[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45895-45899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21682]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-6010]
RIN 2127-AH18


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on lamps, reflective 
devices, and associated equipment includes a provision regulating 
headlamp concealment devices. In this document, NHTSA amends that 
Standard so that manufacturers of motor vehicles with headlamp 
concealment devices may choose between complying with that existing 
provision, or with a new provision incorporating by reference the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's standard (ECE standard) 
on those devices.
    This rulemaking was initiated in response to a petition from the 
domestic and foreign motor vehicle industry. Our notice of proposed 
rulemaking was based on our tentative conclusion, after reviewing the 
U.S. and UN/ECE requirements, that the UN/ECE requirements were 
essentially identical to the U.S. requirements and thus would yield at 
least as much safety benefit as the U.S. requirements. Since NHTSA did 
not receive any response to its request for public comments, the agency 
reaffirms that conclusion and adopts the proposed amendment as final.

DATES: Effective date. This rule is effective October 22, 1999. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
October 22, 1999.
    Early compliance date. You have the option of early compliance with 
the changes made in this final rule beginning August 23, 1999.
    Petitions for reconsideration deadline. If you wish to petition for 
reconsideration of this final rule, you must submit it so that we 
(NHTSA) receive your petition not later than October 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: In your petition for reconsideration, you should refer to 
the docket number for this action (cited in the heading of this final 
rule) and submit the petition to: Administrator, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact the following persons 
at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

For technical issues: Mr. Patrick Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance. Mr. 
Boyd's telephone number is: (202) 366-6346, and his FAX number is (202) 
493-2739.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel. Ms. 
Nakama's telephone number is (202) 366-2992, and her FAX number is 
(202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The United States is a party to several international agreements, 
including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement 
was most recently amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements. One of those 
agreements is the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The 
TBT Agreement seeks to avoid the creation of unnecessary obstacles to 
trade, while recognizing the right of signatory countries to establish 
and maintain technical regulations for the protection of human, animal 
and plant life and health and the environment.
    Among other things, the TBT Agreement also provides that a party to 
the Agreement will consider accepting as equivalent the technical 
regulations of other party nations, provided they adequately fulfill 
the objectives of the party's existing domestic standards. On May 13, 
1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
amended 49 CFR part 553, Rulemaking Procedures, by adding a new 
appendix B setting forth a statement of policy about an agency process 
for making tentative findings that the vehicle safety standards of 
other countries are functionally equivalent to the corresponding 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) (63 FR 26508).

[[Page 45896]]

    In a submission dated August 13, 1997, the American Automobile 
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the Association of International 
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), petitioned the agency to amend 
several FMVSSs to permit vehicle manufacturers to choose to comply with 
either the existing provisions of those FMVSSs or new provisions 
incorporating by reference the requirements of counterpart vehicle 
safety standards recognized in most European countries. These European 
standards take the form of European Union directives and are usually 
taken from a body of standards developed by the United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).
    The first test used by NHTSA under appendix B of part 553 to 
determine functional equivalence is whether the foreign requirements, 
test conditions, and test procedures appear to be the same or similar 
to the U.S. ones, with any differences being minor and lacking in 
safety consequences. In its review, NHTSA tentatively concluded that 
the European requirements for headlamp concealment devices passed this 
test. The fundamental performance requirements of the U.S. and European 
standards are the same. Further, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the 
differences between the standards are minor and inconsequential to 
safety except for vehicles equipped with headlamps for which external 
aimers must be used to aim them properly. These issues are further 
discussed below.

Fundamental Performance Requirements and Inconsequential 
Differences

    Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated 
equipment, and ECE R.48.01 are alike in all important respects. 
Standard No. 108, at S12., Headlamp Concealment Devices, specifies 
requirements for vehicles equipped with headlamp concealment devices. 
It requires that there be a single switch whose operation, in normal 
circumstances, causes both the headlamps to illuminate and the headlamp 
concealment device to fully open in not more than 3 seconds, at any 
temperature within a range of -30 to +50 degrees Celsius. In ECE 
R.48.01, Paragraphs 5.14.3 and 5.14.5 set forth the same requirements.
    Standard No. 108 also requires certain failsafe performance of 
headlamp concealment devices. In the event of a loss of power to a 
headlamp concealment device while the headlamp is illuminated, the 
headlamp must stay in the fully open position. Also, in the event of a 
malfunction of a component that controls or conducts power for the 
actuation of the concealment device, it must be possible to open the 
concealment device without the use of tools and have it stay fully open 
until intentionally closed. Paragraph 5.14.2 of ECE R.48.01 requires 
the same fail-safe performance.
    In its review of Standard No. 108 and the ECE Standard, the agency 
noted several differences between the two standards. First, Standard 
No. 108 requires that a headlamp concealment device be installed so 
that the headlamp may be mounted, aimed and adjusted without removing 
any component of the device, other than components of the headlamp 
assembly. There is no comparable provision in the ECE standard. This 
requirement in Standard No. 108 addresses a potential aiming problem 
that could affect safety. Unless properly designed, a headlamp 
concealment device could potentially interfere with the use of external 
aimers. These devices, which are used to aim some kinds of U.S. 
headlamps, attach to the outside of the headlamp lens. If such 
interference occurred and if the component were removed to allow 
aiming, and then were replaced, the accuracy of the aim could be 
adversely affected. Alternatively, efforts to aim the headlamps without 
removing the interfering components could result in improper shortcuts 
in aiming. To address this difference between the two standards, NHTSA 
is limiting the applicability of its finding of functional equivalence 
to headlamps that do not use external aimers.
    Second, NHTSA noted that the ECE standard does not have a phrase 
analogous to Standard No. 108's S12.3 and S12.5 ``except for 
malfunctions covered by S12.2,'' that make it expressly clear S12.3 and 
S12.5 apply only to functioning systems. NHTSA concluded that the ECE 
standard was intended to apply to functioning systems only and that the 
ECE standard alternative should be so interpreted. The alternative 
would not require systems with a failure mode to comply with 
performance requirements in addition to the failsafe performance 
requirements.
    Third, NHTSA noted several ECE standard provisions that have no 
parallel in S12 of Standard No. 108. However, compliance with those 
provisions does not affect compliance with S12. Consequently, there is 
no impediment to a finding of functional equivalence.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on October 28, 1998 
(63 FR 57638), NHTSA proposed to amend Standard No. 108 so that 
manufacturers of motor vehicles with headlamp concealment devices would 
have a choice between complying with existing provisions in Standard 
No. 108 or meeting a new provision incorporating by reference the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's standard (ECE standard) 
on headlamp concealment devices. In the NPRM, NHTSA discussed its 
review of the ECE standard under appendix B of 49 CFR part 553, and 
addressed the following issues:

ECE Standard Meets Part 553, Appendix B Test

    NHTSA tentatively concluded that paragraph 5.14 of ECE R.48.01 
meets the test in 49 CFR Part 553 Appendix B and accordingly proposed 
to amend Standard No. 108 to permit manufacturers of motor vehicles 
with headlamp concealment devices to choose between complying with 
S12.1 through S12.5 of Standard No. 108, or with a new provision (S12.6 
of Standard No. 108) incorporating by reference paragraph 5.14 of ECE 
R. 48.01. NHTSA proposed to limit optional compliance with the ECE 
standard to vehicles using either a new U.S. alternative beam pattern 
which allows European-style visual/optical aim or a headlamp with a 
built-in aimer (VHAD) that eliminates the need for external aimers. 
NHTSA stated its belief that there is no safety consequence to the lack 
of a provision in paragraph 5.14 addressing the interference problem 
that may be associated with the use of external aimers.

Vehicle Manufacturer's Certification

    NHTSA noted that, when a safety standard provides manufacturers 
with more than one compliance option, the agency needs to know which 
option has been selected in order to conduct a compliance test. 
Moreover, based on previous experience with enforcing standards that 
include compliance options, the agency stated it was aware that a 
manufacturer confronted with an apparent noncompliance for the option 
it has selected (based on a compliance test) may respond by arguing 
that its vehicles comply with a different option for which the agency 
has not conducted a compliance test. This shift in a manufacturer's 
stance creates obvious difficulties for the agency in managing its 
available resources for carrying out its enforcement responsibilities, 
e.g., the possible need to conduct multiple compliance tests, first for 
one compliance option, then for another, to

[[Page 45897]]

determine whether there is a noncompliance.
    Accordingly, NHTSA proposed that prior to or at the time a 
manufacturer certifies that a vehicle with headlamp concealment devices 
meets all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR part 567, 
Certification), the manufacturer must decide whether it is certifying 
that vehicle as meeting S12.1 through S12.5 or the ECE standard (that 
would be established in S12.6). NHTSA further proposed that the 
selected alternative need not be stated on the certification label. 
However, the manufacturer must advise the agency of its selection when 
asked by the agency to do so. The manufacturer's decision would be 
irrevocable.

NHTSA's Choice of European Standard to Reference

    Most of the harmonized standards among the countries of the 
European Union (EU) were developed as ECE regulations and later adopted 
as EU directives. Consequently, the same standards are known under both 
ECE regulation numbers and EU directive numbers. The petitioner asked 
that both the ECE and EU numbers for the identical technical 
requirements be cited as alternatives to the requirements of Standard 
No. 108. However, NHTSA proposed that only one reference to the 
European standard be cited to avoid confusion and to reduce the 
potential need for amendments to updated versions of European 
standards. NHTSA must reference only one European standard (and make 
that standard publicly available) to meet the Federal Register's 
procedures for incorporating documents by reference.
    NHTSA stated its intent to cite the ECE regulation when possible 
because the ECE is a body in which the U.S. participates, and also its 
regulations may be adopted by countries outside of the European Union 
as well. The agency understands that it will not always be possible to 
cite an ECE standard because some EU directives with possible potential 
for being treated as functionally equivalent alternatives to Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards have no ECE counterpart.

Proposed Leadtime

    NHTSA proposed that, if made final, the changes would take effect 
60 days after the publication of the final rule, with manufacturers 
given the option to comply with (and certify to) the ECE standard for 
headlamp concealment devices, immediately.

Final Rule

    NHTSA did not receive any comments on its proposal. Accordingly, 
the agency adopts its proposal as set forth in the NPRM. NHTSA 
concludes that paragraph 5.14 of ECE R.48.01 meets the test established 
in 49 CFR part 553 appendix B for determining functional equivalence; 
i.e., that the agency's analysis of paragraph 5.14 indicates that its 
requirements are the same or similar to the requirements of S12.1 
through S12.5 of Standard No. 108. The differences are minor and 
lacking in safety consequences for vehicles equipped with headlamps for 
which external aimers must be used to aim them properly. Accordingly, 
NHTSA restricts the option of complying with the ECE regulation to 
manufacturers of vehicles using either a new U.S. alternative beam 
pattern which allows European-style visual/optical aim or a headlamp 
with a built-in aimer (VHAD) that eliminates the need for external 
aimers.
    The final rule requires that, not later than the time when a 
manufacturer certifies that a vehicle with headlamp concealment devices 
meets all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR part 567, 
Certification), the manufacturer must decide whether the basis for its 
certification is that the vehicle meets S12.1 through S12.5 of Standard 
No. 108 or S12.6 (incorporating the ECE regulation). Although the 
selected alternative need not be stated on the certification label, the 
manufacturer must advise the agency of its selection when asked by the 
agency to do so. The manufacturer's decision is irrevocable.
    Before issuing this final rule, NHTSA obtained the latest version 
of the ECE regulation directly from the ECE rather than relying on the 
petitioners' version (the version proposed in the NPRM). The version 
provided by the ECE is identical to the petitioner's version except 
that a typographical error in Paragraph 5.15.5 (found in the 
petitioner's version) does not appear in the version NHTSA received 
from the ECE. Accordingly, in the final rule, the citation of ECE R48 
proposed for S12.6 (of Standard No. 108) is updated to E/ECE/324--E/
ECE/TRAN/505, Rev. 1/Add.47/Rev.1/Corr.2, 26 February 1996.

Regulatory Impacts

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has examined the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 
12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E. O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' We have determined that this 
action is not ``significant'' under DOT's regulatory policies and 
procedures. This final rule has no substantive effect on manufacturers 
of motor vehicles that have headlamp concealment devices. The ECE 
standard on headlamp concealment devices that is included in the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not differ substantively 
from existing requirements. Vehicle manufacturers will not incur 
additional costs as a result of meeting any new requirements. The 
impacts of this action are so minor that a full regulatory evaluation 
for this final rule has not been prepared.

B. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-112, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    NHTSA is not aware of a standard established by the SAE or other 
private organization that would apply to the same aspect of performance 
as the headlamp concealment lamp provisions of Standard No. 108. ECE 
Regulation 48 is not a voluntary consensus standard.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I 
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is 
NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification. (5 
U.S.C. 605(b)).
    The final rule affects passenger car, light truck, and multipurpose 
passenger vehicle manufacturers that have headlamp concealment devices 
on the vehicles they manufacture. The Small Business Administration's 
size standards (13 CFR part 121) are organized according to Standard

[[Page 45898]]

Industrial Classification Codes (SIC). SIC Code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles 
and Passenger Car Bodies'' has a small business size standard of 1,000 
employees or fewer.
    The final rule applies to the previously described vehicle 
manufacturers, regardless of their volume of production. There is no 
significant economic impact on any vehicle manufacturer because no 
manufacturer is required to provide headlamp concealment devices. There 
is no economic impact on manufacturers that already provide the devices 
because the devices meet the existing headlamp concealment device 
requirements in Standard No. 108, and NHTSA concludes that the ECE 
standard does not differ substantively from that Standard. The final 
rule permits vehicle manufacturers to choose between certifying that 
the vehicle with a headlamp concealment device meets the previously 
existing requirements in the Standard or the ECE standard now 
incorporated in the Standard. NHTSA does not believe there will be a 
cost advantage to certifying to one set of requirements over the other.

D. Environmental Impacts

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

E. Federalism

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have a retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 
state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard. 49 U.S.C. 301651 sets forth a procedure for judicial review 
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings is not required before parties may file suit 
in court.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

H. Economically Significant Effects on Children

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. Further, nothing in 
the final rule establishes an environmental, health, or safety risk 
that NHTSA believes may have a disproportionate effect on children.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This final 
rule does not establish any collection of information requirements.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (49 CFR part 571), are amended as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 571.5 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(9) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for 
Europe (ECE). They are published by the United Nations. Information and 
copies may be obtained by writing to: United Nations, Conference 
Services Division, Distribution and Sales Section, Office C.115-1, 
Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland. Copies of 
Regulations also are available on the ECE internet web site: 
www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.108 is amended by adding S12.6 and S12.7 to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    S12.6 As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1 
through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/
optical aiming in accordance with paragraph S7 may meet the 
requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of the following 
version of the Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 48 ``Uniform 
Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles With Regard to the 
Installation of Lighting and Light-Signalling Devices'': E/ECE/324-E/
ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.47/Rev.1/Corr.2, 26 February 1996 (page 17), 
in the English language version. A copy of paragraph 5.14 may be 
reviewed at the DOT Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room PL-01, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 
20590-0001. Copies of E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505, Rev.1/Add.47/Rev.1/
Corr.2, 26 February 1996 may be obtained from the ECE internet site:

www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs.html or by writing to:


[[Page 45899]]


    United Nations, Conference Services Division, Distribution and 
Sales Section, Office C.115-1, Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, 
Switzerland.
    S12.7  Manufacturers of vehicles with headlamps incorporating VHAD 
or visual/optical aiming shall elect to certify to S12.1 through S12.5 
or to S12.6 prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 567. The selection is irrevocable.

    Issued on: July 21, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21682 Filed 8-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P