[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