Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

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