effective projected luminous lens area,'' and
b. adding new paragraph S5.1.1.30 and new Tables V and VI, the new
Tables to follow Table IV and to precede the Note to the standard, or
c. adding new paragraph S5.1.1.31 and new Tables VII and VIII, the
new Tables to follow Table IV and to precede the Note to the standard,
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Effective light-emitting surface means that portion of the light-
emitting surface of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test
pattern, and does not include mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector
area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased
intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of \1/2\
degree radius around a test point.
Effective projected luminous lens area means the area of the
projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane
specified to define the functional lighted lens area or the geometric
visibility of the lamp.
* * * * *
S5.1.1.30. This paragraph specifies geometric visibility
requirements that apply to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, trailer, bus, and motorcycle.
(a) Each vehicle to which this section applies shall have each lamp
or reflex reflector installed in a location such that each lamp or
reflex reflector complies with its individual photometric intensity
requirements.
(b) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured
on or after [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final
rule] shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (d) or of
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured
before [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final rule]
shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d), paragraph (e) or
with the requirements of S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1 for geometric
visibility.
(d) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with
any lamp listed in Table V, other than a side-marker lamp, not less
than 12.5 square centimeters of the lamp's effective projected luminous
lens area shall be visible when viewed from any point in the field of
view indicated in Table V for each such lamp. Some portion of side
marker lamps and reflex reflectors shall be visible when viewed from
any point in the field of view indicated in Table V for each such side
marker lamp and reflex reflector.
(e) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with
any lamp or reflector listed in Table VI, each such lamp or reflector
shall provide, in accordance with Table VI, the minimum luminous
intensity in candela through the field of view specified for it.
(f) The manufacturer of a vehicle shall certify to only one of the
compliance options specified in paragraphs (a) through (e), and it may
not thereafter choose a different option for that vehicle.
S5.1.1.31 This section specifies geometric visibility requirements
that apply to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle,
truck, trailer, bus, and motorcycle.
(a) Each motor vehicle to which this section applies shall have
each lamp or reflex reflector installed in a location such that each
lamp or reflex reflector complies with its individual photometric
intensity requirements.
(b) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured
on or after [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final
rule] shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (d) or of
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured
before [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final rule]
shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d), paragraph (e), or
with the requirements of S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1 for geometric
visibility.
(d) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with
any lamp listed in Table VII, other than a side-marker lamp, not less
than 13 square centimeters of the lamp's effective projected luminous
lens area shall be visible when viewed from any point in the field of
view indicated in Table VII for each such lamp. Some portion of side
marker lamps and reflex reflectors shall be visible when viewed from
any point in the field of view indicated in Table VII for each such
side marker lamp and reflex reflector.
(e) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with
any lamp or reflector listed in Table VIII, each such lamp or reflector
shall provide, in accordance with Table VIII, the minimum luminous
intensity in candela through the field of view specified for it.
(f) The manufacturer of a vehicle shall certify to only one of the
compliance options specified in paragraphs (a) through (e), and it may
not thereafter
[[Page 68239]]
choose a different option for that vehicle.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 68240]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.005
[[Page 68241]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.006
[[Page 68242]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.007
[[Page 68243]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.008
[[Page 68244]]
Issued on: November 24, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-32655 Filed 12-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
