[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 208 (Wednesday, October 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57638-57640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28817]



[[Page 57638]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[NEW DOT Docket No. 98-4633]
RIN 2127-AH18


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) on lamps, 
reflective devices, and associated equipment includes a provision 
regulating headlamp concealment devices. In this document, NHTSA 
proposes to amend that FMVSS 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 headlamp concealment devices. The agency tentatively 
concludes that the ECE standard is at least functionally equivalent 
(i.e., yields at least as much safety benefit or requires at least as 
much safety performance) to NHTSA's existing provision on headlamp 
concealment devices.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should refer to the docket number and notice 
number in the heading of this notice and be submitted, preferably in 
ten copies, to: DOT Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room PL-01, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590-0001. The DOT docket is open to the public from 10 am to 5 pm, 
Mondays through Fridays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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 creating 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 the process that 
the agency will use to make potential findings of ``functional 
equivalence'' between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 
and the corresponding vehicle safety standards of other countries (63 
FR 26508).
    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 requirements of those FMVSSs or the counterpart 
requirements of 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). Of the 
several AAMA/AIAM petitions on functional equivalence, NHTSA believes 
the petition addressing headlamp concealment devices presents the 
easiest issues to resolve.
    The first test used by NHTSA under Appendix B to determine 
functional equivalence is whether the requirements, test conditions, 
and test procedures appear to be the same or similar, with any 
differences being minor and lacking in safety consequences. NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that the European requirements for headlamp 
concealment devices pass this test. The fundamental performance 
requirements of the U.S. and European standards are the same. Further, 
assuming that the option of complying with the ECE requirements would 
be restricted, as proposed below, to manufacturers of vehicles equipped 
with headlamps that do not require the use of external aimers, the 
differences between the standards are minor and inconsequential to 
safety. These issues are further discussed below.

Fundamental Performance Requirements

    FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, 
at S12., Headlamp Concealment Devices, requires that, in normal 
operation, there be a single switch whose operation 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, an illuminated 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 failsafe performance.

Inconsequential Differences

    Standard No. 108 also 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. This requirement addresses a potential aiming 
problem that could affect safety. The external aimers, which are used 
for some kinds of U.S. headlamps and which attach to the headlamp lens, 
could potentially interfere with a component of the headlamp 
concealment device. If so, removal of the component could affect the 
accuracy of the aim. Alternatively, efforts to avoid the removal of 
components could result in improper shortcuts in aiming.
    The ECE standard has no comparable aiming provision because 
vehicles in Europe do not use external aimers that could introduce an 
interference problem. Headlamps with the European beam pattern have 
always been visually

[[Page 57639]]

aimable on a screen because of sharp gradients which identify the beam 
position.
    The ECE standard also has several provisions that do not have any 
parallel in S12. of Standard No. 108. The ECE standard prohibits the 
possibility of the driver being able to stop the movement of lighted 
headlamps before they reach the in-use position. It prohibits also the 
actuation of the headlamps until they reach the in-use position if 
there are intermediate positions in which illumination would result in 
glare to other drivers.
    NHTSA also notes 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 clear S12.3 and S12.5 
apply only to functioning systems. NHTSA would interpret the ECE 
standard alternative by limiting it to functioning systems only, and 
would not require systems with a failure mode to comply with 
performance requirements in addition to the failsafe performance 
requirements.
    Finally, NHTSA notes a typographical error in Paragraph 5.14.5 of 
the ECE standard, that states: ``Then the concealment device has a 
temperature of -30 degrees Celsius to +50 degrees Celsius the headlamps 
must be capable of reaching the position of use within three seconds of 
initial operation of the control.'' Clearly, ``then'' should be 
``when.'' NHTSA would interpret Paragraph 5.14.5 as beginning with 
``When.''

NHTSA's Proposal

    NHTSA tentatively concludes that paragraph 5.14 of ECE R.48.01 
meets the Appendix B test set forth above and accordingly proposes to 
amend Standard No. 108 to permit manufacturers of motor vehicles with 
headlamp concealment devices to choose between complying with S12 of 
that standard, or with a new provision incorporating by reference 
paragraph 5.14 of ECE standard R. 48.01. This proposal to permit 
compliance with the ECE standard is limited 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. Therefore, 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 notes that, when a safety standard provides manufacturers 
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 is 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 response 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 for first one compliance option, then another, to 
determine whether there is a noncompliance.
    Accordingly, under this proposed rule, 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 certifies that 
vehicle as meeting S12.1 through S12.5 or the ECE standard (that would 
be established in S12.6). 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 is proposing 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. We intend 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 potential as 
functionally equivalent alternatives to Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards have no ECE counterpart.

Leadtime

    NHTSA proposes that, if made final, the changes proposed in this 
NPRM 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.

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.'' This action has been 
determined to be not ``significant'' under DOT's regulatory policies 
and procedures. If made final, this rule would have no substantive 
effect on manufacturers of motor vehicles that have headlamp 
concealment devices. The ECE standard on headlamp concealment devices 
proposed for inclusion in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
does not differ substantively from existing requirements. Vehicle 
manufacturers would not incur additional costs as a result of meeting 
any new requirements. The impacts of this action would be so minor that 
a full regulatory evaluation for this proposed rule has not been 
prepared.

B. 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 proposed rule would not, if promulgated, 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. Sec. 605(b)).
    The proposed rule would affect 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 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 proposed rule would apply to the previously described vehicle 
manufacturers, regardless of their

[[Page 57640]]

volume of production. There would be no significant economic impact on 
any vehicle manufacturer because no manufacturer would be required to 
provide headlamp concealment devices. There would be no economic impact 
on manufacturers that already provide the devices because the devices 
meet the existing headlamp concealment device requirements in the 
FMVSSs, and NHTSA tentatively concludes that the ECE standard does not 
differ substantively from the FMVSSs. If made final, the rule would 
permit vehicle manufacturers a choice between certifying that the 
vehicle with a headlamp concealment device meets the old FMVSS or the 
incorporated ECE standard. NHTSA does not believe there would be a cost 
advantage to certifying to one standard over another.

C. Environmental Impacts

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
the agency has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed 
rule and determined that, if adopted as a final rule, it would not have 
a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. 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 proposed rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have a retroactive effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. Section 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. A procedure for judicial review of final rules 
establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards is set forth in 49 U.S.C. Section 30106. That section does 
not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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.

Public 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.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of a 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, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571), be amended as set 
forth below.

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 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 S5.14 of the following 
version of the Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 48: E/ECE/
324--E/ECE/TRAN/505, Rev.1/Add.47/Rev.1, 22 March 1994, in the English 
language version.
    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: October 23, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-28817 Filed 10-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P