[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48805-48817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18297]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18794]
RIN 2127-AF75


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends the Federal lighting standard for motor 
vehicle turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps to 
increase compatibility with the requirements of the Economic Commission 
for Europe (ECE) and to improve visibility of these lamps. 
Manufacturers will be permitted to comply with either the existing 
requirements or the new requirements for a period of between seven to 
10 years, depending on vehicle type, at which time they will be 
required to comply with the new requirements. This action completes 
rulemaking that implemented the grant of a petition for rulemaking 
submitted by the Groupe de Travail Bruxelles 1952.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective September 10, 2004. 
Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of the 
final rule must be received not later than September 27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

[[Page 48806]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Rich Van 
Iderstine, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-
366-5275; FAX: 202-366-4329). For legal issues, contact George Feygin, 
Office of Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, 
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, establishes requirements 
for original and replacement lighting equipment on motor vehicles 
manufactured for sale in the United States. The purpose of the 
standard, as set forth in paragraph S2 of FMVSS No. 108, is ``to reduce 
traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic 
accidents.'' One of the ways in which this safety purpose is 
accomplished is through ``enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles 
on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their 
signals understood.''
    This final rule amends FMVSS No. 108 in order to harmonize and 
improve the visibility requirements of the motor vehicle turn signal 
lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps.\1\ Specifically, this 
rulemaking will enhance conspicuity of motor vehicles by improving the 
ability of other motorists to see these lamps from wider angles to the 
front, side, and rear of the vehicle. In addition to enhancing 
conspicuity, this rule will improve compatibility of our lighting 
requirements with those of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), as 
well as the industry consensus standards of the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE).\2\ Consequently, this rule will reduce lighting 
variations between motor vehicles produced in various world markets, 
resulting in lower production costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Visibility'' is not a defined term in FMVSS No. 108 or by 
the ECE, but in the context of motor vehicle lighting, it refers to 
the opportunity afforded to an observer to detect a lamp or the 
light emitted by a signal or a presence lamp.
    \2\ The SAE is an engineering body that establishes, inter alia, 
standardized test procedures, design and installation requirements, 
and guidelines, for motor vehicle lighting equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, in 1994, the Groupe De Travail ``Bruxelles 
1952'' (GTB), composed of representatives from European, Japanese, and 
American motor vehicle and lighting manufacturers, petitioned NHTSA to 
``harmonize'' the visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 108 with those 
in effect for vehicles manufactured for sale in Europe. At the same 
time, GTB submitted a similar petition to the Meeting of Experts on 
Lighting and Light Signaling (GRE) \3\ and the Working Party on the 
Construction of Motor Vehicles (WP29),\4\ the two groups responsible 
for amending the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 48 
Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles With Regard to 
the Installation of Lighting and Light-Signaling Devices (ECE R48), 
specifically ECE R48.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Since renamed to Working Party on Lighting and Light-
Signalling.
    \4\ Since renamed to World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We granted GTB's petition and published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) \5\ that would adopt much of what GTB had asked. To 
the extent practicable, we proposed changes that would be alternative 
to the existing requirements of FMVSS No. 108, and asked for comments 
for an appropriate date on which we would mandate compliance of all 
passenger cars with the new, more compatible requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 60 FR 54833, October 26, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments to the NPRM, we published a supplementary 
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) \6\ proposing to adopt either the 
measurement methods specified by the ECE or the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). Additionally, we proposed to apply the new 
requirements to all vehicles regulated by FMVSS No. 108, as opposed to 
only passenger cars, as originally contemplated in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 63 FR 68233, December 10, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicable requirements and measurement methods of the ECE and 
SAE are very similar. However, the ECE performance standards make lamps 
subject to the ECE requirements slightly more visible than lamps 
subject to the applicable SAE requirements. As explained below, we have 
decided to adopt the ECE-derived specifications in preference to those 
of the SAE because harmonization of the visibility requirements with 
those in ECE would provide a larger field of visibility, improve 
conspicuity, and ease compliance burdens on the manufacturers of 
vehicles for world markets.
    Each of the ECE-derived specifications incorporates requirements 
based on either minimum intensity values or minimum lens areas, and a 
range of directions for measuring visibility. Each manufacturer will be 
able to choose either the intensity or the area requirement for the 
lamps.
    The final rule allows vehicle manufacturers to continue to comply 
with the current visibility specifications of FMVSS No. 108 for some 
years to come, but they must eventually design their vehicles to comply 
with one of the two new ECE-derived specifications. Specifically, 
passenger cars, motorcycles, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
buses, and trailers of less than 2032 mm. (80 in.) in overall width 
manufactured on and after September 1, 2011, must then comply with one 
of the two new ECE-derived specifications. Multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 2032 mm 
(80 in.) or more must comply with one of these specifications as of 
September 1, 2014.
    We anticipate that this rulemaking will have a positive impact on 
motor vehicle safety because the new requirements increase the range of 
angles through which the lighting equipment will be visible to other 
motorists. Additionally, this rulemaking will ensure conspicuity 
between this new range of angles. In sum, there is a greater 
probability that an observer would see the lamp anywhere within the 
lamp's field of visibility. While we cannot precisely quantify the 
safety benefit of this increase in conspicuity, previous research of 
heavy duty trailer conspicuity indicates significant safety benefits 
associated with conspicuity improvements.\7\ Nevertheless, we are 
providing an extended lead-time in order to ensure that any economic 
impact upon vehicle redesign is minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809222.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How the ECE Visibility Requirements Differ From the Current 
Requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

    The ECE R48 requirements for visibility of lamps and reflective 
devices differ from the current requirements in FMVSS No. 108 because: 
(1) ECE R48 contains a definition for ``angles of geometric 
visibility;'' (2) ECE R48 allows compliance with applicable 
requirements by measuring luminous intensity, as an alternative to 
minimum lens area measurement; (3) the ECE luminous intensity 
compliance method requires larger angles of measurement than the ``area 
method'' of current FMVSS No. 108; (4) ECE R48 requires that the entire 
``solid angle'' complies with applicable requirements as opposed to 
requiring compliance with only specific test points; and (5) ECE R48 
requirements apply to additional lamps and devices not covered by FMVSS 
No. 108 and vice versa; \8\ (6)

[[Page 48807]]

ECE R48 requires a minimum area of 12.5 square centimeters for all 
applicable lighting devices where FMVSS No. 108 specifies minimum area 
depending on the lamp type and application; (7) ECE 48 limits the 
downward angle performance requirements to 5 degrees for lamps mounted 
at or below 750 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FMVSS No. 108 does not contain visibility requirements for 
parking lamps. ECE R48 does not contain lens area measurement 
requirements for a stop lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the lens area method of compliance, ECE R48 
specifies a wider range of angles than those specified in FMVSS No. 
108. For instance, turn signals, parking lamps, and taillamps, include 
vertical angles of -15 degrees to +15 degrees in the lens area method. 
In addition, the lens area method angular range in the horizontal 
direction is larger in the inboard direction for turn signals, from 45 
degrees (ECE) compared with 0 degrees (FMVSS No. 108).
    Both, lens area and luminous intensity compliance methods in the 
ECE, establish a minimum solid angle in which the apparent surface of 
the lamp must be visible. By contrast, FMVSS No. 108 requires only that 
visibility be measured along the horizontal and vertical planes of the 
lighting device.
    Finally, certain ECE requirements apply differently to lamps 
mounted below 750 mm from the ground. Specifically, lamps mounted below 
750 mm above ground need not comply with the 15-degree downward 
visibility angle. Instead they must comply with a 5-degree downward 
visibility angle. Low-mounted lamps are treated differently because 
they cannot be observed at the downward angle of 15 degrees in normal 
circumstances. A 15-degree downward visibility angle would actually 
place the potential observer below the surface of the roadway at any 
distance more than about 3 meters away from the side of the vehicle.
    In sum, the visibility requirements of ECE and FMVSS No. 108 
currently differ in a variety of ways. This rulemaking seeks to improve 
compatibility of our lighting requirements with those of the ECE, and 
enhance the conspicuity of vehicles on U.S. highways.

How the ECE Visibility Requirements Differ From the SAE Visibility 
Requirements

    The ECE visibility requirements have a larger range of angles for 
the area measurement method in comparison to those specified in the 
latest SAE standards. For instance, turn signals, parking lamps, and 
tail lamps, include vertical angles of -15 degrees to +15 degrees for 
the area method. In addition, the area method includes larger 
horizontal angles of 45 degrees in the inboard direction for turn 
signals, compared to 0 degrees (FMVSS No. 108) and 20 degrees (latest 
SAE). Finally, the ECE area method angular range for a parking lamp has 
an inboard requirement of 45 degrees horizontal compared to the latest 
SAE requirement of 20 degrees.
    ECE area and intensity methods establish a minimum solid angle in 
which the apparent surface of the lamp must be visible. The minimum 
solid angle is similar to the latest SAE intensity method which bounds 
the area by four corner points established by the angles of visibility. 
The ECE standards require a slightly smaller minimum area of 12.5 
cm2 for all applicable lamps, where the latest SAE standards 
require 13 cm2 for all lamps, and FMVSS No. 108 requires a 
minimum area of 12.5 to 13 cm2 depending on the lamp type 
and application. Nevertheless, the ECE method achieves a greater 
probability that an observer would be able to see the lamp because of 
the larger overall visibility field.

Comments Received in Response to the SNPRM

    We received seventeen comments in response to the SNPRM, submitted 
by 12 lamp and vehicle manufacturers, four manufacturer associations, 
and one employee of a lamp manufacturer. The commenters were: Ichikoh 
Industries, LTD (Ichikoh), Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), 
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), Guide Lamp (Guide), Aprilia USA, 
Inc. (Aprilia), Peterson Manufacturing Company (Peterson), National 
Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), Mitsubishi Motors (Mitsubishi), 
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), Volvo, the Alliance 
of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance), Volkswagen, Paul DeStefano, 
Navistar International (Navistar), International Truck and Engine 
Corporation (International), and Paccar. A summary and analysis of each 
issue is provided below.

a. Proposal To Extend ECE-Derived Passenger Visibility Requirements to 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses of 2032 
mm. or More Overall Width

    GTB's petition requested harmonization of the visibility 
requirements only for passenger cars. However, unlike Europe, which has 
different visibility requirements for different classes of vehicles, 
FMVSS No. 108 establishes one set of visibility requirements for all 
vehicle types. Accordingly, the SNPRM proposed to apply the ECE-derived 
passenger vehicle visibility requirements to all vehicle regulated by 
FMVSS No. 108, including those whose overall width is 2032 mm or more.
    Four comments were received on this issue, from TMA, Navistar, NTEA 
and TSEI. In general, all supported harmonization.
    TSEI concurred with the proposal that the visibility requirements 
apply to wider vehicles provided that they received an extended lead-
time to account for longer design cycles that are typical in the large-
vehicle industry. As noted elsewhere, we are providing an extended lead 
time of approximately 10 years for large vehicles to comply with the 
new visibility requirements.
    NTEA commented that extending the rule's applicability to medium 
and heavy-duty trucks was not part of the original NPRM and that the 
agency should further study this issue before proceeding. Although we 
did not propose inclusion of vehicles other than passenger cars in the 
NPRM, we subsequently re-examined the issue of applicability proposed 
to expand the application of the new visibility requirements to all 
vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 108 in the SNPRM. As stated in the SNPRM, 
there is neither safety benefits nor costs savings associated with 
different visibility requirements based on the vehicle's overall width. 
In our view, vehicles other than passenger cars should be afforded the 
same safety and harmonization benefits afforded to passenger vehicles 
upon completion of this rulemaking. A uniform requirement for the 
visibility of lighting devices installed on all vehicles should enhance 
safety and simplify the compliance responsibility for manufacturers.
    TMA members include all the major U.S. and Canadian manufacturers 
of medium and heavy-duty trucks. TMA stated that it had always 
supported harmonization but that harmonization appeared to be the only 
basis for the SNPRM. Supported by Navistar, TMA questioned the agency's 
statement that ``* * * wider vehicles should be afforded the same 
safety and harmonization benefits that passenger car-like vehicles will 
have upon completion of this rulemaking.'' TMA asserted that one might 
intuitively feel that improved visibility results in increased safety, 
but that neither the agency nor the industry has the crash data 
necessary to either support or refute this perception.
    The final rule adopts the ECE-derived passenger vehicle visibility 
requirements for all vehicles subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 
108. The new requirements will increase the range of angles over which 
visibility is

[[Page 48808]]

measured for turn signal lamps, parking lamps, stop lamps and 
taillamps. We believe that increasing the angles of visibility in these 
lamps will increase conspicuity, which will in turn reduce crashes on 
U.S. highways. A NHTSA-sponsored test program (The Effectiveness of 
Retroreflective Tape on Heavy Trailers, March 2001) which studied the 
use of conspicuity tape on trailers 2032 mm. or more in overall width 
indicates that side and rear crashes involving these trailers decreased 
by 29% compared with trailers not equipped with such tape.\9\ These 
results indicate that increased conspicuity of motor vehicles results 
in increased safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809222.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we do not anticipate a 29% percent decrease in crashes, 
the agency expects that the ECE-derived visibility requirements will 
contribute to the reduction of crashes involving vehicles subject to 
the new requirements. However, unlike the trailer conspicuity 
requirements, which mandated reflective tape where none was previously 
required, this change in visibility requirements is incremental, and it 
is impossible to accurately calculate benefits resulting from this 
final rule. Nevertheless, we believe that the new visibility 
requirements will reduce crashes at negligible cost.

b. Proposal To Adopt Either the ECE or Revised SAE Requirements for 
Visibility

    The SNPRM proposed to update current visibility requirements of 
FMVSS No. 108 by adopting one of two alternative specifications for 
visibility. We proposed to adopt either the ECE specifications based on 
lens area or luminous intensity, or the SAE specifications based on 
lens area or luminous intensity. As previously stated, the applicable 
requirements of the ECE and SAE are virtually identical. The equipment 
covered by the SNPRM included front and rear turn signal lamps 
(collectively referred to as ``turn signal lamps''), stop lamps, 
taillamps, parking lamps, rear fog lamps, side marker lamps, daytime 
running lamps (DRLs), the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL), and 
reflex reflectors.
    Eleven commenters supported the ECE specifications while four were 
in favor of the SAE requirements (these commenters were a motorcycle 
manufacturer and vehicle and lamp manufacturers that predominantly 
develop products for the domestic trucking industry). After considering 
the comments, we are adopting the ECE-derived lens area and luminous 
intensity requirements for visibility.
    The Alliance members consist of BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General 
Motors, Mazda, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo. The Alliance 
recommended that the ECE-derived requirements be adopted to more 
closely align the requirements of Europe and the United States. 
However, the Alliance also recommended that the amendments clarify that 
reflex reflectors and side markers lamps have no minimum area 
requirements, and that they only need to be visible from any point in 
the indicated field of view. Ichikoh's comments were similar to that of 
the Alliance.
    Under the proposed ECE-derived requirements for visibility, ``some 
portion of'' a front side marker lamp ``shall be visible'' for 
compliance with the minimum area, or have a minimum luminous intensity 
of 0.6 candela. Given a choice of compliance methods for any particular 
lamp function, a vehicle manufacturer would likely certify to the less 
stringent and less costly one which, in this case, would appear to be 
the one for minimum lens area rather than minimum luminous intensity. 
Similarly, in addition to having ``some portion of'' a front side 
marker lamp being ``visible,'' under the SAE-derived visibility 
requirements for either the area or intensity methods, the lamps must 
comply with the photometric requirements as installed. Thus, a side 
marker lamp could be certified to ``be visible'' and meet the 
photometry requirements (SAE) or simply ``be visible'' (ECE) depending 
on whether it was certified to either the SAE or ECE-derived 
specification. Thus, the inclusion of side marker lamps in final rule 
appears redundant, and therefore side markers will not be subject to 
the ECE-derived visibility specifications. In addition, the visibility 
requirements for CHMSLs will remain unchanged except for its location 
within the standard, as discussed below. This is necessary to avoid the 
elimination of an existing visibility requirement (considering that a 
CHMSL does not have a luminous intensity requirement other than to meet 
photometry), and to account for a CHMSL that uses more than one lamp.
    In sum, the visibility requirements for side marker lamps, reflex 
reflectors, DRLs, and CHMSLs remain unchanged by the final rule, and 
their requirements remain the same.
    As discussed above, the new visibility requirements of this final 
rule apply only to stop, turn, parking, and tail lamps. In addition to 
the visibility requirements, the SNPRM proposed to adopt an ECE 5-
degree downward visibility provision for lamps mounted less than 750 mm 
above ground.\10\ This ECE provision allows stop, turn, parking, tail 
and other lamps mounted below 750 mm above ground to comply with a 5-
degree downward visibility angle instead of the 15-degree downward 
visibility angle. The downward visibility requirement can be reduced 
because low-mounted lamps usually cannot be observed at the downward 
angle of 15 degrees. A 15-degree downward visibility angle would 
actually place a potential observer below the surface of the roadway at 
any distance more than about 3 meters away from the side of the 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 1 of Table V, and footnote 1 of Table VI of 
the SNPRM. This is not a separate provision, but an integral part of 
the ECE visibility requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since we are not adopting the ECE visibility requirements for all 
lamps listed in the NPRM, some lamps, e.g. side-marker lamps, would not 
be subject to the 5-degree provision described above. Because this 
provision will reduce a restriction on vehicle manufacturers without 
reducing motor vehicle safety, we decided to adopt this 5-degree 
provision and extend it to other lamps not subject to the visibility 
requirements of this final rule. Because we are reducing a restriction 
on vehicle manufacturers, this provision will become effective 30 days 
after the publication of this final rule. Accordingly, stop, turn, 
parking, tail and all other lamps and reflective devices subject to 
FMVSS No. 108 mounted less than 750 mm above the ground, as measured to 
the lamp axis of reference, must meet the 5-degree or greater downward 
angle visibility or photometric performance requirements at 5 degrees 
downward. For example, a reflective device, clearance lamp, side marker 
lamp, low mounted stop lamp, tail lamp, turn signal lamp or 
identification lamp may meet the 10-degree downward visibility 
requirements at 5 degrees downward angle.
    Because lighting devices other than stop, turn, parking, and tail 
lamps are not subject to the visibility requirements of this final 
rule, the regulatory text contains a separate paragraph pertaining to 
lighting mounted less than 750 mm above the ground. The requirements 
for stop, turn, parking, and tail lamps subject to this final rule are 
listed in Table 19 and Table 20.
    Ichikoh, an automotive lamp manufacturer, commented that ECE 
regulations do not have area requirements for signal lamps and that it 
hoped that NHTSA will not add an

[[Page 48809]]

area requirement for signal lamps in the new visibility requirements. 
Ichikoh's comment on lens area related to proposed paragraph 
S5.1.1.30(d)\11\ which would require that ``not less than 12.5 square 
centimeters of [a] lamp's effective projected luminous lens area shall 
be visible'' under specified conditions. We note that since Ichikoh 
submitted its comment, ECE has in fact incorporated this area 
measurement. Thus, our inclusion of the lens-area specification is part 
of harmonizing FMVSS No. 108 with the ECE requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 63 FR 68233 (December 10, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ichikoh also commented that small color changes might occur around 
the visibility boundary that would not have any disadvantage on safety, 
and requested that NHTSA explicitly permit this. In our view, the color 
specifications of FMVSS No. 108 apply to the overall color of light 
emitted by the beam of a lamp and not to the color of the light emitted 
from any small area of the lens or outside the periphery of a lamp's 
visibility boundaries.
    For continuity and clarity, Guide suggested incorporating all 
requirements for visibility in one paragraph, including those lamps 
that were not covered by this rulemaking, in particular, the 
requirements for a back up lamp (referenced in SAE J593c (February 
1968)), the text from paragraph S5.3.1.5, and the requirements of 
paragraph S5.3.1.1. We agree with the suggestion to consolidate all the 
visibility requirements, and have done so in new paragraph, S5.3.2. 
Paragraph S5.3.2(e) incorporates the visibility language from SAE J593c 
(Feb 68) including the phrase ``center of the lens'' currently defined 
in paragraph S5.3.1.5 as the optical center. With the incorporation of 
the phrase into paragraph S5.3.2(e), existing paragraph S5.3.1.5 
becomes moot and we are deleting it. We are also moving the visibility 
requirements for a CHMSL from S5.1.1.27(a)(2) and S5.1.1.27(b)(2) to 
paragraphs S5.3.2(c) and S5.3.2(d).
    Guide also requested that additional or auxiliary devices not used 
to meet the certification requirements of the vehicle be excluded from 
the visibility requirements. Further, it argued that it is 
inappropriate to specify visibility requirements for a rear fog lamp 
considering that it is an auxiliary lamp that is not otherwise 
regulated by the standard. Guide's first comment is inapposite. No 
performance requirements, including visibility, are prescribed for 
supplemental lighting equipment, and none were proposed, except for 
rear fog lamps. Supplemental or auxiliary lamps may be used on motor 
vehicles subject only to the prohibition that they not impair the 
effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 
108. We agree that it is not appropriate to specify visibility 
requirements for a rear fog lamp in this rulemaking because it is not a 
specifically regulated lamp.
    Mitsubishi supported adoption of the ECE R48 visibility standard. 
In its view, this action will allow unified design and testing of lamp 
equipment for vehicles destined for different markets, a significant 
merit for manufacturers. We agree that the harmonization of the 
standard with ECE R48 would ease burdens on manufacturers.
    The four comments supporting SAE-derived visibility standards were 
varied. Aprilia commented that ECE R48 was not intended to cover 
vehicles with less than four wheels and that the visibility 
requirements for two-wheeled vehicles is specified in EEC 93/92/EEC. 
Aprilia asserted that mandating visibility values for motorcycles that 
are applicable only to four-wheeled vehicles (in Europe) would create 
confusion and unnecessary and impractical restrictions for motorcycle 
manufacturers. In its opinion, the proposed SAE-derived amendments 
include values similar to EEC 93/92/EEC and would allow NHTSA to 
achieve its goal of harmonizing the signal lamp and reflector standards 
of the United States with those of Europe. Accordingly, Aprilia 
supported the adoption of proposed tables based on the SAE requirements 
for visibility.
    We disagree. EEC 93/92/EEC is the European Union's (EU) directive 
for motorcycle lamp installation, but it differs from the UN's ECE 
regulation covering the same subject. EU directives are compulsory for 
members; other countries are not required to meet them. In contrast, 
many countries outside Europe have adopted the ECE regulations and, 
from an international harmonization perspective, the ECE regulations 
are a more widely recognized source for requirements that could be 
harmonized. Although Aprilia commented that the proposed SAE-derived 
amendments would harmonize the U.S. and European standards, EEC 93/92/
EEC appears to only specify a luminous intensity measurement method for 
visibility. Otherwise, the EEC luminous intensity levels and angular 
ranges for turn signals, stop lamps, and taillamps are identical to 
those contained in both the ECE and SAE-derived tables used in the 
SNPRM. We believe that adoption of the luminous intensity measurement 
method derived from the ECE regulations will harmonize with EEC 93/92/
EEC for motorcycles. Furthermore, motorcycle manufacturers for the 
domestic and certain foreign (ECE) markets will also be able to certify 
compliance using the ECE's lens area measurement method for visibility. 
However, we must ensure that a motorcycle equipped with a single 
taillamp satisfies visibility for both sides (left and right). This 
will be accomplished by adding a footnote to the new luminous intensity 
method Figure (Figure 20) that specifies that the horizontal angles for 
motorcycles with a single taillamp shall be -80 degrees to +80 degrees.
    Peterson, TSEI, and NAL also supported the adoption of the SAE-
derived requirements. Peterson and TSEI appeared to agree with NHTSA's 
SNPRM comparison of the SAE and ECE methods and the ``advantage'' of 
the ``SAE area method'' of determining compliance from computer designs 
or drawings before substantial capital is invested in tooling and 
equipment. Peterson further commented that prototyped tooling 
frequently is insufficient to prove photometric and visibility 
requirements based on intensity (especially lenses). This can result in 
expensive tooling modifications after production tooling is complete. 
TSEI stated that the advantage to manufacturers to use computer 
generated drawings to determine compliance cannot be overemphasized, 
especially for those that design ``catalog'' items for unknown vehicle 
types.
    We believe that the benefits of the ``area method'' are retained 
regardless of whether the final rule adopts ECE or SAE derived 
visibility specifications. Specifically, a manufacturer is also able to 
rely on computer-generated drawings under the ECE specifications, and 
adoption of the ECE instead of SAE method will not necessitate 
additional cost expenditures.
    In addition, TSEI argued that the ECE inboard test angles for 
parking and turn signal lamps are design restrictive and do not appear 
to provide any demonstrated safety benefit. TSEI asserted that the 
inboard angles for parking and turn signal lamp visibility requirements 
should be limited to 20 degrees (SAE) instead of the proposed 45 
degrees (ECE), in order to better facilitate the design of aerodynamic 
vehicles to improve fuel mileage.
    The 45-degree inboard visibility requirement for parking lamps and 
front and rear turn signal lamps has existed in the ECE regulations for 
many years with the test of compliance being 0.05 (parking lamp) and 
0.3 candela per lamp

[[Page 48810]]

(turn signal lamps) respectively. Because the vehicles sold in Europe 
and Asia have been meeting the ECE 45-degree requirement, we believe 
that this requirement is not unnecessarily design restrictive.
    We further note that the adoption of the ECE-derived luminous 
intensity specification may be a significant advantage to manufacturers 
of aerodynamic vehicles. This method allows the installation of lamps 
with considerably smaller area in the direction of wider angles. This 
substantially reduces the constraint on styling for aerodynamic 
purposes.
    Peterson and TSEI also asserted that the ECE visibility 
requirements for reflex reflectors are outside the useful range of 
operation of a reflector, and that the reflected output beyond 20 
degrees falls off dramatically. As noted above, we are not including 
reflex reflectors in the final rule.

c. Irrevocable Choice of Compliance Method

    In the SNPRM, we proposed a new paragraph S5.1.1.30(f) for ECE-
derived requirements (and the alternative paragraph S5.1.1.31(f) for 
the current SAE-derived requirements) that ``The manufacturer of a 
vehicle shall certify to only one of the compliance options * * * and 
it may not thereafter choose a different option for that vehicle.'' 
Were we to test a lamp for compliance to the manufacturer's selected 
option and find a failure, the manufacturer would be precluded from 
contesting the test failure on the basis that the lamp nevertheless 
complied with the alternative visibility requirements specified in the 
standard.
    Five comments were received concerning this issue, one from a 
vehicle manufacturer and the remainder from lamp manufacturers. In 
general, lamp manufacturers such as Guide and Peterson argued that the 
proposed irrevocability requirement would be overly restrictive given 
the fact that the options proposed in the SNPRM were, in their opinion, 
safety neutral. TSEI indicated that many of its members use catalog 
devices and may choose different methods for certification depending on 
application. In its view, it would be frustrating for a vehicle 
manufacturer to use the same method forever for a particular vehicle 
model. Mr. DeStefano requested clarification on whether each function 
of a multi-function lamp would be allowed to utilize different methods 
for compliance with the visibility requirements.
    We continue to believe that when a vehicle manufacturer has 
certified that the vehicle will meet a visibility requirement with a 
lamp installed and tested according to a chosen compliance method, the 
method chosen should be used to determine compliance of that vehicle 
with the visibility requirements applicable to that lamp. This 
provision is needed for the agency to efficiently carry out its 
enforcement responsibilities. The agency wants to avoid the situation 
of a manufacturer confronted with an apparent noncompliance (based on a 
compliance test) with the option it has selected responding to that 
noncompliance by maintaining that its products comply with a different 
option for which the agency has not conducted a compliance test. To 
ensure that the agency will not be asked to conduct multiple compliance 
tests, first for one compliance option, then for another, this rule 
requires the vehicle manufacturer to select the option by the time it 
certifies the vehicle and prohibits it from thereafter selecting a 
different option.
    In response to Mr. DeStefano, we wish to clarify that a 
manufacturer need not certify a vehicle to any one of the new 
visibility requirements. Instead, a vehicle manufacturer may choose one 
of the compliance options listed in S5.3.2(b) for each particular type 
of lamp. This means that, on a hypothetical passenger car, the final 
rule allows the parking lamps to meet the ECE-derived luminous 
intensity requirements, the front turn signal lamps the ECE-derived 
lens area requirements, and the rear turn signal lamps to meet the 
present SAE-based standard (until that alternative is phased out). This 
is consistent with the practice of both the latest SAE standards and 
ECE requirements, and the regulatory text clarifies this. However, each 
lamp in a multiple-lamp system as discussed above must be certified to 
the same visibility option (e.g., a left and right stop lamps would 
need to be certified to the same option, but a left stop lamp and left 
taillamp would not). Further, a manufacturer can elect to certify all 
the lamps on the vehicle to the existing visibility requirements 
referenced in the applicable SAE Standards until such time as this 
alternative is phased out (see S5.3.2.4.)

d. Lead-Time

    In response to comments to the NPRM, which proposed a mandatory 
compliance date of two years after issuance of the final rule, agency 
proposed a longer time in the SNPRM, i.e., the fifth September 1 
following issuance of the final rule.
    Twelve comments were received concerning this issue. Primarily, the 
passenger car manufacturers recommended lead-times between five and 
nine years, and manufacturers in the trucking industry requested lead-
times of 10 to 20 years due to the longer design cycles for this type 
of vehicle. Many commenters also requested that manufacturers be 
allowed to comply with the new or old requirements during the phase-in 
of the new rule.
    Specifically, TMA, Peterson, NTEA, TSEI, and Navistar requested 
that the lead-time for large vehicles of 2032 mm. or more overall width 
be 15 years. All appeared to agree that the typical life cycles of 
medium and heavy-duty truck designs were in the 15-20 year range. 
Furthermore, TMA also suggested that this industry is principally 
domestic, and that only 10 percent, or less, of production is exported, 
and that the economic impact on the truck manufacturers/suppliers would 
not be justifiable on a harmonization basis if the lead-time is less 
than 15 years. International and Paccar had similar arguments; however, 
they requested lead-times of only 10 years. NAL commented that the 
proposed 5-year lead-time would be difficult to meet by manufacturers 
of vehicles larger than 2032 mm. in overall width.
    We agree that life cycles for medium and heavy-duty trucks are 
typically longer than that for passenger cars; however, a lead-time of 
15 years is excessive. There appear to be three primary differences 
between the ECE lens area method and the current regulations for 
visibility: (1) The field of view in the vertical direction for turn 
signals and taillamps is increased from 0 degrees to +/-15 degrees; (2) 
the inboard field of view is increased from 0 degrees to 45 degrees for 
turn signals; and (3) the minimum required area for turn signals is 
reduced from 13cm2 to 12.5cm2. Due to the 
aerodynamic design of current large trucks, we believe that the 
increase in the front turn signal inboard field of view is industry's 
primary concern. Even with current trucks an existing lamp that cannot 
comply as installed can be redesigned with a different lens in order to 
resolve the visibility issue without changing the vehicle's design. 
Nevertheless, in an effort to ease the perceived difficulty in 
incorporating front turn signal lamps that comply with the new 
requirements on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and 
buses, of 2032 mm. or more overall width, we have decided that only one 
front turn signal lamp area on each side need comply when more than one 
lamp or optical area is lighted on each side of the vehicle. Though 
this exclusion does not exist in the ECE visibility requirements, it is 
consistent

[[Page 48811]]

with the current FMVSS No. 108 requirements. This will allow the use of 
a second turn signal lamp to be mounted further inboard to accommodate 
the increased visibility angles in this direction. Considering this, we 
believe that such exclusion would enable large truck manufacturers to 
incorporate inexpensive solutions if compliance with the recommended 
amendments is required prior to a major redesign cycle. We believe that 
most large vehicles will be redesigned within the next ten years, and 
we are establishing a mandatory compliance date for vehicles 2032 mm. 
or more in overall width of approximately ten years, September 1, 2014.
    As for passenger cars, motorcycles, and other vehicles with an 
overall width of less than 2032 mm, the Alliance requested a lead-time 
of seven to nine years. In addition, it supported the proposal that 
manufacturers be allowed to comply with the proposed or existing 
requirements during the transition period. Nissan, Volvo, VW, and NAL 
concurred with the SNPRM's proposed five-year lead-time. After 
consideration of these comments, we are requiring these vehicles to 
comply with the new requirements on a mandatory basis no later than 
September 1, 2011, a lead time of approximately seven years. By 
adopting an effective date for these amendments of 30 days following 
publication of the final rule, a manufacturer will be able to avail 
itself at the earliest opportunity of compliance with an ECE-derived 
specification if it wishes to do so.

e. Costs

    Eight comments were received on our request to address potential 
compliance costs, primarily from the large vehicle industry. The 
commenters were unanimous in their opinion that the cost to the 
trucking industry would be high to conform to the ECE-derived 
visibility requirements. Though all commenters supported harmonization, 
they reported that long lead-times would be required in order to 
amortize the costs, and to coordinate design changes into the normal 
design cycle of the vehicles. Some believed that the economic impact on 
the trucking industry would not be justifiable based on harmonization.
    We recognize that vehicle design changes implemented outside the 
normal design cycle of a vehicle result in higher costs. We note, 
however, that vehicle designs need not be changed for compliance. Lamps 
may be redesigned at a fraction of the costs claimed. However, in an 
effort to minimize the impact on the large vehicle industry, an 
extended lead-time of approximately 10 years has been adopted for 
vehicles of 2032 mm. or more overall width. In addition, we have 
provided an alternative for front turn signals on wider vehicles: if 
more than one lamp or optical area is lighted on each side of the 
vehicle, only one lamp or area need comply with the visibility 
requirements. This, for example, would enable a truck manufacturer to 
add a second turn signal to the front of a truck tractor that complies 
with the visibility requirements until such time that a single lamp can 
be incorporated during the normal design cycle of the vehicle. Finally, 
manufacturers will not have to meet new visibility requirements for 
reflex reflectors and side marker lamps; they are not included in the 
final rule.

f. Definitions

    The SNPRM proposed definitions for ``effective light emitting 
surface'' and ``effective projected luminous lens area.'' Four comments 
were received on this issue.
    Under the SNPRM, ``effective light-emitting surface'' would be 
defined as follows:

    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.

    Ichikoh commented that the definition would not cover signal lamps 
using LED or miniature bulb light sources. We do not agree; the 
proposed definition covers every lamp regardless of light source. 
However, a manufacturer of these lamp types could encounter difficulty 
if it chooses to utilize LED light sources behind a transparent lens. 
In order for a single stop lamp to comply with the current FMVSS No. 
108 visibility requirements, the stop lamp must have 12.5 square 
centimeters of effective projected luminous lens area throughout a 
horizontal field of view from -45 degrees to +45 degrees. If the stop 
lamp incorporated LED light sources and a transparent outer lens, the 
lamp manufacturer would need to ensure that the total cumulative area 
of all the individual LED ``lenses'' satisfied these requirements. 
Other lamp designs (such as the stop lamps used on certain models of 
Cadillac) incorporate what appear to be translucent outer lenses 
(Cadillac appears to use some type of optics in the outer lens), in 
combination with LED light sources. In this case, the translucent lens 
can be included in the calculations of effective projected luminous 
lens area. However, with the adoption of a luminous intensity method 
for measuring visibility, this issue relating to LEDs and visibility 
appears to be moot.
    We are adopting the definition as we proposed it. However, we note 
that transparent lenses cannot be included in the determination of the 
effective light-emitting surface. The agency has previously addressed 
this issue in an interpretation letter to Shigeyoshi Aihara on June 14, 
2000.
    TSEI submitted the following comment:

    The SNPRM contains a modification for the definition of 
``effective projected luminous lens area.'' It appears that there is 
no substantive change in the method of determining ``effective'' or 
``useful'' lens area. We do note that most lenses have area(s) that 
contribute light toward the recording photoreceptor, even if it is 
``uncontrolled.'' Some lenses do not have fresnels or optics for 
such control as a matter of design. In addition, lenses often employ 
deliberate methods to scatter the light such as frosting or stipple. 
The new definition appears to confirm that any illuminated lens area 
that contributes light toward satisfying the photometric 
requirements qualifies as effective lens surface area.

    We concur that there does not appear to be any substantive change 
in determining the effective projected luminous lens area. However, the 
proposed definition clearly stated that only the portion of the lamp 
that directs light to the photometric test pattern may be included in 
the determination of the effective light-emitting surface. Similar to 
our discussion above, we believe that transparent lenses do not direct 
light to the photometric test pattern and may not be included in the 
calculation. However, portions of translucent lenses intended to 
deliberately scatter the beam pattern within the allowable photometry 
(e.g., frosted or stippled lenses), are permissible as part of the 
effective projected luminous lens area.
    Guide suggested that it would be appropriate to add the definition 
of ``light-emitting surface'' from ECE Regulation 48 since the term is 
not defined in FMVSS No. 108. Our proposed definition of ``effective 
light-emitting surface'' was taken directly from the existing 
definition of ``effective projected luminous lens area.'' It was 
considered necessary, in combination with the proposed definition of 
``effective projected luminous lens area,'' to clarify the parts of a 
lamp that constitute its measurable surface and how the area of that 
surface is specified. It is clear from Guide's comment that further 
clarification of the phrase ``light-emitting surface'' may be required. 
However, we have concluded that the

[[Page 48812]]

term ``light-emitting surface,'' has no significance within the 
definition. Elimination of the term will enhance clarity and will not 
result in a substantive change. Thus, we are adopting the definition of 
``Effective light-emitting surface'' as proposed but deleting the 
internal phrase ``light-emitting surface.''
    Peterson recommended that the agency review the proposed definition 
for ``effective projected luminous lens area'' to determine whether it 
is the same as the previous definition. The proposed definition was:

    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.The ``plane'' is not clearly 
defined in the SAE standards referenced in FMVSS No. 108.

    Peterson also noted that the reference to ``functional lighted lens 
area'' may be confusing, considering that it is intended to be 
equivalent to the ``effective projected luminous lens area'' as 
indicated in paragraph S6.3.
    In light of harmonization concerns, we reviewed the ECE regulations 
to establish compatibilities between the ECE defined ``apparent 
surface'' and the current FMVSS No. 108 definition of ``effective 
projected luminous lens area.'' The first difference is that the ECE 
specifies an ``orthogonal projection'' whereas FMVSS No. 108 simply 
states ``projection.'' Though we believe that these two phrases have 
the same meaning in the two regulations, the term ``orthogonal 
projection'' has greater clarity; it is defined in a common dictionary 
as ``a two-dimensional graphic representation of an object in which the 
projecting lines are at right angles to the plane of projection.'' The 
use of the simpler term ``projection'' may actually increase the 
opportunity for misinterpretation as there is no definition that 
clearly defines ``projection'' in the context of motor vehicle 
visibility. Therefore, we are adopting the phrase ``orthogonal 
projection'' within the definition in order to achieve greater clarity, 
to improve harmonization with the ECE regulations, and to reduce the 
incidence of misinterpretation. We discuss ``orthogonal projection'' in 
more detail below.
    Another difference is that ECE R48 specifies the projection plane 
as ``a plane perpendicular to the direction of observation and 
tangential to the most exterior point of the lens * * *.'' This phrase 
is very similar to the current FMVSS No. 108 definition which includes 
the phrase ``a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis.'' The term ``lamp 
axis'' is not defined in FMVSS No. 108, nor is it defined in SAE J387-
Nov 87, Terminology--Motor Vehicle Lighting. However, in the September 
1995 revision of SAE J387, the definition of ``effective projected 
luminous area'' contains the statement that ``the axis of the lamp 
corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements.'' We 
believe that this is the understood meaning of ``lamp axis'' in 
industry; however, clarification of this term should be beneficial to 
preventing misinterpretations and confusion. We are therefore adding 
the following definition of ``axis of reference'' which is nearly 
identical to that of the ECE regulations:

    Axis of reference means the characteristic axis of the lamp for 
use as the direction of reference (H=0 0, V=0 
0) for angles of field for photometric measurements and 
for installing the lamp on the vehicle.

    We are also more fully defining the projection plane in the 
definition of ``effective projected luminous lens area.'' Incorporating 
all of the above changes, the definition that we have adopted in the 
final rule reads as follows:

    Effective projected luminous lens area means the area of the 
orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a 
lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the 
axis of reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is 
coincident with the axis of reference.

    The area of the orthogonal projection is formed by projecting the 
effective light-emitting surface along parallel lines that are 
perpendicular to the projection plane and in a defined direction that 
is either parallel to the axis of reference or, for measuring 
visibility, in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the 
corner points specified in new Figure 19, which represents the ECE-
derived visibility specifications. This definition should achieve 
greater clarity, improve harmonization with the ECE regulations, and 
reduce the incidence of misinterpretation, when compared to the 
definition proposed in the SNPRM. There is no substantive change from 
the meaning of the phrase as defined in the current FMVSS No. 108.
    Paragraph S6.3 is amended without substantive change to reflect the 
fact that the term ``effective projected luminous lens area'' is now 
utilized in FMVSS No. 108.
    For consistency, we are amending paragraphs S5.1.1.12, S5.1.1.25, 
S5.1.1.26(a) and (b), S5.1.1.27(a)(1) and (b)(1), and S5.8.3(a) to 
substitute the term ``effective projected luminous lens area'' in place 
of terms that have the same meaning: ``effective projected lens area'' 
and ``functional lighted lens area.''
    As indicated above, we are centralizing both the existing and new 
visibility requirements in the new paragraph, S5.3.2. We are also 
simplifying the regulatory language that we have previously used. 
Currently, the visibility of lighting devices is addressed in paragraph 
S5.3.1.1.
    The first sentence of paragraph S5.3.1.1 states that:

    * * * each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that 
it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE 
Standard or Recommended Practice.

    The SAE materials for many lamps and reflective devices include a 
section called ``Installation requirements.'' This section specifies 
that visibility of lamps and reflective devices is determined 
throughout a range of directions, defined by angles, from left to right 
(horizontal), and from up to down (vertical), with reference to the 
lens' centerpoint (e.g., from 45 degrees left to 45 degrees right and 
from 15 degrees up to 15 degrees down). To be considered ``visible,'' 
each lamp or reflective device must provide an unobstructed view of a 
specified minimum area of the outer lens surface determined, generally, 
by geometric means. The CHMSL is an exception to compliance with SAE 
materials; paragraph S5.1.1.27 requires CHMSLs to have a ``signal 
visible to the rear'' throughout defined angles (In addition, the SAE 
requirements for stop lamps, taillamps, and turn signal lamps for 
vehicles over 2032mm in overall width contain an exception: when more 
than one lamp or optical area is lighted on each side of the vehicle, 
only one such area on each side need comply).
    We are retaining this SAE-based requirements previously listed in 
S5.3.1.1 as an alternative to the new, ECE-derived visibility 
requirements until the end of the phase-in period. However, for 
clarification purposes, S5.3.1.1 is eliminated, and the requirements in 
S5.3.1.1 are now contained in several paragraphs. S5.3.2.4 contains the 
first sentence of previous S5.3.1.1 and reads as follows:

    S5.3.2.4 As an alternative to S5.3.2(b), each passenger car and 
motorcycle, and each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer 
and bus that is of less than 2032 mm overall width, that are 
manufactured on or before September 1, 2011, and each multipurpose 
passenger vehicle, truck, trailer and bus of 2032 mm or more overall 
width that is manufactured on or before September 1, 2014, must have 
each lamp located so that it meets the visibility requirements 
specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.


[[Page 48813]]


    The second sentence of previous paragraph S5.3.1.1 provides that:

    * * * no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, 
taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting 
its photometric output at any applicable group of test points 
specified in Figures 1c and 2, or prevent any other lamp from 
meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any 
applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.

    We have clarified and moved this sentence to S5.3.2(a), without 
making any substantive changes:

    Each lamp and reflective device must be installed in a location 
where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements and 
visibility requirements, with all obstructions (e.g., mirrors, snow 
plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, and winches) installed on the 
vehicle.

    This revised sentence is a permanent requirement and is not 
affected by the phase in.
    The third sentence of the previous S5.3.1.1 establishes an 
exception to the second sentence. It reads:

    However, if motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, 
wrecker booms, backhoes, and winches) prevents compliance with this 
paragraph by any required lamp or reflective devices, an auxiliary 
lamp or device meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be 
provided.

    This sentence expresses the exception referred to in new S5.3.2(a), 
and we have rewritten it as new S5.3.2.2, to read as follows:

    If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by motor 
vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, 
backhoes, winches, etc.) and cannot meet requirements of S5.3.2, the 
vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the 
same type which meet all applicable requirements of this standard, 
including S5.3.2.

    We are retaining the basic lamp location specifications in S5.3. 
However, the reference to S5.3.2 is substituted for reference to S5.3.1 
because S5.3.1 is removed. Paragraph S5.3 now reads:

    Location of required equipment. Except as provided in paragraphs 
S5.3.2, S5.7, and S7, each lamp, reflective device, and item of 
associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of 
the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed 
except for repair, in accordance with the requirements of Table I 
and Table III, as applicable, and in the location specified in Table 
II (multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 
or more inches in overall width) or Table IV (all passenger cars, 
and motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, truck, 
trailers and buses less than 80 inches in overall width), as 
applicable.

    Finally, in S5.1.1.12, we eliminated two commas to clarify the 
meaning of the paragraph. This clarification makes no substantive 
changes to the requirements contained in that paragraph.

Effective Date

    Because the final rule affords an option to existing requirements, 
it is hereby determined for good cause shown that an effective date 
earlier than 180 days after publication of the final rule is in the 
public interest, and the overall effective date is 30 days after 
publication.
    Passenger cars and motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with an overall width less than 
2032mm, manufactured on and after September 1, 2011, must comply with 
the harmonized requirements. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
buses, and trailers with an overall width of 2032mm or more, 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2014, must comply with the 
harmonized requirements. It is likely that many of the harmonized 
specifications are already being met by manufacturers selling in world 
markets.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. 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 
existing requirements and to harmonize Federal regulations with those 
of the ECE. The costs of the final rule are so minimal as not to 
warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. We believe that 
vehicles presently selling in world markets already comply with this 
final rule. However, the agency provided a 7 to 10 year leadtime to 
ensure that all vehicles that currently do not comply with the new 
requirements are brought to compliance within the normal design cycles.

B. National Environmental Policy Act

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

C. 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. 601 et 
seq). I certify that this rulemaking action will 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. 605(b)). The final rule primarily affects 
manufacturers of motor vehicles. Based on production volume, 
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. Truck trailer and 
travel trailer manufacturers are considered small businesses with 500 
employees or fewer.
    This Final Rule will not have any significant economic impact on a 
small business because it makes no significant substantive change to 
the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108. Instead, this rulemaking 
clarifies and harmonizes visibility requirements with those of ECE. 
Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions that purchase motor 
vehicles will not be significantly affected because this rulemaking 
will not cause price increases. Accordingly, we have not prepared a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

D. Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that 
is not required by statute, unless the Federal

[[Page 48814]]

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

E. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The final rule does 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.

F. 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 will not have a $100 
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment has been prepared.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113, 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 impractical. 
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.
    This agency considered adopting an SAE voluntary consensus 
standard. However, it was decided that adopting the SAE standard 
instead of the ECE R48 would be inconsistent with harmonization.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this rule.

I. 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.

J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
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.

0
2. Section 571.108 is amended by:
0
a. adding to paragraph S4, in alphabetical order, new definitions of 
``Axis of reference,'' and ``Effective light-emitting surface,'' and 
revising the definition of ``Effective projected luminous lens area'' 
to read as follows;
0
b. revising paragraphs S5.1.1.12, S5.1.1.25, S5.1.1.26(a), 
S5.1.1.26(b), S5.1.1.27 (a)(1) and (a)(2), and S5.1.1.27(b)(1) and 
(b)(2) to read as follows;
0
c. removing and reserving paragraph S5.1.1.28;
0
d. revising paragraph S5.3 to read as follows;
0
e. removing and reserving paragraphs S5.3.1, S5.3.1.1, S5.3.1.1.1, and 
S5.3.1.5;
0
f. adding new paragraph S5.3.2 to read as follows;
0
g. adding new paragraphs S5.3.2.1 through S5.3.2.4 to read as follows;
0
h. revising the third and fourth sentences of paragraph S5.8.3(a) to 
read as follows;
0
i. revising paragraph S6.3 to read as follows; and
0
j. adding new Figures 19 and 20 following the text of the standard.
    The additions and revisions read as follows.


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

* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Axis of reference means the characteristic axis of the lamp for use 
as the direction of reference (H = 0[deg], V = 0[deg]) for angles of 
field for photometric measurements and for installing the lamp on the 
vehicle.
* * * * *
    Effective light-emitting surface means that portion of a lamp that 
directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include 
transparent lenses, 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 
orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp 
on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of 
reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with 
the axis of reference.
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.12 On a motor vehicle, except a passenger car, whose overall 
width is 2032 mm. (80 inches) or more, measurements of the effective 
projected luminous lens area, and of the photometrics of a multiple 
compartment stop lamp and a multiple compartment turn signal lamp, 
shall be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual 
compartments.
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.25 Each turn signal lamp on a motorcycle shall have an 
effective projected luminous lens area of not less

[[Page 48815]]

than 2258 square mm. (3\1/2\ square inches).
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.26 * * *
    (a) The effective projected luminous lens area of a single 
compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment rear turn signal lamp, 
shall be not less than 50 square centimeters (7\3/4\ square inches).
    (b) If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to 
meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps and rear turn signal 
lamps, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment 
or lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, provided the combined 
area is at least 50 square centimeters (7\3/4\ square inches).
    S5.1.1.27(a) * * *
    (1) Shall have an effective projected luminous lens area not less 
than 2903 square mm. (4\1/2\ square inches).
    (2) Shall meet the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(c).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Are identical in size and shape and have an effective projected 
luminous lens area not less than 1452 square mm. (2\1/4\ square inches) 
each.
    (2) Shall meet the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(d).
* * * * *
    S5.1.1.28 [Reserved].
* * * * *
    S5.3 Location of required equipment. Except as provided in 
paragraphs S5.3.2, S5.7, and S7, each lamp, reflective device, and item 
of associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of 
the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed 
except for repair, in accordance with the requirements of Table I and 
Table III, as applicable, and in the location specified in Table II 
(multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 or 
more inches in overall width) or Table IV (all passenger cars, and 
motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, truck, trailers and 
buses less than 80 inches in overall width), as applicable.
    S5.3.1 [Reserved].
    S5.3.1.1 [Reserved].
    S5.3.1.1.1 [Reserved].
* * * * *
    S5.3.1.5 [Reserved].
* * * * *
    S5.3.2 Except as provided in S5.3.2.1 through S5.3.2.4 and in 
paragraphs S5.7 and S7, each vehicle must conform to the following 
requirements:
    (a) Each lamp and reflective device must be installed in a location 
where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements and 
visibility requirements, with all obstructions (e.g., mirrors, snow 
plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, and winches) installed on the vehicle.
    (b) A manufacturer must certify compliance of each lamp to one of 
the following visibility requirement options, and it may not thereafter 
choose a different option for that vehicle:
    (1) When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of 
this standard, each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square 
centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in 
any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points 
specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp; or
    (2) When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 20 of 
this standard, each such lamp must provide a luminous intensity not 
less than that specified in Figure 20 in any direction throughout the 
pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 20 for each 
such lamp. The luminous intensity must be measured in accordance with 
the photometry test requirements of the applicable SAE Standards and 
Recommended Practices incorporated by reference or subreference in this 
standard.
    (c) A high mounted stop lamp must have a signal visible to the rear 
through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to 
the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
    (d) High mounted stop lamps required to comply with S5.1.1.27(b) 
must together have a signal to the rear as specified in S5.3.2(c).
    (e) Backup lamps must be mounted on the rear so that the optical 
center of at least one lamp is visible from any eye point elevation 
from at least 1828 mm (6 ft) to 610 mm (2 ft) above the horizontal 
plane on which the vehicle is standing; and from any position in the 
area, rearward of a vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal 
axis of the vehicle, 914 mm (3 ft) to the rear of the vehicle and 
extending 914 mm (3 ft) beyond each side of the vehicle.
    S5.3.2.1 Clearance lamps may be located at a location other than on 
the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a 
vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the 
vehicle, and at such a location they need not meet the photometric 
output at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard.
    S5.3.2.2 If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by 
motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, 
backhoes, winches, etc.), and cannot meet requirements of S5.3.2, the 
vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same 
type which meet all applicable requirements of this standard, including 
S5.3.2.
    S5.3.2.3 For signal lamps and reflective devices mounted less than 
750 mm above the road surface as measured to the lamp axis of 
reference, the vertical test point angles located below the horizontal 
plane subject to photometric and visibility requirements of this 
standard may be reduced to 5 degrees.
    S5.3.2.4 As an alternative to S5.3.2(b), each passenger car and 
motorcycle, and each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer and 
bus that is of less than 2032 mm overall width, that are manufactured 
on or before September 1, 2011, and each multipurpose passenger 
vehicle, truck, trailer and bus of 2032 mm or more overall width that 
is manufactured on or before September 1, 2014, must have each lamp 
located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any 
applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice.
* * * * *
    S5.8.3(a) * * * Each such lamp manufactured for use on a passenger 
car and on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer or bus less 
than 2032 mm. (80 inches) in overall width shall have an effective 
projected luminous lens area not less than 2258 square mm. (3\1/2\ 
square inches). If multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps are 
used, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or 
lamp shall be not less than 2258 square mm. (3\1/2\ square inches); 
however, the photometric requirements may be met by a combination of 
compartments or lamps.
* * * * *
    S6.3 The term ``functional lighted lens area'' in any SAE Standard 
or Recommended Practice incorporated by reference or by subreference in 
this standard, has the same meaning as the term ``effective projected 
luminous lens area.''
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 48816]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU04.554


[[Page 48817]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AU04.555


    Issued on: August 5, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-18297 Filed 8-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C