Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment |
|---|
Topics: NHTSA, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
David L. Strickland (Federal Register)
April 27, 2011
[Federal Register: April 27, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 81)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23506-23511]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ap11-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18794]
RIN 2127-AK85
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108; Lamp, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to seven petitions for reconsideration
submitted regarding our August 2004 final rule that amended the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. After careful review of the petitions, we are
revising certain requirements of the standard pertaining to the
visibility of lamps mounted on motorcycles to increase the
compatibility of our visibility requirements with those of theUnited
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R53). We are otherwise
denying the petitions.
DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective May 27, 2011 except
for the revision at instruction number 3, which is effective December
1, 2012. Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be
received not later than June 13, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098;
FAX: 202-366-7002).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the
Chief Counsel (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820).
You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Agency Analysis and Decision
IV. Effective Dates and Compliance Dates
V. Conclusion
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 1995 to address a petition from
the Groupe de Travail Working Party ``Brussels 1952'' (GTB).\1\ The
petitioner asked the agency to harmonize the U.S. visibility
requirements with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE or ECE) requirements. As a result, the agency published a
proposal that included several aspects of harmonization including
visibility of reflex reflectors (front side, rear, rear side,
intermediate), side markers (front, rear, intermediate), front turn,
rear turn, stop, front parking, tail, rear fog, high mount stop, and
daytime running lamps. In addition, the agency requested comments on
allowing amber rear side markers and regulating front and rear fog
lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 60 FR 54833 October 26, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to comments received, the agency followed the NPRM with
a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) \2\ in 1998 that
limited the scope to only visibility and terminated proposed rulemaking
that would allow an option of providing amber rear side marker lamps
and reflectors. The SNPRM proposed using either Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) or ECE derived visibility requirements. In a separate
notice, the issue of regulating front and rear fog lamps was also
terminated.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 63 FR 68233 December 10, 1998.
\3\ See 62 FR 8883 February 27, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, NHTSA published a final rule \4\ that was based on the
UNECE derived visibility requirements. Regarding the method of
certification, the final rule stated the visibility requirements could
be satisfied by meeting a minimum visible area or by a minimum
photometric intensity. The final rule set a compliance date of
September 1, 2011 for vehicles that are less than 2032 mm in overall
width, and September 1, 2014 for vehicles that are 2032 mm or more in
overall width.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 69 FR 48805 August 11, 2004.
\5\ Dual dimension (80 in) has not been added because it does
not appear in the regulation text S5.3.2(b) which is the primary
area of interest for this background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
Seven petitions for reconsideration were received from automotive
manufacturers, lighting suppliers, and motorcycle manufacturers.
Petitions for reconsideration were received from the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (AAM), General Motors (GM), Sierra Products, North
American Lighting (NAL), Harley Davidson, and the Motorcycle Industry
Council (MIC). Among the seven petitions, six issues were raised that
requested reconsideration of the final rule. In addition, there were
also several requests, which could be characterized as clarifications,
related to the final rule that did not specifically request a rule
change. Finally, several general questions were received that are
related to FMVSS No. 108 but which are not directly related to the
final rule. These items are all summarized below.
1. Issue Regarding Harmonization of FMVSS No. 108 With ECE Regulation
No. 53 (ECE R53) for Vehicles With Less Than 4 Wheels
Two petitions for reconsideration were received regarding the
visibility requirements of motorcycles from
[[Page 23507]]
Harley Davidson and MIC. Both of these petitioners supported the goal
of standards harmonization, however they argued that the requirements
in the final rule did not harmonize with the ECE R53 standard for
motorcycles. Specifically, both petitioners stated that ECE R53 allows
a narrower field of visibility for front and rear turn signal lamps,
and for multiple lamp stop configurations on motorcycles. Additionally,
both petitioners recommended decreasing the inboard visibility for
motorcycle turn signal lamps from 45 degrees to 20 degrees. They also
recommended decreasing the inboard visibility for multiple lamp stop
configurations from 45 degrees to 10 degrees.
2. Issue Whether New Definition for the Effective Projected Luminous
Lens Area Changes the Existing Requirements
MEMA, AAM, and GM claimed that the new definition for the
``effective luminous lens area'' would influence lamps designed before
this final rule was effective. GM requested that the new definition not
become mandatory until the new visibility requirements become mandatory
on September 1, 2011, or September 1, 2014 depending on the width of
the vehicle. AAM requested that the new definition for effective
projected luminous lens area apply only to vehicles certified to the
new visibility requirements. MEMA objected to what it believes was a
lack of notice in changing the definition, as well as the lead time for
compliance with the new definition. MEMA also objected to the exclusion
of transparent lenses in the calculation of the effective projected
luminous lens area.
3. The Lead Time for Wide Vehicles
MEMA petitioned that the lead time be increased to at least 15
years for wide vehicles. MEMA focused on two major points, the first
being that NHTSA ``ignored the substantial cost this rule will impose
on lighting suppliers in the heavy vehicle segment.'' MEMA also stated
that ``the final rule provides no demonstrated safety benefits.''
4. Compliance Method Choice Is Irrevocable
MEMA also petitioned that the manufacturer's choice of compliance
method should not be irrevocable. MEMA stated that this will limit the
selection of catalog lamps that a manufacturer can choose from in the
event of an interruption in the supply of the originally certified
lamp. MEMA also stated that the safety neutrality of the compliance
method makes enforcement of this regulation impossible.
5. Requirements for Lamps Mounted Less Than 750 mm Above the Road
Surface
MEMA and NAL both petitioned that the photometric requirements of
lamps mounted less than 750 mm above the roadway should be clarified.
NAL pointed out that the preamble seems to include side marker and
clearance lamps in the 750 mm rule, but the regulation text specifies
signal lamps and reflective devices. NAL requested that the
requirements for side marker and clearance lamps mounted less than 750
mm above the road surface be made clear.
6. Requirements for Lamps Mounted 15 Above the Road Surface
Sierra Products suggested that the agency further reduce the
photometric requirements of lamps mounted 15 inches above the roadway,
on the basis that a reduction in required light below Horizontal-
Vertical (H-V) could allow for a more economical lamp.
7. Additional Questions That Do Not Request a Rule Change, or Are Not
Part of This Rulemaking
Sierra Products asked several questions that do not request a
specific rule change. In addition, Sierra Products also asked questions
that are not part of this rulemaking. Among those questions, Sierra
Products asked why the spacing, position, and color harmonization was
abandoned. Also, Sierra Products asked for clarification as to the
meaning of ``apparent surface'' as it was used in the preamble to the
final rule. Among other clarification type questions, Sierra Products
asked if large vehicle H-V area requirements changed as part of the
final rule, and how the area compliance option will be tested for
compliance. They also asked why big rigs and boat and utility trailers
need reduced constraints on styling for aerodynamic purposes.
Sierra Products asked several questions that are related to FMVSS
No. 108, but are not part of this rulemaking. Those included a question
about clearance lamp requirements. Sierra Products asked ``how can a
big rig clearance light that is only effective at auto eye level be
seen and understood by following, or passing auto traffic if it is
allowed to be mounted 12 feet high and have no inboard photometric
output?'' They also asked about the use of the latest SAE standards
within FMVSS No. 108. In addition, Sierra Products asked for
clarification as to the meaning of a multiple compartment lamp, and if
a LED is considered a separate lamp. Continuing, Sierra Products asked
``where have you discussed in this harmonization proposal that an
advertised 100,000 hour LED doesn't hold up when its circuitry is
heated or moistened, and who's responsible for the safety implications
when a big rig or utility trailer $30 replacement LED brake or turn
light can't be found anywhere?'' Finally, Sierra Products asked the
status of other rulemakings unrelated to the final rule.
III. Discussion and Analysis
1. Issue Regarding Harmonization of FMVSS No. 108 With ECE Regulation
No. 53 (ECE R53) for Vehicles With Less Than 4 Wheels
The agency has considered the issue raised by Harley Davidson and
MIC that the final rule failed to harmonize motorcycle lamp visibility
with the ECE regulations. MIC stated that it believes the interests of
harmonization will be better served by recognizing and harmonizing with
the existing ECE regulations for motorcycle lighting. Harley Davidson
stated that the agency's failure to incorporate ECE R53 within the
final rule means that designs, standard and appropriate throughout the
world, may not be able to be used in the U.S. NHTSA has evaluated the
merits of this request in connection with harmonization and ensuring
safety. In the final rule, we explained our general approach to
harmonize the U.S. lamp visibility requirements with the ECE
requirements and to increase the field of view of signal lamps.
Specifically for motorcycles, prior to the compliance date
specified by the August 2004 final rule, turn signals lamps are
required to be visible through a horizontal angle starting at 0 degrees
inboard (directly in front of the lamp) and continuing to 45 degrees
outboard. The final rule added a vertical component to the field of
visibility and increased the horizontal angle to 45 degrees inboard and
45 degrees (area option) or 80 degrees (intensity option) outboard
depending on the choice of visibility options. MIC's petition for
reconsideration requested that, for motorcycles, the inboard horizontal
angle match the requirements in ECE R53, which is 20 degrees inboard.
NHTSA considers MIC's petition regarding motorcycle turn signal lamp
visibility an improvement over the 2004 final rule as it better
harmonizes these requirements with the well established safety standard
used in various parts of the world without an expected decrease in
safety.
[[Page 23508]]
In addition, prior to the compliance date specified by the August
2004 final rule, stop lamps mounted on motorcycles are required to be
visible through a horizontal angle 45 degrees inboard to 45 degrees
outboard. The 2004 rule added a vertical component to the required
field of view. MIC requested that to further harmonize these motorcycle
requirements with those of ECE R53, NHTSA should decrease the inboard
angle requirement for a two stop lamp configuration. MIC noted that ECE
R53 requires, for a two stop lamp configuration, that each lamp meet a
horizontal visibility angle of 10 degrees inboard. Because the
separation between stop lamps is typically small for motorcycles, NHTSA
agrees that harmonizing the inboard visibility requirement is not
expected to have a negative impact on safety.
Accordingly, this notice adopts visibility requirements for
motorcycle lamps based on the ECE R53 regulation.\6\ The standard is
modified, establishing visibility requirements for motorcycles defined
by the following corner points:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ECE R53 Revision 2 ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the
Approval of Category L3 Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of
Lighting and Light Signaling Devices.''
Turn Signal............................ 15 deg. UP-20 deg. IB.............. 15 deg. UP-80 deg. OB.
15 deg. DOWN-20 deg. IB............ 15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. OB.
Stop................................... 15 deg. UP-45 deg. RIGHT........... 15 deg. UP-45 deg. LEFT.
15 deg. DOWN-45 deg. RIGHT......... 15 deg. DOWN-45 deg. LEFT.
Tail................................... 15 deg. UP-80 deg. RIGHT........... 15 deg. UP-80 deg. LEFT.
15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. RIGHT......... 15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. LEFT.
Two footnotes are added to both Table V-b and Table V-c as follows:
If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop
lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail
lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.
2. Issue Whether New Definition for the Effective Projected Luminous
Lens Area Changes the Existing Requirements
MEMA, AAM, and GM claimed that a modified definition for the
effective projected luminous lens area changed requirements that were
not intended to be changed in the final rule, and petitioned for relief
by either a longer lead time, that the definition only apply to
vehicles certified to the new visibility requirements, or that the
definition be reverted back to its original form. The agency does not
agree with the petitioners, nor the suggestions for relief. Instead, we
believe that the definition published in the final rule only clarified
the definition and that the definition itself did not establish any new
requirements.
The definition prior to the final rule stated: ``Effective
projected luminous lens area means the area of the projection on a
plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of the portion of the light-
emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern,
and does not include mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads
or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as
a result of uncontrolled light from small areas (\1/2\ deg. Radius
around the test point).''
The final rule separated this definition into two parts to more
specifically define the meaning of the light-emitting surface. It reads
as follows:
``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.''
This definition clarification has two major aspects. First it
clarifies that ``projection on a plane'' means an orthogonal
projection. This clarifies, but does not change, the previous
definition. The final rule stated that ``we believe these two phrases
have the same meaning * * * the term orthogonal projection has greater
clarity.'' \7\ The second aspect is the addition of the words ``and
does not include transparent lenses.'' This exclusion of transparent
lenses is not new with this definition as it reflects a previous agency
interpretation letter to Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara on June 14, 2000.\8\ As
explained in this interpretation letter, transparent lenses are
excluded because they do not direct light, they simply allow light to
pass through them freely. Similarly, the dictionary defines transparent
as ``having the property of transmitting light without appreciable
scattering * * *'' \9\ In consideration of these factors, the agency
believes that no significant change in the method by which the
effective luminous lens area is calculated has been made by this final
rule. As such, there is no reason to delay the effective date as
requested by GM, nor to apply this clarified definition only to
vehicles certified to the new visibility requirements of the final
rule. Likewise, the agency does not agree that a lack of notice was
provided. As such, the agency is denying the requests from MEMA, AAM,
and GM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See FR 48812 August 11, 2004.
\8\ Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20836.ztv.html.
\9\ Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Lead Time for Wide Vehicles
MEMA petitioned to adopt a lead time of 15 years for wide vehicles
because it believes that NHTSA underestimated the costs. The agency
disagrees. The final rule permitted an alternative method of compliance
until September 1, 2011 for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall
width, or until September 1, 2014 for vehicles of 2032 mm or more in
width. Effectively, this provided the wider vehicles a lead time of 10
years, and 7 years for the more narrow vehicles. The agency believes
that the lead time provided is adequate and notes that no new data was
submitted indicating manufacturing costs, design constraints, or other
information that the agency could evaluate. Similarly, the agency notes
that unanticipated design changes would likely be limited to the lamps
only, not to the entire vehicle, as was described in the final
rule.\10\ In consideration of these factors, the agency is denying this
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 69 FR 48811 August 11, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Compliance Method Choice Is Irrevocable
MEMA also requested that the agency eliminate the irrevocable
choice of compliance wording from the final rule because it limits the
selection of catalog lamps from which a manufacturer can choose. This
issue was addressed in the
[[Page 23509]]
comments based on the SNPRM, and the agency decided to carry the
wording from the SNPRM into the final rule. The preamble to the final
rule states:
``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 effectively 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.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 69 FR 48810 August 11, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that vehicle manufacturers certify each vehicle to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of a standard with
compliance options, the manufacturer is not required to select the same
compliance option for similar or even identical vehicles, so long as
the vehicle being certified complies with the option selected by the
manufacturer. Thus, the requirement that a vehicle manufacturer select
a particular compliance option by the time it certifies a vehicle does
not limit manufacturer design choices.
Therefore, the agency is denying this request.
5. Requirements for Lamps Mounted Less Than 750 mm Above the Road
Surface
MEMA and NAL petitioned the agency to clarify the requirements for
lamps mounted less than 750 mm above the road surface. The agency
believes that this ambiguity was resolved in the FMVSS No. 108
administrative rewrite final rule.\12\ That final rule contains
footnotes within the photometric requirements (Table VI a and b, Table
VII, Table VIII, Table IX, Table X, Table XI, Table XIII a and b, Table
XIV, and Table XVI a) that explicitly state the ``photometry
requirements below 5[deg] down may be met at 5[deg] down rather than at
the specified required downward angle.'' Likewise, it also contains
similar footnotes within Tables V-b and V-c. Therefore, we believe this
request has already been addressed and requires no further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 72 FR 68234 December 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Requirements for Lamps Mounted 15 Inches Above the Road Surface
Sierra Products petitioned the agency to eliminate the downward
photometric requirements for lamps mounted 15 inches above the road
surface. However, the petitioner did not provide any evidence
demonstrating that safety would not be compromised, particularly on
uneven roadways. The agency notes that the allowance for lamps mounted
less than 750 mm above the road surface was created in order to
harmonize FMVSS No. 108 visibility requirements with the ECE visibility
requirements. The petitioner does not cite, nor does the agency know
of, any allowance for lamps mounted 15 inches above the road surface
within the ECE regulation. As such, the agency is denying this request.
7. Additional Questions That Do Not Request a Rule Change, or Are Not
Part of This Rulemaking
Sierra Products raised several questions that demonstrated a
request for clarification. These questions do not request a rule
change, and some are not related to this rulemaking. These questions
are addressed below.
Sierra Products asked what happened to the proposed harmonization
of side marker lamps. The original NPRM did propose allowing rear side
markers to be amber in color. This rulemaking proposal was terminated
in the SNPRM.13 14 The reasons cited for the termination
included major differences in the side marker requirements between the
U.S. and European regulations, and the lack of data indicating whether
it is important for the drivers to know which end of the vehicle is
about to merge into their path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 60 FR 54833 October 26, 1995.
\14\ See 63 FR 68233 December 10, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Products also asked what is meant by the term ``apparent
surface'' as used in the preamble to the final rule. The term
``apparent surface'' does not appear in the regulations of FMVSS No.
108. However, it does appear in the discussion ``How the ECE Visibility
Requirements Differ from the Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 108'' of
the final rule preamble. This term is a well defined term in ECE No.
48. That document states that ``the apparent surface for a defined
direction of observation means, at the request of the manufacturer or
his duly accredited representative, the orthogonal projection of:
Either the boundary of the illuminating surface projected on the
exterior surface of the lens or the light-emitting surface.'' The
precise definition is only in reference to an ECE regulation, and is
not required in the discussion of this rule, nor will it be used to
determine compliance with FMVSS No. 108.
Regarding Sierra Products' statement that they could not tell if
the H-V area requirement was changed for wide vehicles, we note that no
effective projected luminous lens area requirements projected in
coincidence to the axis of reference were changed with this rulemaking.
Sierra Products asked how NHTSA would check the compliance of the
effective projected luminous lens area requirements. We note that
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) provides contractor
laboratories with Laboratory Test Procedures as guidelines for
obtaining compliance test data. The data is used to determine if a
specific vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is potentially non-
compliant with an applicable FMVSS. The Laboratory Test Procedure for
FMVSS No. 108 is available on NHTSA's Web site.\15\ It should be noted
that the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for the limited
purpose of use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct
compliance tests for the OVSC, are not rules, regulations or NHTSA
interpretations regarding the meaning of a FMVSS, and are not intended
to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/TP-108-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Sierra Products inquired as to the status of rulemaking
that was not part of this rule. Harmonization rules such as ``bulb
design, bulb tolerance, weathering, non required lamps, clearance
lamps, life span, markings, and replacement light sources'' will go
through the rulemaking process, as appropriate. The remaining
statements and questions proposed by Sierra Products either are not
related to the final rule, or do not request a specific rule change.
IV. Effective Dates and Compliance Dates
As noted earlier, the August 2004 final rule set a compliance date
of September 1, 2011 for vehicles that are less than 2032 mm in overall
width, and September 1, 2014 for vehicles that are 2032 mm or more in
overall width.
[[Page 23510]]
Those compliance dates are not changed by today's rule. There are two
effective dates for the amendments we are adopting, one for the current
version of FMVSS No. 108 and the second for the FMVSS No. 108
administrative rewrite final rule.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we are granting the requests to
make certain changes pertaining to the visibility of lamps mounted on
motorcycles to increase the compatability of our visibility
requirements with those of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECER53), and we are otherwise denying the petitions.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures.
2. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, 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://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
3. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
In the August 2004 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Today's rule does not affect the agency's analyses in those areas.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 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. Effective May 27, 2011, Sec. 571.108 is amended by revising Figure
19 and Figure 20 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
Figure 19--Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices
[Lens area measurement method]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Corner points \1\ (degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Turn Signal Lamp \2\............. (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+45H),
(15D,-45H \5\), (15D,+45H).
Rear Turn Signal Lamp.................. (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+45H),
(15D,-45H \5\), (15D,+45H).
Stop Lamp \3\.......................... (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
45H), (15D,+45H).
Parking Lamp........................... (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
45H), (15D,+45H).
Taillamp \4\........................... (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
45H), (15D,+45H).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the horizontal (H) direction, a minus (-) indicates an inwards
direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and a plus
(+) sign indicates an outward direction.
\2\ Where more than one lamp or optical area is lighted at the front on
each side of a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck trailer, or bus,
of 2032 mm. or more overall width, only one such area need comply.
\3\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp,
the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp,
the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.
\5\ Front and Rear Turn Signal Lamps mounted on a motorcycle, the
inboard angle shall be 20 degrees.
Figure 20--Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices
[Luminous intensity measurement method]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum luminous
Item Corner points \1\ (degrees) intensity
(candela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Turn Signal Lamp \2\................... (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \5\), 0.3
(15D,+80H).
Rear Turn Signal Lamp........................ (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \5\), 0.3
(15D,+80H).
Stop Lamp \3\................................ (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-45H), 0.3
(15D,+45H).
Parking Lamp................................. (15U,-45H), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H), 0.05
(15D,+80H).
Taillamp \4\................................. (15U,-45H \2\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \2\), 0.05
(15D,+80H).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the horizontal (H) direction, a minus (-) indicates an inwards direction (toward the vehicle's
longitudinal centerline) and a plus (+) sign indicates an outward direction.
\2\ -80H[deg] for motorcycles incorporating a single lamp.
\3\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be
10 degrees.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be
45 degrees.
\5\ Front and Rear Turn Signal Lamps mounted on a motorcycle, the inboard angle shall be 20 degrees.
* * * * *
0
3. Effective December 1, 2012, Sec. 571.108 is amended by revising
Table V-b: Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Lens
Area Visibility Option and Table V-c: Visibility Requirements of
Installed Lighting Devices--Luminous Intensity Visibility Option, as
added at 72 FR
[[Page 23511]]
68269 (December 4, 2007), effective September 1, 2008, delayed until
December 1, 2009, at 73 FR 50730 (August 28, 2008), and further delayed
until December 1, 2012 at 74 FR 58214 (November 12, 2009), to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
Table V-b--Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Lens Area Visibility Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting device Corner points\1 2\ Required visibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle
All other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn signal lamp \3\............... 15[deg] UP-20[deg] IB. 15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB. 15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB 15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB Unobstructed minimum
15[deg] DOWN-20[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] effective projected
IB. OB. IB. OB.
Stop lamp.......................... 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB 15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB luminous lens area
RIGHT \4\. LEFT \4\.
15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] of 1,250 sq mm in
RIGHT \4\. LEFT \4\. IB. OB. any
Taillamp........................... 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB 15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB direction throughout
RIGHT \5\. LEFT \5\.
15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] the pattern defined
RIGHT \5\. LEFT \5\. IB. OB. by
Parking lamp....................... No Requirement........ No Requirement........ 15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB 15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB the specified corner
No Requirement........ No Requirement........ 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] points.
IB. OB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IB indicates an inboard direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and OB indicates an outboard direction.
\2\ Where a lamp is mounted with its axis of reference less than 750 mm above the road surface, the vertical test point angles located below the
horizontal plane subject to visibility requirements may be reduced to 5[deg] down.
\3\ Where more than one lamp or optical area is lighted at the front on each side of a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer, or bus, of 2032
mm or more overall width, only one such area need comply.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\5\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.
Table V-c--Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Luminous Intensity Visibility Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting device Corner points 1 2 Required visibility Minimum
luminous intensity in any
direction throughout the
pattern defined by the
specified corner points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle
All Other Candela.............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn signal lamp................. 15[deg] UP-20[deg] 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 0.3
IB. OB. IB. OB.
15[deg] DOWN-20[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-80[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
IB. OB. IB. OB.
Stop lamp........................ 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 0.3
RIGHT \4\. LEFT \4\. IB. OB.
15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]
RIGHT \4\. LEFT \4\. IB. OB.
Taillamp \3\..................... 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 0.05
RIGHT \5\. LEFT \5\. IB. OB.
15[deg] DOWN-80[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-80[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
RIGHT \5\. LEFT \5\. IB. OB.
Parking lamp..................... No Requirement...... No Requirement...... 15[deg] UP-45[deg] 15[deg] UP-80[deg] 0.05
IB. OB.
No Requirement...... No Requirement...... 15[deg] DOWN-45[deg] 15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
IB. OB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IB indicates an inboard direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and OB indicates an outboard direction.
\2\ Where a lamp is mounted with its axis of reference less than 750 mm above the road surface, the vertical test point angles located below the
horizontal plane subject to visibility requirements may be reduced to 5[deg] down
\3\ Inboard and outboard corner points are 80[deg] for a single taillamp installed on a motorcycle
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\5\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.
Issued on: March 23, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-10031 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P