[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45895-45899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21682]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-6010]
RIN 2127-AH18
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment includes a provision regulating
headlamp concealment devices. In this document, NHTSA amends that
Standard so that manufacturers of motor vehicles with headlamp
concealment devices may choose between complying with that existing
provision, or with a new provision incorporating by reference the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's standard (ECE standard)
on those devices.
This rulemaking was initiated in response to a petition from the
domestic and foreign motor vehicle industry. Our notice of proposed
rulemaking was based on our tentative conclusion, after reviewing the
U.S. and UN/ECE requirements, that the UN/ECE requirements were
essentially identical to the U.S. requirements and thus would yield at
least as much safety benefit as the U.S. requirements. Since NHTSA did
not receive any response to its request for public comments, the agency
reaffirms that conclusion and adopts the proposed amendment as final.
DATES: Effective date. This rule is effective October 22, 1999. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 22, 1999.
Early compliance date. You have the option of early compliance with
the changes made in this final rule beginning August 23, 1999.
Petitions for reconsideration deadline. If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this final rule, you must submit it so that we
(NHTSA) receive your petition not later than October 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: In your petition for reconsideration, you should refer to
the docket number for this action (cited in the heading of this final
rule) and submit the petition to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact the following persons
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues: Mr. Patrick Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance. Mr.
Boyd's telephone number is: (202) 366-6346, and his FAX number is (202)
493-2739.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel. Ms.
Nakama's telephone number is (202) 366-2992, and her FAX number is
(202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The United States is a party to several international agreements,
including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement
was most recently amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements. One of those
agreements is the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The
TBT Agreement seeks to avoid the creation of unnecessary obstacles to
trade, while recognizing the right of signatory countries to establish
and maintain technical regulations for the protection of human, animal
and plant life and health and the environment.
Among other things, the TBT Agreement also provides that a party to
the Agreement will consider accepting as equivalent the technical
regulations of other party nations, provided they adequately fulfill
the objectives of the party's existing domestic standards. On May 13,
1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
amended 49 CFR part 553, Rulemaking Procedures, by adding a new
appendix B setting forth a statement of policy about an agency process
for making tentative findings that the vehicle safety standards of
other countries are functionally equivalent to the corresponding
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) (63 FR 26508).
[[Page 45896]]
In a submission dated August 13, 1997, the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), petitioned the agency to amend
several FMVSSs to permit vehicle manufacturers to choose to comply with
either the existing provisions of those FMVSSs or new provisions
incorporating by reference the requirements of counterpart vehicle
safety standards recognized in most European countries. These European
standards take the form of European Union directives and are usually
taken from a body of standards developed by the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).
The first test used by NHTSA under appendix B of part 553 to
determine functional equivalence is whether the foreign requirements,
test conditions, and test procedures appear to be the same or similar
to the U.S. ones, with any differences being minor and lacking in
safety consequences. In its review, NHTSA tentatively concluded that
the European requirements for headlamp concealment devices passed this
test. The fundamental performance requirements of the U.S. and European
standards are the same. Further, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the
differences between the standards are minor and inconsequential to
safety except for vehicles equipped with headlamps for which external
aimers must be used to aim them properly. These issues are further
discussed below.
Fundamental Performance Requirements and Inconsequential
Differences
Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment, and ECE R.48.01 are alike in all important respects.
Standard No. 108, at S12., Headlamp Concealment Devices, specifies
requirements for vehicles equipped with headlamp concealment devices.
It requires that there be a single switch whose operation, in normal
circumstances, causes both the headlamps to illuminate and the headlamp
concealment device to fully open in not more than 3 seconds, at any
temperature within a range of -30 to +50 degrees Celsius. In ECE
R.48.01, Paragraphs 5.14.3 and 5.14.5 set forth the same requirements.
Standard No. 108 also requires certain failsafe performance of
headlamp concealment devices. In the event of a loss of power to a
headlamp concealment device while the headlamp is illuminated, the
headlamp must stay in the fully open position. Also, in the event of a
malfunction of a component that controls or conducts power for the
actuation of the concealment device, it must be possible to open the
concealment device without the use of tools and have it stay fully open
until intentionally closed. Paragraph 5.14.2 of ECE R.48.01 requires
the same fail-safe performance.
In its review of Standard No. 108 and the ECE Standard, the agency
noted several differences between the two standards. First, Standard
No. 108 requires that a headlamp concealment device be installed so
that the headlamp may be mounted, aimed and adjusted without removing
any component of the device, other than components of the headlamp
assembly. There is no comparable provision in the ECE standard. This
requirement in Standard No. 108 addresses a potential aiming problem
that could affect safety. Unless properly designed, a headlamp
concealment device could potentially interfere with the use of external
aimers. These devices, which are used to aim some kinds of U.S.
headlamps, attach to the outside of the headlamp lens. If such
interference occurred and if the component were removed to allow
aiming, and then were replaced, the accuracy of the aim could be
adversely affected. Alternatively, efforts to aim the headlamps without
removing the interfering components could result in improper shortcuts
in aiming. To address this difference between the two standards, NHTSA
is limiting the applicability of its finding of functional equivalence
to headlamps that do not use external aimers.
Second, NHTSA noted that the ECE standard does not have a phrase
analogous to Standard No. 108's S12.3 and S12.5 ``except for
malfunctions covered by S12.2,'' that make it expressly clear S12.3 and
S12.5 apply only to functioning systems. NHTSA concluded that the ECE
standard was intended to apply to functioning systems only and that the
ECE standard alternative should be so interpreted. The alternative
would not require systems with a failure mode to comply with
performance requirements in addition to the failsafe performance
requirements.
Third, NHTSA noted several ECE standard provisions that have no
parallel in S12 of Standard No. 108. However, compliance with those
provisions does not affect compliance with S12. Consequently, there is
no impediment to a finding of functional equivalence.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on October 28, 1998
(63 FR 57638), NHTSA proposed to amend Standard No. 108 so that
manufacturers of motor vehicles with headlamp concealment devices would
have a choice between complying with existing provisions in Standard
No. 108 or meeting a new provision incorporating by reference the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's standard (ECE standard)
on headlamp concealment devices. In the NPRM, NHTSA discussed its
review of the ECE standard under appendix B of 49 CFR part 553, and
addressed the following issues:
ECE Standard Meets Part 553, Appendix B Test
NHTSA tentatively concluded that paragraph 5.14 of ECE R.48.01
meets the test in 49 CFR Part 553 Appendix B and accordingly proposed
to amend Standard No. 108 to permit manufacturers of motor vehicles
with headlamp concealment devices to choose between complying with
S12.1 through S12.5 of Standard No. 108, or with a new provision (S12.6
of Standard No. 108) incorporating by reference paragraph 5.14 of ECE
R. 48.01. NHTSA proposed to limit optional compliance with the ECE
standard to vehicles using either a new U.S. alternative beam pattern
which allows European-style visual/optical aim or a headlamp with a
built-in aimer (VHAD) that eliminates the need for external aimers.
NHTSA stated its belief that there is no safety consequence to the lack
of a provision in paragraph 5.14 addressing the interference problem
that may be associated with the use of external aimers.
Vehicle Manufacturer's Certification
NHTSA noted that, when a safety standard provides manufacturers
with more than one compliance option, the agency needs to know which
option has been selected in order to conduct a compliance test.
Moreover, based on previous experience with enforcing standards that
include compliance options, the agency stated it was aware that a
manufacturer confronted with an apparent noncompliance for the option
it has selected (based on a compliance test) may respond by arguing
that its vehicles comply with a different option for which the agency
has not conducted a compliance test. This shift in a manufacturer's
stance creates obvious difficulties for the agency in managing its
available resources for carrying out its enforcement responsibilities,
e.g., the possible need to conduct multiple compliance tests, first for
one compliance option, then for another, to
[[Page 45897]]
determine whether there is a noncompliance.
Accordingly, NHTSA proposed that prior to or at the time a
manufacturer certifies that a vehicle with headlamp concealment devices
meets all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR part 567,
Certification), the manufacturer must decide whether it is certifying
that vehicle as meeting S12.1 through S12.5 or the ECE standard (that
would be established in S12.6). NHTSA further proposed that the
selected alternative need not be stated on the certification label.
However, the manufacturer must advise the agency of its selection when
asked by the agency to do so. The manufacturer's decision would be
irrevocable.
NHTSA's Choice of European Standard to Reference
Most of the harmonized standards among the countries of the
European Union (EU) were developed as ECE regulations and later adopted
as EU directives. Consequently, the same standards are known under both
ECE regulation numbers and EU directive numbers. The petitioner asked
that both the ECE and EU numbers for the identical technical
requirements be cited as alternatives to the requirements of Standard
No. 108. However, NHTSA proposed that only one reference to the
European standard be cited to avoid confusion and to reduce the
potential need for amendments to updated versions of European
standards. NHTSA must reference only one European standard (and make
that standard publicly available) to meet the Federal Register's
procedures for incorporating documents by reference.
NHTSA stated its intent to cite the ECE regulation when possible
because the ECE is a body in which the U.S. participates, and also its
regulations may be adopted by countries outside of the European Union
as well. The agency understands that it will not always be possible to
cite an ECE standard because some EU directives with possible potential
for being treated as functionally equivalent alternatives to Federal
motor vehicle safety standards have no ECE counterpart.
Proposed Leadtime
NHTSA proposed that, if made final, the changes would take effect
60 days after the publication of the final rule, with manufacturers
given the option to comply with (and certify to) the ECE standard for
headlamp concealment devices, immediately.
Final Rule
NHTSA did not receive any comments on its proposal. Accordingly,
the agency adopts its proposal as set forth in the NPRM. NHTSA
concludes that paragraph 5.14 of ECE R.48.01 meets the test established
in 49 CFR part 553 appendix B for determining functional equivalence;
i.e., that the agency's analysis of paragraph 5.14 indicates that its
requirements are the same or similar to the requirements of S12.1
through S12.5 of Standard No. 108. The differences are minor and
lacking in safety consequences for vehicles equipped with headlamps for
which external aimers must be used to aim them properly. Accordingly,
NHTSA restricts the option of complying with the ECE regulation to
manufacturers of vehicles using either a new U.S. alternative beam
pattern which allows European-style visual/optical aim or a headlamp
with a built-in aimer (VHAD) that eliminates the need for external
aimers.
The final rule requires that, not later than the time when a
manufacturer certifies that a vehicle with headlamp concealment devices
meets all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR part 567,
Certification), the manufacturer must decide whether the basis for its
certification is that the vehicle meets S12.1 through S12.5 of Standard
No. 108 or S12.6 (incorporating the ECE regulation). Although the
selected alternative need not be stated on the certification label, the
manufacturer must advise the agency of its selection when asked by the
agency to do so. The manufacturer's decision is irrevocable.
Before issuing this final rule, NHTSA obtained the latest version
of the ECE regulation directly from the ECE rather than relying on the
petitioners' version (the version proposed in the NPRM). The version
provided by the ECE is identical to the petitioner's version except
that a typographical error in Paragraph 5.15.5 (found in the
petitioner's version) does not appear in the version NHTSA received
from the ECE. Accordingly, in the final rule, the citation of ECE R48
proposed for S12.6 (of Standard No. 108) is updated to E/ECE/324--E/
ECE/TRAN/505, Rev. 1/Add.47/Rev.1/Corr.2, 26 February 1996.
Regulatory Impacts
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O.
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E. O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' We have determined that this
action is not ``significant'' under DOT's regulatory policies and
procedures. This final rule has no substantive effect on manufacturers
of motor vehicles that have headlamp concealment devices. The ECE
standard on headlamp concealment devices that is included in the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not differ substantively
from existing requirements. Vehicle manufacturers will not incur
additional costs as a result of meeting any new requirements. The
impacts of this action are so minor that a full regulatory evaluation
for this final rule has not been prepared.
B. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-112, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
NHTSA is not aware of a standard established by the SAE or other
private organization that would apply to the same aspect of performance
as the headlamp concealment lamp provisions of Standard No. 108. ECE
Regulation 48 is not a voluntary consensus standard.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is
NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification. (5
U.S.C. 605(b)).
The final rule affects passenger car, light truck, and multipurpose
passenger vehicle manufacturers that have headlamp concealment devices
on the vehicles they manufacture. The Small Business Administration's
size standards (13 CFR part 121) are organized according to Standard
[[Page 45898]]
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.
The final rule applies to the previously described vehicle
manufacturers, regardless of their volume of production. There is no
significant economic impact on any vehicle manufacturer because no
manufacturer is required to provide headlamp concealment devices. There
is no economic impact on manufacturers that already provide the devices
because the devices meet the existing headlamp concealment device
requirements in Standard No. 108, and NHTSA concludes that the ECE
standard does not differ substantively from that Standard. The final
rule permits vehicle manufacturers to choose between certifying that
the vehicle with a headlamp concealment device meets the previously
existing requirements in the Standard or the ECE standard now
incorporated in the Standard. NHTSA does not believe there will be a
cost advantage to certifying to one set of requirements over the other.
D. Environmental Impacts
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the agency has considered the environmental impacts of this final rule
and determined that the rule does not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
E. Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have a 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. 301651 sets forth a procedure for judicial review
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings is not required before parties may file suit
in court.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 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 final rule does not have a $100
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.
H. Economically Significant Effects on Children
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. Further, nothing in
the final rule establishes an environmental, health, or safety risk
that NHTSA believes may have a disproportionate effect on children.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final
rule does not establish any collection of information requirements.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (49 CFR part 571), are amended as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues 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 571.5 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.5 Matter incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (ECE). They are published by the United Nations. Information and
copies may be obtained by writing to: United Nations, Conference
Services Division, Distribution and Sales Section, Office C.115-1,
Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland. Copies of
Regulations also are available on the ECE internet web site:
www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.108 is amended by adding S12.6 and S12.7 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S12.6 As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1
through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/
optical aiming in accordance with paragraph S7 may meet the
requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of the following
version of the Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 48 ``Uniform
Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles With Regard to the
Installation of Lighting and Light-Signalling Devices'': E/ECE/324-E/
ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.47/Rev.1/Corr.2, 26 February 1996 (page 17),
in the English language version. A copy of paragraph 5.14 may be
reviewed at the DOT Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room PL-01, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20590-0001. Copies of E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.47/Rev.1/
Corr.2, 26 February 1996 may be obtained from the ECE internet site:
www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html or by writing to:
[[Page 45899]]
United Nations, Conference Services Division, Distribution and
Sales Section, Office C.115-1, Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10,
Switzerland.
S12.7 Manufacturers of vehicles with headlamps incorporating VHAD
or visual/optical aiming shall elect to certify to S12.1 through S12.5
or to S12.6 prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 567. The selection is irrevocable.
Issued on: July 21, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21682 Filed 8-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
