[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68233-68244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4813; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF75


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

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

ACTION: Supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to Standard No. 108, the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, which are intended 
to harmonize the geometric visibility requirements of the United States 
for signal lamps and reflectors with those of the Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE). Harmonization of motor vehicle safety regulations 
worldwide, without reducing safety, would allow manufacturers to 
produce products in compliance with a single world vehicle standard 
rather than several, thus reducing costs and improving the flow of 
trade.
    The amendments proposed would adopt either the ECE geometric 
visibility specifications or those of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE), as an option to the present requirements. One of these 
specifications would be chosen for inclusion in the final rule. 
Mandatory compliance with the chosen specification would be required 
approximately five years after issuance of the final rule.
    This action responds to comments to a notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on this subject in 1995, which implemented the grant of a 
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Groupe de Travail Bruxelles 
1952.

DATES: Comments are due March 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number indicated above 
and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Van Iderstine, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5275; FAX: 202-366-4329).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary notice of proposed 
rulemaking is based upon a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
published on October 26, 1995 (60 FR 54833, Docket No. 95-72; Notice 
1). The reader is referred to that notice for further background on 
this rulemaking action.

Harmonization of Geometric Visibility Requirements

    As the NPRM explained, the Groupe de Travail Bruxelles 1952 
(``GTB'') is composed of vehicle and lamp manufacturers from Europe, 
Japan, and the United States. GTB is an advisory group for the two 
organizations operating under the United Nations' Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE) that are involved in establishing motor vehicle 
lighting standards: the Meeting of Experts on Lighting and Light 
Signalling (GRE) and the Working Party on the Construction of Motor 
Vehicles (WP29).
    GTB is seeking to ``harmonize'' the geometric visibility 
requirements of the United States and Europe through petitioning NHTSA 
for an amendment to Standard No. 108, and petitioning GRE and WP29 for 
amendments to ECE Regulation No. 48 Uniform Provisions Concerning the 
Approval of Vehicles With Regard to the Installation of Lighting and 
Light-Signalling Devices (``ECE R48''), specifically ECE R48.01. Under 
present lighting regulations, motor vehicle manufacturers must produce 
four different lighting packages for the same vehicle in order for it 
to be sold in the United States, the United Kingdom, continental 
Europe, and Japan. Harmonizing these lighting requirements, without 
reducing safety, would reduce costs to manufacturers and purchasers, 
and improve the flow of trade.
    In its petition of June 15, 1994, GTB asked NHTSA to amend or 
introduce geometric visibility requirements for the following lamps and 
reflectors: backup lamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, stop lamps 
including the center high-mounted stop lamp, parking lamps, taillamps, 
rear fog lamps, reflectors (front, intermediate, side, and rear), 
marker lamps (front, intermediate, and side), and daytime running 
lamps. The petition noted that rear fog lamps are not presently 
included in Standard No. 108, and that many items of lighting equipment 
are not presently subject to geometric visibility requirements.
    The NPRM explained that ``geometric visibility'' is not a defined 
term in Standard No. 108. It refers to the visibility of a lamp or 
reflector mounted on a vehicle through a range of viewing angles from 
left to right, and from up to down, with reference to the lens 
centerpoint (e.g., from 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right). With the 
exception of the center high-mounted stop lamp (S5.1.1.27), the 
geometric visibility requirements for motor vehicle lamps are not set 
out in full in the text of Standard No. 108, but are contained in 
related SAE Standards that have been incorporated by reference in 
Standard No. 108. SAE requirements are not uniform and were adopted on 
an ad hoc basis.
    The changes that GTB requested would affect passenger cars only, 
and would expand the range of visibility requirements for many lamps, 
especially turn signal lamps and parking lamps. GTB believed that a 
majority of vehicles being sold in the United States in 1994 already 
met the requirements. For those that do not, the petitioner suggested 
that ``the necessary design changes should not be difficult to 
implement, assuming that adequate lead time is provided.''

[[Page 68234]]

The Amendments That NHTSA Proposed in 1995

    The NPRM proposed a new paragraph S5.1.1.30, applicable to the 
vehicles covered by Tables III and IV (i.e., those less than 2032 mm 
(80 inches) in overall width). Proposed S5.1.1.30 would allow continued 
conformance to any visibility requirements existing in Standard No. 108 
or a requirement for the ``geometric visibility of at least 12.5 square 
centimeters for the light-emitting surface through a field of view as 
indicated in Table V, except for side marker lamps and reflex 
reflectors which have no area requirement.'' Although the petitioner 
did not request a phaseout of the existing requirements, the agency 
proposed that the existing requirements be phased out in favor of the 
harmonized requirements after two years, as part of its effort to 
promote the compatibility of standards worldwide. The definition of 
``Light-emitting Surface'' that appears in SAE Standard J387 
``Terminology, Motor Vehicle Lighting'' would be added and defined to 
mean ``that part of the exterior surface of the lens that encloses the 
light source and is required for conformance with photometric and 
colorimetric requirements.'' This definition was deemed necessary 
because the term appeared in the proposed requirement.
    The NPRM would have added new Table V to cover 15 items of lighting 
equipment (lamps and reflectors), including rear fog lamps. While a 
rear fog lamp is not required by Standard No. 108, if a manufacturer 
chooses to provide one, the lamp would be required to meet the 
geometric visibility requirements (but no other requirements would 
apply at the present time).
    The visibility requirements were expressed with relation to the 
Horizontal (H) and Vertical (V) axes of the lamp or reflector. As an 
example, the geometric visibility requirement for a front turn signal 
lamp would be that it should be seen through a range from minus 45 
degrees to plus 45 degrees at Horizontal, and minus 15 degrees to plus 
15 degrees at Vertical.
    NHTSA, however, did not propose to adopt ECE's backup lamp 
geometric visibility requirements because of a possibly adverse effect 
on safety. Standard No. 108 requires that the center of the backup lamp 
lens be seen from anywhere on a vertical transverse plane located 3 
feet behind the vehicle and extending 3 feet on either side of the 
vehicle, starting from 2 feet and ending at 6 feet above the road 
surface. For a minivan whose backup lamps are about 33 inches above the 
road surface, Standard No. 108's requirements creates upward visibility 
angles greater than 45 degrees. For passenger cars with lower lamp 
heights, the angles are even larger. Allowing these angles to be as 
small as ECE's 15 degrees upward would allow a significant reduction in 
the ability of a pedestrian to see the lamp's signal.
    In its efforts to promote worldwide compatibility of standards, 
NHTSA also proposed to allow amber as an optional color for rear side 
marker lamps and reflectors, in addition to the red which has been 
required for vehicles sold in the United States.
    Another aspect of motor vehicle lighting that NHTSA thought could 
be appropriate for harmonization was the regulation of front and rear 
fog lamps. These are not items of motor vehicle equipment mandated by 
Standard No. 108. They are regulated by the States as each jurisdiction 
deems appropriate. NHTSA had no information as to the extent that 
European and Japanese manufacturers must modify the fog lamps and their 
installations on their vehicles in order to meet the regulations of the 
States. The NPRM asked whether NHTSA should assert its jurisdiction 
over that aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance and specify 
performance requirements (in addition to geometric visibility) for 
front and rear fog lamps as optional equipment, that would preempt 
State regulations and could afford windows of harmonization with the 
ECE standards. The performance requirements that appeared appropriate 
to NHTSA were those of SAE Standard J583 JUN93 ``Front Fog Lamps'' and 
SAE Standard J1319 JUN93 ``Fog Tail Lamp''.

Responses to the 1995 Proposal; the 1998 SNPRM

    There were 25 commenters to the notice: GTB (the petitioner), Truck 
Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), Nissan N.A., Osram-Sylvania (O-S), 
David Cameron of Embry-Riddle Aero. Univ. (Cameron), Chrysler 
Corporation (Chrysler), Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety 
(Advocates), Mercedes-Benz of N.A. (MBNA), GE Lighting (GE), Koito Mfg. 
Co. (Koito), Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A. (Fiat), Porsche Cars North America 
(Porsche), American Honda Motor Co. (Honda), Ichikoh Industries 
(Ichikoh), Wisconsin DOT (WDOT), United States Motorcycle Manufacturers 
Association (USMMA), Sierra Products (Sierra), Hella Inc. (Hella), 
Volvo Cars of N.A. (Volvo), Volkswagen (VW), G.J.M. Meekel (Chairman, 
GRE), and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA).
    Front and rear fog lamps: On the issue of federal regulation of 
front and rear fog lamps, those who commented were unanimous in their 
support for regulation. This issue has been addressed separately by a 
termination notice to assure NHTSA the freedom to pursue efforts with 
industry to achieve internationally harmonized performance that can be 
adopted in the future in the lighting standard (62 FR 8883, February 
27, 1997).
    Amber color for rear side marker and reflex reflectors: There was 
significantly mixed opinion on whether amber should be an alternative 
to red as a color for rear side marker and reflex reflectors. TSEI 
strongly opposed allowing amber for side-mounted devices at the rear, 
especially for large trucks. It argued that at night the only true 
indicator of the end of the vehicle is a red lamp at the end of a 
string of amber lamps down the side of the vehicle. The agency agrees 
that this is an important point and that it ought to be especially 
cautious in permitting a color change for rear side markers and reflex 
reflectors on large vehicles or trailers.
    Cameron did not specifically comment for or against this proposal. 
However, he argued that the only red lamps on a vehicle should be stop 
lamps and that all other lamps could be white or amber. This infers he 
would support amber for the rear side marker lamps and reflectors.
    AAMA agreed with amber as a rear marker color for light duty 
vehicles and saw no safety issues involved with the change.
    Advocates strongly opposed allowing amber, stating that there are 
no data on which to make such a monumental change to safety policy, and 
suggested a supplemental NPRM that would discuss the issue in depth. 
The agency does not agree that there were no data presented supporting 
the proposal. There is a research report titled ``Side Marker Lamps for 
Passenger Cars'', TNO Defense Research, TM 1994 C-14, by Jan Theeuwes 
and J.W.A.M. Alferdink. The report supports the use of a system of 
front and rear amber side marker lamps. It studied the likelihood of 
vehicles with amber markers being recognized earlier than non-amber-
equipped vehicles, and concluded that there would be a safety benefit.
    Notwithstanding this report, NHTSA believes that a significant 
change in the standardized signals used by vehicles in the United 
States for many years should be accompanied by additional supportive 
data. The study cited above does not contain data indicating whether it 
is important for drivers to know which end of a vehicle is about to 
emerge into their path. That is the key issue here.

[[Page 68235]]

    Additionally, the European system of all-amber side marker lamps 
and reflex reflectors is very different from the U.S. system of amber 
at the front (and at intermediate positions on long vehicles) and red 
at the rear. Only vehicles longer than 6 meters (19.5 ft.) in Europe 
are required to have side marker lamps and reflex reflectors. For all 
other vehicles, these devices are optional. Because of this, the 
European vehicle fleet has virtually no light duty vehicles with side 
marker lamps and reflectors. Even when fitted, the mounting location is 
appreciably different than in the U.S. In Europe, the devices must be 
located in the first third of the vehicle on the side and in the last 
third of the vehicle on the side. This contrasts significantly with the 
requirement of Standard No. 108 that the devices be located as far 
forward or as far rearward as practicable.
    Given these major differences and the lack of data noted above, 
NHTSA has decided to terminate rulemaking that would allow an option of 
providing amber rear side marker lamps and reflectors.

Geometric Visibility

    The NPRM proposed to add most of the harmonized geometric 
visibility requirements requested by GTB. However, the agency did not 
propose to incorporate the intensity measurement method for determining 
geometric visibility that is currently used in ECE Regulation 48. 
Instead, NHTSA proposed to determine geometric visibility based on a 
projected lens area measurement method, which is the approach long used 
in Standard No. 108. As noted above, the agency had decided not to 
reference Regulation 48 in its proposal.
    All but one of the commenters agreed that the proposed GTB 
alternative geometric visibility requirements would be acceptable as an 
alternative. However, many commented that NHTSA should have proposed to 
have the ECE intensity measurement method as an alternative method to 
the proposed area measurement method as a way of determining geometric 
visibility. Others noted that the current SAE standards have different 
and smaller angles of geometric visibility for turn signal and parking 
lamps, and for reflex reflectors. Advocates did not agree with the 
proposal and asked for a supplemental NPRM that would discuss the 
issues in depth.
    Mercedes, Koito, Fiat, Honda, Ichikoh, Sierra, GTB, Volvo, 
Volkswagen, Meekel, and AAMA all asked the agency to include the ECE 
intensity measurement method as an alternative method of determining 
geometric visibility. Essentially, this method determines the geometric 
visibility of a lamp by measuring the intensity of the lamp's 
illumination throughout the range of the defined geometric visibility 
angles. To determine compliance, a test of intensity is performed with 
the test lamp installed in the vehicle or an appropriate part thereof 
to assure that the intensity is available at the pertinent locations, 
irrespective of the remainder of the vehicle body design and its 
potential for blocking the signal. In Europe, this typically entails 
having a working prototype or production lamp and testing it on a real 
or simulated vehicle body. Testing cannot be conducted until after 
significant development and prototyping of both the lamp and vehicle 
are completed.
    The intensity measurement method contrasts with the area 
measurement method, long used in Standard No. 108. This method 
specifies a minimum projected luminous lens area of the lamp as 
installed on the vehicle which must be seen throughout the prescribed 
visibility angles. While testing can be performed on a prototype 
vehicle as in the European method, the advantage of the American method 
is that compliance can be judged by the manufacturer by using only 
computer-generated engineering drawings at a time in the vehicle 
development stage long before any actual hardware is produced. This 
helps achieve a greater certainty of production compliance and fewer 
running changes than the use of the intensity measurement method.
    TSEI recommended that NHTSA adopt the contemporary SAE standards 
for geometric visibility performance, instead of a version of the ECE 
requirements. The SAE standard permits the manufacturer to choose a 
geometric visibility either based on area or on intensity, but 
specifies an inboard (toward the center of the vehicle) angle for turn 
signals and parking lamps of 20 degrees and not 45 degrees as in the 
European standard and GTB's requested table (the comments of Nissan and 
      O-S agreed). TSEI also recommended deletion of reflex reflectors 
from the proposal because it considers the 45 degree horizontal angle 
to be too large.
    The issue of adopting contemporary standards is timely, because the 
agency intends to incorporate the latest versions of all currently 
referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in a comprehensive revision 
of Standard No. 108 to be proposed late in 1998. Consequently, the 
agency will need to decide whether to require the SAE angles or the 
GTB/ECE angles and whether or when they should become mandatory. It is 
not necessary for this supplemental NPRM to decide this issue, but only 
to propose that the SAE values be considered as well as the GTB/ECE 
values. The SAE values are similar to the GTB/ECE values except for the 
turn signal lamps, parking lamps, and reflex reflectors as mentioned 
above. With adequate lead time either the SAE values or the GTB/ECE 
values could become mandatory, with the GTB/ECE values for those lamps 
slightly more difficult to meet because of aerodynamically shaped 
front-ends of vehicles, but offering greater visibility to vehicles at 
intersections.
    TSEI's comment that the reflex reflector angle of 45 degrees is too 
large is based upon the fact that Standard No. 108 requires reflex 
reflector performance only to angles of 20 degrees left and right. Thus 
requiring these devices to be seen at 45 degrees would, in TSEI's view, 
make the angle too large for visibility needs. However, current reflex 
reflectors provide light return at angles larger than 20 degrees, often 
out to 30 degrees. Thus, logic would suggest that geometric visibility 
should be something greater than just the photometric performance of 
the reflector. Also, it should be noted that the contemporary SAE 
Standard J2041 Reflex Reflectors for use on Vehicles 2032 mm or More in 
Width, specifies reflective performance to the left and right of 45 
degrees. It would appear that the geometric visibility of reflex 
reflectors on wider vehicles would of necessity also be at least 45 
degrees or larger to the left and right. While these J2041 devices are 
not yet specified for all wide vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires all 
trailers over 10,000 pounds GVWR to be equipped with conspicuity 
treatment that replaces normally required reflex reflectors and that 
provides retroreflective performance out to 45 degrees on the side and 
rear. In summary, geometric visibility angles larger than required for 
the specified photometric performance are appropriate for improving 
vehicle conspicuity. The ECE values are reasonable for all vehicles and 
TSEI's objection is not persuasive.
    Nissan commented that 45 degree inboard geometric visibility for 
parking and front turn signal lamps is too large to be practicable and 
too costly. The fronts of vehicles are becoming more rounded and may 
present difficulty in meeting inboard (toward the vehicle center) 
visibility angles, especially if the design incorporates recessed lens 
faces for front park and turn lamps. The front fascia toward the center 
of the vehicle can become obstructive to a lamp's light

[[Page 68236]]

emission, and impair its geometric visibility. The 45-degree inboard 
requirement for parking lamps and front and rear turn signal lamps has 
existed in the ECE regulations for many years with the requirement 
being a minimum of 0.05 and 0.3 candela respectively. Only recently as 
a result of GTB action did the ECE regulation accept the area 
measurement method for the narrower geometric visibility angles typical 
of SAE standards. When the ECE regulations changed, the inboard angles 
became 45 degrees at a time when the SAE angles were zero inboard. More 
recently, the SAE changed inboard angles to 20 degrees. This is the 
angle in the current SAE standards and the angle that Nissan, and the 
other commenters on this issue, TSEI and       O-S, prefer. Permitting 
the inboard angle to be 20 degrees would make the requirement less 
costly. However, the argument about practicability appears not well 
taken, since millions of cars are produced annually in Europe that meet 
the 45 degrees inboard requirement.
    The GTB, Koito, Fiat and Ichikoh commented that for the rear turn 
signal lamps, there appeared to be an error in that the proposed values 
were -15 to +45 degrees instead of the more typical -45 to +45 degrees 
range. This has been corrected in the proposed tables.
    The NPRM proposed a new definition of ``light-emitting surface.'' 
This is refined in the supplementary NPRM. NHTSA now proposes slightly 
different definitions of lens area and uses those definitions in the 
proposed specifications for geometric visibility. NHTSA also intends to 
use these definitions in its anticipated forthcoming administrative 
revision of Standard No. 108.
    With respect to the first term, NHTSA proposes a redefinition of 
``effective projected luminous lens area.'' This is currently defined 
as:

that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp 
axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs 
light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include mounting 
hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or 
produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of 
uncontrolled light from small areas \1/2\ deg. radius around the 
test point).

Under the proposal, ``effective projected luminous lens area'' would be 
redefined as:

the area of the projection of the effective light-emitting surface 
of a lamp on a plane specified to define the functional lighted lens 
area or the geometric visibility of the lamp.

This requires a definition of the term ``effective light-emitting 
surface.'' Under the proposal, this term would be defined to mean:

that portion of the light-emitting surface of a lamp that directs 
light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include mounting 
hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or 
produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of 
uncontrolled light from an area of \1/2\ degree radius around a test 
point.

These two definitions are taken directly from the existing definition 
of ``effective projected luminous lens area'' quoted above. The 
revision is considered necessary to clarify what lamp parts constitute 
the measurable surface of a lamp lens and how the area of that surface 
is specified. Essentially, there is no substantive change.
    The NPRM had proposed that any changes to geometric visibility be 
applied to vehicles of overall width less than 2032 mm (80 in.). This 
was in response to GTB which had asked that the changes apply to 
passenger cars. In the U.S., the present geometric visibility 
requirements apply to all motor vehicles. NHTSA decided to extend GTB's 
request to cover all vehicles that are like passenger cars in terms of 
required lighting (i.e., those covered by Tables III and IV of Standard 
No. 108, except for motorcycles). However, doing so would leave wider 
vehicles (those covered by Tables I and II of Standard No. 108) subject 
to the present requirement after the 5-year phase-in period. NHTSA 
views it as inconsistent and illogical to have different visibility 
requirements based on whether a vehicle's overall width is less or 
greater than 2032 mm (80 in.). Motorcycles and wider vehicles should be 
afforded the same safety and harmonization benefits that passenger car-
like vehicles will have upon completion of this rulemaking. Having a 
single requirement for the geometric visibility of lighting devices 
installed on all vehicles, one that is more objective than the present 
requirement, should enhance safety and simplify the compliance 
responsibility of manufacturers. Consequently, the proposals in this 
notice cover wider vehicles as well as narrower ones.
    In summary, the agency is requesting comments on two proposals for 
geometric visibility, but will adopt only one. The first proposal would 
amend Standard No. 108 to add S5.1.1.30 and Tables V and VI (the GTB/
ECE specifications for lens area and luminous intensity). 
Alternatively, Standard No. 108 would be amended to add a different 
S5.1.1.31 and different Tables VII and VIII (the specifications of the 
SAE for lens area and luminous intensity). This nomenclature 
(S5.1.1.30, Tables V and VI or the alternative S5.1.1.31 and Tables VII 
and VIII) has been chosen for the NPRM to distinguish one proposal from 
the other. The final rule, of course, will adopt the new paragraph and 
Tables in the sequence that exists at the time of the final rule. For 
five years after adoption of the final rule, a manufacturer would be 
allowed to comply with either the lens area or luminous intensity 
geometric visibility specifications of the alternative adopted, or the 
visibility requirements that currently exist in Standard No. 108. The 
agency is proposing that the new requirements become mandatory 
approximately 5 years after the final rule is published, and that 
compliance with the current requirements would no longer be permitted 
after that date. Thus, after that 5-year period, manufacturers would be 
required to meet the geometric visibility requirements specified in the 
final rule for either lens area or luminous intensity of the 
alternative adopted.
    The agency wishes to give notice that, once a manufacturer has 
chosen a visibility option and certifies compliance to it, the agency 
will regard that choice as irrevocable. Failure to comply with the 
option selected will constitute a noncompliance warranting notification 
and remedy as required by statute. However, if the manufacturer 
complies when its lamps are tested to another visibility option, that 
fact would afford a basis for seeking an inconsequentiality 
determination which, if granted, would relieve it from its obligation 
to notify and remedy.

Lead Time

    Many did not comment on the issue of lead time. Of those who did, 
AAMA did not want a mandatory requirement, Chrysler asked for lead time 
enough for vehicle production life cycles. O-S and GTB requested at 
least four years; Nissan and Ichikoh wanted five years and TSEI asked 
for ten. Choosing to have alternatives added to the existing 
requirements would do little to improve the visibility of signals, 
unless it were in the best interest of manufacturers to build a single 
vehicle for the world market. The fact that some commenters do not want 
the newly harmonized requirements to be mandatory implies that they are 
not so much interested in harmonization as they are in being able to 
pick whatever requirement suits their needs. NHTSA believes that this 
rulemaking action presents an opportunity to provide better performance 
while helping to reduce costs through harmonization. For the reasons 
discussed above, NHTSA has decided to issue this supplemental NPRM 
which proposes to allow a manufacturer to choose one of two

[[Page 68237]]

methods to be used for determining compliance with the proposed 
geometric visibility requirements. Either method would achieve a lamp 
whose signal is visible at the requisite angles.

Proposed Effective Date

    The amendments would be effective 30 days after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. At that time, manufacturers would 
have the option until the fifth September 1st following the issuance of 
the final rule to conform to either the present or the harmonized 
geometric visibility requirements. On and after the fifth September 
1st, manufacturers would have to comply with the harmonized 
specifications. As noted previously, it is likely that many of the 
proposed requirements are already being met by manufacturers selling in 
world markets.
    However, when compliance with the final rule becomes mandatory, it 
will affect U.S. vehicle lines that are not sold in world markets. 
NHTSA therefore seeks comments on the appropriateness of a 5-year 
leadtime for mandatory compliance with the final rule, and a discussion 
of related costs or other impacts upon the commenter.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is 
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies 
and procedures. The purpose of the rulemaking action is to clarify an 
existing requirement and to harmonize regulations. It is anticipated 
that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. Vehicles presently selling 
in world markets are presumed to comply with the proposed rule. NHTSA 
has asked for comments on the costs and other impacts associated with a 
5-year leadtime for mandatory compliance of those vehicles not 
presently complying. This could involve relocation of certain lamps and 
reflectors and associated sheet metal changes, or redesign of lamps or 
reflectors. These could be easily accommodated within the present or 
next design cycle. If the comments received indicate that the impacts 
are more than minimal, NHTSA will prepare a full regulatory evaluation 
before issuing a final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final 
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the 
environment. The composition of lighting equipment would not change 
from those presently in production.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking 
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 
et seq). I certify that this rulemaking action would not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for 
the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The proposed amendment would 
primarily affect manufacturers of motor vehicles. Manufacturers of 
motor vehicles are generally not small businesses within the meaning of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small 
business in part as a business entity ``which operates primarily within 
the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)) SBA's size standards are 
organized according to Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC), 
SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small 
business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer.
    For manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks, NHTSA 
estimates there are at most five small manufacturers of passenger cars 
in the U.S. Because each manufacturer serves a niche market, often 
specializing in replicas of ``classic'' cars, production for each 
manufacturer is fewer than 100 cars per year. Thus, there are at most 
500 cars manufactured per year by U.S. small businesses.
    In contrast, in 1998, there are approximately nine large 
manufacturers producing passenger cars, and light trucks in the U.S. 
Total U.S. manufacturing production per year is approximately 15 to 15 
and a half million passenger cars and light trucks per year. NHTSA does 
not believe small businesses manufacture even 0.1 percent of total U.S. 
passenger car and light truck production per year.
    Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would 
not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles ought not 
to change as the result of a final rule based upon this supplemental 
NPRM.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and 
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment. However, for the first time, Standard No. 108 
would impose an affirmative compliance obligation upon fog lamps, that 
of geometric visibility. This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), 
states would be preempted from having geometric visibility requirements 
for fog lamps that differ from those of Standard No. 108 under a final 
rule. Heretofore, regulation of fog lamps has been entirely a matter of 
state law (unless they impaired the effectiveness of lighting equipment 
required by Standard No. 108, in which event they were not allowed 
(S5.1.3, 49 CFR 571.108)).

Civil Justice

    A final rule based on this proposal would not have any retroactive 
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety 
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not 
identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a 
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or 
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not 
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits, and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. Because this proposed rule would not have a $100 
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.

Request for Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

[[Page 68238]]

    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and 
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address 
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 would be amended 
as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.108 would be amended by:
    a. adding to paragraph S4, in alphabetical order, a new definition 
of ``Effective light-emitting surface,'' and revising the definition of 
``Effective projected luminous lens area,'' and
    b. adding new paragraph S5.1.1.30 and new Tables V and VI, the new 
Tables to follow Table IV and to precede the Note to the standard, or
    c. adding new paragraph S5.1.1.31 and new Tables VII and VIII, the 
new Tables to follow Table IV and to precede the Note to the standard, 
to read as follows:


Sec. 571.108  Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment.

* * * * *
    S4  Definitions.
* * * * *
    Effective light-emitting surface means that portion of the light-
emitting surface of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test 
pattern, and does not include mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector 
area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased 
intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of \1/2\ 
degree radius around a test point.
    Effective projected luminous lens area means the area of the 
projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane 
specified to define the functional lighted lens area or the geometric 
visibility of the lamp.
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.30. This paragraph specifies geometric visibility 
requirements that apply to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck, trailer, bus, and motorcycle.
    (a) Each vehicle to which this section applies shall have each lamp 
or reflex reflector installed in a location such that each lamp or 
reflex reflector complies with its individual photometric intensity 
requirements.
    (b) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured 
on or after [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final 
rule] shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (d) or of 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (c) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured 
before [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final rule] 
shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d), paragraph (e) or 
with the requirements of S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1 for geometric 
visibility.
    (d) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with 
any lamp listed in Table V, other than a side-marker lamp, not less 
than 12.5 square centimeters of the lamp's effective projected luminous 
lens area shall be visible when viewed from any point in the field of 
view indicated in Table V for each such lamp. Some portion of side 
marker lamps and reflex reflectors shall be visible when viewed from 
any point in the field of view indicated in Table V for each such side 
marker lamp and reflex reflector.
    (e) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with 
any lamp or reflector listed in Table VI, each such lamp or reflector 
shall provide, in accordance with Table VI, the minimum luminous 
intensity in candela through the field of view specified for it.
    (f) The manufacturer of a vehicle shall certify to only one of the 
compliance options specified in paragraphs (a) through (e), and it may 
not thereafter choose a different option for that vehicle.
    S5.1.1.31  This section specifies geometric visibility requirements 
that apply to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 
truck, trailer, bus, and motorcycle.
    (a) Each motor vehicle to which this section applies shall have 
each lamp or reflex reflector installed in a location such that each 
lamp or reflex reflector complies with its individual photometric 
intensity requirements.
    (b) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured 
on or after [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final 
rule] shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph (d) or of 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (c) Each vehicle to which this section applies that is manufactured 
before [the fifth September 1 following publication of the final rule] 
shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d), paragraph (e), or 
with the requirements of S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1 for geometric 
visibility.
    (d) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with 
any lamp listed in Table VII, other than a side-marker lamp, not less 
than 13 square centimeters of the lamp's effective projected luminous 
lens area shall be visible when viewed from any point in the field of 
view indicated in Table VII for each such lamp. Some portion of side 
marker lamps and reflex reflectors shall be visible when viewed from 
any point in the field of view indicated in Table VII for each such 
side marker lamp and reflex reflector.
    (e) When a vehicle to which this section applies is equipped with 
any lamp or reflector listed in Table VIII, each such lamp or reflector 
shall provide, in accordance with Table VIII, the minimum luminous 
intensity in candela through the field of view specified for it.
    (f) The manufacturer of a vehicle shall certify to only one of the 
compliance options specified in paragraphs (a) through (e), and it may 
not thereafter

[[Page 68239]]

choose a different option for that vehicle.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 68240]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.005



[[Page 68241]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.006



[[Page 68242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.007



[[Page 68243]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10DE98.008




[[Page 68244]]


    Issued on: November 24, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-32655 Filed 12-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C